Patrick Watson's The Death Of History Is Bunk

I figured it was appropriate that the author did not place the blame on one party. Instead, he addressed the various individuals in Canada that were not providing a fair education in its national and political history as well as for the reasons why this is such a big deal. This book was educational as it gave readers brief and sometimes precise examples, like how Canadians lack national and political conscience within the academic curriculum. The Country’s educational system needs to do a better job training its educators and ultimately restructuring curriculums to deal with our current problems. The book's exterior appearance is bright red, and often red, is associated with power. I believe that this book has the authority to make readers think about their experience concerning Canadian history - but unfortunately, a majority of the population does not know enough of its history to learn from the mistakes and successes of our predecessors. Along with the strengths of this book (argumentative perspective, educational, and exterior appearance), there were a few weaknesses as well. To elaborate on Granasteins effort, I believe he wrote from an androcentric perspective. There were times when he sounded like a grumpy old historian man. I think his little rants reduced the effectiveness of the book. He made many prejudice remarks concerning multiculturalism and social history (gender studies, urban, economics, demographics, etc.). Since history is an accumulation of time periods and each period varies in length, and the intensity of the events, it might be tough to establish the nation's needs for clear, measurable standards for history. There is only so much information that an individual’s brain can retain for a period before they start losing

A more pressing matter is that of the history in the classroom. With the one sided history being instructed to Native students bring a message that “Their history does not matter,” alienation begins to form and all motivation soon leaves the students (Laura).

High school history textbooks are seen, by students, as presenting the last word on American History. Rarely, if ever, do they question what their text tells them about our collective past. According to James W. Loewen's Lies My Teacher Told Me, they should be. Loewen has spent considerable time and effort reviewing history texts that were written for high school students. In Lies, he has reviewed twenty texts and has compared them to the actual history. Sadly, not one text measures up to the author's expectation of teaching students to think. What is worse, though, is that students come away from their classes without "having developed the ability to think coherently about social

She carries the audience through her argument in a logical sequence. First, she makes her claim that student do not know history and explains her reasons (250). She then elaborates on what history students are taught and what exactly is wrong with the methods by which they learn (251). After this, she explains the job of a historian to the reader – how historians confront primary sources to “make some sense of what once happened” (252). To end the article, Simon describes how students can better learn history through exploring primary sources (253). This structuring and organization helps the reader to understand and to believe Simon’s

As the professor James W Loewer, author of the book, referred that Americans have lost touch with their history. Our teachers and textbooks play important roles in our history study. However, it is their eliding and misrepresenting factoids that have been obstacles in our history studying. Because access to too much errors and distortion, many Americans can hardly understand the past of the country. As a result, we lack the ability to reflect on what’s going on right now and in the future.

Nicholas Carr’s Is Google Making Us Stupid? explains the impact the Internet is having on his (and others) patience with in depth reading habits, and possibly the way their brain is processing information. The old days of having to spend hours researching a subject are long gone because of the Internet. Having such a powerful tool available at any time can be a good and bad thing wrapped up in the same package. Over the last couple decades, home computer and smartphone ownership has been on a steady rise with most homes now having multiple devices. Therefore, having unlimited information available at all times has become a reality.

When it comes to Canadian History, perhaps the most controversial and widely disputable topic of debate would have to be one of Canada’s greatest wars: The War of 1812. A wide array of views are held on many aspects of the war ranging from who won to what ramifications the war would ultimately sire. In yet another discussion on the ever so controversial War of 1812, a new question was posed and deliberated by five historians: whose war, was it? Like any other question posed about this war a multitude of ideas would ultimately arise in each of their differing viewpoints. In their roundhouse discussion, the historians would ultimately serve to paint the War of 1812 as a war that transcends much further than the nationalistic view. A view that, though an important part of Canadian history, has been exaggerated to the point of choking out the many voices who fought and continue to fight for inclusion in the narrative. In their remembrance of the War of 1812, society unwittingly failed history in their lackluster commemorations which exclude important narratives and voices and stand tainted by the misuse of history to serve the nationalistic agenda.

The study of history and the teaching of history has come under intense public debate in the United States in the last few decades. The “culture-wars” began with the call to add more works by non-Caucasians and women and has bled into the study of history. Not only in the study of history or literature, this debate has spread into American culture like wildfire.

To know the past is to know the future. In his essay Knowing History and Knowing Who We Are, David McCullough argues about the importance of studying and teaching history. In his essay, he explains that there are three main points about history: character and its effect upon destiny, our failure of teaching the future generation, and the importance of learning and listening to history. David McCullough strongly advocates that audience should start to listen to and teach about the past in order to learn about the way a person’s character can affect their destiny.

Many Americans today are extremely uneducated and misinformed when it comes to the history of their nation purely because they find the learning of it boring. Because of the nature of American history courses and the distribution of knowledge in America, James W. Loewen wrote the book, Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong, to make history more relevant to people who’ve been “bored to tears by their high school American history courses” (xii) because to be effective citizens today we must be able to understand our past.

Never was I taught my ancestor’s side of the story until high school. Never have I heard of the Joseon Dynasty, Kublai Khan, or Qin Shi Huang, the history that was my forefather’s life. I always knew Columbus’s achievements as the discoverer of America, but I was not taught his abhorrent treatment to the Native Americans. I was told about the British royal family founded by Alfred the Great, but they never mentioned about the Japanese emperor. I was forced to memorize the facts from a Western-based history textbook, but never have they told me to remember even one date of the Vietnamese, Indian, Chinese, or Japanese history.

In author James W. Loewen’s book Lies My History Teacher Told: Everything American Textbooks Got Wrong, it is obvious that James Loewen is very passionate about making sure that people know that not all the history they are taught is true. He also claims that the history books have false information planted in them: “The stories the history textbooks sell are predictable; every problem has already been solved or is about to be solved” (Loewen pg. 3). Loewen’s voice throughout this book is powerful, fulfilling and persuasive as he tackles the problem off false history being taught to Americans.

An English teacher, Benjamin Dancer states in his article, Censoring American History, “History curriculum, a framework written by the College Board and taught in high schools across the country. The framework was revamped this year and has taken heat from the Republican National Committee, which claims it “emphasizes negative aspects of our nation’s history”. There are positive and negative aspects of every nation’s history, students are not in the position to pick and choose which historical events are taught in schools. By picking and choosing historical events that are only positive and practical to what students want to believe, history will be lost and replaced with fraudulent and bogus events that never took

“History is a narration of the events which have happened among mankind, including an account of the rise and fall of nations, as well as of the other great changes which have affected the political and social condition of the human race.—John J. Anderson. When asked to recall history the first thing that comes to most people’s minds is boring class in high school that involved memorizing dates, people’s names, and a bunch of other things that they cannot remember.

What is History? This is the question posed by historian E.H. Carr in his study of historiography. Carr debates the ongoing argument which historians have challenged for years, on the possibility that history could be neutral. In his book he discusses the link between historical facts and the historians themselves. Carr argues that history cannot be objective or unbiased, as for it to become history, knowledge of the past has been processed by the historian through interpretation and evaluation. He argues that it is the necessary interpretations which mean personal biases whether intentional or not, define what we see as history. A main point of the chapter is that historians select the facts they think are significant which ultimately