What Our Historic Sites Get Wrong - Lies Across America

The subject of history and its interpretation has become the topic of widespread debate due to its dual nature: Real people and events and their interpretation. The latter is the real controversy in history. Columbus is not admired (or hated) due to who he was or even what he did but over the consequences of his actions - discovery of a New World or destroyer of an old one. History has always been affected by politics and prejudice but ideology has become paramount lately. Perhaps the most infuriating development is the absurd tendency to view earlier times and individuals through a modern, politically correct prism.
This book reminds me of NPR in its relentlessly ideological approach to all issues...every event is politicized. Ideology is unceasing, benefits of the doubt are never extended, traditional ways are overlooked and after wading through harangues and scoldings in what is essentially an angry indictment of this nation one wonders why we have not had continual rebellions.
Like NPR, he LOVES to bash the South. NPR rails against (take your pick) racism, poverty, illiteracy and/or evangelicalism. Loewen evokes memories of the Confederacy and slavery almost as a mantra. Fanciful and unrealistic Civil War memorials exist in many place but is that immoral? Professional nincompoops wanted to erect a politically correct monument to 911 (the raising of the flag) which would have been historically inaccurate but not immoral.
The author has a tendency to overemphasize certain events just to make his point - akin to Chomsky's connecting random events to prove his dialectic. Some interesting points are made but ALWAYS through this contemporary prism of judgement. Were statues and/or painting skewed to express the view of the artist? Of course they were because that is a human tendency. Jesus is portrayed as a long-haired European man, Washington, in the enormous status in the Museum of American History has become a Roman emperor because the sculptor admired the classic period. Even if some events were misinterpreted is that an indictment?
No matter how one approaches the history of our country, there is one inescapable fact: To millions around the world, this land with all its inconsistencies, prejudices and faults has been perceived as heaven on earth since its inception. And even in the worst moments, there has never been even a trickle - much less an exodus - of citizens desiring life in another nation.

Good premise for a book. However, it is ruined by the author's shrill left-wing ideology, that get in the way
of the fascinating historical backgrounds of the historic sites. If the author just left out his self-righteous, pompous personal comments and let the historical truths make his points for him, this would be a much better book. The PC world that this author promotes is not a world I want to live in.

Just finished reading this interesting book which looks at about a hundred historic markers and sites across the country and examines the accuracy of what they tell the public. The author makes a compelling case that many of these sites do a poor job but his obvious bias detracts from this work and comes across as a partisan ideologue in some of it. While my own personal experience at some of these sites leads me to believe that they do indeed do a mediocre to poor job as custodians of our history, I would prefer a more objective source for this kind of study. Nevertheless, if one can filter out the author's bias this book is jam-packed with interesting stories, information about unsung heroes Americans should know more about and much-needed deconstructions of figures and events that many today would agree should be reconsidered. All in all I'd say that this book was worth the effort to read in spite of its shortcomings and would hope that more studies like this, better ones actually, do spark an interest in bringing about a better examination of who and what we choose to honor as Americans, as well as our reasons why. If I could I would have given this book 3 1/2 stars because I found the author's bias to be really irritating. However, I decided to go with 4 stars because despite the bias it IS still a fascinating read.

As if we need ANOTHER reason to create more divide in this country, Mr. Loewen succeeds in getting us there in the first few pages. The author is just dying to fill us in on how "whitey" has short changed everyone else for so many years through history and how we memorialize it. You would almost think that Loewen is ready for every white person to "Pay" up for all of the oppression and that somehow I'm responsible for my ancestors actions.... I don't hide behind a belief that white people in the past haven't caused an undue amount of oppression, but what makes me cringe is that there are people (like the author) who are still blaming me for something that happened years ago. If you want to read about how bad white folks are...read the book. If you're tired of hearing all about it, avoid this one like the plague.

Talk about a complete bust. I was really hoping for an amusing, thought-provoking book. Instead I got a sociology professor using every insignificant historical marker in the US as a means to pontificate and lecture on his sociological theories. In short, I bought a freaking doctoral thesis. The author is CLEARLY in love with his own intelligence and enlightenment. I would probably agree with most of his assertions and politics but it's not the content of his books so much as the context. He misrepresents a Biblical verse to prove a point that didn't need Biblical support. He harps on the same damned themes over and over again. Sometimes he disappears into a tangent so far that you forget about the monument he's writing about. Do yourself a favor, buy the paperback and read the first 50 pages and you will have read the entire book. I welcome your email responses and I welcome the author's. In fact, I will be writing him a letter.

