What do you think?
Rate this book
Teaching White Supremacy: America's Democratic Ordeal and the Forging of Our National Identity
A powerful exploration of the past and present arc of America's white supremacy--from the country's inception and Revolutionary years to its 19th century flashpoint of civil war; to the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s and today's Black Lives Matter.
In Teaching White Supremacy, Donald Yacovone shows us the clear and damning evidence of white supremacy's deep-seated roots in our nation's education system in a fascinating, in-depth examination of America's wide assortment of texts, from primary readers to college textbooks and other higher-ed course materials. Sifting through a wealth of materials, from the colonial era to today, Yacovone reveals the systematic ways in which white supremacist ideology has infiltrated American culture and how it has been at the heart of our collective national identity.
And, the author argues that it is the North, not the South, that bears the greater responsibility for creating the dominant strain of race theory, inculcated throughout the culture and in school textbooks, that restricted and repressed African Americans and other minorities, even as Northerners blamed the South for its legacy of slavery, segregation and racial injustice.
In Teaching White Supremacy, Donald Yacovone shows us the clear and damning evidence of white supremacy's deep-seated roots in our nation's education system in a fascinating, in-depth examination of America's wide assortment of texts, from primary readers to college textbooks and other higher-ed course materials. Sifting through a wealth of materials, from the colonial era to today, Yacovone reveals the systematic ways in which white supremacist ideology has infiltrated American culture and how it has been at the heart of our collective national identity.
And, the author argues that it is the North, not the South, that bears the greater responsibility for creating the dominant strain of race theory, inculcated throughout the culture and in school textbooks, that restricted and repressed African Americans and other minorities, even as Northerners blamed the South for its legacy of slavery, segregation and racial injustice.
13 pages, Audiobook
Published September 27, 2022
176 people are currently reading
2131 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 69 reviews
March 1, 2023
This thoroughly researched study of history textbooks' perpetuation of white supremacy, myths of the Lost Cause, and recollections of just how kindly slaves were treated should be required reading for all teachers of American history in Florida and every other state, just as Ibram X. Kendi's Stamped from the Beginning and Loewen's Lies My Teacher Told Me should be required reading for all American history/civics students.
November 10, 2022
“The history we teach is the product of the culture we create, not necessarily of the actual history we made.” (P. 277)
“Rather than Southern slavery…it was Northern white supremacy that proved the more enduring cultural binding force, planted along with slavery in the colonial era, intensely cultivated in the years before the Civil War, and fully blossoming after Reconstruction. Inculcated relentlessly throughout the culture and in school textbooks, it suffused Norther religion, high culture, literature, education, politics, music, law, and science. It powerfully resurfaced after the Civil War and Reconstruction to reassert control over the emancipated slaves to become the basis for national reconciliation, exploded in intensity with renewed immigration in the 1920s and ‘30s, and endured with diminishing force to the present day…. Hence democratic equality rested on racial inequality and malleable definitions of whiteness. Moreover, it offered something more alluring than wealth, more effective than politics, and far more appealing than education. For even the poorest of its adherents, indeed especially for them, white supremacy imparts a sense of uncontested identity and…and otherwise unattainable level of ‘dignity, simply for belonging to higher race.’” [Note: In the last sentence, he is quoting the American philosopher Susan Neiman.] (Pp. 5-6)
This remarkable book is an attempt to show both how history has been taught since the foundation of the Republic and also what that history has left out in creating a national myth founded upon the central importance of white accomplishments and a white point-of-view.
To do this, the author plowed through over 3,000 history textbooks that reveal how the history of the United States has been taught in the past 250 years.
(Now, to be clear, this is a task I consider to be akin to spending a considerable time in purgatory to account for past grievous sins, and it is one that I would wish on no other human being! I do love history, but the mind-numbing idea of reading a lot of them, let alone 3,000, strikes me as a form of torture.)
Despite this, Professor Yacovone – an associate at Harvard University’s Hutchins Center for African & African American Research – has produced not only an important book, but amazingly also a fascinating and readable one.
In an attempt to prevent you from falling asleep, I will only summarize here his main points, none of which ought to be very surprising in our post-2016 world. Do note, though, that this book is not a polemic, nor does it “make fun of” or belittle anyone. Rather, he attempts to put himself in the mindset of the various writers he reviews – and he singles out many over this long period as those whom he judges to have been the most influential – while also contrasting what they wrote with what actually had occurred.
One of the principal takeaways for me is how very insecure “white people” seem to have been in this country from the very beginning! Not only did we come to feel that we were being treated unfairly by the British in the years leading up to the Revolution, but we, and the historians who gave voice to “us,” seem to have long felt that any sympathetic narrative of non-whites – who have always been a major component of the American story – would somehow diminish white achievements!
In this sense, the constant theme of white supremacy that runs through American textbooks, at least until relatively very recently, is less a triumphant boast about “white civilization” and more a desperate attempt to keep the other sides of the story from being told for fear of it causing “whites” to lose status and face. This is something to keep in mind as we witness contemporary raging about what “our kids are being taught in schools.” Old fears and insecurities remain a driving force in the United States of the 21st Century.
The following is from the book’s Introduction:
“Embodying the values to be treasured by rising generations of Americans, textbook authors passed on ideas of white identity from generation to generation. Writers crafted whiteness as a national inheritance, a way to preserve the social construction of American life and, ironically, its democratic institutions and values. Given the extent of the nation’s belief in white supremacy, one would be astonished if it had not been a guiding principle of our textbooks.
“But this is not a book about a collection of bad books; nor is it an expose of damaging educational theory. Instead, it is an exploration of the origins and development of the idea of white supremacy, how it has shaped our understanding of democratic society, and how generation after generation of Americans have learned to incorporate that vision into their very identity. Belief in white supremacy and Black inferiority existed long before the creation of the American republic and, along with a sincere – but not contradictory – belief in democratic republicanism, always has occupied the center of the American soul…. (P. xiv)
“Surveying American history school textbooks from the early nineteenth century to the present day will provide a more profound insight into the full depth of the national commitment to white supremacy. It also allows us to trace exactly how white supremacy and Black inferiority have been…drilled into student minds generation after generation. In the process, we will gain an understanding of just how much such ideas have permeated American culture and continue to exert their toxic influence.
“If nothing else, this exploration focuses on the responsibility of Northern leaders and educators for the creation and dissemination of white supremacy and construction of the “color line.” …American democracy depended on Black inequality to sustain white equality.
“History textbooks proved a perfect vehicle for the transmission of such ideas, those deemed central to the survival of the nation’s democratic experiment.” (Pp. xiv-xv)
“Far from mere aggregations of dead facts, history texts served as reservoirs of values, patriotism, and a national ethos…. From the start history textbooks sought to create unity through storytelling, creating a national identity that could serve as a road map to the future.” (P. xvii)
[It was] “the ideology of white supremacy, not slavery, [that] proved the more ubiquitous and more enduring institution. It became the standard by which citizenship was defined, and it determined who would prove worthy of power….
