Title

Understanding history: a primer of historical method /Louis Gottschalk.

Author
Gottschalk, Louis, 1899-1975.

He was born as Louis Gottschalk, the sixth of eight children of Morris and Anna (née Krystal) Gottschalk ,
Jewish immigrants to Brooklyn from Poland.[2] He graduated from Cornell University with an A.B. in
1919, A.M. in 1920, and the Ph.D. in 1921, under the supervision of Carl L. Becker.[5] He taught briefly at
the University of Illinois,[2][5] and joined the University of Louisville faculty in 1923,[2][5][6][7] but
resigned in protest in 1927 after a friend and colleague in the history department was fired as part of an
attempt by the university administration to abolish tenure.[2] He joined the University of Chicago in
1927, was promoted to full professor in 1935, and chaired the history department from 1937 to 1942.[4]
He was given his endowed chair, the Gustavus F. and Ann M. Swift Distinguished Service Professorship
of History, in 1959.[4] In 1965, facing forced retirement from Chicago, he moved again to the University
of Illinois at Chicago so that he could continue teaching.[4][5]

From 1929 to 1943, he served as assistant editor of the Journal of Modern History; for three years
following, he was acting editor.[4] He was president of the American Historical Association in 1953[8]
and the second president of the American Society for Eighteenth-Century Studies.[5]

He met poet Laura Riding, then known by her maiden name, Laura Reichenthal, while she was a student
at Cornell and he was a graduate assistant there. They married on November 2, 1920, and he took her
last name as his middle name. However, they divorced in 1925.[2][9] He later married Fruma Kasden, in
1930; they had two sons.[2][4]

Edition
2nd ed.
Published
New York : Knopf, c1969.
PUBLISHED BY ALFRED A. KNOPF, INC.

Subjects
History -- Methodology.
Historiographies’.
Historiography.

Contents
Objectives of historians. The evaluation of historical writing ; The relation of historical method to life and
learning
Methods of historical research. What are "history" and "historical sources"? ; Choosing a subject and
finding information upon it ; Where does historical information come from? ; The problem of
authenticity, or external criticism ; The problem of credibility, or internal criticism ; Learning (and
teaching) historical techniques ; A word on style and composition
Theory of history. The problems of selection, arrangement, and emphasis ; The problems of cause,
motive, and influence ; The historian and the problems of the present.

. 1. Objectives of historians. Evaluation of historical writing --

Relation of historical method to life and learning --
pt. 2. Methods of historical research. What are history and historical sources --
Choosing a subject and finding information upon it --
Where does historical information come from --
Problem of authenticity, or external criticism --
Problem of credibility, or internal criticism --
Learning and teaching historical techniques --
pt. 3. Theory of history. Problems of selection, arrangement, and emphasis --
Problems of cause, motive and influence --
Historian and the problems of the present.

Notes
Includes index.
Bibliographical footnotes.
Gottschalk, Louis (1969). Understanding history : a primer of historical method (2nd ed). Knopf, New
York
EXCERPT
Since 1933 I have collaborated with various colleagues in the teaching of a "Laboratory Course in
Historical Method." The word "laboratory" in the title of that course is taken seriously. Each student is
expected to do as much of his work as possible in the presence of the others and of the professor. Since
little serious historical research can be done without an adequate library, much of the actual note-taking
and writing has to take place before the work is submitted for the criticism of the class, but in class,
subjects, methods, tools, and the theoretical problems of the students are discussed as the occasions
arise. Neither questions regarding causality, frames of reference, and the philosophy of history nor
analyses of the major controversies of historical interpretation are avoided, but a conscious effort is
made to subordinate them to concrete ones such as how to choose a subject, how to use a library, how
to take notes, when to quote, when to use a footnote, how to evaluate evidence, how to tell a good
work of history from a bad one, how to prepare a manuscript, and how to write a historical composition.

The available textbooks on historical method, despite their sometimes obvious merit, rarely meet the
needs of students in a course of this nature. With some notable exceptions, they are not laboratory
manuals. They deal too abstractly with the practical questions to which the beginning student wants
answers. Instead of attempting to tell him what sort of notes are worth taking or when not to use a
footnote or how to avoid irrelevance in historical narrative, they present overwhelming bibliographies or
speak abstrusely about the detection of unauthentic manuscripts and about the sciences auxiliary to
history. In a day when nearly any American college library has printed and manuscript collections of well
authenticated and well catalogued documents, these techniques are rarely so important as they once
were when the student had to learn how to compile his own collections or so important as they will
become when the student goes beyond the walls of his college library to work in less systematic
collections and archives. Nor do the available textbooks on historical method often deal with problems
of style (except perhaps at the hortatory level); and when they raise questions dealing with the relations
of history to the social sciences and philosophy or with the possibilities of generalization, prediction, and
control in history, they are apt to do so in a rarefied, academic atmosphere.