This book presumes to correct historical inaccuracies, mostly due to lack of "candor" about the role of blacks, hispanics, and women in local history. However, I find this to be a VERY RACIST book. It is extremely anti-white. It is anti-male, anti-Confederate, anti-everything except minority.
I suppose that can be excused as affirmative action, but it does not belong in a book that might be read, and believed unquestioningly, by young minds that cannot see both sides of an issue. Yes, both sides need to be presented--a basic tenet of this book--but it violates this rule itself by one-sidedly condemning any historical monument or marker that does not show the minority side. Revisionist history anyone?
No, I'm not a white male segregationist. I just believe that books like this do little to fix things, more likely polarizing opposing viewpoints even more.
I assume I will be flamed for this, but I felt this side of the issue needed to be said.

As another reviewer wrote, this is the first book I've ever thrown away in disgust -- I wouldn't recommend to ANYONE that they waste their money on this book. I persevered through about 3/4 of it, but finally couldn't take it anymore. The so-called wit was overwhelmed by sanctimonious sarcasm. If I believed one-tenth of the criticism the author espouses, I would move to some other country. But the fact is, that with all its warts, this country is the best there has been to live in in history. If the author had kept this in mind, and offered his "corrections/observations" in a helpful or amusing spirit, I would have been much more receptive to his message. As it was, his tone and attitude seemed squarely aimed at demeaning people, and my level of disgust increased with each turn of the page.

The book is not all bad, but the author's leftist ideology comes thru at every turn (and I doubt he cares about that.) That doesn't necessarily make him wrong, but by writing his book with such a slant, he seems to be doing the exact same thing that he complains about with regards to historic sites.

He goes off on serious tangents, so severe, that I forget what the original topic was. As for the vignette on the KKK in Indiana, is he really suggesting that the state pay for and put up signs regarding the history of KKK activities?
Historic markers, while they shouldn't be totally white-washed, should generally be positive, not negative.
He also seems to be encouraging destruction of private property (see the excerpt about Stone Mountain at the end of the book.)

He appears to think that historic sites and signs should be the end all be all of education. One little sign can only include so much information, which is one more reason I feel Loewen gets quite petty in this book. There's more than enough stuff in books and online to read about, then to include in signage across the land.

His overuse of the generalizing and condescending term "neo-Confederate" is also grating. And, whether this is fair or not, who knows, but he seems like a typical, "America has been an unfair country from day one" liberal. Loewen is big on issues of race and it is on full display in this book. I'm surprised he doesn't have a bumper sticker that reads, "I hate old, white men." Well, maybe he does. It also should be mentioned that Loewen was cozy with the late Howard Zinn.

He writes extensively about a lack of acknowledgement for women (and perhaps he has some point), but then doesn't mention the monument to Clara Barton on the Antietam Battlefield. Selective amnesia? Intellectual dishonesty? That's for the reader to decide. I'd be curious if he thinks Margaret Sanger should be memorialized and, if so, how much would we say about her.

As for George Washington as a deist, here are just a couple quotes from his own prayer book:
"Bless my family, kindred, friends and country, be our God and guide this day and forever for His sake, who lay down in the grave and arose again for us, Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen."

"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible."

This is the frst book I have ever thrown away. If I wanted to read about how the white man has ruined the North American continent I would pick up a brochure from my neighborhood chapter of The Nation Of Islam.

First, if this book had the title: "What You May Not Have Known About America's Historic Sites", I may have given this three stars. But the title of this book uses the word "lies", and this is most misleading. I will give a brief example of how the author has a clear, personal agenda in this book. On page 51, Loewen discusses how the original name of Mt. McKinley in Alaska had been named Denali by the Eskimos. This is true enough. He further asserts that it was an act of oppression that it was renamed McKinley in the late 1800s and that it has been a big lie ever since. How is this a lie? It is the mountain's proper name and has been for over a century. Throughout world history, the conqueror (or dominant force) usually renames places and sites. For better or worse, right or wrong, it is part of history. Loewen then advocates a need to reverse the naming of Mt. McKinley (as well as other places that have been renamed over time).

