Drama of American History - A Caution

[yinne]

I hesitate to even post this and it is not my intention to start a debate.

 

However, if you tend to be conservative, you probably aren't going to care for this series especially with the volumes that deal with more recent history.

 

So before you jump on the bandwagon, check some out from your library and see if they are a fit for you.

 

Yvonne in NE

[FO4UR]

:bigear:

 

What book(s) specifically? I have a few of these, but none of recent history.

[nmoira]

:lurk5:

 

However, if you tend to be conservative, you probably aren't going to care for this series especially with the volumes that deal with more recent history.

Why?

[EJCMom]

Would you be willing to elaborate?

[yinne]

No, I really don't want to elaborate because I really, really, really don't want to start a debate.

 

I have spent the afternoon reading through a number of these books and I just felt that someone needed to say, "Hey wait just a minute before jumping on the bandwagon, check these out for yourself and see if they will work for your family." Everyone's situation and views are different and what works for one family isn't necessarily going to work for another family.

 

Yvonne in NE

Edited June 18, 2010 by yinne

[TracyP]

Thank you Yvonne,

 

All these recent threads have made it really clear that I need to preread everything and decide if, how, when I will use each book in my family. I'm glad my kids are young.

 

Not a complaint, but this hs'ing thing is tougher than I ever counted on.:tongue_smilie:

[nmoira]

 

No, I really don't want to elaborate because I really, really, really don't want to start a debate.

If you are alleging bias, some examples would have been appreciated. Which books? Which chapters/passages? What was missing? What is (in your view) inaccurate. If you don't want to debate, you could make the citations and leave it to others. :D

[Caraway]

If you are alleging bias, some examples would have been appreciated. Which books? Which chapters/passages? What was missing? What is (in your view) inaccurate. If you don't want to debate, you could make the citations and leave it to others. :D

 

Yeah, I need some examples. Can anyone else (without using the word depraved :tongue_smilie:) provide some examples of what might be questionable?

 

Please?!?!?! :bigear:

[dancer67]

Since I own the set, I would love to know which book/s you are referring to?

[Lovedtodeath]

Don't be scared. Just go ahead and elaborate and then use the ignore button and/or unsubscribe from the thread. :D Oh, or you could elaborate in a PM and send everyone asking a copy.

 

I plan to use something planned for American History, so I don't really have any real interest in these.

 

Oh yeah, why am I posting?:001_huh:

[nmoira]

 

Oh yeah, why am I posting?:001_huh:

:tongue_smilie:

[yinne]

My whole point in posting in the first place was to say, "Before you go rushing out to find all these books take a look at them and see if they are a fit." My purpose isn't to list the things that I take issue with, but just a caution that I don't feel that they are as balanced as they have been portrayed. You might feel that they are, but you need to decide that for yourself.

 

My kids are older and they can recognize some of the bias that I felt was in the books I read this afternoon, but I would not be comfortable giving them to a younger child that cannot recognize the bias. But what seems like bias to me may be perfectly OK to you -- but that is why you need to read the books for yourself -- don't just take someone else's opinion.

 

Yvonne in NE

[nmoira]

 

I don't feel that they are as balanced as they have been portrayed. You might feel that they are, but you need to decide that for yourself.

That's fair enough. However, not everyone here is a scholar of American history, and many of us appreciate discussion, lively or otherwise, of perceived inaccuracies or bias. You've made a fairly specific non-specific ;) allegation, but the only thing I've learned is that you think the series is biased. Is it due to facts presented or not presented? Bias coming through in the authors' voice? I need more than, "Read it yourself," if I'm to learn anything. Edited June 18, 2010 by nmoira

[Shelly in the Country]

This may be random, but all of this talk of bias has reminded me of an interview with Diane Ravitch I heard on NPR a few years back.

One of her major points was that modern history textbooks are becoming content-less. She said this was happening because textbook publishers, in the interest of selling textbooks, try to market their wares to people of varying political persuasions. In order to please everybody, they end up having to skip or skirt much content. No matter how one decides to cover certain historical events somebody will get offended.

