Much of the agitation and complaint regarding school textbooks in history has apparently come from prejudiced sources—from men and institutions that are themselves propagandists and who use this method of checking their own un-American sentiments.
The formal complaints published after “investigation” have been by men apparently incompetent to sit in judgment on historical data. For example, the Commissioner of Accounts of New York City. We believe that there are a sufficient number of thoroughly competent educational experts who can pass on such matters without calling in a Commissioner of Accounts.
We do not believe that such men as Muzzey of Columbia University, West of the University of Michigan [sic], Hart of Harvard, McLaughlin of Chicago University, Van Tyne of the University of Michigan, Guitteau, Director of Schools, Toledo, are unpatriotic or that their books were written as the result of organized propaganda.
We believe, however, that the authors have laid themselves open to just criticism because of the fact that they have sometimes made statements from the point of view of a critic or investigator rather than from that of a teacher. Their work is thus perhaps legitimate for the advanced student and investigator but not in our opinion for the public school pupil.
We believe also that some of these authors are at fault in placing before immature pupils the blunders, foibles and frailties of prominent heroes and patriots of our Nation. History should be taught with a view to inspiring our boys and girls with love of country and admiration for noble ideals. If a pupil is led to believe that a great National hero was guilty of weakness and crime he is likely to excuse such failings in himself and others. School texts should not belittle men who have given their lives for their country even if it should be discovered by experts that they have been subject to ordinary human frailties.
We believe too that some of the writers have been guilty of introducing matters of controversial nature without giving adequate space (which in the nature of the case they could not do) for presentation of the essential facts on both sides. In some instances the author’s own personal views in such subjects seem to be exploited. An example is the treatment of the tariff in some of the text books.
Material is sometimes presented to give critical results of recent historical research, rather than to influence good citizenship. The list of fundamental principles of The American Legion History given above states our ideas of the matter which should be presented and the method of its presentation.
With regard to subjects that may be internationally controversial, such as the American Revolution, it should be borne in mind that a good majority of the colonists supported the Revolution and had firm faith in the rectitude of their conduct and that almost all of our people have since believed that they were right, and we do not believe that it is in the interest of good citizenship to have that faith called in question.
We believe that much of the criticism against so-called pro-Anglican statements is prompted by pro-German sentiments. For example the objection to referring to England as the mother country. The Colonists themselves used this term. The objection seems to be purely captious and in a line with a recent agitation to create another language than the English as the language of America.
While we do not believe in glorifying war we believe that some of our great National victories and our National heroes should be written up in a more inspirational manner than is done in some histories. We are confident that this will be accomplished in The American Legion History now being written.[927]