Let's juxtapose the above example with the following historical event: The city of Istanbul, Turkey, was named Constantinople for more than 1000 years before Islamic forces conquered the Christian city and renamed it Istanbul in the 15th century. With the author's thinking, it would be a lie for any textbook or classroom to refer to this city as Istanbul rather than Constantinople. Again, for better or worse, this city's name is Istanbul and has been for over 500 years. Further, and with the author's advocacy of returning places to their original name (whatever that means), there should be an international movement and campaign to return this city's name to Constantinople.

I hope people can see the silliness in all this. Just like the author's other book, "Lies My Teacher Told Me", it has an agenda. To illustrate a quick example from that text, the author argues that it has been a big "lie" that most textbooks and documentaries fail to mention that Helen Keller was a socialist. True enough that Keller bordered on Communism, but how is it a "lie" when most books make no mention of her political thinking? Usually, it is about her struggle and determination of overcoming her disability. It would in fact have been a lie if textbooks had information claiming that she was a diehard conservative. But again, how does the absence of that information make this an entry for "The Lies My Teacher Told Me"?

I could go on and on about how both books are very twisted, but I might just write my own book about how it is a "lie" (and injustice, of course) for France to be called France because it was conquered by the Frankish Tribes and should return to the more ancient name of Gaul.........you get the picture.

Loewen's book is fascinating reading and offers an interesting take on America's past. The book is very detailed. However; the book has a strong Anti-American feel to it at times. Loewen seems to delight in reporting on America's evil past; repeatedly returning to the themes of slavery and the brutality shown towards Native-Americans.

These were, without question, important instances in American history. These are also important subjects to study in a wider context.

However; when every story seems to point out the evils of Caucasian men and attacks American or Southern heritage at every opportunity, the stories start to seem biased. Especially annoying is that no where on the book's dust jacket does it suggest that the reader is about to read a book about the evils of American Settlers.

"Lies Across America" is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Disguised behind this book's apparently innocuous political correctness lies a new form of pernicious censorship. Even though the author claims that he has no intent to rip down monuments, much of his reasoning is deeply flawed. Instead of doing original research into the various subjects that he writes on, like a good professor should do, he summarizes a book, says it presents correct conclusions, and then says that the old thinking is wrong. Case in point, is the chapter on the burning of Columbia, South Carolina during the Civil War. Instead of looking at all the evidence on what happened when Sherman marched into the city in 1865, Loewen quotes two books which he seems to think draw the correct conclusions, and says that Sherman really had nothing to do with burning the city. Thus, almost all the historical markers in Columbia are wrong, or so Loewen seems to hold. Not the most convincing argument.

Loewen goes on to say interesting things in his book but goes absolutely nowhere with them. For instance, he says that the Confederate Relic Room in Columbia may be "the least accurate museum operated by a state government anywhere in the United States." Why does he say this? What evidence does he have to support this other than the museum says that Sherman and his troops burned down 80 % of the city? Another diatribe against South Carolina is found in the appendix, where Loewen says that John Calhoun has no "redeeming characteristics, so I suggest removing him to museums from Marion Square in Charleston, the South Carolina State House, Calhoun College at Yale, the United States Capitol, and wherever else he sits in a place of honor." Loewen pretends to be upholding historical realism with quotes from Paul Fussell (a real Historian), but in fact his true agenda is just liberal censorship.

We in America are fortunate that we do not have a strictly homogenous society. The United States is a society founded by all different types of religions and ethnicities and we should celebrate these differences. However, just because we disagree with cultures and ideas long ago, that does not mean they are not worth studying. There are always people that we agree with, and disagree with. The beautiful thing about open societies like America is that we can read and listen to people that we disagree with, and then make up our own minds. The great jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote long ago that "the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas -- that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out." Censorship, whether propagated by liberals or conservatives, can only stand in the way of this marketplace of ideas. To say that an important 19th century politician like John Calhoun is not worth studying is just simply intellectually dishonest, especially from a professor. In conclusion, a book like this should have a place in the marketplace of ideas, but when it comes down to buying into Loewen's theories, I'm glad I checked it out at the library.