“Complicating the picture is the fact that there had never been any enduring definition of a race, even the white race. Criteria continually shifted, including and excluding nationalities depending on conditions, levels of immigration, and political need. Whiteness, and the idea of race, should be seen more as a ‘fluid, variable, and open-ended process.’ [This partial quote is from the writings of Rev. Henry Field in 1890.] While it always subjected people of color – and some European nationalities – to inferior positions, the extent, intensity, and ideological motivation or justification varied considerably over time. As described by whites, races were defined by perceptions and appearances. Although assumed to be biological reality, races are in fact socially constructed categories intended to highlight the superiority and permanence of Caucasians, even as those considered to be Caucasian changed. Indeed, the more immigration made the North heterogenous, the more intense became its ideas of white supremacy.” (Pp. 6-7)
Cusack:
It is fascinating to watch the various shifts in interpretation of our history that occurred throughout the 19th and 20th centuries.
It has really only been from the latter ‘60s on that US textbooks have – however slowly and intermittently – really tried to tell the full and inclusive story of the American republic.
And, as we can still see today, for some people that represents a threat, however unconsciously for many, to their own perceptions of status and worth.
On a closing note, as a former teacher I welcome increased parental attention to, and concern about, both what and how their children are taught. Aside from the real damage often wrought by fear- and hate-mongers, such parental interest and involvement is necessary if we are to rescue what seems to be a serious decline in American education.
As many conservatives have noted over the years, we are paying a heavy price for the widespread retreat from teaching what has been thought to be most important since the time of the Greeks and Romans: the essence and responsibilities of citizenship, our heritage of Western intellectual thought (which is one hell of a lot more than just “dead white men’s views”), and the importance of logic, reason, and truth-telling in sustaining a functioning civil society.
We desperately need true history – the story of all of us told as it was – if we are to make sense out of our own time and draw upon this lived experience to make our republic stronger, better, and more equal.
“Rather than Southern slavery…it was Northern white supremacy that proved the more enduring cultural binding force, planted along with slavery in the colonial era, intensely cultivated in the years before the Civil War, and fully blossoming after Reconstruction. Inculcated relentlessly throughout the culture and in school textbooks, it suffused Norther religion, high culture, literature, education, politics, music, law, and science. It powerfully resurfaced after the Civil War and Reconstruction to reassert control over the emancipated slaves to become the basis for national reconciliation, exploded in intensity with renewed immigration in the 1920s and ‘30s, and endured with diminishing force to the present day…. Hence democratic equality rested on racial inequality and malleable definitions of whiteness. Moreover, it offered something more alluring than wealth, more effective than politics, and far more appealing than education. For even the poorest of its adherents, indeed especially for them, white supremacy imparts a sense of uncontested identity and…and otherwise unattainable level of ‘dignity, simply for belonging to higher race.’” [Note: In the last sentence, he is quoting the American philosopher Susan Neiman.] (Pp. 5-6)
This remarkable book is an attempt to show both how history has been taught since the foundation of the Republic and also what that history has left out in creating a national myth founded upon the central importance of white accomplishments and a white point-of-view.
To do this, the author plowed through over 3,000 history textbooks that reveal how the history of the United States has been taught in the past 250 years.
(Now, to be clear, this is a task I consider to be akin to spending a considerable time in purgatory to account for past grievous sins, and it is one that I would wish on no other human being! I do love history, but the mind-numbing idea of reading a lot of them, let alone 3,000, strikes me as a form of torture.)
Despite this, Professor Yacovone – an associate at Harvard University’s Hutchins Center for African & African American Research – has produced not only an important book, but amazingly also a fascinating and readable one.
In an attempt to prevent you from falling asleep, I will only summarize here his main points, none of which ought to be very surprising in our post-2016 world. Do note, though, that this book is not a polemic, nor does it “make fun of” or belittle anyone. Rather, he attempts to put himself in the mindset of the various writers he reviews – and he singles out many over this long period as those whom he judges to have been the most influential – while also contrasting what they wrote with what actually had occurred.
One of the principal takeaways for me is how very insecure “white people” seem to have been in this country from the very beginning! Not only did we come to feel that we were being treated unfairly by the British in the years leading up to the Revolution, but we, and the historians who gave voice to “us,” seem to have long felt that any sympathetic narrative of non-whites – who have always been a major component of the American story – would somehow diminish white achievements!
In this sense, the constant theme of white supremacy that runs through American textbooks, at least until relatively very recently, is less a triumphant boast about “white civilization” and more a desperate attempt to keep the other sides of the story from being told for fear of it causing “whites” to lose status and face. This is something to keep in mind as we witness contemporary raging about what “our kids are being taught in schools.” Old fears and insecurities remain a driving force in the United States of the 21st Century.
The following is from the book’s Introduction:
“Embodying the values to be treasured by rising generations of Americans, textbook authors passed on ideas of white identity from generation to generation. Writers crafted whiteness as a national inheritance, a way to preserve the social construction of American life and, ironically, its democratic institutions and values. Given the extent of the nation’s belief in white supremacy, one would be astonished if it had not been a guiding principle of our textbooks.
“But this is not a book about a collection of bad books; nor is it an expose of damaging educational theory. Instead, it is an exploration of the origins and development of the idea of white supremacy, how it has shaped our understanding of democratic society, and how generation after generation of Americans have learned to incorporate that vision into their very identity. Belief in white supremacy and Black inferiority existed long before the creation of the American republic and, along with a sincere – but not contradictory – belief in democratic republicanism, always has occupied the center of the American soul…. (P. xiv)
“Surveying American history school textbooks from the early nineteenth century to the present day will provide a more profound insight into the full depth of the national commitment to white supremacy. It also allows us to trace exactly how white supremacy and Black inferiority have been…drilled into student minds generation after generation. In the process, we will gain an understanding of just how much such ideas have permeated American culture and continue to exert their toxic influence.
“If nothing else, this exploration focuses on the responsibility of Northern leaders and educators for the creation and dissemination of white supremacy and construction of the “color line.” …American democracy depended on Black inequality to sustain white equality.
“History textbooks proved a perfect vehicle for the transmission of such ideas, those deemed central to the survival of the nation’s democratic experiment.” (Pp. xiv-xv)
“Far from mere aggregations of dead facts, history texts served as reservoirs of values, patriotism, and a national ethos…. From the start history textbooks sought to create unity through storytelling, creating a national identity that could serve as a road map to the future.” (P. xvii)
[It was] “the ideology of white supremacy, not slavery, [that] proved the more ubiquitous and more enduring institution. It became the standard by which citizenship was defined, and it determined who would prove worthy of power….
“Complicating the picture is the fact that there had never been any enduring definition of a race, even the white race. Criteria continually shifted, including and excluding nationalities depending on conditions, levels of immigration, and political need. Whiteness, and the idea of race, should be seen more as a ‘fluid, variable, and open-ended process.’ [This partial quote is from the writings of Rev. Henry Field in 1890.] While it always subjected people of color – and some European nationalities – to inferior positions, the extent, intensity, and ideological motivation or justification varied considerably over time. As described by whites, races were defined by perceptions and appearances. Although assumed to be biological reality, races are in fact socially constructed categories intended to highlight the superiority and permanence of Caucasians, even as those considered to be Caucasian changed. Indeed, the more immigration made the North heterogenous, the more intense became its ideas of white supremacy.” (Pp. 6-7)
Cusack:
It is fascinating to watch the various shifts in interpretation of our history that occurred throughout the 19th and 20th centuries.