 

Anyway, this may sound random, but all of this back-and-forth just reminded me of this. It's a good interview by the way. I heart Diane Ravitch :001_smile:.

 

Hijack over :auto:

[Spy Car]

I would also appreciate any specific books or chapters that might cause a person concern.

 

I'm sitting down with a couple more volumes this evening, but they are the earliest volumes rather than later ones.

 

But if valid concerns are raised, I can read out of order.

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

This may be random, but all of this talk of bias has reminded me of an interview with Diane Ravitch I heard on NPR a few years back.

One of her major points was that modern history textbooks are becoming content-less. She said this was happening because textbook publishers, in the interest of selling textbooks, try to market their wares to people of varying political persuasions. In order to please everybody, they end up having to skip or skirt much content. No matter how one decides to cover certain historical events somebody will get offended.

 

Anyway, this may sound random, but all of this back-and-forth just reminded me of this. It's a good interview by the way. I heart Diane Ravitch :001_smile:.

 

Hijack over :auto:

 

On that point for a moment Shelly. The "content-less-ness" (is that a word?) of some modern history texts bothers me too. I don't want PC pablum that is dumbed-down to achieve basically one aim, not causing offense, while not informing and educating young people on our history.

 

That is exactly why I've been so enthusiastic about what I've seen thus far in the DoAH series. The writing is engaging, the history is deep and nuanced (especially for a work that intentionally stays "narrow" in its focus, sticking to main themes), and very fair-minded.

 

It is a tough balancing act to pull off. I've been very impressed thus far.

 

Bill

[swimmermom3]

On that point for a moment Shelly. The "content-less-ness" (is that a word?) of some modern history texts bothers me too. I don't want PC pablum that is dumbed-down to achieve basically one aim, not causing offense, while not informing and educating young people on our history.

 

That is exactly why I've been so enthusiastic about what I've seen thus far in the DoAH series. The writing is engaging, the history is deep and nuanced (especially for a work that intentionally stays "narrow" in its focus, sticking to main themes), and very fair-minded.

 

It is a tough balancing act to pull off. I've been very impressed thus far.

 

Bill

 

Okay Bill, don't put me on ignore for this. I have older teens in ps high school. I read many, not all of their texts. Sometimes (plug your ears, cover your eyes) I would almost prefer Marshall to the pointlessness of a couple of their texts. There is nothing to think about, nothing for an eager mind to grab onto or challenge, but it certainly is pc.:tongue_smilie:

 

Lisa-who is only slightly depraved-she hopes.;)

[FlockOfSillies]

This really doesn't help me. Have a little courage and let the debate begin. That's why we're here, to some degree. Maybe Bill more than the rest of us, LOL.

 

I'm considering them to use for a logic-stage kid, not grammar-stage. I can't imagine using these with a second grader. The reading level's too high.

 

I'm politically conservative, so can you at least tell us whether they're more, less, or about the same in bias level and direction as Hakim?

 

My local library only had two of the DoAH books on hand, and I found one in the library bookstore. That's it. Do you honestly expect me to read every single title, cover to cover, when I can't get my hands on more than one or two without going through ILL? What if the ones I saw don't have the problems you're claiming are there? I don't have time for that! I have five kids, and I barely have enough time or energy to read anything for myself, much less choose books that I need to procure, plan, and schedule to use only a few weeks from now.

 

Stop wasting our time with the cloak-and-dagger routine.

Edited June 18, 2010 by FlockOfSillies

[Shelly in the Country]

On that point for a moment Shelly. The "content-less-ness" (is that a word?) of some modern history texts bothers me too. I don't want PC pablum that is dumbed-down to achieve basically one aim, not causing offense, while not informing and educating young people on our history.

 

That is exactly why I've been so enthusiastic about what I've seen thus far in the DoAH series. The writing is engaging, the history is deep and nuanced (especially for a work that intentionally stays "narrow" in its focus, sticking to main themes), and very fair-minded.

 

It is a tough balancing act to pull off. I've been very impressed thus far.

 

 

 

 

By the way, I wanted to make it very clear I wasn't trying to implicate DoAH in my "hijack". I've never looked at it, and considering it is OOP (at least that is what I have gathered from previous posts?), it may very well not be content-less :lol:....did I get that double-negative right?

