What do you think?
Rate this book
Lies Across America: What Our Historic Sites Get Wrong
Examines more than one hundred sites that promote incorrect interpretations of American history and raises questions about what Americans choose to commemorate. Reprint. 75,000 first printing.
480 pages, Paperback
First published November 1, 1999
186 people are currently reading
8351 people want to read
About the author
James W. Loewen
29 books1,102 followersA professor of sociology, James W. Loewen earned his bachelor's degree at Carleton College in 1964, and his master's (1967) and doctorate (1968) degrees from Harvard University. Loewen taught at Touglaloo College from 1968 until 1975, and at the University of Vermont from 1975 until his retirement as professor emeritus in 1995.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 219 reviews
March 14, 2016
This book can't possibly be for everybody...I, in fact, started out hating it... too repetitious, too dense, way too many footnotes and as an African American, too little of any new revelations...American history is racist so why should its markers and monuments be any different? But as I read I became fascinated with the history and minutiae that's slowly revealed. Much of it local and passed by unnoticed by me for years (A statue honoring a founder of the KKK in Judiciary Square in majority Black Wash D.C.! Slave holding cells in the basement of an Urban League owned property across the river in Alexandria Va..)but more than just incongruous monument placements, this is a book that details the systematic efforts of people with means and an agenda to rewrite history and the fascinating lengths some will go to to do just that.
But the writer is an university professor and sometimes the book reads like a college textbook. So if your not inclined to suffer through heavily footnoted text at least put it on your reference shelf. Its organized by state and you'll easily regale guests with stories of the confederate soldier or KKK heroes statue in their own backyard!
But the writer is an university professor and sometimes the book reads like a college textbook. So if your not inclined to suffer through heavily footnoted text at least put it on your reference shelf. Its organized by state and you'll easily regale guests with stories of the confederate soldier or KKK heroes statue in their own backyard!
October 15, 2012
Lies of omission would be a better title.
I found this book to be a little disappointing. Perhaps it's my fault for misinterpreting the subject matter. I had assumed it dealt with information that was undeniably wrong or untrue. Presenting things inaccurate in fact rather than too concise or limited in scope.
The majority of the entries are not so much out and out "lies" as they are lies of omission or representative of events the author feels are insufficiently recognized. An example of the latter would be the "lie" of a marker that mentions a place where a woman was lynched for the crime of killing a man. Although the woman is misrepresented as having been white when she was actually Spanish the author feels the bigger "lie" is that it bothers to mention the woman at all while many other lynchings (throughout the history of the country not as part of the same incident) involving men as victims are not commemorated at all.
There are representations of factual inaccuracies but most entries are "lies" only to the extent that they don't tell a complete version of the story. Not so much lies as edited (sanitized) versions. Maybe I'm being too optimistic or charitable to the average American's intelligence but I believe many of them are fairly obvious in their limitations and don't necessarily require someone pointing out that they tell only one side of a story.
Initially I found the writing to be dry and somewhat hard to connect with but as I got deeper into the book that became less of an issue. Either I became more accustomed to the author's style, or more engrossed in the subject matter. Or, quite possibly, I went in with some bias and resentment from the fact that I felt (and still do) the book had been misrepresented thus my first impression was simply wrong.
As far as the overly politically correct attitude, apologist or anti-white overtones that others have referenced... one could definitely interpret it that way. It has more to do with the underlying theme of presenting a larger picture that represents the entire story in my opinion. Although there are points where it certainly felt to me as though the author was beating me over the head with his personal ideology (even though I agree with most of it). I also found the semantics over what constitutes "discovery", "wilderness" and "civilization" to be condescending, and overly simplistic.
Some of the stronger -- and more interesting in my opinion -- passages in the book are actually related to the origins of the monuments themselves and the bias of those sponsoring them. Particularly the ones that relate to the various Confederate memorials throughout the country. Once I got around the 'beating a dead horse' aspect of repeating much of the same comments on racial injustices, prejudices, etc. that had been previously stated elsewhere in the book I found them to be highly informative as to the general attitudes of the people and times in which they were created.
All in all it's not a bad book. Is it heavy handed? Oh, yes, very much so in some parts. Is it informative? Absolutely.
I found this book to be a little disappointing. Perhaps it's my fault for misinterpreting the subject matter. I had assumed it dealt with information that was undeniably wrong or untrue. Presenting things inaccurate in fact rather than too concise or limited in scope.
The majority of the entries are not so much out and out "lies" as they are lies of omission or representative of events the author feels are insufficiently recognized. An example of the latter would be the "lie" of a marker that mentions a place where a woman was lynched for the crime of killing a man. Although the woman is misrepresented as having been white when she was actually Spanish the author feels the bigger "lie" is that it bothers to mention the woman at all while many other lynchings (throughout the history of the country not as part of the same incident) involving men as victims are not commemorated at all.
There are representations of factual inaccuracies but most entries are "lies" only to the extent that they don't tell a complete version of the story. Not so much lies as edited (sanitized) versions. Maybe I'm being too optimistic or charitable to the average American's intelligence but I believe many of them are fairly obvious in their limitations and don't necessarily require someone pointing out that they tell only one side of a story.
Initially I found the writing to be dry and somewhat hard to connect with but as I got deeper into the book that became less of an issue. Either I became more accustomed to the author's style, or more engrossed in the subject matter. Or, quite possibly, I went in with some bias and resentment from the fact that I felt (and still do) the book had been misrepresented thus my first impression was simply wrong.
As far as the overly politically correct attitude, apologist or anti-white overtones that others have referenced... one could definitely interpret it that way. It has more to do with the underlying theme of presenting a larger picture that represents the entire story in my opinion. Although there are points where it certainly felt to me as though the author was beating me over the head with his personal ideology (even though I agree with most of it). I also found the semantics over what constitutes "discovery", "wilderness" and "civilization" to be condescending, and overly simplistic.
Some of the stronger -- and more interesting in my opinion -- passages in the book are actually related to the origins of the monuments themselves and the bias of those sponsoring them. Particularly the ones that relate to the various Confederate memorials throughout the country. Once I got around the 'beating a dead horse' aspect of repeating much of the same comments on racial injustices, prejudices, etc. that had been previously stated elsewhere in the book I found them to be highly informative as to the general attitudes of the people and times in which they were created.
All in all it's not a bad book. Is it heavy handed? Oh, yes, very much so in some parts. Is it informative? Absolutely.
November 7, 2007
Lies Across America: What our Historic Sites Get Wrong is an excellent book by James Loewen. He starts first with the western half of the United States since most history textbooks start with the eastern side. All of the information about historical markers is broken up into small sections for easy reading. Loewen proceeds to give state-by-state accounts of historical markers and their errors or in some cases their silliness. Many of the markers honor people as heroes who were in fact overt racists. Other markers are notorious for telling one side of the story. Most of the markers in the south dealing with the Confederacy are found to slant towards confederate sentiments or just to omit what really happened at historic confederate sites. We also find out that many markers dealing with Native Americans would refer to them as savages or other racist terms. In many instances I was appalled by the honoring of people like Jeffrey Amherst in Massachusetts who intentionally initiated the spread of smallpox among Native Americans to exterminate them from the landscape. Loewen also points out our country has never been able to come to terms with gay or lesbian leaders and honor them. You can take a tour of Willa Cather's original home in Nebraska but never once hear anything mentioned about her being a lesbian. Another instance of outright silliness is when Plantation homes talk endlessly about silverware while you tour them but fail to mention anything to do with who built the homes, did the work there, and were held in bondage to the owners. These are just some of the things that you'll find contained in this book.
This book is very thought provoking and helps correct historical inaccuracy in the past. Historical inaccuracy prevents Americans from coming to terms with things that are important today such as: racism, homophobia, class inequality, and the glossing over of important events that could help us learn from them so as to prevent them from happening in the future. After all, George Santayna once admonished, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Do yourself a favor and read this book and let it help you start dialogue with others about our important and rich history.
This book is very thought provoking and helps correct historical inaccuracy in the past. Historical inaccuracy prevents Americans from coming to terms with things that are important today such as: racism, homophobia, class inequality, and the glossing over of important events that could help us learn from them so as to prevent them from happening in the future. After all, George Santayna once admonished, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Do yourself a favor and read this book and let it help you start dialogue with others about our important and rich history.
November 19, 2017
So do you know someone who just doesn't understand the whole take down the statues thing? Yeah? Lend them this book. Loewen not only lists mistakes places make, but also skillfully sets out the reasons for change and how you, as a visitor, can uncover the true story.
November 21, 2008
This book actually deserves no stars or a minus star. James W. Loewen obviously has an extreme amount of guilt from being a "White, European-American Male" as his entire book speaks of nothing other than mistreatment and degradation of blacks, native Americans and women to the aggrandizing of WASP American males. The one monument he finds accurate and correct is actually wrong in its interpreting of the facts. The author was a professor at U of VT. He and his ilk are what is wrong with our colleges and universities today.
While I agree that history should be taught correctly and to include all the facts, it remains that the very people he chooses to bring down in this book did a lot of good for this country. From his view it appears that no good came from anybody that wasn't in one of his selected minorities.
I would not recommend this book to anyone. I love history but this book becomes boring very quickly.
While I agree that history should be taught correctly and to include all the facts, it remains that the very people he chooses to bring down in this book did a lot of good for this country. From his view it appears that no good came from anybody that wasn't in one of his selected minorities.
I would not recommend this book to anyone. I love history but this book becomes boring very quickly.
February 4, 2012
I'm sorry, but Loewen's scathing attacks on history organizations for failing to preserve and interpret a more open and progressive past fails to take into account the restrictions placed on many organiations to do that. I worked for one of the organizations that was criticized in this book and take offense at his remarks that we failed to adequately preserve women's history in our state markers program. Markers are placed when a private source funds them, so if Mr. Loewen is that upset, he should open up his checkbook and stop playing armchair critic.