It has really only been from the latter ‘60s on that US textbooks have – however slowly and intermittently – really tried to tell the full and inclusive story of the American republic.
And, as we can still see today, for some people that represents a threat, however unconsciously for many, to their own perceptions of status and worth.
On a closing note, as a former teacher I welcome increased parental attention to, and concern about, both what and how their children are taught. Aside from the real damage often wrought by fear- and hate-mongers, such parental interest and involvement is necessary if we are to rescue what seems to be a serious decline in American education.
As many conservatives have noted over the years, we are paying a heavy price for the widespread retreat from teaching what has been thought to be most important since the time of the Greeks and Romans: the essence and responsibilities of citizenship, our heritage of Western intellectual thought (which is one hell of a lot more than just “dead white men’s views”), and the importance of logic, reason, and truth-telling in sustaining a functioning civil society.
We desperately need true history – the story of all of us told as it was – if we are to make sense out of our own time and draw upon this lived experience to make our republic stronger, better, and more equal.
November 30, 2022
I'd give this book 3.5/5 stars, if possible. It wasn't always enjoyable, but, as a historian and history teacher, I was glad I had read it by the time I finished.
Yacovone has clearly done enormous, impressive, and useful research on the history of how white supremacy is/was embedded in US history textbooks from 1800 to about 2000 or so. Think a historical and contextualized version of Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong. I appreciated the important topic, the comprehensive scope, and the corrective commentary. I grew to appreciate the book more as it got closer to the present. For example, hearing about the historiographical corrections in the 1960s+ was fascinating and sobering: many older Americans received a less-than-accurate education from their textbooks and are thus still thoroughly misinformed about race and racism in ways that still impact our country and its policies. I also appreciated the Epilogue and its suggestions for how history education can be improved. Followers of Sam Wineburg or James Loewen won't find it revelatory, but it was helpful nonetheless.
My critiques are that some sections--the beginning mostly--seemed a bit like they belonged in a different book: there were some sections that felt like a supplement to Stamped from the Beginning: The Definitive History of Racist Ideas in America on white supremacist ideas that didn't quite feel like relevant background, although that's what their intention was, I'm sure. There were also some extended portraits of 18th century intellectuals that didn't quite always tie back to history education or textbooks enough to justify their length. The middle was a bit of a chore for me, if I'm honest.
I recommend this for historians interested in why their classes seem to be iconoclastic at times, for history teachers wanting textbook evaluation criteria, and for those with a general interest in how bad (racist) history has been and is perpetuated through US culture. It's a clarion call for the importance of (secondary) history teachers who know their material, are passionate about accuracy, and want to oppose racism.
Yacovone has clearly done enormous, impressive, and useful research on the history of how white supremacy is/was embedded in US history textbooks from 1800 to about 2000 or so. Think a historical and contextualized version of Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong. I appreciated the important topic, the comprehensive scope, and the corrective commentary. I grew to appreciate the book more as it got closer to the present. For example, hearing about the historiographical corrections in the 1960s+ was fascinating and sobering: many older Americans received a less-than-accurate education from their textbooks and are thus still thoroughly misinformed about race and racism in ways that still impact our country and its policies. I also appreciated the Epilogue and its suggestions for how history education can be improved. Followers of Sam Wineburg or James Loewen won't find it revelatory, but it was helpful nonetheless.
My critiques are that some sections--the beginning mostly--seemed a bit like they belonged in a different book: there were some sections that felt like a supplement to Stamped from the Beginning: The Definitive History of Racist Ideas in America on white supremacist ideas that didn't quite feel like relevant background, although that's what their intention was, I'm sure. There were also some extended portraits of 18th century intellectuals that didn't quite always tie back to history education or textbooks enough to justify their length. The middle was a bit of a chore for me, if I'm honest.
I recommend this for historians interested in why their classes seem to be iconoclastic at times, for history teachers wanting textbook evaluation criteria, and for those with a general interest in how bad (racist) history has been and is perpetuated through US culture. It's a clarion call for the importance of (secondary) history teachers who know their material, are passionate about accuracy, and want to oppose racism.
October 8, 2022
Long on description sort on analysis. Couldn’t find much that is new.
December 16, 2022
One of the issues dividing the American electorate these days is Critical Race Theory (CRT), although it’s hard to say that even its harshest critics — the ones seeking to ban it — can say what it is. Regardless, they do seem to know quite well that, whatever it is, it will melt the amour-propre of white children — making them statutorily the only real snowflakes on the political landscape. On the other hand, whenever I read something that purports to explain what CRT is, it never satisfactorily (to me) elucidates the thing; rather it kicks the can down the road by saying, “CRT is an abstruse legal theory” referring me to the writings of Derrick Bell or Kimberlé Crenshaw. Everything I read about it makes it seem self-evidently meritorious, but I recognize that that is my own biased, ill-informed conclusion.
Then at the public library this book leaped into my hands. Reading it, I appreciated the way in which it delivered a granular specificity on the subject of race in America that none of my recent readings had done. It dawned on me that what this book delivered — through the lens of (mostly) school textbooks — was a singular, mirror-image variant of CRT that has been part of America since the time the apple pie was still in the oven.
The book’s granularity resides in the writings not only of authors of textbooks, but also of histories, political tracts, sociology, and philosophy that to some degree influenced American opinion. In many cases, the adult works came first, and their popularity conferred upon their authors a sort of, well, authority that made them good candidates (marketing!) for textbook writing.
One of the things this history illuminates is the extent of race prejudice throughout most of American history. By “race prejudice” I mean the belief that African-Americans were inferior to whites and, should they be allowed to live in America, must be kept subjugated or separate. “Should they be allowed to live in America”: many antislavery advocates favored the removal of African-Americans back to Africa as the only solution to the blight of slavery.
There is among many, if not most Americans the naive notion that the “anti-slavery” beliefs of Yankees carried with it a sympathy for African-American civil rights. This book performs the salutary job of burying that notion by inverting it: it was Northerners who developed an ideology of racial separation that carried with it a requirement of African exclusion. The reason slavery was so bad was that it not only tolerated the presence of Africans, but relied upon them as an essential ingredient for economic prosperity.