[usetoschool]

I hesitate to even post this and it is not my intention to start a debate.

 

However, if you tend to be conservative, you probably aren't going to care for this series especially with the volumes that deal with more recent history.

 

So before you jump on the bandwagon, check some out from your library and see if they are a fit for you.

 

Yvonne in NE

 

 

:lol: I was reading the Cold War one the day all of this was going on here and was going to say the exact same thing but I am a chicken and hate confrontation. Thanks for just saying it!

 

The problem is they almost try too hard to be objective so communism is just another form of government with equal validity and the US shouldn't have been so afraid of the communists. Capitalism gets bashed left and right and Reagan gets no credit for anything. Those are just the feelings from skimming one book. Skimming a few others gave me the capitalism bashing feeling as well.

 

Because they are so light on names and dates, more of just a general story of the flow of events, it is hard to put my finger on exactly what might be right, wrong, accurate, biased, whatever, because I am not a history expert. I have a general feeling in some places of a not conservative bias - some other books seem to be fine though.

[Aubrey]

This really doesn't help me. Have a little courage and let the debate begin. That's why we're here, to some degree. Maybe Bill more than the rest of us, LOL.

 

I'm considering them to use for a logic-stage kid, not grammar-stage. I can't imagine using these with a second grader. The reading level's too high.

 

I'm politically conservative, so can you at least tell us whether they're more, less, or about the same in bias level and direction and Hakim?

 

My local library only had two of the DoAH books on hand, and I found one in the library bookstore. That's it. Do you honestly expect me to read every single title, cover to cover, when I can't get my hands on more than one or two without going through ILL? What if the ones I saw don't have the problems you're claiming are there? I don't have time for that! I have five kids, and I barely have enough time or energy to read anything for myself, much less choose books that I need to procure, plan, and schedule to use only a few weeks from now.

 

Stop wasting our time with the cloak-and-dagger routine.

 

Gosh. That was harsh.

 

Some people don't do well w/ confrontation. If I were OP? Next time I wouldn't even mention potential problems.

 

But come on--recent history? Potentially offensive to conservatives? We all know basically what that means, but the person who says it will get railed.

 

I'll venture a guess--any of the recent wars? Gay marriage? Health care? If you just think about what divides us the most & recent history, I bet you'll be pretty close to OP's point.

[Shelly in the Country]

I have older teens in ps high school. I read many, not all of their texts. Sometimes (plug your ears, cover your eyes) I would almost prefer Marshall to the pointlessness of a couple of their texts. There is nothing to think about, nothing for an eager mind to grab onto or challenge, but it certainly is pc.:tongue_smilie:

 

 

Another piece of randomness:

 

When I took AP American History in high school (in 1992 to be exact), my history teacher pulled out dusty old textbooks from the 1960's. They were absolutely falling apart. Although he didn't really elaborate, he told us he was making us use those duct-taped relics because he couldn't find anything suitable that was in print. He was one of the best teachers I ever had.

[Spy Car]

:lol: I was reading the Cold War one the day all of this was going on here and was going to say the exact same thing but I am a chicken and hate confrontation. Thanks for just saying it!

 

The problem is they almost try too hard to be objective so communism is just another form of government with equal validity and the US shouldn't have been so afraid of the communists. Capitalism gets bashed left and right and Reagan gets no credit for anything. Those are just the feelings from skimming one book. Skimming a few others gave me the capitalism bashing feeling as well.

 

Because they are so light on names and dates, more of just a general story of the flow of events, it is hard to put my finger on exactly what might be right, wrong, accurate, biased, whatever, because I am not a history expert. I have a general feeling in some places of a not conservative bias - some other books seem to be fine though.

 

Which title did you read? I will try to secure it to read myself.

 

Thanks in advance,

 

Bill

[Shelly in the Country]

I'll venture a guess--any of the recent wars? Gay marriage? Health care? If you just think about what divides us the most & recent history, I bet you'll be pretty close to OP's point.