September 12, 2017
I think the timing of my reading of this book with the recent furor over monuments is a coincidence, but a happy one. If you have been watching the news and asking yourself what the big deal is about a bunch of Confederate monuments, read the introductory essays in this book.
The biggest thing I learned was the two purposes of monuments. Loewen gives them Japanese names but lord knows I can't remember which was which. Basically, some monuments are erected for the people who were actually involved in the events being memorialized. Funeral monuments are the most common example. You build a headstone for your deceased loved one and then you go there and remember them. Once all of the people for whom that person was important are also dead, the memorial ceases to be of much importance, having fulfilled its purpose.
The OTHER kind of memorial is erected as a way of asserting control over memory, usually for some political reason, and typically decades after the event being memorialized has passed. The most common example of this are all those Confederate monuments that began springing up not at the conclusion of the Civil War, but decades later as a way of fighting back against progress made toward rights for black Americans. The purpose of the monuments is not actually to remember brave men fighting for a noble cause, but to make the viewer believe that their cause was noble in the first place even if the actual participants in the Civil War didn't think that themselves.* It is much easier to defend "The Lose Cause" than "A Bunch of Treasonous Slaveholders."**
Some reviewers have mentioned that it gets a little repetitive at times, which is a fair criticism, but one which I think would be even more fairly leveled at the United States itself. We made these mistakes not once, as aberrations of good judgment, but routinely and purposefully.
Most of the entries in this book have to do with the fallout from the Civil War, but a good portion of them do not. There are several entries on Native Americans and the various lies and omissions perpetrated by European settlers. The stuff about the Spanish-American (BUT ACTUALLY THE PHILIPPINE) War was new to me. The entry on the Union League Club was a real whirlwind trip, too.
In conclusion, Franklin Pierce was a dick.
* You have, no doubt, already read about General Lee's own belief that Civil War memorials were a bad idea.
** This book also has a few choice words for people yell about "States' Rights" that I hadn't thought about before. The Confederacy were only interested in the Rights of States so long as those states were their own and the rights were to possess slaves. When OTHER states asserted their OWN rights to decide how to handle black people in their OWN borders, Southern states battled in Congress to deprive them of those rights.
The biggest thing I learned was the two purposes of monuments. Loewen gives them Japanese names but lord knows I can't remember which was which. Basically, some monuments are erected for the people who were actually involved in the events being memorialized. Funeral monuments are the most common example. You build a headstone for your deceased loved one and then you go there and remember them. Once all of the people for whom that person was important are also dead, the memorial ceases to be of much importance, having fulfilled its purpose.
The OTHER kind of memorial is erected as a way of asserting control over memory, usually for some political reason, and typically decades after the event being memorialized has passed. The most common example of this are all those Confederate monuments that began springing up not at the conclusion of the Civil War, but decades later as a way of fighting back against progress made toward rights for black Americans. The purpose of the monuments is not actually to remember brave men fighting for a noble cause, but to make the viewer believe that their cause was noble in the first place even if the actual participants in the Civil War didn't think that themselves.* It is much easier to defend "The Lose Cause" than "A Bunch of Treasonous Slaveholders."**
Some reviewers have mentioned that it gets a little repetitive at times, which is a fair criticism, but one which I think would be even more fairly leveled at the United States itself. We made these mistakes not once, as aberrations of good judgment, but routinely and purposefully.
Most of the entries in this book have to do with the fallout from the Civil War, but a good portion of them do not. There are several entries on Native Americans and the various lies and omissions perpetrated by European settlers. The stuff about the Spanish-American (BUT ACTUALLY THE PHILIPPINE) War was new to me. The entry on the Union League Club was a real whirlwind trip, too.
In conclusion, Franklin Pierce was a dick.
* You have, no doubt, already read about General Lee's own belief that Civil War memorials were a bad idea.
** This book also has a few choice words for people yell about "States' Rights" that I hadn't thought about before. The Confederacy were only interested in the Rights of States so long as those states were their own and the rights were to possess slaves. When OTHER states asserted their OWN rights to decide how to handle black people in their OWN borders, Southern states battled in Congress to deprive them of those rights.
November 18, 2019
This is an excellent resource for anyone interested in US History. In fact, I wish every high school student had this as required reading. My degree is in history, and it is a sad truth that misinformation is so ingrained that people will argue the facts even when presented with concrete evidence. Very important and highly recommended!
This unbiased review is based on a complimentary copy provided by the publisher.
This unbiased review is based on a complimentary copy provided by the publisher.
May 15, 2013
I'm a librarian with archival training who has known several people who worked in public history, including the head of the Indiana Historical Bureau (which produces every historic marker in that state) and actually understands public history as a professional field. And this book is proof that James W. Loewen, while an adequate, if revisionist, historian in the academy, is completely out of his element where something like this is concerned. When Loewen is writing about history itself, his research is pretty good (albeit slanted), and some of the local stories he uncovers are fascinating in a way that encourages further discovery. He also makes a good case for why public history as a national exercise is flawed.
However, this book also reeks of unprovoked elitism. Though Loewen acknowledges in one of his introductory essays that public history as a discipline is grounded in the history of a community, he then spends the entire rest of the book implying that every community that ignores any part of its own history is always wrong, and that his having a Ph.D in scholarly (not public) history from Harvard makes him better able to determine what a community should accept as its history than, well, the actual public: the people who live in that community, the leaders of that community, and the scores of public history professionals who maintain those sites. This in and of itself shows that Loewen has an inadequate understanding of what public history is and grossly lacks respect for the work that goes into maintaining these sites. Public history is as much about economic and political considerations for the community as it is about "telling the truth", and while this does get pretty stupid sometimes (e.g. anything having to do with the South and slavery), it's a reality that Loewen seems both unwilling and unable to acknowledge, except with the "my way or the highway" idealism of the indolent white educated Northeasterner. Instead, he goes so far as to actually suggest rewordings of historical markers that are neither appropriate nor professional and would simply create a new problem if they were ever suggested by a serious person in that community. This is entirely an exercise of scholarly tourism having nothing to do with actual public history, and the fact that Loewen cannot bring himself to write a book about such a "low" branch of the historical profession without looking down on it shows that he is quite simply the wrong person to have written this book.
Loewen also can't seem to resist throwing in his own opinions on every. single. page, and his holier-than-thou attitude towards the unwashed masses comes through in other ways, many of them inappropriate, as when he passive-aggressively ends a chapter with an ignorant quote by a student at Franklin Pierce College by letting the quote hang in the air like a bad fart. This same chapter gives a good example of Loewen's intellectual insecurity undermining the accuracy of the work, as when he continually asserts that Pierce was "the worst President in American history". In reality, historians generally give that honor to Pierce's successor, James Buchanan; "AMONG the worst" would have been accurate, but "among the worst" is not what Loewen said, and this sort of lack of editorial discipline recurs throughout, to the detriment of Loewen's own thesis - his agenda in this chapter is not to expose bad history so much as it is to tear down Franklin Pierce College as an "inferior" intellectual institution because he can, and if that means bending the facts to make their namesake look bad, he's more than willing to do so. This sort of attitude recurs throughout the book and often interferes with the argument Loewen is trying to make.
On that note, the entire premise of this book is also faulty. Loewen seems to be aiming to create false outrage towards the problem of historical markers with "bias" (e.g. "bias with which James W. Loewen does not agree"). The truth is that most historical markers in most states are written to be completely neutral on purpose specifically to avoid this sort of attention. Most historical markers also happen to commemorate locally famous things that are actually part of the local public's local history (hence the term "public history"), such as old houses - sites that are neither nationally prominent nor a good source for the manufactured outrage Loewen is trying to create. The premise of all historical markers being either shining gems of perfection or BAD history! BAD history, I say!!!1! when the truth is that most are simply noncontroversial mush is disingenuous, to say the least. At worst, this book sends the message that public funding for public history is bad, because when you leave the writing of historical markers up to the unwashed masses the markers will just be biased anyway. This attitude potentially puts plenty of people out of a job for the sake of Loewen's bourgeois idealism and intellectual arrogance. Archives and historical sites have enough funding problems as it is without this sort of egotistical crap thrown on top of it.
With that said, Loewen deserves an extra star for having some good intentions, however poorly formed they might be, and for bring a lot of really neat and obscure local history to light in the course of writing this book. I just think this book could've been a lot more intellectually honest if he'd shut up with his own opinions for long enough to understand that expertise in public history has nothing to do with having a Ph.D from Harvard and everything to do with respecting the community you represent.
However, this book also reeks of unprovoked elitism. Though Loewen acknowledges in one of his introductory essays that public history as a discipline is grounded in the history of a community, he then spends the entire rest of the book implying that every community that ignores any part of its own history is always wrong, and that his having a Ph.D in scholarly (not public) history from Harvard makes him better able to determine what a community should accept as its history than, well, the actual public: the people who live in that community, the leaders of that community, and the scores of public history professionals who maintain those sites. This in and of itself shows that Loewen has an inadequate understanding of what public history is and grossly lacks respect for the work that goes into maintaining these sites. Public history is as much about economic and political considerations for the community as it is about "telling the truth", and while this does get pretty stupid sometimes (e.g. anything having to do with the South and slavery), it's a reality that Loewen seems both unwilling and unable to acknowledge, except with the "my way or the highway" idealism of the indolent white educated Northeasterner. Instead, he goes so far as to actually suggest rewordings of historical markers that are neither appropriate nor professional and would simply create a new problem if they were ever suggested by a serious person in that community. This is entirely an exercise of scholarly tourism having nothing to do with actual public history, and the fact that Loewen cannot bring himself to write a book about such a "low" branch of the historical profession without looking down on it shows that he is quite simply the wrong person to have written this book.
