What does "liberal bias" mean?

[TXBeth]

I have searched but can not find this answer anywhere. I am thinking of buying Hakim's History of Us with my new Audible membership. Many, many reviews talk about her "liberal bias," but none of them actually say what they mean by that or offer any examples. Politically liberal or socially liberal or what? What is this liberal bias? Does it mean she doesn't assume America is God's gift to the earth and better than any other nations? Or does it mean she trashes Republicans and Christians? I can see either situation resulting in a "liberal bias" review. The first I would love, the second I'd rather avoid.

 

Can anyone help clarify?

[Amy1k]

Hmmm...I really liked the books and thought they gave a fair perspective. I'm a Christian and a Democrat if that means anything. :laugh:

[Kalmia]

My son loves the Hakim books and reads them straight through. I also like them and think they present a lively depiction of American History. But there is a bit of editorializing that is not normally found in a history text that turns off some people (SpyCar recommends another excellent series (without any editorializing) as an alternative to Hakim, but I can't remember its name!) The editorializing tends to take the form of applying modern moral values to past events.

 

Here is an example: This text refers to the Spanish conquest of the Incas and their destruction of Incan artifacts for the gold or silver they contained:

 

"The Spaniards did that kind of thing many times over. Their religion told them the Indian civilizations were pagan and therefore false, and that its symbols should be destroyed, because they believed their religion was the only true religion, they thought they were doing they right thing when they forced it on others...

 

...Sometimes they acted as if that strength [superior arms, ships etc] gave them the right to bully other peoples. Some Europeans said, "might makes right." Many Spaniards believed that their nation was the best because it was the strongest.

 

A few people questioned those ideas, but many did not. When leaders say something is all right, most people agree, without thinking for themselves."

[Crimson Wife]

I would strongly recommend seeing if you can look though the books yourself at your local library or Barnes & Noble.

 

Here is a lengthy article detailing misinformation and bias in the series.

[Elizabeth in MN]

Well, I was going to say that "liberal bias" means "Elizabeth should buy this" but the article with the examples of incorrect history makes me not want to use the series. No, the ancient Greeks did not have a Republic.

[KristenR]

Is this "liberal bias" and misinformation something that also comes through in her Story of Science as well?

 

If anyone can recall Spycar's alternative series name and author I would be grateful. It would save me lots of searching time for the thread. :tongue_smilie:

[Spy Car]

My son loves the Hakim books and reads them straight through. I also like them and think they present a lively depiction of American History. But there is a bit of editorializing that is not normally found in a history text that turns off some people (SpyCar recommends another excellent series (without any editorializing) as an alternative to Hakim, but I can't remember its name!) The editorializing tends to take the form of applying modern moral values to past events.

 

The name of the other series is "The Drama of American History." it is OoP, but many library systems have it.

 

I think this series is far better written than Joy Hakim, and that the authors (the Colliers brothers) do a laudable job in presenting the best case for both sides in major disputes in American history in a very fair-minded fashion. That is not to say they do not occasionally have a "conclusion" that states something like: "Today most historians believe__________."

 

On the occasions where they do so I think they are quite correct in stating main-stream academic thought on historical matters. I would not say that is the same thing as being "editorial free", but I don't think there is a heavy bias towards anything but the academic main-stream.

 

Bill

[LAS in LA]

Is this "liberal bias" and misinformation something that also comes through in her Story of Science as well?

 

I really wanted to like The Story of Science, but felt very annoyed the style of writing and comments which seemed to say "See how silly/stupid people used to be! NOW we know better!" Lots of chronological snobbery in my opinion.

[TXBeth]

Well, I was going to say that "liberal bias" means "Elizabeth should buy this" but the article with the examples of incorrect history makes me not want to use the series. No, the ancient Greeks did not have a Republic.

 

LOL well I read the article and started thinking....meh, she's 5. I really don't care if she thinks Ancient Greece was a republic. We'll get that straightened out when we actually study Ancient Greece. I just want her to enjoy the story.

[ChandlerMom]

When you hear terms like this I think you need to first consider who is using them -- that will usually give you their meaning.

 

"Liberal bias" is a condemning phrase used generally by pundits and self-appointed spokespeople for conservative christians (fundamentalists) in the far right wing of politics. Most often you hear the folks on FOX news (who won a libel suit by arguing they are entertainment, not news, and not responsible for what they say).