 

Maybe Reagan

[Spy Car]

Okay Bill, don't put me on ignore for this. I have older teens in ps high school. I read many, not all of their texts. Sometimes (plug your ears, cover your eyes) I would almost prefer Marshall to the pointlessness of a couple of their texts. There is nothing to think about, nothing for an eager mind to grab onto or challenge, but it certainly is pc.:tongue_smilie:

 

Lisa-who is only slightly depraved-she hopes.;)

 

My nephews go to really (really) good ($$$$$$) private schools. I, being who I am, always grab their textbooks for examination. Blech.

 

They include "Social Studies" that ain't history in my book. I didn't read Marshall because I wanted to gore someone down the line. I wanted a good text for American History. Something solid. KWIM?

 

Bill

[Capt_Uhura]

There is a Community - gosh darn forget the title - for listing books and what you think might be an issue for someone. I find this extremely helpful. I"m a math and science gal.....don't recall anything from history....probably wouldn't see bias if it knocked on my front door.....I need/want someone to point things out so I can pre-read, ruminate and make an informed decision.

[Donna T.]

My whole point in posting in the first place was to say, "Before you go rushing out to find all these books take a look at them and see if they are a fit." My purpose isn't to list the things that I take issue with, but just a caution that I don't feel that they are as balanced as they have been portrayed. You might feel that they are, but you need to decide that for yourself.

 

My kids are older and they can recognize some of the bias that I felt was in the books I read this afternoon, but I would not be comfortable giving them to a younger child that cannot recognize the bias. But what seems like bias to me may be perfectly OK to you -- but that is why you need to read the books for yourself -- don't just take someone else's opinion.

 

Yvonne in NE

 

Perfectly reasonable advise, Yvonne! Thank you for sharing.

[Spy Car]

Maybe Reagan

 

I'd like to read what they say about Ronald Reagan. I'm a little older than some of you, and was studying Political Science at Berkeley at the time Mr Reagan was president.

 

Like all presidents, Mr Reagan had gifts and liablities. There is no doubt he restored a spirit of optimism that was at a low ebb after the presidency of Jimmy Carter. But it is not the whole picture.

 

The haliographic portrayal of his Administration that emerged before (and especially after) his passing is misty-eyed, but ignores real problems in his Administration.

 

If the Collins brothers paint a fuller portrait and more accurate portrait, I would much prefer it to a one sided "celebration" of the Reagan years.

 

Bill

Edited June 18, 2010 by Spy Car

[Spy Car]

By the way, I wanted to make it very clear I wasn't trying to implicate DoAH in my "hijack". I've never looked at it, and considering it is OOP (at least that is what I have gathered from previous posts?), it may very well not be content-less :lol:....did I get that double-negative right?

 

I read you loud and clear :001_smile:

 

Bill

[usetoschool]

I'm politically conservative, so can you at least tell us whether they're more, less, or about the same in bias level and direction as Hakim?

 

I would say the bias is less obvious and harder for me to pick out because, like I said, I am definitely not a history major and the books are so, I don't know, not really vague, just not a lot of detail that you can pin point. The Hakim books are more first person, exact, this is the way it was and here is why and what I think about it. She doesn't hesitate to put her opinion about the people and events. I know that is how they wrote the DoAH books, on purpose, based on the preface in each edition, so it isn't a flaw, just makes it hard to pinpoint problems exactly. I find myself thinking, well, yes, I suppose that is one way of looking at it, but it somehow seems off.

 

I read the Civil War one yesterday and didn't really find anything particularly objectionable about it, but I had just finished reading with the kids a book about the causes of the Civil War that was much more precise and still managed to be unbiased (this one if anyone cares) so I was kind of underwhelmed by the vagueness of this one.

 

I will still be using them and like the story feeling of them (they remind me of SoTW in that way), just be aware that all authors have some point of view and sometimes a less conservative point of view comes across in these books.

 

I have 4 or 5 of them if anyone wants me to pick out specific passages to quote so you can decide for yourself...

[usetoschool]

Which title did you read? I will try to secure it to read myself.

