Customer Reviews

History in the Making: An Absorbing Look at How American History Has Changed in the Telling over the Last 200 Years

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

I love this book because it shows history is written to satisfy a particular audience. Collecting textbook accounts over two hundred years, we witness how the "story" of an event changes as America grows and learns. BUT...this does not mean that the current story is the best by any means. For example, I thought that the most objective description of the "Boston Massacre" was in the 1880's. The textbook then provided a fair picture of the mob that pressed upon the British troops and dared them to fire. Today, the story is given as an example of spin, but earlier accounts did explain why the British fired on the American patriots. Other examples: even today, a fair assessment of Brigham Young and Joseph Smith - the founding fathers of Mormonism - is totally absent from textbooks. Little is discussed how Joseph Smith forged money, committed perjury, and provoked the communities in which he lived. It is interesting that the earliest textbooks criticized his religious doctrine as absurd as opposed to criticising his actual conduct. Or take the story of the "Trail of Tears." It was interesting to note that most textbooks, even the early ones, argued that the Native Americans were treated badly by President Andrew Jackson, but only recent ones actually depicted the shocking physical suffering in the forced relocation. (Some old textbooks talked about the Red Men, which is
politically incorrect today).

In a nutshell, we are reminded of Oscar Wilde's witicism: The proper occupation of the historian is to accurately describe what never happened. I strongly recommend this book, as well as Kyle Ward's earlier book on history, as ESSENTIALS for any high school student.

I definitely wouldn't give this book such flowing reviews as the others have. I felt that this book was, overall, choppy and pretty lackluster in parts. Before I began reading the book, I thought it would provide an in-depth look at the genesis of how a particular subject in American history was told through the prism of then-present sentiments. It hardly did that. The manner in which the book is set up is this: a 3-line intro and then a half to two-page selection from a textbook from (for example) 1830, 1879, 1934 and 1975. There was absolutely NO analysis or commentary, sauf some small intro (which barely sufficed). Literally, it was, "Oh, well, in 1958, this is how textbooks portrayed McCarthy! They didn't like him, look at the words they use!" Huh? Why did they use those words? For how long did they use those words? Did this affect the attitudes of children? Why using those words change in the 1970s? Was this a broader change of feelings, or specific? etc etc I felt that the author did not think his reader could handle chapters that went uninterrupted for more than, gasp, 3 pages. It was almost like "The Da Vinci Code" with those 2-page chapters to make yourself feel like you've been reading a lot. "Look, Ma, I'm on chapter 93 and I've been reading for only 45 minutes!"

Overall, I felt letdown by the author, if I can even call him that, more, the "researcher." This book is heavily researched and, obviously, cited, using textbooks throughout history. However, this book *read* like a textbook instead of a journey/story through time. It was minced up and hand fed to the reader in little packages representing how textbooks felt about a subject as though the reader can't handle prose. There was no actual authorship in this book, and that was a problem, continuity-wise. The introduction was the only part he wrote, honestly. I'm not completely faulting the author for that, though, because that's the way in which he structured his book, but it does neither his name nor the topics any justice.

And one minor issue that lingered in my head was his selection of books. He never remarked on the readership or level of use of the books he used, or their distribution (among other things he did not mention...). His sample - were they the most-published, highest-read books in the country? or fringe, biased textbooks read only in Alabama? He talks about how history can change or perhaps be manipulated...and he could have very well done the same thing and present what he feels about a subject vis-a-vis his selection of works. I'm not saying he did, and I do not believe he did so, however he could have AT LEAST remarked on some aspects of the books, instead of just giving us huge passages and a less-than-meaningful bibliography.

Eh, as a history lover, I'm unenthousiastic about this book. It is a very interesting and important topic, however, for a book that actually proves the thesis that history changes which is supported by *analysis*, I'd look elsewhere.

Two stars.

I was very excited about this book, because I thought it would be more of a presentation of the revisionism of our history that we're teaching our kids. It is, in a way, but instead, it is very boring, very uninteresting, and a very uneven collection of snippets from various texts. Even the headers for each section are uninteresting. Someone somewhere might enjoy it, but I can't even work up the enthusiasm to finish it.

First off, let me note this: history is not, as people tend to think, the occurrence of past events and the actions of bygone human beings; history is the RECORD of events and human deeds. As such, "history" is highly open to interpretation, and is always prone to alteration. Above all else, history, an art, never a pure science, is vulnerable, even defenseless, against the whims of momentarily fashionable perceptions. Today's hero is tomorrow's villain. What is celebrated in one generation may be excoriated in another. Even the social acceptability of certain words is a dynamic thing.

History in the Making is an extraordinarily interesting book, deserving of prizes and long-term recognition. And while Kyle Ward is listed as author, a better term for his involvement might be editor, since mostly he comments on the writings of others---in this case textbook writers---he has assembled in this insightful study of how Americans' professed attitudes on various topics and figures has or has not changed over the course of the last two centuries.