Loewen also can't seem to resist throwing in his own opinions on every. single. page, and his holier-than-thou attitude towards the unwashed masses comes through in other ways, many of them inappropriate, as when he passive-aggressively ends a chapter with an ignorant quote by a student at Franklin Pierce College by letting the quote hang in the air like a bad fart. This same chapter gives a good example of Loewen's intellectual insecurity undermining the accuracy of the work, as when he continually asserts that Pierce was "the worst President in American history". In reality, historians generally give that honor to Pierce's successor, James Buchanan; "AMONG the worst" would have been accurate, but "among the worst" is not what Loewen said, and this sort of lack of editorial discipline recurs throughout, to the detriment of Loewen's own thesis - his agenda in this chapter is not to expose bad history so much as it is to tear down Franklin Pierce College as an "inferior" intellectual institution because he can, and if that means bending the facts to make their namesake look bad, he's more than willing to do so. This sort of attitude recurs throughout the book and often interferes with the argument Loewen is trying to make.
On that note, the entire premise of this book is also faulty. Loewen seems to be aiming to create false outrage towards the problem of historical markers with "bias" (e.g. "bias with which James W. Loewen does not agree"). The truth is that most historical markers in most states are written to be completely neutral on purpose specifically to avoid this sort of attention. Most historical markers also happen to commemorate locally famous things that are actually part of the local public's local history (hence the term "public history"), such as old houses - sites that are neither nationally prominent nor a good source for the manufactured outrage Loewen is trying to create. The premise of all historical markers being either shining gems of perfection or BAD history! BAD history, I say!!!1! when the truth is that most are simply noncontroversial mush is disingenuous, to say the least. At worst, this book sends the message that public funding for public history is bad, because when you leave the writing of historical markers up to the unwashed masses the markers will just be biased anyway. This attitude potentially puts plenty of people out of a job for the sake of Loewen's bourgeois idealism and intellectual arrogance. Archives and historical sites have enough funding problems as it is without this sort of egotistical crap thrown on top of it.
With that said, Loewen deserves an extra star for having some good intentions, however poorly formed they might be, and for bring a lot of really neat and obscure local history to light in the course of writing this book. I just think this book could've been a lot more intellectually honest if he'd shut up with his own opinions for long enough to understand that expertise in public history has nothing to do with having a Ph.D from Harvard and everything to do with respecting the community you represent.
November 24, 2015
A fascinating book that managed to teach me as much about history as about sociology. I am a "collector" of historical markers and belong to a group of crazy people who do the same thing (one of whom passed this book along to me). So I found it educational and a good reminder to take into consideration the people who erected the monuments and markers, the people who fight the most flagrantly incorrect and insensitive markers being removed or corrected, and the people who bankroll museums and such, when viewing historical sites.
For example, the various markers erected by the neo-Confederates in such hotbeds of Civil War activity as Helena, Montana speaks to the latent (and not-so-latent) racism that motivates so much of our historical narrative in this country. Living in the Washington DC region and traveling just to Virginia, I have been amazed and appalled at the glorification and celebration of the Confederacy (don't people realize they LOST the war and that they were traitors to the country that the conservatives celebrating them claim to love?!!!) I was glad, though, to have additional information about the history of this country and grounds to counter my "genteel" Southern "friends" when they argue "states rights" as the basis of the Civil War, since the Confederate cause was opposed to the rights of, say, Kansas, to ban slavery within its borders. In addition, the lack of representation of women and minorities (particularly Native Americans) is something I have noticed, but always hoped wasn't as bad as it seems when you are only looking at the random marker here or there. Sadly, it is actually worse.
I finished the book a wiser woman, a more educated American, and an even greater skeptic of the texts of historical markers than I was before. And I will take more seriously my duty to publicly question the accuracy of history as it is presented to me, and will even consider working with people to bring more awareness of diversity to the forefront in historical markers. Heck, maybe I will even help put up one or two new ones that the author would not find as much fault with.
For example, the various markers erected by the neo-Confederates in such hotbeds of Civil War activity as Helena, Montana speaks to the latent (and not-so-latent) racism that motivates so much of our historical narrative in this country. Living in the Washington DC region and traveling just to Virginia, I have been amazed and appalled at the glorification and celebration of the Confederacy (don't people realize they LOST the war and that they were traitors to the country that the conservatives celebrating them claim to love?!!!) I was glad, though, to have additional information about the history of this country and grounds to counter my "genteel" Southern "friends" when they argue "states rights" as the basis of the Civil War, since the Confederate cause was opposed to the rights of, say, Kansas, to ban slavery within its borders. In addition, the lack of representation of women and minorities (particularly Native Americans) is something I have noticed, but always hoped wasn't as bad as it seems when you are only looking at the random marker here or there. Sadly, it is actually worse.
I finished the book a wiser woman, a more educated American, and an even greater skeptic of the texts of historical markers than I was before. And I will take more seriously my duty to publicly question the accuracy of history as it is presented to me, and will even consider working with people to bring more awareness of diversity to the forefront in historical markers. Heck, maybe I will even help put up one or two new ones that the author would not find as much fault with.
September 12, 2007
Awesome book. If you've ever wondered what America really looks like to other countries, this is the book for you. Loewen chose over 100 historic sites/museums/markers to dispel the myths of. Some are more surprising than others, but all of them are interesting. So much that I didn't know about our country. Not everything in the past is as rosy as our government would have us believe. And if we would only learn about these blemishes on our past, then we could learn from them and not repeat them. (Take the Philippines/American War for example. If this war was actually taught in school and on historic markers (instead of completely ignored as it is now), maybe we wouldn't have gotten into Vietnam...or Iraq.)
Love this book and would recommend it to everyone. I really want to read Lies My Teacher Told Me now.
Love this book and would recommend it to everyone. I really want to read Lies My Teacher Told Me now.
September 3, 2019
I live in Guelph, a mid-sized city in Southern Ontario. We like to think of our home as a green and growing place, full of people who are alert to environmental and social justice. We think we know our history. Guelph was founded in 1827 by a Scottish novelist and businessman named John Galt. As a director of the Canada Company, it was his job to open the countryside for immigrant settlers. There’s a bronze and granite bust of him outside our former city hall downtown. It’s the courthouse now. There’s a school named after him. The Ontario Civic Holiday on the first Monday in August is called John Galt Day here in Guelph.
You don’t mess with John Galt’s memory. He has only one rival in our municipal consciousness. John McCrae, the military doctor who wrote the famous poem In Flanders Fields was born here. He also has a school named after him, and a statue outside the civic museum. His birthplace is a National Historic Site. Any suggestion that his poem is not a great one, or that it is not a plea for peace, can get a person’s citizenship revoked.
How accurate are our manufactured memories of these two men? It depends on who you ask. James Loewen has provided us with a guidebook that can help us find out.
The American sociologist and historian has updated his 1999 book in which he examines monuments erected across his country to honour historic people and events. A dismally large number of them honour Confederate military and political leaders. A lot are racist. A very large number have plaques that do not accurately describe the events commemorated. Historical monuments are not covered by any truth in advertising laws.
It’s a well-known adage that history is written by the winners. Loewen makes a further point that statues and other monuments determine how this history will be remembered. Most commemorate military victories and significant battles. This has consequences. One of these is that memorials tell us what is worth dying for, which turns out to be mostly the state.
There are hundreds of thousands of historic markers scattered across the United States, including museums, statues, tombstones and roadside plaques. Loewen uses about a hundred of them to illustrate his points. Some are, in a bizarre way, amusing. A statue in Lexington, Kentucky, of Confederate General, John Morgan, for example, had him riding a stallion. In fact, he rode a mare into battle. The sculptor obviously thought no females of any kind belonged on a battlefield.
Loewen suggests ten questions to ask at a historic site, and twenty monuments that should be removed as soon as possible. There are others that should follow. Photographs could be taken and placed in museums to illustrate the terrible history of race relations in America.
As we saw in Charlottesville, Virginia, two years ago, America still has plenty of white supremacists who will fight to protect the memory of the Confederacy. They rioted, and killed a woman, to protest the removal of Confederate monuments. The American president, Donald Trump, said some of them were very fine people.
I used to think the southern states lost the American civil war because it was all about the right to own slaves and slavery was abolished. Loewen makes the point that the Confederacy won the war. He says it was really about white supremacy, of which slavery was one manifestation. In the decades following the abolition of slavery, Jim Crow laws were enacted formalizing segregation and sundown laws were passed requiring black people to leave white neighbourhoods at dusk.
Canada has had similar experiences with the removal of monuments. Edward Cornwallis is generally regarded as the founder of Halifax. In 1749 he issued a proclamation offering to pay for the scalps of Mi’kmaq people. In 2017, a rally calling for the removal of his statue from a park named after him was disrupted by a white supremacist group called the Proud Boys. The statue was finally removed in 2018.
Another example is the Langevin Block of our Parliament Building in Ottawa. It was named after Hector-Louis Langevin, one of the architects of the residential school system that abused thousands of Indigenous children. His name was removed, but not replaced by anyone else. In an act of typical Liberal blandness, it is now known for what goes on inside. It is now called “the Office of the Prime Minister and the Privy Council.” They can’t be on the wrong side of history if they say nothing about it.
Now, what about Guelph’s founding father? When the city was up and running, John Galt was fired by the Canada Company because of his poor management practices. When he returned to Scotland, he was sent to debtor’s prison for a few months. These are minor blemishes on his record.