Here is author Yacovone on this central aspect of the book: “Rather than Southern slavery, however, it was Northern white supremacy that proved the more enduring cultural binding force, planted along with slavery in the colonial era, intensely cultivated in the years before the Civil War, and fully blossoming after Reconstruction. Inculcated relentlessly throughout the culture and in school textbooks, it suffused Northern religion, high culture, literature, education, politics, music, law, and science. It powerfully resurfaced after the Civil War and Reconstruction to reassert control over the emancipated slaves to become the basis for national reconciliation, exploded in intensity with renewed immigration in the 1920s and ‘30s, and endured with diminishing force to the present day.” [pp. 5-6]
The only period to depart from the norm was the period immediately following the Civil War. Here Yacovone provides ample evidence of the way in which the passions of war can produce radical changes in political opinion. In the immediate aftermath of the Civil War, some textbook writers (Yacovone calls them “Emancipationists”) undertook to address the sea-change that had just occurred.
Popular war correspondent Charles Coffin was one of these. His textbook might not be out of place in the 1619 Project. In his own words, his withering assessment of the Founding Fathers was that they had not advanced beyond “the feudal age to recognize all men, irrespective of race and color, as entitled to the privileges of the Constitution.” [p. 158]
It was not long before Emancipationist textbooks were a thing of the past. With the end of Reconstruction, textbooks began to reflect a trend “that celebrated the end of slavery but also offered withering views of African Americans — and a repudiation of equal rights — that would endure for generations. This unmistakable trend in history, political science, and even geography moved relentlessly toward a white racial consensus, matching Northern popular prejudice that perceived African Americans as incapable of operating within a free labor system.” [p. 174] Reflecting this ideology was the reborn Ku Klux Klan, most of whose members were Northern or Western; its “epicenter” (Yacovone’s word) was Indiana.
The apogee came with the popular textbooks of David Muzzey (in use between 1912 and the 1960s), which combined a “repudiation of slavery … as aggressive as any account in the Emancipationist tradition” with “a commitment to white supremacy as fierce” as any Southern “Lost Cause” apologist [p. 251]. In what may be seen as an ultimate irony, it was one of these — Mildred Lewis Rutherford — who had Muzzey’s books in mind when she remarked that “the South was more interested in the freedom of the slaves than the North.” [p. 270]
Yacovone does not go far beyond this point, although his account includes the “pathbreaking” 1947 textbook by the African-American historian John Hope Franklin, who “felt compelled to remind white readers that American history also had been shaped by the African-American ‘presence.’” [p. 297]
Foreshadowing the changes in laws at the Federal level, however, Yacovone examines influences on possible changes in white reader mentalities by bringing into his narrative such highly-publicized works as Gunnar Myrdal’s An American Dilemma (1944) and John Howard Griffin’s Black Like Me (1961). Of the former he writes of Myrdal’s conclusion “that white American democracy depended on Black subordination for social stability. No matter how poor, uneducated, or untrained, all whites could take comfort that they remained superior to African Americans. That view, Myrdal concluded, served as a ‘much needed rationalization.’ Equality of opportunity, part of what Myrdal called the ‘American creed,’ sustained community and individual hope, but steeped in contradiction, it excluded people of color.” [p. 295]
Yacovone posits that this “truth” matched that of Northern white supremacist (and textbook author) John H. Van Every from 90 years earlier, so that the question became whether the exclusion should be enthusiastically endorsed, or whether it should be (more or less) begrudgingly ended. My own suspicion is that, while the latter occurred at the highest levels of Federal law, we would be naive to think that the former — after more than a century at the core of white self-identity — suddenly vanished in a country more culturally anti-Federal than Federal; and also it would be good to have something to tease it out, like, you know, Critical Race Theory. Whatever that is.
Then at the public library this book leaped into my hands. Reading it, I appreciated the way in which it delivered a granular specificity on the subject of race in America that none of my recent readings had done. It dawned on me that what this book delivered — through the lens of (mostly) school textbooks — was a singular, mirror-image variant of CRT that has been part of America since the time the apple pie was still in the oven.
The book’s granularity resides in the writings not only of authors of textbooks, but also of histories, political tracts, sociology, and philosophy that to some degree influenced American opinion. In many cases, the adult works came first, and their popularity conferred upon their authors a sort of, well, authority that made them good candidates (marketing!) for textbook writing.
One of the things this history illuminates is the extent of race prejudice throughout most of American history. By “race prejudice” I mean the belief that African-Americans were inferior to whites and, should they be allowed to live in America, must be kept subjugated or separate. “Should they be allowed to live in America”: many antislavery advocates favored the removal of African-Americans back to Africa as the only solution to the blight of slavery.
There is among many, if not most Americans the naive notion that the “anti-slavery” beliefs of Yankees carried with it a sympathy for African-American civil rights. This book performs the salutary job of burying that notion by inverting it: it was Northerners who developed an ideology of racial separation that carried with it a requirement of African exclusion. The reason slavery was so bad was that it not only tolerated the presence of Africans, but relied upon them as an essential ingredient for economic prosperity.
Here is author Yacovone on this central aspect of the book: “Rather than Southern slavery, however, it was Northern white supremacy that proved the more enduring cultural binding force, planted along with slavery in the colonial era, intensely cultivated in the years before the Civil War, and fully blossoming after Reconstruction. Inculcated relentlessly throughout the culture and in school textbooks, it suffused Northern religion, high culture, literature, education, politics, music, law, and science. It powerfully resurfaced after the Civil War and Reconstruction to reassert control over the emancipated slaves to become the basis for national reconciliation, exploded in intensity with renewed immigration in the 1920s and ‘30s, and endured with diminishing force to the present day.” [pp. 5-6]
The only period to depart from the norm was the period immediately following the Civil War. Here Yacovone provides ample evidence of the way in which the passions of war can produce radical changes in political opinion. In the immediate aftermath of the Civil War, some textbook writers (Yacovone calls them “Emancipationists”) undertook to address the sea-change that had just occurred.
Popular war correspondent Charles Coffin was one of these. His textbook might not be out of place in the 1619 Project. In his own words, his withering assessment of the Founding Fathers was that they had not advanced beyond “the feudal age to recognize all men, irrespective of race and color, as entitled to the privileges of the Constitution.” [p. 158]
It was not long before Emancipationist textbooks were a thing of the past. With the end of Reconstruction, textbooks began to reflect a trend “that celebrated the end of slavery but also offered withering views of African Americans — and a repudiation of equal rights — that would endure for generations. This unmistakable trend in history, political science, and even geography moved relentlessly toward a white racial consensus, matching Northern popular prejudice that perceived African Americans as incapable of operating within a free labor system.” [p. 174] Reflecting this ideology was the reborn Ku Klux Klan, most of whose members were Northern or Western; its “epicenter” (Yacovone’s word) was Indiana.