Certain individuals, such as Abraham Lincoln, have enjoyed relatively good press throughout the intervening years since their time, and in fact the public perception of Lincoln has changed little, even in our own iconoclasm-as-truth era. Other topics, though, have merited deep alterations, and sometimes frustrating ones at that. The wavering viewpoints on the race-based issues of slavery, emancipation, civil rights, and affirmative action show not only an evolution of perception, but a widely-ranging stance that defines America across the divide of generations.

One thing that sticks out in my mind is how the American view of the so-called Boston Massacre has changed. Whereas at one time this police action on the part of a handful of threatened British troops surrounded by a violent anti-English mob was painted as, well, a massacre, and written of with words like "atrocity" and "martyrdom" we have today a slightly clearer and less propagandized version that is no doubt closer to truth. Among other topics covered in History in the Making are the Gulf of Tonkin incident, McCarthyism, The Trail of Tears, John Brown, the sinking of the Maine, the Salem Witch Murders, and the life of General George Washington. But this list is just scratching the surface.

I commend Mr. Ward on putting out an interesting, thought-provoking book on a topic that should be compelling and informative to many people. It is a fine addition to my personal library.

For the readers who suffered through Sociology 101, there will be a feeling of deja vu when they leaf through this book--but without renewed suffering.

There's all you learned about how rumors spread contained in this compendium of history text-book descriptions of events. 18th Century earth-shaking matters become 20th Century trivia. Political correctness changes memories. Minor points become grossly exaggerated.

The lesson? No history is written in stone.

There is more than one surprise in this nicely told, well documented record of past and present history lessons as taught to students and passed along to the general public.

For someone looking for a comparative historiography, this is your book. The book examines in detail how U.S. History textbooks have covered a particular topic over time. Ward does an excellent job of providing a brief introduction to the topic itself followed by a quick summary of each era's excerpt. This summary provides a context of the era for the reader who may be a novice or experienced historian. The author's experience as a high school teacher and methods instructor is evident as this is a valuable tool for every secondary history teacher.

This is an excellent telling of half the story. I say half, because Mr. Ward has viewed history as it changes over time. The other half is how it changes depending on the viewpoint of the reporter. Another recent book on this subject is 'Fighting Words' by Andrew Coopresmith. He instead of looking at history over time looked at the Civil War as viewed from the newspaper reports of the time. Would you believe that the stories in the New York Times papers and the Richmond Whig make you wonder if you are reading about the same incident?

The big differences in Mr. Ward's examples seem to come from how our culture views the people/event/situation at different in the past. Native Americans (we don't even say Indians any more) for instance have moved from savage beasts, to noble savages, to victims. It is not the event itself that changed in most of the stores, it's how we look at the justification, the reasons something happened. To some extent, this book is more about the culture of the times than the event being described.

Very interesting reading. It really makes you wonder how history will cover current events, the War in Iraq for instance. Remember how anti-war the US was on December 6th 1941, and how long the lines were are the recruiting station on December 8th.

This is a very important endeavor, especially when it comes to American history. Examining a number of issues, particularly Native Americans, the Boston MAssacre and even Mormonism and its founder this book looks at how American history has been taught and depicted over the years. This is important because as Communism taught everyone, how one teaches something is important for it is the first stage of brainwashing in socieity. One of the great critiques of the 1960s was that all American history was that of the 'dead white male'. Therefore supposedly in the 1970s books began to be re-written so that text-books told the story of African-Americans, slaves, native americans and others. The British were not the bad guys in the Boston Massacre, rather it was those greedy Americans who dared to oppose taxes for their own 'bad' self interest.

But while this book does show us how history has become diverisfied and colored with new images of the 'other' it doesnt critique this process enough and it doesnt make the very important point that this 'progress' is not neccesarily true and nor is it accurate. There was propoganda in early American history but there was not an attempt, as there was say in the Soviet Union, to make people or peoples disappear from history. THe 'savages' were never written out of history, and that is why they were able to be revived as the 'noble victims' in the 1980s the victims of 'americas first genocide'.

Herein lies a terrible error. How much of 'history' is in fact propoganda and the attempt by a rich elite to brainwash the masses? It turns out that the revising of the story of Paul Revere or George Washington or the Boston Massacre has been neither honest nor helpful. The original stories were as accurate as the revision and as nuanced, despite what some would have us beleive, perhaps this helps shed light on this, but lack of any deeper analysis is a slight disservice.

Nevertheless the analysis provided is helpful and the examples teach us much about America and about history and about culture.

Seth J. Frantzman

This book is boring and uninformative. Also, in certain random places all of the S's are replaced with F's. This is very annoying and makes it very hard to read.

I am a middle school history teacher. It is an interesting read. I like the idea of looking at the historiography of our own history. He picks some very well known events and some little known events. There were some events I wish had more depth or had been covered. The book doesn't talk much about California history, like the mission system or the gold rush is absent for instance. Since even textbooks can't include everything an "anthology" of textbooks certainly can't.