 

So, generally, "liberal bias" refers to anyone who doesn't promote the right wing perspective, including things like validity of "manifest destiny" and general moral superiority of the US, etc.

 

Any single book is going to have some editorial bias, as history is part fact and part perception. I would look at the book itself or try to find reviews from respected historians.

 

I would be concerned about errors or simplifications, not the label. I'd also be more concerned about errors in US history than references to roman history that implies something erroneous about the greeks in the preface. :D

 

My 2cents.

Edited September 15, 2011 by ChandlerMom
added italicized words for clarity

[Farrar]

I would strongly recommend seeing if you can look though the books yourself at your local library or Barnes & Noble.

 

Here is a lengthy article detailing misinformation and bias in the series.

 

I have a serious problem with that Textbook League article. I've seen it mentioned on many forums as a critique of the series. However, it covers the prologue to a single volume of the series and absolutely nothing else, something that they mention but in my opinion don't make explicitly clear. Not only that, but it's an overgeneralized prologue in which Hakim attempts to summarize ALL of Western history up to that point in a few short pages as a general background to the colonization of North America. It has an extremely different level of detail than the rest of the series and a very different purpose too - the prologue to each volume is meant to be a little different.

 

I'm not saying there aren't issues *in that prologue* and the fact that it's a quick overview doesn't excuse errors. However, I think the article is extremely disingenuous. It makes it sound as if the whole series is a mess, when in reality they only look at this one prologue in an 11 volume series, not even a part of the main text.

 

I did not read all the articles on the Textbook League's site, but every single one I looked at about history textbooks was from a conservative historical viewpoint - critiquing history books for being too hard on Europeans and slave traders, for example. No doubt that's a problem in some books. However, it's also well documented (see James Loewen's Lies My Teacher Told Me) that the opposite problem is also true, so I personally found it problematic that the Textbook League, at least from what I saw, did not seem to contain a single critique from that viewpoint.

 

I've not read the whole Hakim series, but I also thought what I read was mostly balanced, though she does, as a PP says bring modern judgement to past events in her conversational style (which is not for everyone, that talky style).

[JulieH]

When you hear terms like this I think you need to first consider who is using them -- that will usually give you their meaning.

 

"Liberal bias" is a condemning phrase used generally by conservative christians (fundamentalists) in the far right wing of politics. Most often you hear the folks on FOX news (who won a libel suit by arguing they are entertainment, not news, and not responsible for what they say).

 

So, generally, "liberal bias" refers to anyone who doesn't promote the right wing perspective, including things like validity of "manifest destiny" and general moral superiority of the US, etc.

 

Any single book is going to have some editorial bias, as history is part fact and part perception. I would look at the book itself or try to find reviews from respected historians.

 

I would be concerned about the errors or simplifications, not the label.

 

My 2cents.

 

 

Hmm. I'm a right wing conservative Christian republican and I LOVED the Hakim "History of US" books! Really loved them!

 

Not that it matters, but I also love Fox news channel.;):tongue_smilie:

[Chelli]

The name of the other series is "The Drama of American History." it is OoP, but many library systems have it.

 

I think this series is far better written than Joy Hakim, and that the authors (the Colliers brothers) do a laudable job in presenting the best case for both sides in major disputes in American history in a very fair-minded fashion. That is not to say they do not occasionally have a "conclusion" that states something like: "Today most historians believe__________."

 

On the occasions where they do so I think they are quite correct in stating main-stream academic thought on historical matters. I would not say that is the same thing as being "editorial free", but I don't think there is a heavy bias towards anything but the academic main-stream.

 

Bill

 

These sound great and my library has them!

 

What age do you think these would be for to read on their own? And to use as a read-aloud?

 

TIA :)

[Crimson Wife]

I did not read all the articles on the Textbook League's site, but every single one I looked at about history textbooks was from a conservative historical viewpoint - critiquing history books for being too hard on Europeans and slave traders, for example. No doubt that's a problem in some books. However, it's also well documented (see James Loewen's Lies My Teacher Told Me) that the opposite problem is also true, so I personally found it problematic that the Textbook League, at least from what I saw, did not seem to contain a single critique from that viewpoint.

 

I don't want blind "rah-rah" patriotism or whitewashing, but I'd prefer to start from a positive portrayal and add caveats & discussion of the nuances rather than starting from a negative portrayal & trying to qualify that. I want my kids to be proud of our country, even while acknowledging the places in our history where we've failed to live up to our ideals.