The apogee came with the popular textbooks of David Muzzey (in use between 1912 and the 1960s), which combined a “repudiation of slavery … as aggressive as any account in the Emancipationist tradition” with “a commitment to white supremacy as fierce” as any Southern “Lost Cause” apologist [p. 251]. In what may be seen as an ultimate irony, it was one of these — Mildred Lewis Rutherford — who had Muzzey’s books in mind when she remarked that “the South was more interested in the freedom of the slaves than the North.” [p. 270]
Yacovone does not go far beyond this point, although his account includes the “pathbreaking” 1947 textbook by the African-American historian John Hope Franklin, who “felt compelled to remind white readers that American history also had been shaped by the African-American ‘presence.’” [p. 297]
Foreshadowing the changes in laws at the Federal level, however, Yacovone examines influences on possible changes in white reader mentalities by bringing into his narrative such highly-publicized works as Gunnar Myrdal’s An American Dilemma (1944) and John Howard Griffin’s Black Like Me (1961). Of the former he writes of Myrdal’s conclusion “that white American democracy depended on Black subordination for social stability. No matter how poor, uneducated, or untrained, all whites could take comfort that they remained superior to African Americans. That view, Myrdal concluded, served as a ‘much needed rationalization.’ Equality of opportunity, part of what Myrdal called the ‘American creed,’ sustained community and individual hope, but steeped in contradiction, it excluded people of color.” [p. 295]
Yacovone posits that this “truth” matched that of Northern white supremacist (and textbook author) John H. Van Every from 90 years earlier, so that the question became whether the exclusion should be enthusiastically endorsed, or whether it should be (more or less) begrudgingly ended. My own suspicion is that, while the latter occurred at the highest levels of Federal law, we would be naive to think that the former — after more than a century at the core of white self-identity — suddenly vanished in a country more culturally anti-Federal than Federal; and also it would be good to have something to tease it out, like, you know, Critical Race Theory. Whatever that is.
December 21, 2022
Who should read this book
I recommend this book for historians interested in the teaching of specific history in America: slavery, racism, abolitionism, Civil War, and Reconstruction.
My review
I was really disappointed by this book. In part, that's not its fault: I read it shortly on the heels of Ibram X. Kendi's Stamped From the Beginning, which covers a similar topic over a similar time period. I very much liked that book, and found myself continually comparing the two, to the detriment of "Teaching White Supremacy". That said, I've tried below to isolate the reasons that I found this particular book lacking.
First, it's strengths: it is well-researched, with an an enormous amount of source material (quotations from history books, speeches, and teachings). It gives a very good view of how a few specific things were taught over a number of periods: slavery, racism, abolitionism, the Civil War, and Reconstruction. Painting with extremely broad strokes, my takeaway was that teaching before the Civil War sprang heavily from white supremacist viewpoints, that there was a switch in teaching in the post-Civil War "Emancipationist" period, and that things swung back the other way with the Lost Cause period through Eugenics. The history thins out after the mid-1960s, when the book talks about things generally shifting the other way.
The primary reason I struggled with it was what I felt was a great lack of shape to it. I wished for much clearer organization and framing of the material. With as little framing as there was, I'd frequently find myself in the middle of a long quotation, wondering about how it fit into the through line of the book. On the one hand, I appreciate that it was dry: hyper-opinionated books can feel like they are cherry-picking data to sell me their case. On the other hand, with so little of that framing, I found myself wondering: "Is this quote representative of the entire history book's content? Of a lot of history books of the time?" In other words, I was right back to wondering about cherry-picking. I found myself wanting these sorts of contextual details to help put the content into perspective. There were hints of this in places, talking about the volume of books sold, the popularity of books, and in the epilogue, which shared some interesting statistics. But largely, I was left wondering.
I think this feeling was exacerbated by the organization of the book. For example, reading Chapter 4, the section on the Emancipationist Challenge, I had the impression that teaching was suddenly all better (of course a simplistic view), only to be jarred in the other direction when Chapter 5 gave me the impression that things suddenly were all worse again. I believe this feeling came from the overlay of particular movements (emancipationist, lost cause) with particular time periods, with little acknowledge of contrary forces within each of those periods. Again, this threw me into the confusion caused by lack of context. Surely not all textbooks suddenly were better in the Emancipationist period!
This made me wonder: did I just not read carefully enough? This brings me again to Stamped from the Beginning. Similarly, that book chronicled an enormous volume of source material, stepping through history. But there, I had no such confusion about the framing or organization. That I had such a starkly different experience here suggests it was the book, not my failure to read carefully enough.
I think that a major part of my confusion came from the title, which I believe is overly expansive for the content of the book. Interestingly, this book, which offers less framing/analysis has the more thesis-oriented title than Stamped from the Beginning, whose subtitle--A Definitive History of Racist Ideas in America--suggests a drier collection. I kept thinking that this book might have better been titled "A Definitive History of the Teaching of Slavery, Racism, Abolitionism, Civil War, and Reconstruction in American History Texts". There certainly was plenty about the white supremacist thinking spread through teaching texts, and there were aspects of the book that made good on at least the second half of the subtitle, but the title led me to believe I was reading something else.
One might say that the book was for historians, and therefore intentionally avoided opinionated comments. I'd counter that the book did have at least one very strong opinion: that people in the North of the country share plenty (if not more) of the blame for the perversion of historical teaching. Sadly, while that point is important, it feels almost petty in comparison to others. Of course many people in the North held white supremacist ideas, just as many people in the South were not the worst of the white supremacists. I just wish that the author had exerted his energy of opinion elsewhere in framing this content.
Another note: I was particularly disappointed by a couple of small passages where the author stated his opinion in a way that felt completely irrelevant to the history. In the opening of the paragraph, he describes as colleague as having "painfully white skin". This jarred me out of the gate. Later in the book, the author makes a remark about someone's body weight, again surprising for its irrelevance.
Despite all this, I gave it three stars because I think it's a great collection of source material. I just wished it had, as I said above, more shape. I am disappointed because I think there is so much promise in the gathering of the content and the threads left dangling. I like the theme of forging of national identity, but would have liked it to be more clearly connected throughout. I'd like to have heard more about the effect of transitions from explicitly to implicitly white supremacist ideas on the effectiveness of those ideas to spread and take root.
I recommend this book for historians interested in the teaching of specific history in America: slavery, racism, abolitionism, Civil War, and Reconstruction.
My review
I was really disappointed by this book. In part, that's not its fault: I read it shortly on the heels of Ibram X. Kendi's Stamped From the Beginning, which covers a similar topic over a similar time period. I very much liked that book, and found myself continually comparing the two, to the detriment of "Teaching White Supremacy". That said, I've tried below to isolate the reasons that I found this particular book lacking.
First, it's strengths: it is well-researched, with an an enormous amount of source material (quotations from history books, speeches, and teachings). It gives a very good view of how a few specific things were taught over a number of periods: slavery, racism, abolitionism, the Civil War, and Reconstruction. Painting with extremely broad strokes, my takeaway was that teaching before the Civil War sprang heavily from white supremacist viewpoints, that there was a switch in teaching in the post-Civil War "Emancipationist" period, and that things swung back the other way with the Lost Cause period through Eugenics. The history thins out after the mid-1960s, when the book talks about things generally shifting the other way.
The primary reason I struggled with it was what I felt was a great lack of shape to it. I wished for much clearer organization and framing of the material. With as little framing as there was, I'd frequently find myself in the middle of a long quotation, wondering about how it fit into the through line of the book. On the one hand, I appreciate that it was dry: hyper-opinionated books can feel like they are cherry-picking data to sell me their case. On the other hand, with so little of that framing, I found myself wondering: "Is this quote representative of the entire history book's content? Of a lot of history books of the time?" In other words, I was right back to wondering about cherry-picking. I found myself wanting these sorts of contextual details to help put the content into perspective. There were hints of this in places, talking about the volume of books sold, the popularity of books, and in the epilogue, which shared some interesting statistics. But largely, I was left wondering.
