History books

[regent]

We see so many histories mentioned on these boards, and many cited to support their political claims that I wonder if all history is the same? Can we differentiate between "good and bad" history? Is there even such a thing as good or bad history? Are all history books the same in historical facts? With all the events going on in the world, just today, how many events will even make it to the books, and if so why? Why are some events recorded in history texts and others not. Do historians have a criteria for material they put in their books?

 

[whitehall]

History books generally don't contain glaring errors but just like the news it's possible to skew information by downplaying some facts and exaggerating others. A WW2 history might contain accounts of incredible heroism but downplay errors in judgment that caused unnecessary deaths. It depends on the point of view.

 

[oldfart]

We see so many histories mentioned on these boards, and many cited to support their political claims that I wonder if all history is the same? Can we differentiate between "good and bad" history? Is there even such a thing as good or bad history? Are all history books the same in historical facts? With all the events going on in the world, just today, how many events will even make it to the books, and if so why? Why are some events recorded in history texts and others not. Do historians have a criteria for material they put in their books?

A friend of mine, Jim Loewen, is the author of the "Lies My Teacher Told Me" series. A sociologist by trade, he began as a co-author of a Mississippi history text, and the ensuing decade in court made him the leading authority on how history textbooks in America are written and adopted.

In short, history textbooks used in public and private schools are not written by historians. They are written by "specialists" in "history education" whose paramount objective is to get the text adopted by state education boards such as the one in Texas. To expect any good history to be the result is a good example of magical thinking. Compounding the problem is that most secondary history teachers take very few actual history courses in college. They take education courses. As a result they often have little experience reading, writing, or debating history.

The only way to learn real history is to get your hands dirty and learn how to do it from the bottom up. By the time history makes it into a book, it's pretty well sanitized and packaged. The dross sounds just as good as the real stuff. Once you have a little exposure to original research, be it family history or local history, you begin to know what to look for.

The study of how history is written and what constitutes good history and bad history is called historiography. All history is written in a context of the author's world view, and that determines what gets into a book and what gets left out; how the book is organized and what conclusions will be drawn. A good historian is not one free of bias (such people do not exist), but a person sufficiently aware of his or her biases to compensate for them.

When I buy history books, I use a few guidelines to try to avoid dropping $40 on a stinker.

1. In reading reviews, read the bad ones first. Before accepting any review, check out the reviewer to see if you think they generally make sense to you.

2. There is no replacement for good writing. C.V. Wedgewood is the best of her generation, and I gladly read anything she wrote. Even if I disagree, she is a pleasure to read. Life is too short to waste time on bad writing, no matter how important the topic.

3. Don't park your critical thinking skills when you pick up a history book. Nobody appointed the author God and the fact they have published a book does not make them right. Personally I take notes and act like I am going to review the book or write my own book on a related topic and am considering what kind of source the author makes.

4. Do not feel obligated to finish any book. It took me fifteen years to learn that if it's a stinker for the first 100 pages, there is very little chance it will improve toward the end.

5. Decide what kind of history you are interested in and what you would write about. Your time is too limited and valuable to waste it on topics that are "important" but don't hold your interest.

6. Half the fun of history is discussing it. Find forums and people with like interests and mix it up. Just don't take it too seriously.

And best of luck to you!

 

[Steven_R]

In short, history textbooks used in public and private schools are not written by historians. They are written by "specialists" in "history education" whose paramount objective is to get the text adopted by state education boards such as the one in Texas. To expect any good history to be the result is a good example of magical thinking. Compounding the problem is that most secondary history teachers take very few actual history courses in college. They take education courses. As a result they often have little experience reading, writing, or debating history.

Except that the vast majority of texts are written by historians. The most widely used high school history text is The American Vision (Glencoe/McGraw Hill), lead authored by Joyce Appleby. Appleby is not only an author, but Professor Emeritus of history at UCLA and a past president of the Organization of American Historians and the American Historical Association. The other authors of major history texts have equally impressive credentials. Textbook publishers award those contracts to write textbooks to people with proven track records in their fields.

As far as education majors not taking history course, yours is a simplistic and incomplete explanation. Education majors take the same classes with the same material with the same professors as everyone else taking a history class, but with different work requirements. When I took my Florida History class, half the people were ed. majors because it was required of them for graduation. The only two differences between their class and mine was mine was labeled in the course catalogs and degree requirements as a history class and theirs was labeled as an education class and I had to write a paper and they had to come up with a lesson plan. Other than that it was the same class, same lectures, same tests, same readings.