A plaque near the River Run performing arts centre says, among other things, “Galt was conscientious and hard working and showed considerable humanity in his dealings with the company’s pioneer settlers.” What it doesn’t say is how he and his company dealt with the pre-pioneer population.
The plaque stands near the spot where Galt chopped down a tree to begin clearing land for Guelph. It wasn’t his to remove. It belonged to the Anishnaabek First Nation peoples and was ceded to the settlers through Treaty 29 in 1827, just before Galt swung his axe. Why doesn’t the plaque say anything about the people who were already here?
History is a complicated business. It is always subject to review and re-evaluation. Loewen quotes the American philosopher George Santayana who said, “History is always written wrong, and so always needs to be rewritten.”
Lies Across America lays out a useful guide for evaluating what needs to be done. The second edition is scheduled for release on 24 September 2019.
You don’t mess with John Galt’s memory. He has only one rival in our municipal consciousness. John McCrae, the military doctor who wrote the famous poem In Flanders Fields was born here. He also has a school named after him, and a statue outside the civic museum. His birthplace is a National Historic Site. Any suggestion that his poem is not a great one, or that it is not a plea for peace, can get a person’s citizenship revoked.
How accurate are our manufactured memories of these two men? It depends on who you ask. James Loewen has provided us with a guidebook that can help us find out.
The American sociologist and historian has updated his 1999 book in which he examines monuments erected across his country to honour historic people and events. A dismally large number of them honour Confederate military and political leaders. A lot are racist. A very large number have plaques that do not accurately describe the events commemorated. Historical monuments are not covered by any truth in advertising laws.
It’s a well-known adage that history is written by the winners. Loewen makes a further point that statues and other monuments determine how this history will be remembered. Most commemorate military victories and significant battles. This has consequences. One of these is that memorials tell us what is worth dying for, which turns out to be mostly the state.
There are hundreds of thousands of historic markers scattered across the United States, including museums, statues, tombstones and roadside plaques. Loewen uses about a hundred of them to illustrate his points. Some are, in a bizarre way, amusing. A statue in Lexington, Kentucky, of Confederate General, John Morgan, for example, had him riding a stallion. In fact, he rode a mare into battle. The sculptor obviously thought no females of any kind belonged on a battlefield.
Loewen suggests ten questions to ask at a historic site, and twenty monuments that should be removed as soon as possible. There are others that should follow. Photographs could be taken and placed in museums to illustrate the terrible history of race relations in America.
As we saw in Charlottesville, Virginia, two years ago, America still has plenty of white supremacists who will fight to protect the memory of the Confederacy. They rioted, and killed a woman, to protest the removal of Confederate monuments. The American president, Donald Trump, said some of them were very fine people.
I used to think the southern states lost the American civil war because it was all about the right to own slaves and slavery was abolished. Loewen makes the point that the Confederacy won the war. He says it was really about white supremacy, of which slavery was one manifestation. In the decades following the abolition of slavery, Jim Crow laws were enacted formalizing segregation and sundown laws were passed requiring black people to leave white neighbourhoods at dusk.
Canada has had similar experiences with the removal of monuments. Edward Cornwallis is generally regarded as the founder of Halifax. In 1749 he issued a proclamation offering to pay for the scalps of Mi’kmaq people. In 2017, a rally calling for the removal of his statue from a park named after him was disrupted by a white supremacist group called the Proud Boys. The statue was finally removed in 2018.
Another example is the Langevin Block of our Parliament Building in Ottawa. It was named after Hector-Louis Langevin, one of the architects of the residential school system that abused thousands of Indigenous children. His name was removed, but not replaced by anyone else. In an act of typical Liberal blandness, it is now known for what goes on inside. It is now called “the Office of the Prime Minister and the Privy Council.” They can’t be on the wrong side of history if they say nothing about it.
Now, what about Guelph’s founding father? When the city was up and running, John Galt was fired by the Canada Company because of his poor management practices. When he returned to Scotland, he was sent to debtor’s prison for a few months. These are minor blemishes on his record.
A plaque near the River Run performing arts centre says, among other things, “Galt was conscientious and hard working and showed considerable humanity in his dealings with the company’s pioneer settlers.” What it doesn’t say is how he and his company dealt with the pre-pioneer population.
The plaque stands near the spot where Galt chopped down a tree to begin clearing land for Guelph. It wasn’t his to remove. It belonged to the Anishnaabek First Nation peoples and was ceded to the settlers through Treaty 29 in 1827, just before Galt swung his axe. Why doesn’t the plaque say anything about the people who were already here?
History is a complicated business. It is always subject to review and re-evaluation. Loewen quotes the American philosopher George Santayana who said, “History is always written wrong, and so always needs to be rewritten.”
Lies Across America lays out a useful guide for evaluating what needs to be done. The second edition is scheduled for release on 24 September 2019.
September 9, 2025
America has long been criticized for how it chooses to depict its own history and rightfully so. Visit any Civil War battlefield not managed by the National Parks Service (hell, even some that are) and you will realize this. Racism, sexism, nativism, and practically other types of bigotry is commonplace in the sphere of public history. James Loewen attempts to take that on in Lies Across America . He succeeds more than fails; however, his counter arguments would be more convincing if he understood the history he was talking about.
One thing I really liked about this book is that when Loewen discusses an event, he tries to give a full well rounded picture of it. This is good because if history isn’t being told correctly, it's important to have the facts so you can judge those depictions. Because the chapters vary from topics of race, warfare, labor, gender, and more, you actually get a very good primer in regional history for much of the US. Most of the stories are also just quite interesting.
Unsurprisingly, the largest section in the book concerns the South. This is mostly centered on slavery and the Civil War, i.e. my wheelhouse. I found a lot of Loewen’s complaints here right on the money. So much of the historiography of the Civil War has focused on Southern suffering which totally ignores the heroism of all those who fought for the Union, North and South, black and white, slave and free, male and female. The most egregious example is the glorification of Nathaniel Bedford Forrest whose legacy Loewen (convincingly, in my opinion) shreds. Fort Pillow should be remembered in the US the same way Ukraine memorializes Babi Yar. This wasn’t an act of war, it was a racialized murder, one which portended the horrific killings that would come during Reconstruction. Speaking of, Reconstruction is given plenty of space here which I appreciate. His section on the 54th Massachusetts monument is excellent and I'm glad he includes some examples of how to do it right.
I also like the inclusion of a few chapters on the Philippine-American War. This conflict has been vastly underdiscussed in American historiography and even though there are understandably few historical markers that treat these events thousands of miles away, I’m glad Loewen takes the time to criticize America’s colonialist ambitions.
All that being said, Loewen does make some, I’d say, questionable assertions. He states early in the book that “nothing much happened” at the “allegedly important” Valley Forge. What? Loewen later goes on to state that the weather was mild and the food plentiful “especially if soldiers had money.” He then states that the next year's Morristown encampment was during a much worse winter, which is a statement that is true but clearly meant to minimize the suffering at Valley Forge. He finishes by stating that “Indeed the absence of events there may be its most interesting story.”
This section is so unbelievably ignorant. I don’t doubt that some of the interpretations of the park may be incorrect. But at Valley Forge, as much as 16% of the Continental Army died of disease and thousands more infected. Supplies of every kind ran disastrously short all while Congress dawdled. Morale plummeted and the Continental Army, truly the only guarantor of independence, nearly broke. Perhaps those with money could buy food but considering that most of the army hadn’t been paid in months and that continental currency was all but worthless due to runaway inflation, I highly doubt that any foot soldier in the ranks would agree with Loewen’s assertion that food was plentiful, much less, meeting the needs of the army. This view also ignores the fact that the training received by the army at Valley Forge played a critical role in professionalizing the force, a fact evident during the following battle of Monmouth.
At the Morristown encampment, less than 100 people died. Certainly Morristown was important in its own right; weather or disease or starvation alone aren’t necessary for a place to be important. I also don’t buy his statement that the weather at Valley Forge was mild. Perhaps it wasn’t as cold or was relatively mild but for men with little clothing or shoes, such weather was still horrific.
I have no idea why Loewen chooses to minimize this situation. It seems almost contrarian. Most of the other sections of this book hit the nail right on the head with criticizing historical sites. Hell, his criticism of the Washington Chapel and Washington’s famous prayer in the snow at Valley Forge seems to be entirely correct. So why unnecessarily minimize the situation?
My main point is that sections like this can make it difficult for me to entirely trust what Lowen is saying. I noted some similar problems with his section on the Pacific War Museum which makes some interesting logical leaps of its own (no, I don’t think Eisenhower, a theater commander in Europe would entirely understand the intricacies of the war situation in the Pacific ). On page 358 he states that the Proclamation of 1763 had achieved peace with Native Americans, a claim that gives the British far too much credit at best and is a glaring lie at worst. That peace only came after the horrific fighting with (and attempted genocide of) Pontiac’s alliance by the British. Besides that, there was sparring up to and just prior to the Revolution (Lord Dunmore’s War was fought at the behest of the Briton of the same name who would soon after be fighting the Continentals). If he’s wrong about subjects I’m somewhat knowledgeable about, how can I trust him about things I don’t know?
He also makes another major mistake that feels rather hypocritical. In Lies My History Teacher Told Me , one of the main problems that Loewen had with school textbooks was that they made definite assertions about contentious topics. For example, the statement that Columbus “discovered” America when there is actually a fair amount of debate about who got their first (besides the natives of course).
Well in this book, he makes some blunt, highly debatable statements as well! He states firmly, for example, that President James Buchanan was gay. There is no scholarly consensus to back up that statement. I don’t doubt that its possible that Buchanan was gay, but if there is no conclusive evidence, it's not fair to hold his historical site responsible for not communicating that information (his other criticisms, however, are on point). Why not focus instead on a historical site for someone that we know was gay? I find this especially disappointing because very few of the chapters in this book feature discussions of gender identity.
