Lies Across America: What Our Historic Sites Get Wrong [Paperback]

I for one, knew that Mt McKinley was not the original Native American name for that mountain in Alaska, but Loewen (among others) has turned the issue of the name of a piece of rock into political crusade that frankly in my opinion, misses the point.

While I will be the first to acknowledge that many groups have been wronged in American History, in my opinion, going over the American landscape with a fine tuned comb of political correctness is about as productive as a hypothetical "Saxon revivalist movement" (remember 1066?) would be in modern England.

On the other hand, this book does have many good points, such as understanding why people like Nathan Bedford Forrest are represented on the landscape (in that particular case, his ties with the KKK). This doesn't fall into the above category because understanding the issue provides one with a better understanding of history, and does not boil down to a mere feelgood issue.

In general, if one keeps an open mind, one will enjoy this book. You don't have to agree with everything that Loewen says, but chances are that you will agree with part of what he says in some cases.

This book reminds me of NPR in its relentlessly ideological approach to all issues...every event is politicized. Ideology is unceasing, benefits of the doubt are never extended, traditional ways are overlooked and after wading through harangues and scoldings in what is essentially an angry indictment of this nation one wonders why we have not had continual rebellions.

Like NPR, he LOVES to bash the South. NPR rails against (take your pick) racism, poverty, illiteracy and/or evangelicalism. Loewen evokes memories of the Confederacy and slavery almost as a mantra. Fanciful and unrealistic Civil War memorials exist in many place but is that immoral? Professional nincompoops wanted to erect a politically correct monument to 911 (the raising of the flag) which would have been historically inaccurate but not immoral.

The author has a tendency to overemphasize certain events just to make his point - akin to Chomsky's connecting random events to prove his dialectic. Some interesting points are made but ALWAYS through this contemporary prism of judgement. Were statues and/or painting skewed to express the view of the artist? Of course they were because that is a human tendency. Jesus is portrayed as a long-haired European man, Washington, in the enormous status in the Museum of American History has become a Roman emperor because the sculptor admired the classic period. Even if some events were misinterpreted is that an indictment?

No matter how one approaches the history of our country, there is one inescapable fact: To millions around the world, this land with all its inconsistencies, prejudices and faults has been perceived as heaven on earth since its inception. And even in the worst moments, there has never been even a trickle - much less an exodus - of citizens desiring life in another nation.

Unfortunately, Loewen's declarative style and his assertions treated as fact make it hard to keep this in mind. Some of the statements he makes are easily agreeable. When I lived in Hawaii, I was struck by how Caucasian the famous statues of King Kamehameha I looked, and there's no surprise when Loewen criticizes them for not looking Polynesian enough. Other statements, like his broad condemnation of memorials to the Confederate dead, are going to bring some heated feelings to the fore.

It is in racial issues that Loewen excels, and he'll be more than happy to hold forth at length as to why white people are sinners and minorities are sanctified. This stock liberal pose is unlikely to make any converts. This is not to say any of his assertions are wrong, only that the author thinks he's being controversial, when he's actually parroting established opinions.

Probably the only factual failing Loewen makes is in asserting that historical markers should encompass more of the controversial nature of history. This is unlikely to ever happen, as historical markers are put up primarily for the benefit of road-tripping middle-class families and local boosterism groups. They're usually quite small, and couldn't possibly contain all the information with which Loewen would like to imbue them. The people who put them up are consistently of the opinion that, if people want multiple views of history, they can read books. (Ha, ha.) Loewen's goals are noble and admirable, but unlikely to ever be realized.

One other glaring problem presents itself. At the end of every mini-essay in the book, Loewen cites his source material. In this and his other books, he has reviled the use of secondary sources in writing history books, yet his own cited sources are often secondary materials, as though he is tacitly acknowledging the cumbersome nature of double-checking primary sources. A little consistency on this issue would strengthen the weight of the author's argument.

In general, this book is good, if you keep its intended purpose in mind. If Loewen's style distracts you from the essential controversy of his opinions, you'll either wind up hating the book abjectly, or mimicking his opinions as blindly as other people mimic the mainstream opinion. Let him tick you off, rile you up, get your blood flowing. Then check his source material and make up your own mind. Only then will you be fulfilling the point of this volume.