I can't speak towards other states, but Florida still requires certification in their field to teach which mean someone trying to teach high school history still needs to know the material.

The only way to learn real history is to get your hands dirty and learn how to do it from the bottom up. By the time history makes it into a book, it's pretty well sanitized and packaged. The dross sounds just as good as the real stuff. Once you have a little exposure to original research, be it family history or local history, you begin to know what to look for.

The study of how history is written and what constitutes good history and bad history is called historiography. All history is written in a context of the author's world view, and that determines what gets into a book and what gets left out; how the book is organized and what conclusions will be drawn. A good historian is not one free of bias (such people do not exist), but a person sufficiently aware of his or her biases to compensate for them.

Except that spending all of one's time in primary documents instead of secondary documents misses figuring out where those primary documents go in the grand scheme of things and someone else's opinion of what it all means. History isn't just about facts, but the interpretation of those facts.

2. There is no replacement for good writing. C.V. Wedgewood is the best of her generation, and I gladly read anything she wrote. Even if I disagree, she is a pleasure to read. Life is too short to waste time on bad writing, no matter how important the topic.

4. Do not feel obligated to finish any book. It took me fifteen years to learn that if it's a stinker for the first 100 pages, there is very little chance it will improve toward the end.

I could not disagree more. There are books written so dryly that they could be used as a cure for insomnia, but are so important and so full of information that they are indispensable. Watching my front lawn grow was more exciting than some books I've read, but they were essential to a particular topic. Only picking the fun and exciting books risks missing out on some crucial works.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Steven_r proves the value of oldfart's suggestions.

 

[Ava]

In short, history textbooks used in public and private schools are not written by historians. They are written by "specialists" in "history education" whose paramount objective is to get the text adopted by state education boards such as the one in Texas. To expect any good history to be the result is a good example of magical thinking. Compounding the problem is that most secondary history teachers take very few actual history courses in college. They take education courses. As a result they often have little experience reading, writing, or debating history.

Except that the vast majority of texts are written by historians. The most widely used high school history text is The American Vision (Glencoe/McGraw Hill), lead authored by Joyce Appleby. Appleby is not only an author, but Professor Emeritus of history at UCLA and a past president of the Organization of American Historians and the American Historical Association. The other authors of major history texts have equally impressive credentials. Textbook publishers award those contracts to write textbooks to people with proven track records in their fields.

As far as education majors not taking history course, yours is a simplistic and incomplete explanation. Education majors take the same classes with the same material with the same professors as everyone else taking a history class, but with different work requirements. When I took my Florida History class, half the people were ed. majors because it was required of them for graduation. The only two differences between their class and mine was mine was labeled in the course catalogs and degree requirements as a history class and theirs was labeled as an education class and I had to write a paper and they had to come up with a lesson plan. Other than that it was the same class, same lectures, same tests, same readings.

I can't speak towards other states, but Florida still requires certification in their field to teach which mean someone trying to teach high school history still needs to know the material.

The only way to learn real history is to get your hands dirty and learn how to do it from the bottom up. By the time history makes it into a book, it's pretty well sanitized and packaged. The dross sounds just as good as the real stuff. Once you have a little exposure to original research, be it family history or local history, you begin to know what to look for.

The study of how history is written and what constitutes good history and bad history is called historiography. All history is written in a context of the author's world view, and that determines what gets into a book and what gets left out; how the book is organized and what conclusions will be drawn. A good historian is not one free of bias (such people do not exist), but a person sufficiently aware of his or her biases to compensate for them.

Except that spending all of one's time in primary documents instead of secondary documents misses figuring out where those primary documents go in the grand scheme of things and someone else's opinion of what it all means. History isn't just about facts, but the interpretation of those facts.

2. There is no replacement for good writing. C.V. Wedgewood is the best of her generation, and I gladly read anything she wrote. Even if I disagree, she is a pleasure to read. Life is too short to waste time on bad writing, no matter how important the topic.

4. Do not feel obligated to finish any book. It took me fifteen years to learn that if it's a stinker for the first 100 pages, there is very little chance it will improve toward the end.

I could not disagree more. There are books written so dryly that they could be used as a cure for insomnia, but are so important and so full of information that they are indispensable. Watching my front lawn grow was more exciting than some books I've read, but they were essential to a particular topic. Only picking the fun and exciting books risks missing out on some crucial works.

My dad was reading Mein Kampf and I asked him what it was about. He said Mein Kampf is an autobiographical manifesto by Nazi leader Adolf Hitler, in which he outlines his political ideology and future plans for Germany.

He suggested I read it.