 

We're currently studying the pioneers and the Westward Expansion. I want to celebrate the adventuresome spirit and the hard work of the pioneers even while recognizing the negative effects on the Native Americans. Ms. Hakim and Howard Zinn and the writers of most modern "politically correct" textbooks tend to demonize the European-Americans and dwell too much on the negative aspects of our country's past.

[ChandlerMom]

Hmm. I'm a right wing conservative Christian republican and I LOVED the Hakim "History of US" books! Really loved them!

 

Not that it matters, but I also love Fox news channel.;):tongue_smilie:

 

heehee. I edited my post to change my reference to " pundits and self-appointed spokespeople for conservative christians" which is what I meant (rather than people of a certain religious or political view). Thanks of helping me clarify that.

 

Demagogues on both sides of the spectrum like to spin phrases like this that dismiss the work and opinions of people of other beliefs without having to address the actual arguments. Ever since Carl Rove, the right wing has just been a lot better at it. :lol:

 

I was so put off after the lawsuit, the only time I watch Fox "news" any more is when it's shown on the Daily Show. :D (IMO only decent news on tv is from outlets like the BBC. THe US broadcasters gave up on serious news a long time ago.)

[stripe]

Hmm. I'm a right wing conservative Christian republican and I LOVED the Hakim "History of US" books! Really loved them!

 

It's worth noting that Hakim says the theme of the series is "We believe the United States of America is the most remarkable nation that has ever existed. No other nation, in the history of the world, has ever provided so much freedom, so much justice, and so much opportunity to so many people."

 

(I am always wondering why no one objects that her books are too patriotic.)

 

These sound great and my library has them!

 

The books by the Colliers are not comprehensive or part of some larger narrative, exactly. They are topical. There are multiple volumes on similar time periods, emphasizing different aspects of the time, for example city life, immigration, and Jim Crow.

[Farrar]

I don't want blind "rah-rah" patriotism or whitewashing, but I'd prefer to start from a positive portrayal and add caveats & discussion of the nuances rather than starting from a negative portrayal & trying to qualify that. I want my kids to be proud of our country, even while acknowledging the places in our history where we've failed to live up to our ideals.

 

We're currently studying the pioneers and the Westward Expansion. I want to celebrate the adventuresome spirit and the hard work of the pioneers even while recognizing the negative effects on the Native Americans. Ms. Hakim and Howard Zinn and the writers of most modern "politically correct" textbooks tend to demonize the European-Americans and dwell too much on the negative aspects of our country's past.

 

See, I would rather not start from a positive or negative portrayal, but from as balanced a perspective as possible and as complex as the student can handle. I think it's up to us as the students of history to examine the facts and make those positive or negative judgments the best we can. I think both Hakim's History of US and the Colliers' Drama of American History that SpyCar is so enamored with do this by trying to present different sides and ask questions, though in very different ways.

 

I also find it a bit much to lump Zinn and Hakim into the same category. Zinn presents an extremely clear liberal bias. Hakim, not so much. You can argue there is one, but it's nothing like Zinn's socialist perspective.

[ChandlerMom]

I don't want blind "rah-rah" patriotism or whitewashing, but I'd prefer to start from a positive portrayal and add caveats & discussion of the nuances rather than starting from a negative portrayal & trying to qualify that. I want my kids to be proud of our country, even while acknowledging the places in our history where we've failed to live up to our ideals.

 

We're currently studying the pioneers and the Westward Expansion. I want to celebrate the adventuresome spirit and the hard work of the pioneers even while recognizing the negative effects on the Native Americans. Ms. Hakim and Howard Zinn and the writers of most modern "politically correct" textbooks tend to demonize the European-Americans and dwell too much on the negative aspects of our country's past.

 

History is like parenting: you have to differentiate between a bad behavior and a bad person. I try to get three things across to my kids from the get-go:

 

1) we look at history from a contemporary perspective and attitude of right/wrong, but the people of all times are usually just doing the best they can.

2) the victor writes the history

3) good people don't always do good things and "bad" people don't always do bad things.