 

Thanks in advance,

 

Bill

 

The United States in the Cold War 1945-1989

[Lovedtodeath]

That is funny about communism, because I got the same feeling from my high school government book. It sounds like a great idea. Why don't we do it? lol

[yinne]

I'm not afraid of confrontation, but again that wasn't my purpose in posting, but I will list a few things that I personally didn't feel were very 'balanced'.

 

Rhode Island -- founded by religious dissenters with extreme views, not a big thing, but if you are going to use words such as extreme elaborate

 

Castro -- If the US had been more understanding Cuba might be a democratic country today

 

Reagan -- widen the gap between rich and poor

 

George W. Bush -- implied that the only reason he won the election from Gore was because his father had appointed two of the people on the Supreme Court

 

Republicans -- don't care about clean water or clean air, but do want to keep pornography down

 

Slavery is a respect of life issue, but abortion is just an unwanted pregnancy

 

Bill Clinton -- everything he did was good except for some problems in his personal life

 

These are just a few of the things I picked up in reading through the books this afternoon. Most of these I pulled from "The Middle Road: American Politics", but also the one about the Cold War, Slavery and the Civil War, French and Indian War, etc.

 

I don't find this balanced, you may.

 

Yvonne in NE

[swimmermom3]

I hesitate to even post this and it is not my intention to start a debate.

 

However, if you tend to be conservative, you probably aren't going to care for this series especially with the volumes that deal with more recent history.

 

So before you jump on the bandwagon, check some out from your library and see if they are a fit for you.

 

Yvonne in NE

 

Yvonne, I really do appreciate you bringing this to our attention. I bought the first book, read it, liked what I saw, ordered two more and so on. One thing that I had forgotten was that often in a long, drawn out series, especially in history, the books at the end can really suffer in quality. I think most of us who were looking at these books were looking for a balanced perspective - as best as one can have. I may be liberal but I don't want shoddy history facts twisted to support that viewpoint. Does that make sense?

[nmoira]

If the Collins brothers paint a fuller portrait and more accurate portrait, I would much prefer it to a one sided "celebration" of the Reagan years.

Quoting myself from a different thread:

 

This is from The Middle Road: American Politics, 1945-2000

 

Reagan

 

• brief biography, including mention of his having "fought communist influence" while president of SAG, and being spokesperson for General Electric in the early 60's, and his becoming a "fervent supporter of big business and a thorough conservative."

• came into prominence with a speech in the early 60's promoting ""small government" states rights conservatism," and idea not yet popular

• brief run down of ascendency in California and attempts to get party's presidential nomination, which he got in 1980

• contrasts his manner to Carter, "morning in America"

• "Ronald Reagan was not an especially thoughtful president, given to pondering ideas. He stuck to a few broad principles he had long held and left his aides and Cabinet officers to work out the details."

• factual account (absent what I would consider judgemental langauge): anti- anti-pollution laws and "unnecessary" restrictions on businesses; pro- supply side economics; down with power of labour unions (using example of air traffic controllers)

• departure of 30 years' US policy: communism should not "merely be contained"; "evil empire"; Granada; stationing of missiles;

• cut taxes while building up military; but not wanting debt "proposed to cut back programs for poor, like food stamps and subsidized housing." Not cut as much as he wanted

• government began to run huge deficits, always at least $100 billion a year. "During his administration, the United States piled up more debt than it had in its entire history since 1789."

• in reaction, to stem tide -- Congress raises Social Security taxes

• effects of Reagan's programs: "(1) huge increase in military spending; (2) reduction in social programs; (3) a tax increase for middle- and low- income families - and a tax cut for the wealthy; (4) an increase in the national debt of massive proportions."

• goes on to say Reagan not responsible for all of the debt (mentions Social Security and Medicare), but unequivocally attributes the large tax cuts as a factor (and in the next paragraph, it's flip side, the increase in military spending is also credited)

• talks about spreading gap in wealth between rich and poor and gives some statistics

• more about increase in military spending, the "main purpose of which was to confront communism wherever it appeared." ; support of contras in Nicaragua (and associated cost, often hidden from public); SDI -- banned under various anti-nuke agreements, and never got very far

• easily won '84 election

• "The shine, however, was beginning to wear off Reagan -- deficits -- "and there was a growing sense that President Reagan, however, cheerful and confident he always seemed, had not thoroughly mastered his job.