Ok, one last example and I’ll stop. Later in the book, Loewen discusses a visit to a WWII submarine. In this section, he tries to paint a moral greyness of American submariners in World War II by comparing them to German submariners in World War I. This is stupid for a handful of reasons. First and foremost is that the rules of war that governed submarines in World War I wouldn’t make any sense in the next war when destroyers, air power, depth charges, and hedgehogs vastly increased the vulnerability of submarines. The World War I rules would have been literally impossible to follow as any submarine that attempted to surface in the face of a convoy and its escorts would have been blown out of the water. Secondly is that we didn’t hold Germany accountable for unrestricted submarine warfare in World War II. Nimitz himself testified that Admiral Doenitz should not be held responsible for the policy during his war crimes trial.
Loewen gives these submariners’ effectiveness just a passing mention. This is convenient for him because those submarines did indeed shorten the war and hamper Japan’s offensive effectiveness. By 1945, no oil was making it back to the Japanese mainland. Japan became incapable of offensive operations because they could no longer transport troops or supplies. Submarines made defense exceedingly difficult as well. The Japanese navy was effectively forced to make all or nothing gambles do to the lack of fuel (caused by the targeting of tankers) and attempts to resupply garrisons at places like Saipan were hindered greatly. That doesn’t even begin to mention the fact that they inflicted massive tactical damage by sinking warships, such as in the Battles of the Philippine Sea or the Palawan Passage.
This myopic focus on unrestricted submarine warfare also ignores real morale quandaries that submariners faced. Targeting of Japan’s merchant fleet led to the death of thousands of Allied POWs on unmarked Hell Ships. On more than one occasion, survivors of merchant ships sunk by Americans were machine gunned in the water. Loewen discusses neither of these events. Further, his attempts to connect submarine warfare in WWII to the Vietnam War is shaky at best. I don’t agree with other reviewers that say that Loewen is just anti-American. Much of this book is spent celebrating unsung heroes of our history. Sections like this, however, make my understand why people might see his critiques that way.
And then there are some other personal problems I have. First, this book doesn’t need to be 454 pages. A lot of the sections are very repetitive. I think it would have been much better to structure the book by different topics, such as was done in Lies (race, religion, etc.). As a result of the structure, it can feel like reading more a collection of essays rather than a larger, coherent argument. I have the same problem with Loewen just dumping a bunch of essays at the beginning of the book. It feels like the points made in these sections would have been more impactful if embedded with the information about the historic sites.
Lastly, I feel like there was a great missed opportunity here to make this into a roadtrip book, a la Confederates in the Attic (fantastic read btw). Instead, his complaints just seem disconnected and impersonal. The back of the book states that it is “funny” and “irreverent;” I got neither feeling while reading this.
I’m complaining more than complimenting (I’ve also blathered on for over 1,200 words; time to wrap this up!). This is an interesting book and there is a lot of good information here. Indeed, historic sites often do sanitize, minimize, leave out, or lie about history, especially when it involves a minority view on race, religion, gender, or sexuality. Despite Loewen’s weakening of his own argument such as in the samples above, It's still worth a read, though with a critical eye. That being said, I think you’ll get far more mileage out of the previously mentioned Confederates in the Attic and How the Word is Passed which both focus on similar topics but do so far more effectively (and far more entertainingly).
I was originally planning on giving this book two stars. However, in light of recent efforts by the current administration to butcher our collective history, I think this book is something we should all read.
One thing I really liked about this book is that when Loewen discusses an event, he tries to give a full well rounded picture of it. This is good because if history isn’t being told correctly, it's important to have the facts so you can judge those depictions. Because the chapters vary from topics of race, warfare, labor, gender, and more, you actually get a very good primer in regional history for much of the US. Most of the stories are also just quite interesting.
Unsurprisingly, the largest section in the book concerns the South. This is mostly centered on slavery and the Civil War, i.e. my wheelhouse. I found a lot of Loewen’s complaints here right on the money. So much of the historiography of the Civil War has focused on Southern suffering which totally ignores the heroism of all those who fought for the Union, North and South, black and white, slave and free, male and female. The most egregious example is the glorification of Nathaniel Bedford Forrest whose legacy Loewen (convincingly, in my opinion) shreds. Fort Pillow should be remembered in the US the same way Ukraine memorializes Babi Yar. This wasn’t an act of war, it was a racialized murder, one which portended the horrific killings that would come during Reconstruction. Speaking of, Reconstruction is given plenty of space here which I appreciate. His section on the 54th Massachusetts monument is excellent and I'm glad he includes some examples of how to do it right.
I also like the inclusion of a few chapters on the Philippine-American War. This conflict has been vastly underdiscussed in American historiography and even though there are understandably few historical markers that treat these events thousands of miles away, I’m glad Loewen takes the time to criticize America’s colonialist ambitions.
All that being said, Loewen does make some, I’d say, questionable assertions. He states early in the book that “nothing much happened” at the “allegedly important” Valley Forge. What? Loewen later goes on to state that the weather was mild and the food plentiful “especially if soldiers had money.” He then states that the next year's Morristown encampment was during a much worse winter, which is a statement that is true but clearly meant to minimize the suffering at Valley Forge. He finishes by stating that “Indeed the absence of events there may be its most interesting story.”
This section is so unbelievably ignorant. I don’t doubt that some of the interpretations of the park may be incorrect. But at Valley Forge, as much as 16% of the Continental Army died of disease and thousands more infected. Supplies of every kind ran disastrously short all while Congress dawdled. Morale plummeted and the Continental Army, truly the only guarantor of independence, nearly broke. Perhaps those with money could buy food but considering that most of the army hadn’t been paid in months and that continental currency was all but worthless due to runaway inflation, I highly doubt that any foot soldier in the ranks would agree with Loewen’s assertion that food was plentiful, much less, meeting the needs of the army. This view also ignores the fact that the training received by the army at Valley Forge played a critical role in professionalizing the force, a fact evident during the following battle of Monmouth.
At the Morristown encampment, less than 100 people died. Certainly Morristown was important in its own right; weather or disease or starvation alone aren’t necessary for a place to be important. I also don’t buy his statement that the weather at Valley Forge was mild. Perhaps it wasn’t as cold or was relatively mild but for men with little clothing or shoes, such weather was still horrific.
I have no idea why Loewen chooses to minimize this situation. It seems almost contrarian. Most of the other sections of this book hit the nail right on the head with criticizing historical sites. Hell, his criticism of the Washington Chapel and Washington’s famous prayer in the snow at Valley Forge seems to be entirely correct. So why unnecessarily minimize the situation?
My main point is that sections like this can make it difficult for me to entirely trust what Lowen is saying. I noted some similar problems with his section on the Pacific War Museum which makes some interesting logical leaps of its own (no, I don’t think Eisenhower, a theater commander in Europe would entirely understand the intricacies of the war situation in the Pacific ). On page 358 he states that the Proclamation of 1763 had achieved peace with Native Americans, a claim that gives the British far too much credit at best and is a glaring lie at worst. That peace only came after the horrific fighting with (and attempted genocide of) Pontiac’s alliance by the British. Besides that, there was sparring up to and just prior to the Revolution (Lord Dunmore’s War was fought at the behest of the Briton of the same name who would soon after be fighting the Continentals). If he’s wrong about subjects I’m somewhat knowledgeable about, how can I trust him about things I don’t know?
He also makes another major mistake that feels rather hypocritical. In Lies My History Teacher Told Me , one of the main problems that Loewen had with school textbooks was that they made definite assertions about contentious topics. For example, the statement that Columbus “discovered” America when there is actually a fair amount of debate about who got their first (besides the natives of course).
Well in this book, he makes some blunt, highly debatable statements as well! He states firmly, for example, that President James Buchanan was gay. There is no scholarly consensus to back up that statement. I don’t doubt that its possible that Buchanan was gay, but if there is no conclusive evidence, it's not fair to hold his historical site responsible for not communicating that information (his other criticisms, however, are on point). Why not focus instead on a historical site for someone that we know was gay? I find this especially disappointing because very few of the chapters in this book feature discussions of gender identity.
Ok, one last example and I’ll stop. Later in the book, Loewen discusses a visit to a WWII submarine. In this section, he tries to paint a moral greyness of American submariners in World War II by comparing them to German submariners in World War I. This is stupid for a handful of reasons. First and foremost is that the rules of war that governed submarines in World War I wouldn’t make any sense in the next war when destroyers, air power, depth charges, and hedgehogs vastly increased the vulnerability of submarines. The World War I rules would have been literally impossible to follow as any submarine that attempted to surface in the face of a convoy and its escorts would have been blown out of the water. Secondly is that we didn’t hold Germany accountable for unrestricted submarine warfare in World War II. Nimitz himself testified that Admiral Doenitz should not be held responsible for the policy during his war crimes trial.
Loewen gives these submariners’ effectiveness just a passing mention. This is convenient for him because those submarines did indeed shorten the war and hamper Japan’s offensive effectiveness. By 1945, no oil was making it back to the Japanese mainland. Japan became incapable of offensive operations because they could no longer transport troops or supplies. Submarines made defense exceedingly difficult as well. The Japanese navy was effectively forced to make all or nothing gambles do to the lack of fuel (caused by the targeting of tankers) and attempts to resupply garrisons at places like Saipan were hindered greatly. That doesn’t even begin to mention the fact that they inflicted massive tactical damage by sinking warships, such as in the Battles of the Philippine Sea or the Palawan Passage.