 

Over-simplifying here, but a lot of the "bad behavior" of US history stems from the belief of the new americans that people not like them (natives, slaves) were not human and did not deserve the same considerations. If you start with the (then popular) opinion that indians are not much better than dogs and they start fighting you it makes sense to wipe them out (again oversimplifying). A lot of times the people making the decisions didn't have the luxury to do things differently. History throughout time was filled with the strong overpowering the weak, taking what they wanted, and either killing or enslaving the vanquished.

 

I think it is OK to say that by today's standards the actions were "wrong" or unfair. Ultimately I'd rather have kids walk away with that than to think we are strong and therefore right. At the same time, I think you can put things in perspective of the time and appreciate the intent was often good. Another lesson that sometimes people with the best intentions do the more horrific things. I think history if often whitewashed to avoid these incongruities.

 

The current conflict in the middle east is a direct result of an honest attempt to draw good boundaries and encourage stability after WWII. Consequences are not always easy to predict, and history (like life) is messy.

[EKS]

Ms. Hakim and Howard Zinn and the writers of most modern "politically correct" textbooks tend to demonize the European-Americans and dwell too much on the negative aspects of our country's past.

 

I wouldn't put Hakim and Zinn in the same category. At all.

 

And I've read through the entire History of US. Aloud, which means I spent a lot of time on each word, and I would say that overall Hakim is very positive about the United States. Which gets back to why I wouldn't put her in the same camp as Zinn.

 

Actually, come to think of it I've also read Zinn aloud.

Edited September 15, 2011 by EKS

[LAS in LA]

I did not read all the articles on the Textbook League's site, but every single one I looked at about history textbooks was from a conservative historical viewpoint - critiquing history books for being too hard on Europeans and slave traders, for example. No doubt that's a problem in some books. However, it's also well documented (see James Loewen's Lies My Teacher Told Me) that the opposite problem is also true, so I personally found it problematic that the Textbook League, at least from what I saw, did not seem to contain a single critique from that viewpoint.

 

FWIW: The author which TTL quotes does take issue with Hakim for teaching that Abraham was an historical person. Conservative Christian types probably wouldn't do that.

[leeannpal]

History is like parenting: you have to differentiate between a bad behavior and a bad person. I try to get three things across to my kids from the get-go:

 

1) we look at history from a contemporary perspective and attitude of right/wrong, but the people of all times are usually just doing the best they can.

2) the victor writes the history

3) good people don't always do good things and "bad" people don't always do bad things.

 

Over-simplifying here, but a lot of the "bad behavior" of US history stems from the belief of the new americans that people not like them (natives, slaves) were not human and did not deserve the same considerations. If you start with the (then popular) opinion that indians are not much better than dogs and they start fighting you it makes sense to wipe them out (again oversimplifying). A lot of times the people making the decisions didn't have the luxury to do things differently. History throughout time was filled with the strong overpowering the weak, taking what they wanted, and either killing or enslaving the vanquished.

 

I think it is OK to say that by today's standards the actions were "wrong" or unfair. Ultimately I'd rather have kids walk away with that than to think we are strong and therefore right. At the same time, I think you can put things in perspective of the time and appreciate the intent was often good. Another lesson that sometimes people with the best intentions do the more horrific things. I think history if often whitewashed to avoid these incongruities.

 

The current conflict in the middle east is a direct result of an honest attempt to draw good boundaries and encourage stability after WWII. Consequences are not always easy to predict, and history (like life) is messy.

 

Love this post! In a previous thread, I argued along a very similar vein about the dangers of bringing our modern way of thinking and cultural biases to our study of history.

[Spy Car]

These sound great and my library has them!

 

What age do you think these would be for to read on their own? And to use as a read-aloud?

 

TIA :)

 

Depending on the child, as a "read on their own", I would think late elementary to middle school.

 

They do not have the breadth of an advanced high school text, but I do think adults could read them with great enjoyment as a "refresher course." Th e authors do a very admirable job exploring the main themes in American history—and in a fair amount of depth and detail—they just avoid some of the side-stories that deviate from the main themes and thereby keep the books a reasonable length for children of this age.

 

The authors, Christopher Colliers and James Lincoln Colliers are Newberry Prize winners for their youth historical novel "My Brother Sam is Dead" (a book I have not read).

 

Bill

[KristenR]

Depending on the child, as a "read on their own", I would think late elementary to middle school.