• Iran Contra - explanation of basic details, followed by (specifically regarding aiding Contras, and not the broader mechanism) "But Reagan was sure that Castro's Cuba was fermenting communist take-overs all through Central America. Reagan put his anti-communism ahead of his oath to see that the nation's laws were enforced, and encouraged these illegal transactions." -- talks about indictments in Iran-Contra, Reagan's claim of ignorance (and lack of indictment), and ends with: "There is evidence, however, that Reagan had not only known about it, but actually authorized it." (IMHO, that there is conclusive evidence is not implied)

• 1986, Democrats win back Senate

• no mention of Berlin Wall, though the collapse of the USSR is discussed in the next chapter (which deals with the Bush presidency):

• Some commentators believed that the collapse of the Soviet economy had been caused by Reagan's military build-up, which had forced the Soviets to increase military spending, straining their economy to the breaking point. This was partly true. But the main cause of the collapse of the communist system was the weaknesses in the scheme which had existed for decades. The Cold War, in any case, was over."

   

• there is also a book in the series devoted entirely to the Cold War

 

[Lovedtodeath]

I'm not afraid of confrontation, but again that wasn't my purpose in posting, but I will list a few things that I personally didn't feel were very 'balanced'.

 

Rhode Island -- founded by religious dissenters with extreme views, not a big thing, but if you are going to use words such as extreme elaborate

 

Castro -- If the US had been more understanding Cuba might be a democratic country today

 

Reagan -- widen the gap between rich and poor

 

George W. Bush -- implied that the only reason he won the election from Gore was because his father had appointed two of the people on the Supreme Court

 

Republicans -- don't care about clean water or clean air, but do want to keep pornography down

 

Slavery is a respect of life issue, but abortion is just an unwanted pregnancy

 

Bill Clinton -- everything he did was good except for some problems in his personal life

 

These are just a few of the things I picked up in reading through the books this afternoon. Most of these I pulled from "The Middle Road: American Politics", but also the one about the Cold War, Slavery and the Civil War, French and Indian War, etc.

 

I don't find this balanced, you may.

 

Yvonne in NE

Thank you Yvonne. :grouphug: Well I can agree with some and disagree with others, but hmmm... I would rather do without opinions like this being in a text at all. I am hoping Sonlight or another provider will at least point out stuff like this for me ahead of time.

[Spy Car]

The United States in the Cold War 1945-1989

 

Thank you!

 

Bill

[usetoschool]

I'd like to read what they say about Ronald Reagan. I'm a little older than some of you, and was studying Political Science at Berkeley at the time Mr Reagan was president.

 

Ya' young whippersnapper ;) I was married and had three kids by the time he left office.

[nmoira]

Well I can agree with some and disagree with others, but hmmm... I would rather do without opinions like this being in a text at all. I am hoping Sonlight or another provider will at least point out stuff like this for me.

I'll check later, but I've find that statements like these in the series are put forth as representing a viewpoint of the time, usually as one of a number competing viewpoints or sides.

 

Thanks for posting, Yvonne.

[Lovedtodeath]

Thanks for your post Moira. It is rather long so I haven't read it yet. (lazy generation Xer, lol)

[Aubrey]

I'd like to read what they say about Ronald Reagan. I'm a little older than some of you, and was studying Political Science at Berkeley at the time Mr Reagan was president.

 

Like all presidents, Mr Reagan had gifts and liablities. There is no doubt he restored a spirit of optimism that was at a low ebb after the presidency of Jimmy Carter. But it is not the whole picture.

 

The haliographic portrayal of his Administration that emerged before (and especially after) his passing is misty-eyed, but ignores real problems in his Administration.

 

If the Collins brothers paint a fuller portrait and more accurate portrait, I would much prefer it to a one sided "celebration" of the Reagan years.

 

Bill

 

Y'all are never going to listen to anything I say again, but I was in 6th g when Bush Sr was running for office. Everything I know about Reagan comes from Family Ties. And Michael J. Fox was so...appealing...w/ his ridiculously passionate money-grubbing conservative ideals. It only just now occurs to me that they were making fun of conservatives, implying that we're only interested in $. Huh.