 

[TheOldSchool]

History will always be written by the winner. That means we all have only ever learned 50% of history.

But that's how history will continue to be forever written.

 

[JakeStarkey]

To get completely accurate history would require more help from Jesus than Lazarus had.

 

[Steven_R]

My dad was reading Mein Kampf and I asked him what it was about. He said Mein Kampf is an autobiographical manifesto by Nazi leader Adolf Hitler, in which he outlines his political ideology and future plans for Germany.

He suggested I read it.

I think reading something like Mein Kampf is a good idea if one wants to understand inter-war Germany and Hitler and the Holocaust and WW2. Its a frightfully dull read in English and meanders and I can't imagine it is much better in German. I wouldn't recommend reading it for fun, but to each his own.

 

[Steven_R]

History will always be written by the winner. That means we all have only ever learned 50% of history.

But that's how history will continue to be forever written.

I disagree. So long as the original primary source documents are available, historians will always revise their view of the past. If anything going back and looking at the secondary source documents in interesting because it gives future historians an idea of how past events were perceived and how the narratives were given to the public by historians.

 

[Unkotare]

Reading a history book is like reading the newspaper. Simply finishing it does not absolve one of the responsibility for critical thinking.

 

[whitehall]

The truth is still out there in the freeist Nation in the world but sometimes you have to look for it and argue with victims of propaganda.

 

[Indeependent]

In short, history textbooks used in public and private schools are not written by historians. They are written by "specialists" in "history education" whose paramount objective is to get the text adopted by state education boards such as the one in Texas. To expect any good history to be the result is a good example of magical thinking. Compounding the problem is that most secondary history teachers take very few actual history courses in college. They take education courses. As a result they often have little experience reading, writing, or debating history.

Except that the vast majority of texts are written by historians. The most widely used high school history text is The American Vision (Glencoe/McGraw Hill), lead authored by Joyce Appleby. Appleby is not only an author, but Professor Emeritus of history at UCLA and a past president of the Organization of American Historians and the American Historical Association. The other authors of major history texts have equally impressive credentials. Textbook publishers award those contracts to write textbooks to people with proven track records in their fields.

As far as education majors not taking history course, yours is a simplistic and incomplete explanation. Education majors take the same classes with the same material with the same professors as everyone else taking a history class, but with different work requirements. When I took my Florida History class, half the people were ed. majors because it was required of them for graduation. The only two differences between their class and mine was mine was labeled in the course catalogs and degree requirements as a history class and theirs was labeled as an education class and I had to write a paper and they had to come up with a lesson plan. Other than that it was the same class, same lectures, same tests, same readings.

I can't speak towards other states, but Florida still requires certification in their field to teach which mean someone trying to teach high school history still needs to know the material.



Except that spending all of one's time in primary documents instead of secondary documents misses figuring out where those primary documents go in the grand scheme of things and someone else's opinion of what it all means. History isn't just about facts, but the interpretation of those facts.

2. There is no replacement for good writing. C.V. Wedgewood is the best of her generation, and I gladly read anything she wrote. Even if I disagree, she is a pleasure to read. Life is too short to waste time on bad writing, no matter how important the topic.

4. Do not feel obligated to finish any book. It took me fifteen years to learn that if it's a stinker for the first 100 pages, there is very little chance it will improve toward the end.

I could not disagree more. There are books written so dryly that they could be used as a cure for insomnia, but are so important and so full of information that they are indispensable. Watching my front lawn grow was more exciting than some books I've read, but they were essential to a particular topic. Only picking the fun and exciting books risks missing out on some crucial works.

My dad was reading Mein Kampf and I asked him what it was about. He said Mein Kampf is an autobiographical manifesto by Nazi leader Adolf Hitler, in which he outlines his political ideology and future plans for Germany.

He suggested I read it.

I couldn't get past chapter 2; chapter 3 is like an LSD trip (I actually wouldn't know).

 

[oldfart]

In short, history textbooks used in public and private schools are not written by historians. They are written by "specialists" in "history education" whose paramount objective is to get the text adopted by state education boards such as the one in Texas. To expect any good history to be the result is a good example of magical thinking. Compounding the problem is that most secondary history teachers take very few actual history courses in college. They take education courses. As a result they often have little experience reading, writing, or debating history.

Except that the vast majority of texts are written by historians. The most widely used high school history text is The American Vision (Glencoe/McGraw Hill), lead authored by Joyce Appleby. Appleby is not only an author, but Professor Emeritus of history at UCLA and a past president of the Organization of American Historians and the American Historical Association. The other authors of major history texts have equally impressive credentials. Textbook publishers award those contracts to write textbooks to people with proven track records in their fields.