This myopic focus on unrestricted submarine warfare also ignores real morale quandaries that submariners faced. Targeting of Japan’s merchant fleet led to the death of thousands of Allied POWs on unmarked Hell Ships. On more than one occasion, survivors of merchant ships sunk by Americans were machine gunned in the water. Loewen discusses neither of these events. Further, his attempts to connect submarine warfare in WWII to the Vietnam War is shaky at best. I don’t agree with other reviewers that say that Loewen is just anti-American. Much of this book is spent celebrating unsung heroes of our history. Sections like this, however, make my understand why people might see his critiques that way.
And then there are some other personal problems I have. First, this book doesn’t need to be 454 pages. A lot of the sections are very repetitive. I think it would have been much better to structure the book by different topics, such as was done in Lies (race, religion, etc.). As a result of the structure, it can feel like reading more a collection of essays rather than a larger, coherent argument. I have the same problem with Loewen just dumping a bunch of essays at the beginning of the book. It feels like the points made in these sections would have been more impactful if embedded with the information about the historic sites.
Lastly, I feel like there was a great missed opportunity here to make this into a roadtrip book, a la Confederates in the Attic (fantastic read btw). Instead, his complaints just seem disconnected and impersonal. The back of the book states that it is “funny” and “irreverent;” I got neither feeling while reading this.
I’m complaining more than complimenting (I’ve also blathered on for over 1,200 words; time to wrap this up!). This is an interesting book and there is a lot of good information here. Indeed, historic sites often do sanitize, minimize, leave out, or lie about history, especially when it involves a minority view on race, religion, gender, or sexuality. Despite Loewen’s weakening of his own argument such as in the samples above, It's still worth a read, though with a critical eye. That being said, I think you’ll get far more mileage out of the previously mentioned Confederates in the Attic and How the Word is Passed which both focus on similar topics but do so far more effectively (and far more entertainingly).
I was originally planning on giving this book two stars. However, in light of recent efforts by the current administration to butcher our collective history, I think this book is something we should all read.
February 21, 2020
Listened to this in the car but couldn't get past CD #3, even if I was stuck in traffic. Dull subject matter and Mr. Loewen's personal and liberal opinion comes through too often.
March 15, 2012
Published in 1999, Lies Across America contains 100 brief essays about the mistakes and misrepresentations that abound across the US on roadside history markers. First there are the blatant deceptions: Consider, for example, that The Native American tribe known today as the Delawares had that name foisted upon them by Europeans; its members referred to themselves as Lenape, which means "we are the people". In Kentucky, the log cabin said to be the birthplace of Abraham Lincoln was built 30 years after his death. Then there are the glaring omissions: Among the hundreds of memorials located on Gettysburg Battlefield, not one of them, Union or Confederate, mentions slavery. More generically, there are incredibly few statues of prominent American women who actually lived, though there are some symbolic ones, most notably, Lady Liberty. There are also some amusing entries, such as the way in which the story of young George Washington and the cherry tree became accepted as gospel, or the spat about the whether Daniel Boone is buried in Missouri or Kentucky, or another about who was the first to administer general anaesthesia.
Many if not most of our historical sites were established following the Colonial Revival movement, during the first half of the twentieth century. Since history is generally written by the powerful and victorious, it is not surprising that they would choose to commission monuments that tell only the positive sides of their stories. Nor is it surprising that the disenfranchised - for a long time, that means anyone who was not white, European, and male - are largely ignored. Lies Across America provides an important service in pointing out the need to revise the way our history is presented to us; if this is going to continue to happen by way of plaques and monuments, it's crucial that what they tell us is accurate and fair. Lies is interesting and fun to read, but if it does not spur its readers to explore history on a deeper level, it encourages only destruction and ridicule, rather than reform and education.
Many if not most of our historical sites were established following the Colonial Revival movement, during the first half of the twentieth century. Since history is generally written by the powerful and victorious, it is not surprising that they would choose to commission monuments that tell only the positive sides of their stories. Nor is it surprising that the disenfranchised - for a long time, that means anyone who was not white, European, and male - are largely ignored. Lies Across America provides an important service in pointing out the need to revise the way our history is presented to us; if this is going to continue to happen by way of plaques and monuments, it's crucial that what they tell us is accurate and fair. Lies is interesting and fun to read, but if it does not spur its readers to explore history on a deeper level, it encourages only destruction and ridicule, rather than reform and education.
not-going-to-finish
January 31, 2016When I was in high school, I needed books like this. I knew just enough to be dangerous and books like Lies My Teacher Told Me challenged some of my preconceived notions. Even if I didn't always agree, I learned something and it brought me down a peg.
However. Now that I'm older and (I like to think) wiser, I have put aside teenage angst and entitlement.
And maybe it is about time Mr. Loewen does too.
I've tried getting into this book, and I do think it contains a lot of good points. But I think the author expects too much. Yes, landmarks across America omit a lot. And yes, that is to the cost of minorities. And yes, it is always good to have more balance and to be told both sides of the story.
But viewpoints change. Things we take for granted now were pretty alien concepts even a 100 years ago. It is kind of ridiculous to expect all of history to be portrayed according to our 21st century viewpoint. This book isn't so much an illumination of injustices as a rant that America hasn't been more progressive.
Finally, Loewen's tone drove me away. He comes across caustic and insensitive to anything outside of "his" definition of landmarks, monuments, etc.
Perhaps someday I will finish it and present a more solid response to his arguments. For now, I don't care to read on.
However. Now that I'm older and (I like to think) wiser, I have put aside teenage angst and entitlement.
And maybe it is about time Mr. Loewen does too.
I've tried getting into this book, and I do think it contains a lot of good points. But I think the author expects too much. Yes, landmarks across America omit a lot. And yes, that is to the cost of minorities. And yes, it is always good to have more balance and to be told both sides of the story.
But viewpoints change. Things we take for granted now were pretty alien concepts even a 100 years ago. It is kind of ridiculous to expect all of history to be portrayed according to our 21st century viewpoint. This book isn't so much an illumination of injustices as a rant that America hasn't been more progressive.
Finally, Loewen's tone drove me away. He comes across caustic and insensitive to anything outside of "his" definition of landmarks, monuments, etc.
Perhaps someday I will finish it and present a more solid response to his arguments. For now, I don't care to read on.
December 17, 2023
James W. Loewen takes the reader on a trip across the United States from west to east (the direction from which the original settlers of this land came) to examine how we choose to mark history on the landscape and why it matters.
As a huge fan of Lies My Teacher Told Me, I have been looking forward to getting around to this book for a long time. It most definitely did not disappoint, and it would make an excellent travel companion. I will at least make sure I always have the "10 Questions to Ask at a Historic Site" at hand to try to enrich my understanding of the places I visit.
I read the most recent edition, and it was heartening to hear about positive changes that have been made in the years following the mass shooting at Emanuel AME and the white supremacist riot at Charlottesville. However, there is still much work to be done, which is book is very clear on and even has a list of monuments ripe for change.
If you enjoy reading audiobooks, the reader for this title is absolutely fantastic!
As a huge fan of Lies My Teacher Told Me, I have been looking forward to getting around to this book for a long time. It most definitely did not disappoint, and it would make an excellent travel companion. I will at least make sure I always have the "10 Questions to Ask at a Historic Site" at hand to try to enrich my understanding of the places I visit.
I read the most recent edition, and it was heartening to hear about positive changes that have been made in the years following the mass shooting at Emanuel AME and the white supremacist riot at Charlottesville. However, there is still much work to be done, which is book is very clear on and even has a list of monuments ripe for change.
If you enjoy reading audiobooks, the reader for this title is absolutely fantastic!
November 4, 2014
As an avid landmark snarfer, you can imagine my excitement at finding this book on what our historical markers, memorials, and monuments get wrong - and, occasionally, right. Some of it made me very sad. After all, much of American history can be summarized as "white people ruin everything," but there were some bright spots. And some very funny ones, like the woman in Indiana who is only remembered for moving there sans a body part. It certainly opened my eyes when reading markers and visiting monuments, and gave me new questions to ask and points to ponder. I'd never even heard of the Philippines-American war, for example, and my education about Reconstruction was much less thorough (and more biased) than I'd realized. Now I have a whole new list of places I'd like to visit and events and people I want to learn more about. Definitely recommended for anyone interested in American history, especially if you like to visit historic sites.
July 18, 2022
The sequel to Loewen's famous book Lies My Teacher Told Me. Lies Across America looks at statues, monuments, markers, museum's, and historical sites that lie, whitewash, and mystify United States history. From Mt. Denali in Alaska to a historical marker in Maine; from sea to shining sea. Loewen debunks and exposed the lies behind why these statues, monuments, and markers were put up, what audience they were for, and what message they are sending. My favorite parts of this book, as a Civil War buff, is Loewen's debunking and destroying the lies of Confederate statues. I want Confederate statues taken down, and they are the Biggest Lie of any statue, monument, or markers in the United States. The South is filled with them, and there are others, including communities in northern states where there are Confederate statues and monuments which doesn't make any sense at all. Anyway, read this book to help re-write history and never have statues to honor slave-owners and traitors ever again.
April 24, 2016
This is an extremely valuable resource for anyone who enjoys visiting historical sites, because Loewen fills in the unstated or insufficiently interpreted "facts" depicted in a number of these locales. Read up on your local sites or on places you intend to visit, and see them more fully.
Personally, I wouldn't sit down with this book and read straight through, because it IS a book of intensely felt criticism, and as such could leave a reader feeling a bit overwhelmed and gloomy. Keep a copy of "Assassination Vacation" close at hand!
But the introduction is highly recommended because of what it has to offer for interpreting historical materials. For whom was this created-- the living, the dead, the future? What else might have been said? What do images like this say about culture in general?