 

They do not have the breadth of an advanced high school text, but I do think adults could read them with great enjoyment as a "refresher course." Th e authors do a very admirable job exploring the main themes in American history—and in a fair amount of depth and detail—they just avoid some of the side-stories that deviate from the main themes and thereby keep the books a reasonable length for children of this age.

 

The authors, Christopher Colliers and James Lincoln Colliers are Newberry Prize winners for their youth historical novel "My Brother Sam is Dead" (a book I have not read).

 

Bill

 

 

Yay!! My local library has it too!! I just requested it so I can peruse it for a bit . My dds won't be ready for it for awhile but I'd like to take a look at it nonetheless.

[Spy Car]

For anyone tempted to look at The Drama of American History here is Moira's indispensable list of the book in the series:

 

 

Moira's list:

 

Clash of Cultures: Prehistory to 1638, Benchmark Books (New York, NY), 1998.

The Paradox of Jamestown, 1585 to 1700, Benchmark Books (New York, NY), 1998.

The French and Indian War, 1660 to 1763, Benchmark Books (New York, NY), 1998.

The American Revolution, 1763 to 1783, Benchmark Books (New York, NY), 1998.

Pilgrims and Puritans, 1620 to 1676, Benchmark Books (New York, NY), 1998.

Creating the Constitution, 1787, Benchmark Books (New York, NY), 1998.

Building a New Nation, 1789 to 1803, Benchmark Books (New York, NY), 1998.

Andrew Jackson's America, 1821 to 1850, Benchmark Books (New York, NY), 1998.

Hispanic America, Texas, and the Mexican War, 1835 to 1850, Benchmark Books (New York, NY), 1998.

The Jeffersonian Republicans, 1800 to 1820, Benchmark Books (New York, NY), 1998.

The Civil War, 1860 to 1866, Benchmark Books (New York, NY), 1998.

Slavery and the Coming of the Civil War, 1831 to 1861, Benchmark Books (New York, NY), 1998.

Reconstruction and the Rise of Jim Crow, Benchmark Books (New York, NY), 1998.

The Rise of Industry: 1860 to 1900, Marshall Cavendish (New York, NY), 1999.

A Century of Immigration: 1820 to 1924, Marshall Cavendish/Benchmark Books (Tarrytown, NY), 1999.

Indians, Cowboys, and Farmers, 1865 to 1910, Benchmark Books (New York, NY), 2000.

The United States Enters the World Stage: From Alaska through World War I, 1867 to 1919, Benchmark Books (New York, NY), 2000.

Progressivism, the Great Depression, and the New Deal, 1901 to 1941, Benchmark/Cavendish (Tarrytown, NY), 2000.

The Rise of the Cities, Cavendish/Benchmark (Tarrytown, NY), 2000.

United States in World War II, Benchmark Books (New York, NY), 2001.

The Changing Face of American Society, 1945 to 2000, Benchmark Books (New York, NY), 2001.

The United States in the Cold War, Benchmark/Cavendish (Tarrytown, NY), 2002.

The Middle Road: American Politics, 1945 to 2000, Benchmark Books (New York, NY), 2002.

[Serenade]

The name of the other series is "The Drama of American History." it is OoP, but many library systems have it.

 

I think this series is far better written than Joy Hakim, and that the authors (the Colliers brothers) do a laudable job in presenting the best case for both sides in major disputes in American history in a very fair-minded fashion. That is not to say they do not occasionally have a "conclusion" that states something like: "Today most historians believe__________."

 

On the occasions where they do so I think they are quite correct in stating main-stream academic thought on historical matters. I would not say that is the same thing as being "editorial free", but I don't think there is a heavy bias towards anything but the academic main-stream.

 

Bill

 

 

Bill, I agree with you 100% on this. A few months ago I bought the first book in this series after reading one of your write-ups, and I've been very impressed with it. It is about as unbiased as you can get in a history book. I've also found the writing style to be easy to read, and it has wonderful illustrations as well. I'm going to start hunting down the next book in the series. I have a feeling that I'm going to want the entire series.

[Spy Car]

Bill, I agree with you 100% on this. A few months ago I bought the first book in this series after reading one of your write-ups, and I've been very impressed with it. It is about as unbiased as you can get in a history book. I've also found the writing style to be easy to read, and it has wonderful illustrations as well. I'm going to start hunting down the next book in the series. I have a feeling that I'm going to want the entire series.

 

I'm very glad to know you are enjoying it. Now if we could get it back in print.