I think this feeling was exacerbated by the organization of the book. For example, reading Chapter 4, the section on the Emancipationist Challenge, I had the impression that teaching was suddenly all better (of course a simplistic view), only to be jarred in the other direction when Chapter 5 gave me the impression that things suddenly were all worse again. I believe this feeling came from the overlay of particular movements (emancipationist, lost cause) with particular time periods, with little acknowledge of contrary forces within each of those periods. Again, this threw me into the confusion caused by lack of context. Surely not all textbooks suddenly were better in the Emancipationist period!
This made me wonder: did I just not read carefully enough? This brings me again to Stamped from the Beginning. Similarly, that book chronicled an enormous volume of source material, stepping through history. But there, I had no such confusion about the framing or organization. That I had such a starkly different experience here suggests it was the book, not my failure to read carefully enough.
I think that a major part of my confusion came from the title, which I believe is overly expansive for the content of the book. Interestingly, this book, which offers less framing/analysis has the more thesis-oriented title than Stamped from the Beginning, whose subtitle--A Definitive History of Racist Ideas in America--suggests a drier collection. I kept thinking that this book might have better been titled "A Definitive History of the Teaching of Slavery, Racism, Abolitionism, Civil War, and Reconstruction in American History Texts". There certainly was plenty about the white supremacist thinking spread through teaching texts, and there were aspects of the book that made good on at least the second half of the subtitle, but the title led me to believe I was reading something else.
One might say that the book was for historians, and therefore intentionally avoided opinionated comments. I'd counter that the book did have at least one very strong opinion: that people in the North of the country share plenty (if not more) of the blame for the perversion of historical teaching. Sadly, while that point is important, it feels almost petty in comparison to others. Of course many people in the North held white supremacist ideas, just as many people in the South were not the worst of the white supremacists. I just wish that the author had exerted his energy of opinion elsewhere in framing this content.
Another note: I was particularly disappointed by a couple of small passages where the author stated his opinion in a way that felt completely irrelevant to the history. In the opening of the paragraph, he describes as colleague as having "painfully white skin". This jarred me out of the gate. Later in the book, the author makes a remark about someone's body weight, again surprising for its irrelevance.
Despite all this, I gave it three stars because I think it's a great collection of source material. I just wished it had, as I said above, more shape. I am disappointed because I think there is so much promise in the gathering of the content and the threads left dangling. I like the theme of forging of national identity, but would have liked it to be more clearly connected throughout. I'd like to have heard more about the effect of transitions from explicitly to implicitly white supremacist ideas on the effectiveness of those ideas to spread and take root.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
November 25, 2022
So important yet so boring!
I could not wait to finish reading any book more than I had this one. I was committed to learning about it but so bored the entire time. I usually finish a book in a day or two. This one took weeks!
I think there were two main problems: A) like most historians, the author did an incredible amount of research and probably wanted to share every bit of it to validate all the sweat and hours put into it, and B) it was a book about other books, which in itself is boring. Additionally, you could’ve turned it into a drinking game - drink every time the author mentioned how the history books taught slaves were treated well (they were well fed, saved from their own worst instincts, given homes, clothed, treated respectfully, etc.). By the end, I wondered if he kept bringing it up because he almost believed it himself! (I don’t actually think that, but it was said that frequently.)
The biggest issue is that none of us were there. I read elsewhere that the last person born into slavery died in 1971. So it’s not like we can verify anything either way with first hand accounts, and even if this person was still alive, it would only be one testimony, which is too small a sample size to extrapolate any firm conclusions from. History is an interpretation of whatever data is at our disposal and expressed as that interpretation by the people writing the books. Based on the research in this book, it was written by Whites who aren’t ready to face the evils of their ancestors with anything but a rose colored lens.
In Texas where I live, as well as in other states, teachers are required legally to teach both sides of the story. Well, I don’t think there are only two sides, and I get the feeling that most teachers provide one side more weight and attention than the other (although I’ve never figured out with the “other side of the story” would be for the Holocaust). This law was the legislators attempt to combat critical race theory. I have no idea how effective it’s been since I don’t have children to survey about it. I’m pretty sure the Lost Cause and the kindliness of the masters are probably heavily emphasized and the atrocities of slavery given a cursory read through. This is why I wanted to read this book, but I cannot say how much of it I retained other than how books, since the very beginning, placed the original blame on the British and that slaves were treated well.
I cannot imagine anyone might think racism is a hoax. Somehow, somewhere, it’s being taught, and I wouldn’t be surprised if it starts with these textbooks. I’d encourage all parents to read their children’s textbooks and supplement lessons at home if these books are, indeed, racist or at the very least, inadequately detailed.
To the author, I urge you to get a better editor! I would’ve enjoyed this book more, learned more, and given it a higher rating if your editor had told you that you could’ve written everything important in half the number of pages. That said, thank you for addressing this very important topic.
I could not wait to finish reading any book more than I had this one. I was committed to learning about it but so bored the entire time. I usually finish a book in a day or two. This one took weeks!
I think there were two main problems: A) like most historians, the author did an incredible amount of research and probably wanted to share every bit of it to validate all the sweat and hours put into it, and B) it was a book about other books, which in itself is boring. Additionally, you could’ve turned it into a drinking game - drink every time the author mentioned how the history books taught slaves were treated well (they were well fed, saved from their own worst instincts, given homes, clothed, treated respectfully, etc.). By the end, I wondered if he kept bringing it up because he almost believed it himself! (I don’t actually think that, but it was said that frequently.)
The biggest issue is that none of us were there. I read elsewhere that the last person born into slavery died in 1971. So it’s not like we can verify anything either way with first hand accounts, and even if this person was still alive, it would only be one testimony, which is too small a sample size to extrapolate any firm conclusions from. History is an interpretation of whatever data is at our disposal and expressed as that interpretation by the people writing the books. Based on the research in this book, it was written by Whites who aren’t ready to face the evils of their ancestors with anything but a rose colored lens.
In Texas where I live, as well as in other states, teachers are required legally to teach both sides of the story. Well, I don’t think there are only two sides, and I get the feeling that most teachers provide one side more weight and attention than the other (although I’ve never figured out with the “other side of the story” would be for the Holocaust). This law was the legislators attempt to combat critical race theory. I have no idea how effective it’s been since I don’t have children to survey about it. I’m pretty sure the Lost Cause and the kindliness of the masters are probably heavily emphasized and the atrocities of slavery given a cursory read through. This is why I wanted to read this book, but I cannot say how much of it I retained other than how books, since the very beginning, placed the original blame on the British and that slaves were treated well.
I cannot imagine anyone might think racism is a hoax. Somehow, somewhere, it’s being taught, and I wouldn’t be surprised if it starts with these textbooks. I’d encourage all parents to read their children’s textbooks and supplement lessons at home if these books are, indeed, racist or at the very least, inadequately detailed.