Personally, I wouldn't sit down with this book and read straight through, because it IS a book of intensely felt criticism, and as such could leave a reader feeling a bit overwhelmed and gloomy. Keep a copy of "Assassination Vacation" close at hand!
But the introduction is highly recommended because of what it has to offer for interpreting historical materials. For whom was this created-- the living, the dead, the future? What else might have been said? What do images like this say about culture in general?
April 24, 2024
Very good to know a lot of historic sites and markers are crap. So many, in fact, subsequent items in series of marker fails start to seem redundant.
August 20, 2023
Another solid showing from James Loewen. Like with Sundown Towns, this mini-tome unapologetically fleshes out critical examinations from a full flock of local histories. Selecting locales from all over the map, Loewen convincingly makes the case that all across the country monument makers, historical societies, and crypto-fascist civic associations are doing everything they can to rewrite US history through the physical historical landscape.
While a bunch of the picks are clearly for our entertainment, a sufficient selection ensures criticism across historical periods (and monument erection periods) and geographical contexts. A wide survey of American history covers appropriate subdisciplines, though without a thorough sense of organization.
While I understand the format, and appreciate the West to East survey, the regional bias is clear. Loewen refuses to shut up about the South… This region is by far the largest section of the book, especially with Virginia and Texas. Though this isn’t his intention, one could mistake the state unbalance with different commentaries on how much history and (more importantly) historical revisionism exists in each region. The midwest, a comparatively sized region, only gets about half the content.
This comes with a historical bias towards the Civil War, while one could argue this is an appropriate bias, Loewen doesn’t argue this! This makes the book rather dense to read towards the middle, as the variety in the southern section is noticeably skimpier compared to the other regions.
It is fine to be enraged by southern revisionism, and I love how passionately Loewen argues against it (even if it means aggressive encounters from the docents pushing a banality of evil), but this comes at the cost of an even handed slap across historical issues across the country.
However, this is still a well-put together work, and (though I hope several of these places no longer exist) perhaps a fun vacation planner for the historically curious!
While a bunch of the picks are clearly for our entertainment, a sufficient selection ensures criticism across historical periods (and monument erection periods) and geographical contexts. A wide survey of American history covers appropriate subdisciplines, though without a thorough sense of organization.
While I understand the format, and appreciate the West to East survey, the regional bias is clear. Loewen refuses to shut up about the South… This region is by far the largest section of the book, especially with Virginia and Texas. Though this isn’t his intention, one could mistake the state unbalance with different commentaries on how much history and (more importantly) historical revisionism exists in each region. The midwest, a comparatively sized region, only gets about half the content.
This comes with a historical bias towards the Civil War, while one could argue this is an appropriate bias, Loewen doesn’t argue this! This makes the book rather dense to read towards the middle, as the variety in the southern section is noticeably skimpier compared to the other regions.
It is fine to be enraged by southern revisionism, and I love how passionately Loewen argues against it (even if it means aggressive encounters from the docents pushing a banality of evil), but this comes at the cost of an even handed slap across historical issues across the country.
However, this is still a well-put together work, and (though I hope several of these places no longer exist) perhaps a fun vacation planner for the historically curious!
July 29, 2022
How to rate this book is a serious question, since this is *not* a book in the traditional sense. By that, I mean that it is a collection of just over 90 entries about false/misleading history at physical historical sites across the country. There isn't particularly a narrative as such. Loewen collects the sites by region and then by state, which can feel confusing as the topics hop all around. Since some of the entries reference others, it can feel a bit like trying to read a choose-your-own-adventure novel narratively at times. It was neat to read the anniversary edition because he was able to update the sometimes major changes that have occurred at some of these sites in the 20 years in between editions (of course, some haven't, but the trend is positive). While I wouldn't recommend it as strongly as his other book, Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong, it is still a fascinating look at history on the landscape. If you are interested in how we capture historical memory, it would be a critical read.
Read
November 12, 2022I remember picking up the first edition of this book sometime in high school or maybe late middle school, but I didn't remember a whole lot of it, and plus there's a new edition now, so I figured why not do the audiobook. As audiobooks go it was meh; nothing particularly great or terrible about it. The book itself is good, though I'm surprised this second edition is as new as it is and still retains so much of the absurdly dated language; how did his editor not call him out on that? Also, he's way too pleased with himself for coming up with "the nadir of race relations" and I am not that impressed. Anyway, a good and important book with solid and important content, but also it's still a white guy who cites almost exclusively other men and who who could use some introspection before he writes another book.
January 20, 2024
This book has become much more timely since its publishing. The examination of nation’s historical markers is extremely important, and has clearly made an impact on modern American politics. This can get a bit repetitive after a while, but it always hits you with another interesting fact right when you think they are all starting to sound similar. For those who usually don’t read non-fiction, I highly recommend Loewen’s books as a way to step into the genre.
September 17, 2021
I didn’t read this cover to cover, but I read a good portion of it. My main fascination is with the idea that these inaccuracies on our historic markers and monuments are an opportunity to educate people about historiography and bias. I would love to see a museum with some of these monuments explaining how critical thinking is required when looking at anything from history. Love his 10 questions to ask when looking at a monument.
(Great readalike to my fave podcast, You’re Wrong About)
(Great readalike to my fave podcast, You’re Wrong About)
April 25, 2020
On his travels across the United States, Lowen documents inaccurate historical markers and sites. From west coast to east, he points out statues, markers, plaques, buildings, and even entire towns that ignore or misrepresent their own history. What he finds should surprise no one.
Broadly, his criticisms fall into one of 3 categories. 1) America’s treatment of the Native Americans. 2) Confederate monuments that misrepresent the Civil War. 3) Monuments to racism that have no place in modern society or, just as often, monuments that try to convince people that racism doesn’t exist.
Loewen makes it clear that America has deliberately forgotten what their ancestors did to the American Indian. Many historical sites record events without context to make it sound as if the Indians were the aggressor rather than defending their home against an invading force of European settlers. Other statues and plaques commemorate people who enslaved and slaughtered Indians, but one would not know that by viewing the monuments because they frame the events as Americans defending themselves from savages. Nothing could be further from the truth. Indians were in America first, they had a society, and Europeans attacked and drove them west. (Most tribes were not nomadic until the Europeans displaced them.) Monuments commemorate these acts as heroic, but doing so distorts history and leaves out the other side.
The Civil War was about slavery. Multiple confederate state constitutions enshrine slavery in their founding documents, and Alexander Stephens, vice president of the Confederacy, stated the reason for leaving the union was because blacks were inferior and deserved to be slaves. The “States’ Rights” interpretation of the war is a modern idea meant to distort history for the sake of White Supremacy. Confederate states in the mid-1800s were in fact frustrated by states’ rights; Northern states had passed laws allowing for runaway slaves who made it north to be free in the North, and slaveowning states wanted those laws overturned. They respected States’ rights, but only if those rights benefited slaveholders. While it’s true many Southerners at the time did not know the reason for the war and simply saw their home being invaded and reacted to it, the reason for the war could not have been clearer. Monuments all over the country portray rebels as noble soldiers fighting for a lost cause, but leaving blank the definition of what cause they fought for only encourages people to project a false reason for the war.
In the aftermath of the Civil War, Republicans full of zeal went South to try to enforce the new equality measures and bring former slaves into American society (a period called Reconstruction). The South resisted. Racism was rampant and violent, and after 20-odd years of trying to force the South to treat blacks as equals, the Republicans gave up and left the Southern states alone. The result became institutionalized segregation, and to announce the supremacy of the white race and the victory over the politicians who tried to force whites to treat their former slaves as equals, people erected monuments to racist leaders who are famous for oppressing blacks. That’s what the monuments to the Confederacy mean, and that’s why they stand in the first place.
Other historic sites misrepresent other parts of American history. Some present no history at all. War in general is always sanitized to make America’s actions appear just and good, even when America was the aggressor. They often don’t have to lie to achieve this, rather present an event with no context and call the soldiers brave and noble for dying to protect American freedom. Americans are smart enough now to know Vietnam and the Philippine War had nothing to do with American freedom, but everything to do with imperialism.
It’s time America wakes up to its past and faces what kind of nation it has always been: a country of white supremacists who slaughtered the people who were already here and imported Africans as slave labor to generate the goods they then sold overseas. Historic sites are not designed to make people think about that, but to reinforce the myth of America as a righteous nation founded on Godly principles that has always welcomed people with open arms.
All hope is not lost. Many people do realize the hypocrisy, offensiveness, and/or inaccuracy of the historic monuments in their towns. They are fighting for change, and so long as people remember the truth, the lies across America cannot stand forever.
Broadly, his criticisms fall into one of 3 categories. 1) America’s treatment of the Native Americans. 2) Confederate monuments that misrepresent the Civil War. 3) Monuments to racism that have no place in modern society or, just as often, monuments that try to convince people that racism doesn’t exist.
Loewen makes it clear that America has deliberately forgotten what their ancestors did to the American Indian. Many historical sites record events without context to make it sound as if the Indians were the aggressor rather than defending their home against an invading force of European settlers. Other statues and plaques commemorate people who enslaved and slaughtered Indians, but one would not know that by viewing the monuments because they frame the events as Americans defending themselves from savages. Nothing could be further from the truth. Indians were in America first, they had a society, and Europeans attacked and drove them west. (Most tribes were not nomadic until the Europeans displaced them.) Monuments commemorate these acts as heroic, but doing so distorts history and leaves out the other side.
