“History for Dummies”

 Students in high school rarely think about what their history textbook really is. They know that it’s a hassle to drag home and that it’s a lot of size 10 boring text, page after page.  Are they wrong in feeling this way? Absolutely not. Large textbooks often distributed at the high school level have one goal and that is coverage. They aim to squeeze history into a condensed timeline composed of events deemed far more important than others.

I argue that textbooks are the equivalent of classic “history for dummies” books. Where basic information is laid out plain and simple for you. In this regard, textbooks are somewhat valuable because they introduce us to history and help chronologically assort it so that it flows in our minds. However it is not necessarily the best way to learn about history by any means. Textbooks dumb down content because they only seek to explain how, and when it started, and how it ended. This method robs history completely of its true nature! The content of history is nothing without its stories. Hypothetically, what good would it be to just know that the colonies rebelled, started a revolution, and then gained independence years later? What meaning would that event in time have without getting to know the characters involved, the struggles faced, the battles fought and the documents signed. This is the problem with textbooks; that they leave out the “fluff” so undesired by the common core. Leaving out the “fluff” of other subjects would be just as detrimental. Imagine trying to teach the Pythagorean theorem but leaving out the fluff of how to use it. It is the least practical approach to truly educating students.

Textbooks should be used loosely both inside and outside of the classroom. They should be used to make a rough timeline that one can build on to fill in the gaps in order to gain a true understanding of history. They are tertiary sources, which one should never rely heavily on. It is always advised to value primary and secondary sources more; and for obvious reasons. They are far more credible and open for your interpretation. I find it ironic that sometimes the bigger books are way less informative than the small skinny ones. It is often that smaller books tell a better story, and that they are able to bring history to life. Another benefit to smaller books is that they are generally focused on getting one or two points across to the reader, not thousands. Textbooks do not have the ability to get personal with the reader because there is no time to waste in getting through the major events.

Throughout my years of education I have increasingly found a knack for detecting bias. Sometimes I agree with it whole-heartedly and other times I disagree with it completely. It is definitely harder to detect bias in a tertiary source such as a textbook than it is in a secondary or primary. When I learned about certain historical events in high school it never really crossed my mind that my textbook was biased. I took what it said and assumed it was true. This is yet another problem textbooks present. They are flawing education by not allowing the student to think independently. I do not recall a single review question ever prompting me to question the chapter’s validity. Instead the questions have you define key terms and answer why this particular term is important. If one cannot form their own opinions and think outside the box then learning history will never be more than task for them. It will never amount to anything other than names and dates we were “forced” to remember.

We cannot change the impact made by textbooks in the field of history. However, we can change the ways that they are used. It is up to historians and educators alike to enlighten the world to think deeper and encourage students that it is okay to raise questions and to be curious. After all, what would history be if no one ever challenged authority? The answer is simple; it wouldn’t exist.