 

Bill

[stripe]

I'm very glad to know you are enjoying it. Now if we could get it back in print.

There aren't really that many people who want it, and there are a goodly number of used copies around. They look to me like typical library-aimed non fiction, rather than books for a kid to browse, so I'd say, buy used.

[stripe]

Speaking of which....when are we getting out the picket signs?

 

I'm so bummed I can't buy these books.

Why can't you? (Alte Veste Academy is selling hers anyway!)

[stripe]

She just said it in passing. I don't think she listed them.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Where?!

 

They have a few volumes on Amazon, but some of them are ridiculously priced. I bought one (managed to get it for shipping).

I brought mine from abebooks.com for a reasonable price. It was about $100 for the whole set, give or take a little.

[Alte Veste Academy]

I have searched but can not find this answer anywhere. I am thinking of buying Hakim's History of Us with my new Audible membership. Many, many reviews talk about her "liberal bias," but none of them actually say what they mean by that or offer any examples. Politically liberal or socially liberal or what? What is this liberal bias? Does it mean she doesn't assume America is God's gift to the earth and better than any other nations? Or does it mean she trashes Republicans and Christians? I can see either situation resulting in a "liberal bias" review. The first I would love, the second I'd rather avoid.

 

Can anyone help clarify?

 

She does not trash Republicans and Christians. As someone else stated...

 

It's worth noting that Hakim says the theme of the series is "We believe the United States of America is the most remarkable nation that has ever existed. No other nation, in the history of the world, has ever provided so much freedom, so much justice, and so much opportunity to so many people."

 

(I am always wondering why no one objects that her books are too patriotic.)

 

Yes, when I first started the series (after hearing over and over about her dreaded "liberal bias"), I was surprised to hear her immediately vocalize love of country. Yes, I know that liberal does not mean unpatriotic but I do think that's a connotation the term has taken on over time, as evidenced by the OP's question. (The two extremes of positions seem to be "liberal bias" and "blind patriotism.") I see Hakim's writing about the United States as similar to the way a loving mother would talk about her child. You believe your child is an amazingly wonderful person, whom you love more than words could ever express, but still, the child has faults. It pains you that there are faults but you would be remiss to not reveal them. For me, this was a perfect balance. I love my country, but we have massively screwed some things up. Seriously. Frankly, she's nicer than I would be about a lot of things. :tongue_smilie:

 

Basically, I'm smack in the middle of liberal and conservative (depends on the issue at hand :D) and I found the books very balanced. However, before you spend the money on the audio books (which I do highly recommend--we love them!), do preview the volumes for yourself. I have been burned badly ($$$ :tongue_smilie:, see thread linked below) by acting on recommendations before seeing books for myself.

 

I wouldn't put Hakim and Zinn in the same category. At all.

 

And I've read through the entire History of US. Aloud, which means I spent a lot of time on each word, and I would say that overall Hakim is very positive about the United States. Which gets back to why I wouldn't put her in the same camp as Zinn.

 

Actually, come to think of it I've also read Zinn aloud.

 

:iagree: I have read Zinn and we used all 10 volumes of Hakim's series for our 2 year American history study. Not even in the same galaxy!

 

They look to me like typical library-aimed non fiction, rather than books for a kid to browse, so I'd say, buy used.

 

:iagree: Here is a recent thread about DoAH and Hakim that might be of interest.

[Mrs Twain]

It's worth noting that Hakim says the theme of the series is "We believe the United States of America is the most remarkable nation that has ever existed. No other nation, in the history of the world, has ever provided so much freedom, so much justice, and so much opportunity to so many people."

 

(I am always wondering why no one objects that her books are too patriotic.)

 

 

Stripe, have you ever lived in a country besides the USA?

 

I have lived in multiple countries. I also have a lot of international friends, some of whom have had to come to the USA to escape the oppression in their former home countries. I haven't read Hakim, but I think the statement you quoted is actually accurate. Of course the USA is not perfect. No one is claiming that it is. But I can't think of a single country which has provided more freedom, justice, or opportunity than the USA.

[Alte Veste Academy]

Stripe, have you ever lived in a country besides the USA?

 

I have lived in multiple countries. I also have a lot of international friends, some of whom have had to come to the USA to escape the oppression in their former home countries. I haven't read Hakim, but I think the statement you quoted is actually accurate. Of course the USA is not perfect. No one is claiming that it is. But I can't think of a single country which has provided more freedom, justice, or opportunity than the USA.