To the author, I urge you to get a better editor! I would’ve enjoyed this book more, learned more, and given it a higher rating if your editor had told you that you could’ve written everything important in half the number of pages. That said, thank you for addressing this very important topic.
October 26, 2022
Eye opener
September 30, 2025
This book comes highly recommended, and rightfully so. My only critique (my own fault) was I listened to this as an audiobook (smh Libby), and I wished I had a kindle/ paper copy, so that I could take better notes. If you consider adding this to your TBR (you should), I recommend a physical copy and a notebook! There were also some great resources shared in the epilogue that I will have to check out — special shoutout to the BPL (mentioned in epilogue!!!!). Especially prevalent today, as *certain people* want to suppress historical accounts/ effects of slavery and racism.
April 23, 2025
A forceful reminder that liberal democracy has always been attacked by people who glorify patriarchal nationalistic history.
It’s amazing to me how stable and resilient white suprematism is.
It’s amazing to me how stable and resilient white suprematism is.
February 5, 2023
"The history we teach is the product of the culture we create, not necessarily of the actual history we made," writes Donald Yacovne in "Teaching White Supremacy: America's Democratic Ordeal and the Forging of Our National Identity", an excellent overview of two centuries of historiography taught in American textbooks and classrooms as racist myths and lies that upheld the racial hierarchy of this nation, as well as the movement of historians who pushed for teaching about the reality of racism and slavery throughout U.S. history. Makes for a great companion volume to James W. Loewen's milestone "Lies My Teacher Told Me" from 1995.
March 10, 2023
(Audiobook) If you’ve been following any sort of headlines the past couple of years, the dispute about teaching US History is one area driving a lot of controversy. This work looks at how the US taught its history, through the prism of asserting that the dominate group in America was the white European ancestry. By reviewing various textbooks, writings and teaching philosophies, Yacovone delves into the issues that set the foundations for how America taught its past and its ramifications. In particular, it focuses on the subservient role it assigned Blacks/African-Americans in the American narrative, one that is still persistent, even with the evolution in teaching materials.
One would be curious to see if there is a follow-up work in the next 15-20 years, as the current school board debates continue to upend how students are taught American history. Would Yacovone see any changes for the better or for the worse? That will bear watching in the years ahead.
Many of the themes are not particularly new for those who’ve read up on the state of current American history teaching and/or race history. However, the back story of the academics involved in developing American history study is intriguing and one where you can see how things evolved and changed. Worth a read, regardless of format.
One would be curious to see if there is a follow-up work in the next 15-20 years, as the current school board debates continue to upend how students are taught American history. Would Yacovone see any changes for the better or for the worse? That will bear watching in the years ahead.
Many of the themes are not particularly new for those who’ve read up on the state of current American history teaching and/or race history. However, the back story of the academics involved in developing American history study is intriguing and one where you can see how things evolved and changed. Worth a read, regardless of format.
August 9, 2023
This truly was very interesting subject matter, but it was unbearably dense and read like a drab textbook itself. It’s clear Yacovone did serious and important research for this, but its presentation offers very little for the common reader.
August 11, 2023
Let me first say that Teaching White Supremacy tackles an important topic, and one that is far too often misunderstood or intentionally minimized.
While I acknowledge that reality, recognize the expansive research underlying the book, and agree with the author’s conclusions, I was still profoundly disappointed by TWS.
The level of detail is overwhelming and frequently presented in near laundry-list format. The syntax is not only complicated, but convoluted, rendering the entire book unnecessarily inaccessible.
While I acknowledge that reality, recognize the expansive research underlying the book, and agree with the author’s conclusions, I was still profoundly disappointed by TWS.
The level of detail is overwhelming and frequently presented in near laundry-list format. The syntax is not only complicated, but convoluted, rendering the entire book unnecessarily inaccessible.
dnf-revisit
September 19, 2024Okay I only got through 10% of this before I had to return it, but it was VERY good and information packed. Especially for new Englanders, this definitely flips the ‘all northerners were benevolent abolitionists’ narrative on its head. Love the truth telling
January 15, 2024
Did a lot of manifest destiny/American exceptionalism this past semester in relation to Americas national identity lovely and informative and based read !!!!
May 16, 2025
A history of various textbooks about slavery, the civil war, and racism, in the 19th and early 20th century.
February 24, 2023
A meta historical look at history itself and how its written. Ought to be a mandatory read for any educator!!
December 19, 2022
This book was a terrible slog. In history, we can generally characterize contributions to the field in one of three ways--
1) the discovery/revelation of a new event/person/account, usually the result of examining a hitherto-unexamined archival artifact.
2) the reframing of an already-known or -revealed fact, sometimes in light of new evidence (see above).
3) the assembly of a new set of facts/a synthesis
Clearly, this delineation is rather fluid, but it generally holds. Yacovone's book, as far as I can tell, brings nothing to the field aside from assembling a new archive. Worse, this book has absolutely no analytical insight and only describes the texts it discusses without providing any kind of framework for understanding them. It is akin, in some sense, to reading a rather long encyclopedia entry--not reading I would do for pleasure again.
The book is further marred by Yacovone's tone of disbelief and indignation. It is well-warranted, but comes off as white guilt. Further, the book represents something like a teleological or triumphant narrative, glossing over and oversimplifying the contemporary contest over the teaching of history, completely erasing the role of financialization and neoliberalism in the academy.
1) the discovery/revelation of a new event/person/account, usually the result of examining a hitherto-unexamined archival artifact.
2) the reframing of an already-known or -revealed fact, sometimes in light of new evidence (see above).
3) the assembly of a new set of facts/a synthesis
Clearly, this delineation is rather fluid, but it generally holds. Yacovone's book, as far as I can tell, brings nothing to the field aside from assembling a new archive. Worse, this book has absolutely no analytical insight and only describes the texts it discusses without providing any kind of framework for understanding them. It is akin, in some sense, to reading a rather long encyclopedia entry--not reading I would do for pleasure again.
The book is further marred by Yacovone's tone of disbelief and indignation. It is well-warranted, but comes off as white guilt. Further, the book represents something like a teleological or triumphant narrative, glossing over and oversimplifying the contemporary contest over the teaching of history, completely erasing the role of financialization and neoliberalism in the academy.
December 31, 2022
Actual rating 3.5 stars. An updated and more focused companion to Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong, as this is a study of how textbooks overtime has portrayed (or not) slavery and later the Civil War, Reconstruction, and the Civil Rights Movement. However, while I was consistently engaged with the writing style of Lies, this book seemed to drag on. The information is interesting, but the audiobook struggled to keep my attention. There's a lot of information in it, and it covers most of the history of America, so there are a lot of people and textbooks to go over. I would consider this a text to go back to with a highlighter for a future academic paper than a layperson's read unless you are really interested in the subject material.