I first thought that the book was pretty entertaining until the section on the Mining Hall of Fame. I actually know about this museum in Leadville Co. The author falsely alludes to the museum being a product of "big business" to promote their agenda. This museum actually took many years of interested individuals' efforts to create. The author seems to be upset because the museum doesn't tell the whole story about mining methods and their impact. This museum was never intended to do that. There are dozens upon dozens of mining museums across the country that does this. The Mining Hall of Fame primarily focuses on notable people who have contributed to mining in the US. Many of the inductees had not only a major impact on mining in the US, but also the world. The author is critical because the type of people HE would like to see inducted in the museum are not represented, and alludes to racism. He uses an example of a Native American "discovering" uranium in the 1950's in New Mexico, and asking why this person is not in the Hall of Fame. Gee, could it be that uranium was actually discovered many years before? After all, they did mine uranium in NM for the atomic bomb during the 1940's. I did not finish the book because it was obvious that using actual facts were beyond the scope of this book.....

Modern American liberals often dismiss the pro-slavery arguments of the Old South as self-serving ideology. OK, and James Loewen's books allow modern liberals to feel intellectually superior and morally pure, as evidenced by the reviews here. Therefore . . .

This book is pure garbage. It is not really about exploring the genuine inacurracies in American monuments and markers (perhaps an interesting topic). It is really about James Loewen trying to force his far left political views and outlook on others. Many of Loewen's claims of inaccuracy are actually debateable and Loewen is simply taking sides and proclaiming the far left view to be true. Sometimes Loewen's complaints have nothing to do with inaccuracies at all, just Loewen complaining that whites or southerners honor some politically incorrect person or event. I seriously wonder, after having read Kevin MacDonald's Culture of Critique, if their isn't an ethnic diminsion to Loewen's hostility to white Americans and Southerners. If any historical sites should be removed, I would recommend removing a particular museum in Washington that claims to show events that Americans really had nothing to do with and that certain segments of the population want to constantly focus on.

I asked for and recieved this book and the author's other dreck about wrong history in the U.S. for Christmas, 2007.

The author is wrong. The author is biased. The author doesn't care about facts; he has a message to promote.

I regret asking my relatives to spend their hard-earned money on this poorly-researched propaganda and I regret wasting what precious time I have reading it.

Can I speak any more forcefully about how rotten and disgusting this author's alternate history "history" really is? This is the sort of drivel that should get one's tenure revoked and should cause employers to fire Mr. Loewen for outright academic dishonesty.

Such a poor book - the only thing that I can see that accounts for its staying power is Loewen's relentless pugnacity, which makes this a mildly entertaining read, at least in a literary sense. But really, what does this man (a sociologist, not a trained historian) actually know that allows him to write about these sites with such smug authority? From what I can tell, this book is little more than a patchwork of "gotcha!"'s and "I know this fact and you don't" observations. It doesn't amount to much. Furthermore, he knows little, and tells even less, about the state of American history itself when these monuments were created. In short, he condemns the past for what it didn't know about the present - a pretty serious cardinal sin for anyone who presumes to have the capacity to "do" history. Please leave history to the historians, Mr. Loewen - stick to your own field. And research more thoroughly before you presume to write with authority - moral or scholarly.

In the same spirit as the Soviet Union's major newspaper was called Pravda - meaning "truth" - Loewen gives the reader a non-stop parade of lies, badly-written propaganda and half-truths. Not only that, but he manages to bore the reader to death at the same time with his terrible, incompetent writing! This deserves zero stars and only crack-smoking communists...er, "progressives" would read such tripe. If you have a bird cage, you can use the pages to line the bottom so at least we didn't kill the trees for nothing.

Professor Loewen does a very good job of telling what is wrong with the way history is taught and then does the same sort of thing. Half truth do not a history book make. Loewen only presents that which agrees with his point of view.

I only paid $4.99 for this dreadful book and I feel cheated. I was hoping for an interesting journey through our quirky and sometimes just silly U.S historical sites but what I got was a book that does nothing but preach about the evils of our "vile" forefathers and how insensitive they (and we) are. Luck for us that Mr. Loewen is here to enlighten.
You can tell this was written by a sociology professor and not a history professor