 

I don't think Stripe was disagreeing with Hakim's statement about America being a great country. Rather, I think she was pointing out how odd it is that Hakim is constantly thought of as focusing on America's flaws when, indeed, she is extremely patriotic. In fact, I think many Zinn lovers would find her writing too patriotic. It seems Stripe was wondering why we never hear that complaint.

[stripe]

Stripe, have you ever lived in a country besides the USA?

 

I have lived in multiple countries. I also have a lot of international friends, some of whom have had to come to the USA to escape the oppression in their former home countries. I haven't read Hakim, but I think the statement you quoted is actually accurate. Of course the USA is not perfect. No one is claiming that it is. But I can't think of a single country which has provided more freedom, justice, or opportunity than the USA.

Actually I don't think it's relevant where I live or anything else about me OR my opinion of the US because I am not trying to examine whether or not Hakim is correct that the US is the best country. My point is that Hakim says it, Hakim's theme for the series is that the US is fantastic, so I cannot for the life of me understand why she is portrayed as being anti-American. (And you don't hear the "hate America" camp -- whoever they are -- blasting her.)

[Spy Car]

I don't think Stripe was disagreeing with Hakim's statement about America being a great country. Rather, I think she was pointing out how odd it is that Hakim is constantly thought of as focusing on America's flaws when, indeed, she is extremely patriotic. In fact, I think many Zinn lovers would find her writing too patriotic. It seems Stripe was wondering why we never hear that complaint.

 

I'm with you. Despite disliking Joy Hakim's writing style, which I find patronizing and inefficient, her work has never struck me as anything but very supportive of the American experiment.

 

Her work is nothing like Howard Zinn's–which does focus on America's flaws and telling the stories of the disempowered and the oppressed rather than focusing on history's "winners"–which is a not unworthy, if not exactly "balanced," mission on Zinn's part. But Hakim's book is not remotely similar.

 

bill

[zenjenn]

I think there is also a very important distinction to be made between classical liberal and leftist.

[Serenade]

I'm very glad to know you are enjoying it. Now if we could get it back in print.

 

Bill

 

I can't figure out why this series is out of print, anyhow. Maybe most people prefer more biased history? I'm saying that seriously, not snarkily. I think people want their history books to back up what they believe, whether true or false.

 

Anyhow, I was able to snag the Paradox of Jamestown on Ebay, so I was happy about that.

[Spy Car]

I can't figure out why this series is out of print, anyhow. Maybe most people prefer more biased history? I'm saying that seriously, not snarkily. I think people want their history books to back up what they believe, whether true or false.

 

Anyhow, I was able to snag the Paradox of Jamestown on Ebay, so I was happy about that.

 

I don't know why either. Perhaps Stripe is on to something in saying the format is "library oriented," being in many thin volumes vs being in one (or several) larger volumes (more textbook like). But who knows?

 

I have been trying to reach the publishers to have a chat (but it ain't easy getting a call back).

 

Bill

[Alte Veste Academy]

I don't know why either. Perhaps Stripe is on to something in saying the format is "library oriented," being in many thin volumes vs being in one (or several) larger volumes (more textbook like). But who knows?

 

I agree. I also think it's worth noting that if the books were published again, it would still be extraordinarily expensive to purchase the entire series, as they are published in library binding. Volumes of this nature are typically upwards of $30 each. I don't know that you could convince them to publish them as a single volume, as that would be quite an unwieldy book and would drastically reduce their profit margin! I doubt they are popular enough to do a paperback run either, as those would not be fit for libraries to purchase, limiting total sales of the reprint (to a handful of desperate but happy homeschoolers perhaps :tongue_smilie:).

 

As far as the lack of bias, I believe that is entirely a product of them being typical reference volumes. I personally saw little difference between their tone and a traditional middle school history text. In fact, bound as one volume, I think that is exactly what they would be, and they would be priced accordingly.

[Spy Car]

I agree. I also think it's worth noting that if the books were published again, it would still be extraordinarily expensive to purchase the entire series, as they are published in library binding. Volumes of this nature are typically upwards of $30 each. I don't know that you could convince them to publish them as a single volume, as that would be quite an unwieldy book and would drastically reduce their profit margin! I doubt they are popular enough to do a paperback run either, as those would not be fit for libraries to purchase, limiting total sales of the reprint (to a handful of desperate but happy homeschoolers perhaps :tongue_smilie:).