December 1, 2022
This important book, while dense with names and publications, is a critically important book to read whether you had an American history class growing up or not. I should have have been surprised that white supremacy continues to be the default in a majority of textbooks these days, but it was heartbreaking nonetheless.
The only way we can hope to end white supremacy is to stop teaching it to our children either directly or indirectly. If believe this isn’t something that is happening, this book is the wake-up call you need if you give it a chance. We need to be better and do better, and our textbooks are one of the many ways where the work needs to be happening.
The only way we can hope to end white supremacy is to stop teaching it to our children either directly or indirectly. If believe this isn’t something that is happening, this book is the wake-up call you need if you give it a chance. We need to be better and do better, and our textbooks are one of the many ways where the work needs to be happening.
December 4, 2022
I gave it four stars, but I should have given it 5 for the research the author clearly did. Or two because it is stultifying. Too detailed. Too thorough. Too unrelentingly depressing. Was every white guy an asshole until the 1970s? Certainly the writers (and buyers) of our textbooks were.
I didn’t do this book justice. I read 110 pages and skimmed the rest except the last chapter, which I read carefully.
If I was an educator maybe I would have made it through the book. Sorry. I just couldn’t take it.
I didn’t do this book justice. I read 110 pages and skimmed the rest except the last chapter, which I read carefully.
If I was an educator maybe I would have made it through the book. Sorry. I just couldn’t take it.
December 12, 2022
Too unbalanced- so much research, so little analysis. Also, was frustrated that it cut off essentially in the 60s and then jumped to the present in the epilogue- felt very much like my high school history classes.
As a teacher, I know this is an important topic. I don’t feel like I gained anything from this book to know how to begin to go about fixing it (beyond the resources we already use mentioned at the end). Maybe I was expecting a different book.
As a teacher, I know this is an important topic. I don’t feel like I gained anything from this book to know how to begin to go about fixing it (beyond the resources we already use mentioned at the end). Maybe I was expecting a different book.
November 22, 2022
This is an excellent book that chronicles white supremacy throughout the textbooks in American history. This is especially significant given the current attempts to whitewash history. Many of the same arguments are being used today in order to stop the teaching of history that accurately deals with the legacy of racism were used in earlier periods. Essential reading for any educator.
December 26, 2022
3.75 stars. Expertly researched but at times it felt too detailed. Detailed enough for a collegiate/research level reader but certainly more than I was looking for. Overall he does a great job laying out the history of white supremacy and it’s impact on how America taught (and views) history.
February 1, 2025
this is far more engaging and compelling than a book about textbooks should ever be. the fact that it took me 10 months to finish should be ignored as i am a bad reader. extra prescient considering our current political reality
December 7, 2022
4.5 stars
Really excellent research & writing, presented in a way that's great for academics, but also feels approachable enough to an average popular history consumer. Highly recommend.
Really excellent research & writing, presented in a way that's great for academics, but also feels approachable enough to an average popular history consumer. Highly recommend.
December 26, 2022
An outstanding, thought-provoking, well-researched work...thanks to Dr. Vacovone for tackling, for some, a controversial subject, and presenting his substantially argued findings...
March 14, 2024
Though I'm not a high school history or social studies teacher, my college undergrad minor is in history, long ago, I taught a class or two at the adjunct college level, in addition. Plus, my No. 1 shelf here is history. In other words, I'm not a "pro," but I have a certain amount of semi-pro standing.
So, I have to say that I agree with some other three-star reviewers who talk about the book being too tedious at times.
My solution?
I would have dedicated no more than 8 pages to pre-Emancipation books. That's ancient history, so to speak. Plus, it was at least partially interrupted by the Emancipation era.
Give that the same 8 or so pages. Then, let's say 12 for the reactionary period through Wilson. Another 12 for the period from then through the end of WWII and into the start of the Civil Rights era. OK, those are a little harsh, and maybe metaphorical as much as real. Well, cut out most the stuff about John Van Evrie, who comes off as Yacavone’s “great white whale,” and you can keep them pun. You could do that, and otherwise increase my page count by 50 percent, and still …
I just cut the book in half. But, don't leave it there.
EXPAND the treatment of history textbooks from 1950 out. Put in a sub-break with the start of Reaganism. Maybe a shorter sub-break with the 21st century. As it is, everything from the 1990s on gets 10 pages.
And now, to some actual thoughts.
Bailey’s “An American Pageant”? Yeah, that was my high school history textbook. And, no, I don’t recall either it, or my high school American history teacher (Ph.D., Ohio State, at a public high school that had money) discussing Emancipation — or its gutting — all that much.
Allen Nevins? My dad had what he wrote alone, not with Commager, his massive multi-volume history of America of Manifest Destiny and Civil War years. I read the whole set once, for sure, maybe twice. Whether twice or once, I did a grokking after that as well. And, no, he didn’t discuss abolition in depth, that I recall, and certainly not Black agency.
Charles Beard? Had no idea he was that racist. (That said, this refutes Doug Henwood, Adolph Reed and others today who claim that matters of race almost always reduce to matters of class. Beard didn’t think so.)
Note: The book’s emphasis is on high school (and beyond) history textbooks. McGuffey’s Readers were for grades 1-6 and general readers, not history books. But, I would venture they perpetuated the same problems as above. I wish Yacavone had looked at them in detail.
There is an error here and there. The factual errors are minor, but there’s a larger error of framing. Eugenics was directed at “poor whites,” including poor Anglo-Saxon whites, as well as minorities. Carrie Buck of the infamous Buck v Bell was poor white.
The other three-star reviews, as noted, as generally good. The two-star ones are not, like the one calling him out for not writing an economic history. Dude, write your own book.
April 11, 2023
This book is a somewhat difficult read but a very important book to read. The current political environment is rife with discussion and debate about what exactly is the truth of America’s past. The author shares with us the history of the many diverse methods, thoughts, and tools used in USA schools to teach both the truths and untruths of that past. And, unfortunately, the majority of history education taught throughout all grades in the schools of America was, and still is, sorely lacking in verifiable, truthful information. It cannot be denied that European immigrants were the main force of people who first flooded this land and led the way in usurping it from the indigenous people who were living here. But to forget and gloss over the facts concerning the manner it was actually done and what it accomplished does all who were taught that history a major disservice. The words of the historian and commentator Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., sum it up quite succinctly - “White Americans began as a people so arrogant in convictions of racial superiority that they felt licensed to kill red people, to enslave black people, and to import yellow and brown people for peon labor. We white Americans have been racist in our customs, in our conditioned reflexes, in our souls.”
There is simply no denying that unnerving fact while at the same time understanding that the men who helped form this USA, with all their foibles, had great ideas of a system of government where all men would be equal and treated fairly. We need to keep striving toward that goal. Recognizing the truth of our journey and the many failing missteps taken might help us eventually get there. This is a book to read.
There is simply no denying that unnerving fact while at the same time understanding that the men who helped form this USA, with all their foibles, had great ideas of a system of government where all men would be equal and treated fairly. We need to keep striving toward that goal. Recognizing the truth of our journey and the many failing missteps taken might help us eventually get there. This is a book to read.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 69 reviews