The funny thing about your source is how viewpoints are labled. Differing views are just labeled as lies. Most of the viewpoints he presents as lies are simply parts of the whole. Your author seems to be about painting history with one big black and white brush. That is not what history is about. History evolves as more information emerges regarding a period. The Rosenbergs are a classic example, where many new documents from the trial recently surfaced. There is scant evidence that Ethel Rosenberg was a major conspirator in this espionage case. She appears to have had a very small role compared to that of her husband. The are compelling arguments that she should never have been executed for her involvement. It is not a black and white issue with the Rosenbergs for most people. The whole process of witch hunts for Communist sabateurs, and the lengths the government went to brand a lot of innocent people along the way is what upsets civil libertarians.

This book you cite is not about untruths, but about different explanations culled from different eras. History evolves, but you probably don't subscribe to that philosphy.      

As happens way too much for my liking adam!~ lol~ you have said what I was thinking with a much clearer statement.

In my life time I have seen US History as taught in our public schools changed radically to fit the politics of the times.  In the old patriotic, civil religion we were taught during the cold war; America was a brutal, savage land that was conquered by brave, God fearing people who struggled to bring the fruits of justice and liberty to all.  Now the left leaning revisionist are teaching that America was a peaceful land inhabited by noble, environmentally friendly people and was ruined by evil, white Christians who conquered everybody in the name of greed.  As you can see both versions of history are far from the truth.  My intent is not to paint history black or white ,but to be open to the truth and new ways of thinking.  Just as there are books that expose the myths of the old civil religion, we also have to critically consider books exposing the politically correct myths. 

That would be fine if the book were called 48 Myths of American History. What I find tragic is that this professor in order to sell books falsely equates differing explanations of evolving historical perspectives as liberal lies. That is bunk, plain and simple. The differences have nothing to do with liberalism, they have to do with perspective. 

I am curious. Are Roman Catholicis considered liars by the Greek Orthodox church? Are Baptists considered liars by Lutherans?  Are Congregationists considered liars by Seventh Day Adventists? Or are these just different perspectives trying to put into context a philosophy that has evolved over time?

I wish people would stop calling people liars when all they do is hold are different views of how the world works.

I wouldn't use the word liar lightly.  A liar is someone who knowingly tells a falsehood.  You have to admit there are people teaching false history and using are class rooms to indoctrinate non discerning children. 

Well i have not sat in on a history class for a semester~ so ,no I can't "admit" to that myself. I can say we do have an evolving view of the world and it's history.We keep discovering things.like today's find in a Roman tomb. Every time I think of history I remember my 8th grade teacher who consistently used his middle finger to point at the blackboard~ it a wonder I learned a thing.

From what I have seen at the collegiate level is that the professors try to leave their opinion out of it and let the student make the conclusion based off research by experts in the field. That's the reason for research papers. You don't have to necessarily say what the prof wants to hear. They just want just good research and analysis, not just regurgitation.

No Wayfarer, I don't have to admit there are teachers in classrooms who deliberately falsify historical events or that indoctrinate  impressionable young minds. That is an opinion you have, which is totally unsubstantiated.

It is an opinion that many folks who would like to see public education destroyed and replaced with privatized education share. We have already seen many of the results that big money in the public and private education research arena have wrought on the public. Many of the tests for new drugs are performed by paid doctors from the pharmaceutical companies. These are the very same companies who funded the research lab at the university where the test was done. No conflict of interest there, and very few real accurate results from the tests get moved to the government regulators to see. This is why we have seen so many recalls on drugs that were known to have failed by some independent testing, but still managed to make it by the FDA for approval.

I also don't take the word liar lightly. It is still a very powerful word. But if you keep using it in this type of mistaken context it won't mean much when you say it.

OK Adam what about the attempt to teach that homosexuality is a normal, healthy life style in schools.  As for my use of the word liar I would like to point out that I didn't title the book ,but one wonders if you would object so much if the book was titled "Conservative Lies about History.";D 

Sometimes things are not as they are projected. For example, most of my family are U C Berkeley grads. Now they like me are Republican and were still the same when they came out of " the peoples republic". After all Livermore lab, Sandia lab, and Los Alamos lab have always been a part of U C Berkeley.  As for myself, I graduated from San Bernadino City College. It was somewhat quiet, but we still had and should have had access to some radical books and opinions. Very few College students are converted to any radical agenda. Most of this is taught at a home and selected community environment. Having a knowledge of truths and half truths and downright lies that come from Profs is a good thing for student study. It gives us strength and insight in preparing our path through this life.................................... I am a retired U S Marine. That means I chose that path. ..... if another person does not have the desire to be a member of the Armed Forces but chooses another path, that does not make him or her any less American and maybe even more of patriot than I ....half of the Marines I knew were Democrat and the other half Republican more or less and we all got along. Some of the Marines I knew were "green cards"some Black, some Asian, some Hispanic.and yes we still got along...........Politics require two important virtues to keep us free and Democratic and that is Checks and Balances. We are an intelligent society and sooner or later able to ferret out the truth as long as free speech ( even the radicals) prevails.

So I glanced at this interview, and I glanced at the responses here.

Here is my quick take - Larry Schweikart isn't incorrect about the fact that textbooks can sometimes have a hidden bias.  However, one thing that Schweikart isn't admitting to is that no professor ever relies soully on one source of information.  There's a reason why as a History student, I was taught to do my own research of primary source documentation to come to my own conclusions.

Your problem, Wayfarer, is that you automatically assume that I'm some brainwashed liberal who believes everything he reads or hears.   However, like any good student of History, I realize that you must do your own homework before you believe what is written by someone else.  Too many people on these blogs ignore this advice.  I do not.  Please find me one example where I have blindly posted facts without backing them up.

I'd also like to add that it was rare that we had one text for a class.  More often, we had 6 or 7 to give us a more well-rounded view of each historian's take on the subject matter.  For example - in my own library collection, I must have at least a dozen books on Adolf Hitler, and each brings a different viewpoint.  The more sides of the story you have, the more clear the picture becomes.

I directed this blog particularly toward you FsG ,because you once recommended a book exposing errors that are commonly taught in history classes.  It seems to be in the same vein as the book in the article.  I would be interested in reading both books.  I realize that are society is based on many myths and not only are culture ,but psychology tells us that each individual life is based on certain stories we tell ourselves and none of them are necessarily factual or rational ,but they do color our perspective and ways of looking at the world.  Searching for the truth means the courage to be honest and let go of our preconceived ideas.  That is really hard thing to do. 

My problem with this author is that he pegs the myths as "liberal" in nature.  That to me doesn't make him as credible as someone who offers an un-biased and non-political approach to debunking historical myths.  The book I spoke about does not have a political overtone like the one you've posted here has.  He might be correct about certain issues, but to peg them as he has is not something a respectable Historian would do.