 

As far as the lack of bias, I believe that is entirely a product of them being typical reference volumes. I personally saw little difference between their tone and a traditional middle school history text. In fact, bound as one volume, I think that is exactly what they would be, and they would be priced accordingly.

 

In the age of the e-book they could (at the minimum) offer a digital solution.

As to re-paging them in fewer volumes (even if they needed to do a little editing) to make a "textbook version", why not?

 

Schools (as well as home educators) need Middle School American history textbooks, and I think DoAH would make a fine one.

 

Bill

Edited September 17, 2011 by Spy Car

[Alte Veste Academy]

In the age of the e-book they could (at the minimum offer a digital solution).

 

As to re-paging them in fewer volumes (even if they needed to do a little editing) to make a "textbook version", why not?

 

Schools (as well as home educators) need Middle School American history textbooks, and I think DoAH would make a fine one.

 

Bill

 

It's worth a campaign for you then, especially for the e-books. I hear the textbook market is struggling due to the financial distress of so many states. Fierce competition in a troubled market and all that... I wish you luck! :)

[Crimson Wife]

I'm with you. Despite disliking Joy Hakim's writing style, which I find patronizing and inefficient, her work has never struck me as anything but very supportive of the American experiment.

 

Her work is nothing like Howard Zinn's–which does focus on America's flaws and telling the stories of the disempowered and the oppressed rather than focusing on history's "winners"–which is a not unworthy, if not exactly "balanced," mission on Zinn's part. But Hakim's book is not remotely similar.

 

bill

 

While I was at Barnes & Noble yesterday, I looked through the volume of Story of US that corresponds to the time period we are currently studying (early 19th century). It was volume 4, The New Nation. I came away from it with the feeling I had before when when I looked at Hakim's history book- that it dwelled excessively on the negative aspects and had a tendency to demonize European-Americans. Maybe not as outrageously as Howard Zinn's, but it is definitely on that side of the spectrum.

[Alte Veste Academy]

While I was at Barnes & Noble yesterday, I looked through the volume of Story of US that corresponds to the time period we are currently studying (early 19th century). It was volume 4, The New Nation. I came away from it with the feeling I had before when when I looked at Hakim's history book- that it dwelled excessively on the negative aspects and had a tendency to demonize European-Americans. Maybe not as outrageously as Howard Zinn's, but it is definitely on that side of the spectrum.

 

She does indeed cover many of the negatives in the series. However, in order to claim that she dwells on them, I am inclined to say you have to be familiar with the whole of the text (that is to say, all 10 volumes). I have read them and listened to the audio books (several times over) and, on the whole, there is balance. When you haven't read the entire series, then no, you will not necessarily see the balance.

[stripe]

I don't know why either. Perhaps Stripe is on to something in saying the format is "library oriented," being in many thin volumes vs being in one (or several) larger volumes (more textbook like). But who knows?

 

Also being topical and hardbacks/library binding. Good for kids who have a research paper about, say, immigration in the 20th century.

 

I found other non fiction works at my library by Deborah Kent, and Bonnie Lukes, and Edward F Dolan. A series called "We the People" by Compass Point Books about the Civil War. These have that "look" to me. Libraries buy large numbers of these books, but I don't think individuals do.

 

Also a series called "In American History" pub by Enslow (many authors, many topics, from the late 90s). I'd look at these. That being said, the Collier brothers may be more compelling writers and storytellers than your average writer of these non fiction books. I have not read any of these books, but they do look like history series, some of which may still be in print.

[Serenade]

I don't know why either. Perhaps Stripe is on to something in saying the format is "library oriented," being in many thin volumes vs being in one (or several) larger volumes (more textbook like). But who knows?

I like having several thin volumes, rather than a larger one. Much more comfortable to read and hold.

 

I have been trying to reach the publishers to have a chat (but it ain't easy getting a call back).

 

Bill

Let us know if you hear anything.

 

In the age of the e-book they could (at the minimum) offer a digital solution.

Digital would definitely be a good option, and they could do that without too much effort. I prefer a book I can hold and a paperback is fine, but I would buy an ebook if that is what was available. One of these days I'll get an ipad...