and this history texts are provided as a counter balance to the biased sources and failure to examine opposing views of other history texts.
take in a range and make informed decisions. When a book presents any factoid, something else was chosen to not be presented. And that choice colors the narrative. Those who say "teach the facts" miss that the facts chosen paint a bias.
You basically say that everyone is biased, take the middle.
But I've seen with my own eyes living in dictatorial countries, that there are wild differences in how much bias there are. If one source lies 5% of the facts and an opposing source lies 95% of the facts, taking the middle leaves you with 50% lies, heavily biased to one side. You'd better just go with the first completely and have only 5% lies.
I've read several real scientific historical papers, and I immediately see they don't work like that. They are typically very-very boring, with tons of views and sources mentioned, considered and scrutinized. In fact, that's a good test for how scientific is a paper -- real scientist knows about all the works in their field, so omission of anything is a red flag. So they really strive to include everything available.
One history says Christopher Columbus sailed across the ocean with his three ships and made friends with the Indians.
Another history says, with quotes from him, that the people he found are very friendly and will make great slaves.
I'm not saying take the middle. I'm saying there is a narrative. Who's story are you hearing and why? The usual narrative we get supports those with power. Who's narrative is suppressed and why?
You get a narrative about Columbus the explorer and bringer of civilization to the new world. The other narrative is that he brought untold suffering and despair. Did he expanded European civilization and manifest destiny, or did he murder and enslave and subjugate people and their children to the horrors of chattel slavery?
Which one is a lie? Which is fact or not fact? It's both. It's neither. It is the narrative that is painting the story that is being told.
> so omission of anything is a red flag
you would then agree that all the factoids and accounts presented in A People's History of the United States _not_ being present in other works and education of our students is a red flag. But, honestly, and you know this, you can't include _all_ the facts and stories. By picking something, something else is not included.
You pick a photo to share of your family smiling, you didn't pick the photo of them fighting. Is your photo a lie? Heck, you may not have even thought to take a photo of the family fighting. Now future generations will only see the good times grandpa had. Is that a lie?
A People's History is littered with first hand accounts and journal entries. It is full of quotes to other authors who've collected similar. If you can point to the 95% of lies it contains, that would be great. I don't think you can though. I think the best you can say is that you disagree with the narrative, and to do so, you must ignore the real stories from real people.
