Talk:U.S. History Textbook Project

I read Churchill's 'The Great Republic' when I was in college. Highly reccomend it as something of a 'conservative' viewpoint.

However, stick to the textbooks for examinations. Textbooks merely provide facts in a dry form. You are pulling at straws if you can find any sort of Liberal bias in them. TBarret 10:05, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

Not to seem rude, but this whole "[insert item here] has a Liberal bias!" Is getting a little bit absurd. Now, I really can understand some of the things people are accusing of having "bias" (Media Outlets primarily) But now this whole "textbook conspiracy" seems a little bit absurd to me.--ITSAMEMARIO 22:03, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

Oh right - the media has liberal bias but somehow textbooks do not. What's their secret??? Perhaps you're next going to tell us that Wikipedia does not have any bias either.--Aschlafly 22:31, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

"The media has a liberal bias." How is it that an entity such as "the media" -- assuming that we can talk about it as an undifferentiated lump, which is problematic in itself -- would have an institutional bias that ran contrary to the interests of the people who own most of the outlets that make up what we think of as "the media?" Television networks and stations, radio networks and stations, magazines, newspapers, movie studios, record companies and in the context of this little article, book publishers are all - and over the last decade, decade and a half, increasingly so - owned by fewer and fewer large companies that are completely imbricated in corporate structures. Why - and more importantly how - would the corporate elites who own the media spend billions and billions of dollars to put out a "liberal" message that allegedly embraces a "party line" that would lead to their own loss of wealth and power? AliceBG 22:42, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

Well, I have read America: Pathways to the Present and I didn't personally didn't see any bias in it. But, tell me what part(s) of it are biased, and if I can see where you are coming from then I will gladly admit I am wrong. --ITSAMEMARIO 17:56, 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.--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. Geoff Plourde^Complain! 19:48, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

Some books identify a number of areas of bias in US history teaching. The Politically Incorrect Guide by Dr. Thomas E. Woods only gives a cursory overview of US history, but it has much noteworthy information and points out the areas that are mistaught. Woods does go overboard in his portrayals of Wilson and FD Roosevelt, presenting a clear isolationist stance without any counterbalance. 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 unlike the imperialistic policies of the Jacksonians it would have been limited intervention and in the end, would have left us with a smaller government).--Irpw 14:10, 24 June 2008 (EDT)