The Civil War was about slavery. Multiple confederate state constitutions enshrine slavery in their founding documents, and Alexander Stephens, vice president of the Confederacy, stated the reason for leaving the union was because blacks were inferior and deserved to be slaves. The “States’ Rights” interpretation of the war is a modern idea meant to distort history for the sake of White Supremacy. Confederate states in the mid-1800s were in fact frustrated by states’ rights; Northern states had passed laws allowing for runaway slaves who made it north to be free in the North, and slaveowning states wanted those laws overturned. They respected States’ rights, but only if those rights benefited slaveholders. While it’s true many Southerners at the time did not know the reason for the war and simply saw their home being invaded and reacted to it, the reason for the war could not have been clearer. Monuments all over the country portray rebels as noble soldiers fighting for a lost cause, but leaving blank the definition of what cause they fought for only encourages people to project a false reason for the war.
In the aftermath of the Civil War, Republicans full of zeal went South to try to enforce the new equality measures and bring former slaves into American society (a period called Reconstruction). The South resisted. Racism was rampant and violent, and after 20-odd years of trying to force the South to treat blacks as equals, the Republicans gave up and left the Southern states alone. The result became institutionalized segregation, and to announce the supremacy of the white race and the victory over the politicians who tried to force whites to treat their former slaves as equals, people erected monuments to racist leaders who are famous for oppressing blacks. That’s what the monuments to the Confederacy mean, and that’s why they stand in the first place.
Other historic sites misrepresent other parts of American history. Some present no history at all. War in general is always sanitized to make America’s actions appear just and good, even when America was the aggressor. They often don’t have to lie to achieve this, rather present an event with no context and call the soldiers brave and noble for dying to protect American freedom. Americans are smart enough now to know Vietnam and the Philippine War had nothing to do with American freedom, but everything to do with imperialism.
It’s time America wakes up to its past and faces what kind of nation it has always been: a country of white supremacists who slaughtered the people who were already here and imported Africans as slave labor to generate the goods they then sold overseas. Historic sites are not designed to make people think about that, but to reinforce the myth of America as a righteous nation founded on Godly principles that has always welcomed people with open arms.
All hope is not lost. Many people do realize the hypocrisy, offensiveness, and/or inaccuracy of the historic monuments in their towns. They are fighting for change, and so long as people remember the truth, the lies across America cannot stand forever.
July 30, 2020
Fascinating read. Very timely with all the issues with Confederate statues in the South. I had never really thought about the need to think critically when reading historic markers...you always think if they are up there, then they must be vetted by an expert somewhere. This book brings to light so many issues with that thought! There are markers out there for events that never took place! I can't wait to check out all my local historic markers and then do a bit of digging myself. He also has some good suggestions on how to deal with markers, statues and monuments that may be an issue...telling the other side of the story or the part left out. Or putting it into historical or cultural context. Really enjoyed this and the discussion that ensued from our book group.
August 31, 2009
I’ll bet the United Daughters of the Confederacy didn’t love this book. I will say that I didn’t love it either – though certainly not for the same reasons. As something of a follow up to his investigation into the dismal state of public school US History textbooks, Loewen sets his sights on the questionable state of monuments, markers, and historical plaques scattered throughout the US. It’s a valiant effort, and certainly makes for a clear thesis about how misinterpretations and misinformation dominates the landscape’s “official” history.
Two primary – or oft repeated – false narratives emerge. First (and influencing Loewen’s West-to-East chapter counter-structure) there is the strong, Eurocentric (or WASP-centric) thinking dominates our selective story about how whites “settled” the US starting in Massachusetts and transitioned throughout the “wild” west over the ensuing centuries. This obviously ignores the millions of Native Americans already firmly settled – most were not nomadic – everywhere and even the Spaniards who had already plundered (and thus “settled”) the whole southern strip of what is now the US. Ironically the South doesn’t emerge in the official tale until after Reconstruction, when suddenly the Confederate States of America was no longer about maintaining slavery but now a valiant effort to maintain states rights and “Southern Culture” and – if the markers/memorials portray slavery at all – it wasn’t so bad as evidenced by “The Good Darky” statues and other stories about how satisfied southern blacks obviously were under such a sensible structure.
Loewen unearths other erroneous examples (a few examples from the Spanish…um…that is…The Philippines-American War) and even explores some museums and exhibits to highlight how the omission of part of a story, or some cautious wording can turn a murderous tragedy into a celebration of the murderer. I found it all very interesting but, as there were so many individual examples, it came off a bit choppy compared to his Lies My Teacher Told Me. This read more like a guide book – which, I suppose, was an intentional reader option – but it somehow felt simultaneously less diverse yet also less focused than his previous book. The two narratives dominate and other examples of incredulity show up once or get much less attention.
Whatever, I’ve never even visited a number of these states – and the individual examples are well selected – so Four Stars! But if you have time for only one Loewen book, I recommend his previous effort.
Two primary – or oft repeated – false narratives emerge. First (and influencing Loewen’s West-to-East chapter counter-structure) there is the strong, Eurocentric (or WASP-centric) thinking dominates our selective story about how whites “settled” the US starting in Massachusetts and transitioned throughout the “wild” west over the ensuing centuries. This obviously ignores the millions of Native Americans already firmly settled – most were not nomadic – everywhere and even the Spaniards who had already plundered (and thus “settled”) the whole southern strip of what is now the US. Ironically the South doesn’t emerge in the official tale until after Reconstruction, when suddenly the Confederate States of America was no longer about maintaining slavery but now a valiant effort to maintain states rights and “Southern Culture” and – if the markers/memorials portray slavery at all – it wasn’t so bad as evidenced by “The Good Darky” statues and other stories about how satisfied southern blacks obviously were under such a sensible structure.
Loewen unearths other erroneous examples (a few examples from the Spanish…um…that is…The Philippines-American War) and even explores some museums and exhibits to highlight how the omission of part of a story, or some cautious wording can turn a murderous tragedy into a celebration of the murderer. I found it all very interesting but, as there were so many individual examples, it came off a bit choppy compared to his Lies My Teacher Told Me. This read more like a guide book – which, I suppose, was an intentional reader option – but it somehow felt simultaneously less diverse yet also less focused than his previous book. The two narratives dominate and other examples of incredulity show up once or get much less attention.
Whatever, I’ve never even visited a number of these states – and the individual examples are well selected – so Four Stars! But if you have time for only one Loewen book, I recommend his previous effort.
January 26, 2013
This was an excellent book and I found out about a lot of history I was vague about, or had never heard of.
Among the interesting facts I recall:
Many American places, rivers, mountains, lakes, etc were "discovered" by Europeans and named by them, even though Natives Americans had discovered them centuries or millenia ago and already had names for them.
The racism and atrocities perpetrated against the Native Americans and African Americans was far more evil and pervasive than anything you will find in history books. Many famous white men even verbalized the desire to "wipe out the whole lot" and made efforts to do so. For that they were praised. (e.g Amherst- who tried to wipe out pesky Indians with smallpox infected blankets.) A town and college were named after him.
The author points out that very few markers or monuments portray women or people of color, and those that do generally put those "minorities" in positions of subservience and/or minimize their contributions.
Although it is assumed that the victors write the history, the story of the Civil War is mostly written by the losers! Markers all over the south and even at Gettysburg would indicate that the south was fighting for a valiant cause (variously states' rights, "our way of life", etc) with nary a mention of slavery. The monuments and markers give praise to the likes of southern generals (Forrest) who ordered the killing of all their Union prisoners of war. Much of this display of the aggrandized Confederacy was paid for and put up by the Daughters of the Confederacy- some quite recently.
While many lovely antebellum mansions can be toured, most of the commentary revolves around the architecture, china and silverware. Never is there a mention of the slave labor that allowed for the building of these mansions or the acquisition of all the fine china and silver. When slavery is mentioned, and it is generally because someone asks about it, the reply always seems to indicate that the slaves were treated well and were quite happy. Of course slave rebellions, revolts and runaways gave lie to the "happy darky" stories.
Members and leaders of the Ku Klux Klan are provided with positive testimonials, markers, and even carvings in the mountains of Georgia!
I could go on and on- but you should read the book yourself. And we should try to gain a better understanding of the history that really was, not the history that a privileged few would like us to believe.
Among the interesting facts I recall:
Many American places, rivers, mountains, lakes, etc were "discovered" by Europeans and named by them, even though Natives Americans had discovered them centuries or millenia ago and already had names for them.
The racism and atrocities perpetrated against the Native Americans and African Americans was far more evil and pervasive than anything you will find in history books. Many famous white men even verbalized the desire to "wipe out the whole lot" and made efforts to do so. For that they were praised. (e.g Amherst- who tried to wipe out pesky Indians with smallpox infected blankets.) A town and college were named after him.
The author points out that very few markers or monuments portray women or people of color, and those that do generally put those "minorities" in positions of subservience and/or minimize their contributions.
Although it is assumed that the victors write the history, the story of the Civil War is mostly written by the losers! Markers all over the south and even at Gettysburg would indicate that the south was fighting for a valiant cause (variously states' rights, "our way of life", etc) with nary a mention of slavery. The monuments and markers give praise to the likes of southern generals (Forrest) who ordered the killing of all their Union prisoners of war. Much of this display of the aggrandized Confederacy was paid for and put up by the Daughters of the Confederacy- some quite recently.
While many lovely antebellum mansions can be toured, most of the commentary revolves around the architecture, china and silverware. Never is there a mention of the slave labor that allowed for the building of these mansions or the acquisition of all the fine china and silver. When slavery is mentioned, and it is generally because someone asks about it, the reply always seems to indicate that the slaves were treated well and were quite happy. Of course slave rebellions, revolts and runaways gave lie to the "happy darky" stories.
Members and leaders of the Ku Klux Klan are provided with positive testimonials, markers, and even carvings in the mountains of Georgia!
I could go on and on- but you should read the book yourself. And we should try to gain a better understanding of the history that really was, not the history that a privileged few would like us to believe.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 219 reviews