 

I don't care. I loved MJF like some of y'all love what'shisname. The pirate guy. Johnny Depp. Ooh, but I do remember seeing a poster of him in a movie called Cry Baby & thinking WOW. But my heart will always be, beyond reason or logic, w/ MJF. Whose actual politics are completely opposed to my own, ironically. Oh well. :lol:

[Spy Car]

Quoting myself from a different thread:

 

This is from The Middle Road: American Politics, 1945-2000

 

Reagan

 

• brief biography, including mention of his having "fought communist influence" while president of SAG, and being spokesperson for General Electric in the early 60's, and his becoming a "fervent supporter of big business and a thorough conservative."

• came into prominence with a speech in the early 60's promoting ""small government" states rights conservatism," and idea not yet popular

• brief run down of ascendency in California and attempts to get party's presidential nomination, which he got in 1980

• contrasts his manner to Carter, "morning in America"

• "Ronald Reagan was not an especially thoughtful president, given to pondering ideas. He stuck to a few broad principles he had long held and left his aides and Cabinet officers to work out the details."

• factual account (absent what I would consider judgemental langauge): anti- anti-pollution laws and "unnecessary" restrictions on businesses; pro- supply side economics; down with power of labour unions (using example of air traffic controllers)

• departure of 30 years' US policy: communism should not "merely be contained"; "evil empire"; Granada; stationing of missiles;

• cut taxes while building up military; but not wanting debt "proposed to cut back programs for poor, like food stamps and subsidized housing." Not cut as much as he wanted

• government began to run huge deficits, always at least $100 billion a year. "During his administration, the United States piled up more debt than it had in its entire history since 1789."

• in reaction, to stem tide -- Congress raises Social Security taxes

• effects of Reagan's programs: "(1) huge increase in military spending; (2) reduction in social programs; (3) a tax increase for middle- and low- income families - and a tax cut for the wealthy; (4) an increase in the national debt of massive proportions."

• goes on to say Reagan not responsible for all of the debt (mentions Social Security and Medicare), but unequivocally attributes the large tax cuts as a factor (and in the next paragraph, it's flip side, the increase in military spending is also credited)

• talks about spreading gap in wealth between rich and poor and gives some statistics

• more about increase in military spending, the "main purpose of which was to confront communism wherever it appeared." i; support of contras in Nicaragua (and associated cost, often hidden from public); SDI -- banned under various anti-nuke agreements, and never got very far

• easily won '84 election

• "The shine, however, was beginning to wear off Reagan -- deficits -- "and there was a growing sense that President Reagan, however, cheerful and confident he always seemed, had not thoroughly mastered his job.

• Iran Contra - explanation of basic details, followed by (specifically regarding aiding Contras, and not the broader mechanism) "But Reagan was sure that Castro's Cuba was fermenting communist take-overs all through Central America. Reagan put his anti-communism ahead of his oath to see that the nation's laws were enforced, and encouraged these illegal transactions." -- talks about indictments in Iran-Contra, Reagan's claim of ignorance (and lack of indictment), and ends with: "There is evidence, however, that Reagan had not only known about it, but actually authorized it." (IMHO, that there is conclusive evidence is not implied)

• 1986, Democrats win back Senate

• no mention of Berlin Wall, though the collapse of the USSR is discussed in the next chapter (which deals with the Bush presidency):

• Some commentators believed that the collapse of the Soviet economy had been caused by Reagan's military build-up, which had forced the Soviets to increase military spending, straining their economy to the breaking point. This was partly true. But the main cause of the collapse of the communist system was the weaknesses in the scheme which had existed for decades. The Cold War, in any case, was over."

   

• there is also a book in the series devoted entirely to the Cold War

 

 

Hard to judge on bullet-points, but I'm not seeing much here that looks problematic. One point looks potentially "off" to me (and this may be more elaborated upon in the text) and that is the suggestion that his foreign policy may have been a departure from 30 years of "containment" policy towards the USSR.

