Ironically, my position is the opposite. Certain common history textbook publishers, such as Simon and Schuster, deliberately publish history texts which are devoid of any suffering of the white race throughout history, even to the point of painting white revenge for wrongs committed agaisnt them as if the white race was the first aggressor. A typical Simon and Schuster history textbook will, for example, skip over the death march that Native Americans forced colonists to take to Canada after the 1704 Raid on Deerfield, and will leave out that Native Americans assisted the British in the Revolutionary War (even though this complaint is written out in the Declaration of Independence). They will even leave out that the Cherokee tribe cheifs agreed to and accepted payment of $5 million as well as a grant of new land in Oklahoma, but the textbook will cover the Trail of Tears that killed those Cherokee who still refused to leave. In other words, the Trail of Tears is portrayed as though it was the first act of aggression because it was committed by the white race. The color of the aggressor is very important to a Simon and Schuster history textbook. They even removed the entire story of Pocahontas, so prevalent in history textbooks before Simon and Schuster got involved, merely because Captain John Smith had been enslaved in his youth in Constantinople by invading Muslim Turks. Smith killed his cruel master and then fled to America. If the aggressor is nonwhite and the victim white, Simon and Schuster textbooks won't mention what occurred.
While some think it's because Simon and Schuster are Jewish and want the Holocaust to appear to follow a long history of white racism, it's actually other Jewish scholars, such as David Horowitz of Penn State University, that have been some of the first to openly and publicly call them out for it. In response to one of Simon and Schuster's history books, "Lies My Teacher Told Me", being adopted as a sole textbook at Penn State University, Horowitz published a letter declaring the history inside as "a reflection of extreme, uninformed, polemical views". Further, though that book was published by Simon and Schuster, the actual author, James Loewen, was any ol' leftist gentile white man. Why Loewen wants everyone to hate white men is hard to understand, but Loewen's book claims white men were the first to commit all sorts of global atrocities that Horowitz points out existed long before white men got involved, either as victims or aggressors. Even the word "slave" comes from the word "Slav", an ethnicity of whites that were enslaved longer and more frequently throughout human history than any other ethnicity.
www.washingtontimes.com