You are assuming that the listed authors actually wrote most of the textbooks, which is not the standard practice in the textbook publishing industry. The lead authors are indeed chosen for their ability to lend credence to the publication, but most of the composition is done by others. No insult intended to Professor Appleby, but I doubt that textbook is high on her resume.

As far as education majors not taking history course, yours is a simplistic and incomplete explanation. Education majors take the same classes with the same material with the same professors as everyone else taking a history class, but with different work requirements. When I took my Florida History class, half the people were ed. majors because it was required of them for graduation. The only two differences between their class and mine was mine was labeled in the course catalogs and degree requirements as a history class and theirs was labeled as an education class and I had to write a paper and they had to come up with a lesson plan. Other than that it was the same class, same lectures, same tests, same readings.

I received my undergraduate degree from a premier teacher training institution with an excellent history department. Secondary education majors took only lower division history courses and never had time in the schedule for the kind of courses required of history majors. Virtually all teacher training institutions are organized the same way; if they were not they would not have accredited education programs.

I can't speak towards other states, but Florida still requires certification in their field to teach which mean someone trying to teach high school history still needs to know the material.

You have to be kidding. I live in Florida as does a cousin who teaches high school. Do you have any idea how many Florida secondary teachers are teaching outside their field on "emergency" certificates? Or how many history teachers are primarily athletic coaches?

The only way to learn real history is to get your hands dirty and learn how to do it from the bottom up. By the time history makes it into a book, it's pretty well sanitized and packaged. The dross sounds just as good as the real stuff. Once you have a little exposure to original research, be it family history or local history, you begin to know what to look for.

The study of how history is written and what constitutes good history and bad history is called historiography. All history is written in a context of the author's world view, and that determines what gets into a book and what gets left out; how the book is organized and what conclusions will be drawn. A good historian is not one free of bias (such people do not exist), but a person sufficiently aware of his or her biases to compensate for them.

Except that spending all of one's time in primary documents instead of secondary documents misses figuring out where those primary documents go in the grand scheme of things and someone else's opinion of what it all means. History isn't just about facts, but the interpretation of those facts.

That's the attitude that makes history boring to most people and leads to unquestioning acceptance of bullshit just because someone wrote it in a book. Where did you get the idea that my post about analyzing the raw stuff of history critically and examining the writing of authors critically was "just about facts"?

2. There is no replacement for good writing. C.V. Wedgewood is the best of her generation, and I gladly read anything she wrote. Even if I disagree, she is a pleasure to read. Life is too short to waste time on bad writing, no matter how important the topic.

4. Do not feel obligated to finish any book. It took me fifteen years to learn that if it's a stinker for the first 100 pages, there is very little chance it will improve toward the end.

I could not disagree more. There are books written so dryly that they could be used as a cure for insomnia, but are so important and so full of information that they are indispensable. Watching my front lawn grow was more exciting than some books I've read, but they were essential to a particular topic. Only picking the fun and exciting books risks missing out on some crucial works.

You have a prescription for encouraging people to not read history. You make it sound like purgatory, putting in your time, enduring your pain. That's great if you are a masochist. Why do you believe that a badly written book is "so important and so full of information"? You make it sound like history is reading an almanac. Maybe that is what history is to you; which is very sad.

In every history class I have taken or taught there has been an effort to improve students' analytical skills, and to share a passion for history. Most of the time the teacher or professor leads the way, but if not there were always students to push the discussion.

I'm trying to encourage people to read and discuss history as a rewarding personal activity here, not to get some ticket punched for a union card. Hell, I encourage people to try their hand at writing history as well. The OP asked some questions which indicated a real interest in history as a pleasurable leisure activity which I think is outstanding.

Lighten up. Your post reminds me of "Another Break in the Wall"!

 

[oldfart]

My dad was reading Mein Kampf and I asked him what it was about. He said Mein Kampf is an autobiographical manifesto by Nazi leader Adolf Hitler, in which he outlines his political ideology and future plans for Germany.

He suggested I read it.

The book is too dry. I show my classes Leni Riefenstahl's "Triumph of the Will" and follow it with a discussion of how symbols are used to manipulate emotions in furtherance of authoritarian objectives.

Your dad would love the film!

 

[Delta4Embassy]

We see so many histories mentioned on these boards, and many cited to support their political claims that I wonder if all history is the same? Can we differentiate between "good and bad" history? Is there even such a thing as good or bad history? Are all history books the same in historical facts? With all the events going on in the world, just today, how many events will even make it to the books, and if so why? Why are some events recorded in history texts and others not. Do historians have a criteria for material they put in their books?