 

Despite a harder rhetoric than some presidents, Mr Reagan's policies were in the mainstream of American foreign policy, including his handling of the US/Soviet superpower relationship. He was not the only president to fight proxy-wars against communism, and he did negotiate with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev.

 

And actually the scariest moment in Mr Reagan's presidency for national security types was when he met with Gorbachev in Reykjavik, Iceland in 1986 where Reagan proposed to share "Star Wars" technology with the Soviets and also proposed that both sides destroy all their nuclear weapons.

 

Presidential aides rushed in to make sure these things never happened, but it is not really correct to suggest Reagan didn't negotiate with the Soviets, or that his foreign policy stance was substantially different from previous presidents.

 

Bill

Edited June 18, 2010 by Spy Car

[Spy Car]

I'll check later, but I've find that statements like these in the series are put forth as representing a viewpoint of the time, usually as one of a number competing viewpoints or sides.

 

 

I'd like to see this for myself. Elsewhere in the series, whenever history become contentious (as it often does) the authors have been impeccable (IMO) in showing both sides of the coin. I hope this proves just as true when it comes to more contemporary history.

 

Bill

[swimmermom3]

I know you all have better things to do with your weekend; however, I am willing to read a book over the weekend and report back. We could divvy them up...or not.:tongue_smilie: It would be good to have a mix of viewpoints.

[MariannNOVA]

I know you all have better things to do with your weekend; however, I am willing to read a book over the weekend and report back. We could divvy them up...or not.:tongue_smilie: It would be good to have a mix of viewpoints.

 

I have a bunch of them here from the library.........but I wanted to say that you all have certainly put the DRAMA back into DRAMA of American History.;)

[swimmermom3]

I have a bunch of them here from the library.........but I wanted to say that you all have certainly put the DRAMA back into DRAMA of American History.;)

 

 

So...which one are you reporting on?:D

[MariannNOVA]

So...which one are you reporting on?:D

 

:svengo:You are SO focused!

 

Creating the Constitution, 1787

 

Pilgrims and Puritans, 1620-1676

 

I have those two here. I can also get: (from a nearby branch)

 

Progressivism, the Great Depression, and the New Deal, 1901-1941

 

Indians, cowboys and farmers, and the battle for the Great Plains, 1865-1910

 

Let me know.

 

ETA: 'here' as in here in the house as opposed to the others I have in the truck that I picked up today. Off the top of my head, I don't know which ones they are, I just grabbed all of them I could get.

[Nestof3]

I completely understand why you posted the way you did. What's going to happen is, someone is going to point out what he or she feels are biases, and then others will try to convince the poster that he or she is wrong.

[swimmermom3]

I completely understand why you posted the way you did. What's going to happen is, someone is going to point out what he or she feels are biases, and then others will try to convince the poster that he or she is wrong.

 

That could happen. Or like the other thread, someone could state their case and someone else run off, research, come back and report what they find. There was some excellent discussion and points well-made all the way around. As far as I am concerned, Yvonne has helped me to be a better teacher by pointing out potential problems with materials I have chosen. She has given me the heads-up and now it's my job to go and research. Again, it would be great if both sides report in and the dialogue is kept civil.

[Nestof3]

I guess I just assume that there are always people on both sides of an issue that feel strongly about a certain policy. If a person picks up on the fact that the author agrees, then the book is a perfect fit. If the person picks up that the author disagrees, the book is not a perfect fit.

 

For example, there are those who see increasing the amount of money spent on social programs as good and those who see it as bad. I'm speaking very simplistically here, but I think you get the point.

 

When I read a textbook, and the author states that affirmative action programs are an improvement, the author has made a judgment call. When an author insists that a certain president was a good president, the author has made a judgment call. I think it's very hard for authors not to do this.

 

That could happen. Or like the other thread, someone could state their case and someone else run off, research, come back and report what they find. There was some excellent discussion and points well-made all the way around. As far as I am concerned, Yvonne has helped me to be a better teacher by pointing out potential problems with materials I have chosen. She has given me the heads-up and now it's my job to go and research. Again, it would be great if both sides report in and the dialogue is kept civil.