Here we go again: yet more allegations the textbooks for schoolchildren contain inaccurate statements. You can read about this here and here: the case often mentioned was discussed briefly on this blog, and more extensively elsewhere.
It’s disappointing to hear the following declaration:
Will we hear objections from the progressive historians who are so quick to jump on other issues? I doubt it. This bad history fits their agenda – indoctrination.
Now, it may be that I’m not a “progressive historian,” whatever that term means in this context (for me, when I hear the term, I think back to an interesting book by Richard Hofstadter on Frederick Jackson Turner, Charles A. Beard, and Vernon Louis Parrington). Also, if there’s an agenda floating around, I haven’t received the memo, so maybe that should tell me I’m not in that club, any way.
I found the description of the Second Amendment clunky, to say the least. It’s just wrong. As for the single-sentence summary of how the Civil War came about, well, that’s misleading, too, although I would say that it would be hard to reduce an explanation about how the war came to a single sentence that would be appropriate for the reading level indicated.
I won’t speculate about the blogger’s motives in highlighting these errors or in making the associations he made. That’s irrelevant (even when declarations such as this remind us that it’s no mystery). Bad history is bad history. I look forward to the day when we can simply go about discussing good history and bad history without resorting to much claims, but I doubt it is coming soon.