62
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 11:
Line 11: + + + +
Talk:U.S. History Textbook Project (view source)
Revision as of 18:10, June 24, 2008
, 18:10, June 24, 2008some suggestions for text research
:::: The person at the Hudson Institute said it is biased, and had many examples that I think we link to. I'm not that familiar with the Hudson Institute but I think it has a reputation for being impartial.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:19, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
:::: The person at the Hudson Institute said it is biased, and had many examples that I think we link to. I'm not that familiar with the Hudson Institute but I think it has a reputation for being impartial.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:19, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::I really think from AP US History experience, that it is impossible to find a textbook that is free from liberal bias. The American Pageant slams McCarthy, Kaplan has a large section of personal opinion. I think, writing our own would be best. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geoff Plourde]]<sup>[[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]]</sup> 19:48, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::I really think from AP US History experience, that it is impossible to find a textbook that is free from liberal bias. The American Pageant slams McCarthy, Kaplan has a large section of personal opinion. I think, writing our own would be best. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geoff Plourde]]<sup>[[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]]</sup> 19:48, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
As very superficial, but broad based overviews that can serve to identify key areas of bias, the Politically Incorrect Guide by Dr. Thomas E. Woods has much noteworthy information. He does go overboard in his portrayals of Wilson and FD Roosevelt, presenting a clear isolationist stance without any counterbalance, and the same is true in other areas (especially his anti-Federalist stances at the beginning of the book - and later on he even goes a bit too hard on LBJ), but other parts are fascinating. In any case, it's a good place to start for info on some topics, especially on the communist infiltration of the last century and the effect it has today.
Other good starting points from which more info can be gathered are the Wall St Journal's Presidential Leadership (some of the essays, especially those of the more "trashed" presidents who tried to keep the Union together through diplomacy or who opposed the League of Nations) and anything by Richard Brookhiser (he is uniquely Federalist and it seems to me that if we had gone that route we'd have had more government intervention at first, but not in a way that would have grown significantly as it did as a counter to some of the more imperialistic policies of the Jacksonians, etc).