Can think of no academic subject more subjective and politicized than History.

 

[Camp]

We see so many histories mentioned on these boards, and many cited to support their political.............. Do historians have a criteria for material they put in their books?

Yes, historians do have criteria for material they put in their books if you define a historian as someone who is educated and trained to write history and to follow specific standards and protocals in rerard to the source material they use to analyize historical events and reach conclusions and opinions. Ofcourse if you define historian as anyone that writes about history, the answer is no, there is no criteria. That is why we have histories written by political pundits, commentators and revisionist that reach conclusions that will fit a specific agenda. Their so called source materials are unreliable, distorted, taken out of context, etc. Conspiracy theory books most often fall into this category.

I like to look up sources to see where a writer gets the information they are writing about. Sometimes it is impossible because the best historians use sources that only another historian may have access to. These would include rare books, letters and materials in private librarys that limit access, etc. That is why sometimes it is just easier to stick to works done by reputable historians with respected resumes and selectively check out sources when something questionalble come up. The best historians are objective, open to change there perspectives and view history as one would view a puzzle. They search for truth and accuracy and welcome their peers to challange the conclusions they make and how they assemble and present the puzzle.

 

[editec]

We see so many histories mentioned on these boards, and many cited to support their political claims that I wonder if all history is the same? Can we differentiate between "good and bad" history?

Not until you've read a shitload of it, no.

Is there even such a thing as good or bad history?

Yes

Are all history books the same in historical facts?

Of course not. They can different facts about the same issue, or they can decide that some facts are relevant and some not.

History is an ART not a science.

With all the events going on in the world, just today, how many events will even make it to the books, and if so why?

There's no way to answer that question. Every single thing that happens however unimportant is history. DECIDING what is important enough to document or comment upon is the task of journalists (first) AND historians (ever after).

Why are some events recorded in history texts and others not.

Why are pictures take of some sunsets but not others?

Why do some crimes make the national news but not others?

There's too many possible reasons to enumerate a simple here.

You know the big ones though...how important is the even to other people? Those events make history.

Do historians have a criteria for material they put in their books?

Yes, each one decides the criteria.

Other historians then vet that history and comment on it.

Sometimes a history affects other historians so profoundly that they dig deeper and find still more history to support or refute what has already been written.

The thing here I said that was import needs to be repeated

HISTORY IS AN ART, NOT A SCIENCE.

 

[Disir]

We see so many histories mentioned on these boards, and many cited to support their political claims that I wonder if all history is the same? Can we differentiate between "good and bad" history? Is there even such a thing as good or bad history? Are all history books the same in historical facts? With all the events going on in the world, just today, how many events will even make it to the books, and if so why? Why are some events recorded in history texts and others not. Do historians have a criteria for material they put in their books?

People can spend their entire lives studying different aspects of one event or a person, place or thing (salt). A diary, a court case, or an archaeological dig can alter everything that was once assumed. The facts can change. The difference between good history and bad history is the assumption that people that live now are so much more intelligent then they were at some other point in time or vice versa. Another difference is intentionally neglecting a controversial event or individual or response in the telling to uphold a specific belief or ideology. Taking one line out of a speech or text would also be considered intentional neglect. David Barton is considered a charlatan because of this.

There is a difference between a kid and an adult. If, as an adult, you rely on an author and do not hunt down that author's sources to verify information then the real problem is with the individual that takes it as the gospel truth. Good historians will notify a reader when they do not have evidence but are led to a specific conclusion. Biographies are often written by people who either love or hate the individual.

One of the problems is how history is presented; an event or series of events occur in a vacuum. So, it automatically cuts out all events outside of it's focus. A woman by the name of Genevieve Foster wrote many books offering horizontal history for children. The first book that I came across was called Abraham Lincoln's World. It contains very little about Lincoln but incorporates events worldwide between the time of his birth until his death. In fact, it doesn't mention his death. I made that book required reading for my son. He was initially resistant due to the layout but it helped him fill in the time gaps between significant events, gave me the ability to introduce topics such as foreign policy and demonstrate that this is how we live.

History textbooks for high school and younger contain "sound bites" and manage to take the most exciting history down to name, date, event AND leave out the dirty laundry. This guy used to write textbooks: Home Page

 

[Unkotare]

History textbooks for high school and younger contain "sound bites" and manage to take the most exciting history down to name, date, event AND leave out the dirty laundry. ]

That assumes they are all the same, which of course is not the case.