Yet any of these questions may arise as practical questions in the course of preparing a historical
composition. History is three-dimensional. It partakes of the nature of science, art, and philosophy. As a
method, it follows strict rules for ascertaining verifiable fact; as exposition and narrative, it calls for
imagination, literary taste, and critical standards; as interpretation of life, it demands the philosopher's
insights and judgments. The books generally available to the beginner deal so largely with method alone
that they rarely mention the theory of history or its literary dimension. An attempt has been made here
to discuss practice, style, and theory in an elementary fashion, and in the order in which they might
become uppermost in the inexpert historian's mind (though they might easily arise simultaneously).
Beginning with a brief discussion of the nature of history, we move on to a consideration of historical
method and then to some remarks on the problem of style, ending with a discussion of some theoretical
questions. While I have had the student of history primarily in mind, I have not tried to hide that the
historian has to face these questions at every level in a world that is becoming more and more
indifferent to historia historiae gratia. These are no longer merely academic questions or dimly felt
annoyances on the periphery of a genteel profession. The answers may well determine not only how
genteel the profession may remain but whether it ought in fact to be suffered to exist as an
independent discipline.

To questions as intricate and moot as some of these it would be folly to claim to have the right answers.
I would feel flattered if I could persuade myself that even those of my colleagues to whom this book is
dedicated shared my belief in their correctness. If my answers appear false to any reader, the fault is
mine alone. I hope, however, that readers will believe them at least worthy of consideration as points of
departure for further discussion. For that reason I thought it desirable not merely to describe practices
that I consider generally accepted among historians but also to make proposals (sometimes already
made by others) that may prove widely acceptable, and have tried to make clear the distinction
between descriptive statements and proposals.

This work has been written primarily for the student of history in the colleges and universities. The
needs of the independent general reader, not directly concerned with writing history himself but
wishing to acquire standards of judging historical writing, have also been constantly kept in mind. It has
been assumed throughout that the reader has profounder love than knowledge of history but sufficient
knowledge to manage without a trained guide. If this assumption has led occasionally to elaboration of
the obvious on the one hand and oversimplification of the complex on the other, it is intentionally so.
This work is addressed to the beginner and the amateur. The more advanced reader may find it
desirable to skip Chapters III- VII, and perhaps teachers of historical method should begin with Chapter
VIII.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Chapters II, III, V, VI, VII, IX, X, and XI of this book have drawn heavily upon my essay entitled "The
Historian and the Historical Document" in The Use of Personal Documents in History, Anthropology and
Sociology ( New York: Social Science Research Council Bulletin No. 53, 1945). I am greatly indebted to
the Social Science Research Council for permission to repeat or to rework almost all of that essay in this
book. I am also indebted to the Social Science Research Council for allowing me to quote from its
Bulletin No. 54, Theory and Practice in Historical Study: a Report of the Committee on Historiography (
New York, 1946)and from W. I. Thomasand Florian Znaniecki, The Polish Peasant in Europe and America
( Boston, 1918-20). I was a member of the Committee on Historiography and profited from its meetings
(in more ways than can be guessed merely by my references to its report) as well as from public and
private comments upon that report. Chapter I has been derived largely from my essay entitled "The
Evaluation of Historical Writings" in Louis Wilson (ed.), The Practice of Book Selection ( Chicago, 1940),
which the University of Chicago Press has kindly permitted me to adapt to the needs of this book. Only
Chapters IV and VIII appear here entirely for the first time, but all chapters have in them much that is
new.

I am also indebted to Doubleday & Co. and Charles Scribner's Sons for permission to quote from works
which they have published. To Bruce L. Smith and the Graduate Library School of the University of
Chicago I owe information about technological improvements in bibliographical work. Quincy Wright has
allowed me to use some lines from one of his speeches, and Vincent Starrett and Marya Mannes to
quote in full a little poem of each. I owe the whole of the Appendix to Raymond Preston. I shall
acknowledge my indebtedness again on the pages where these borrowed passages appear.

Where I have wanted to illustrate a point with an example, I have not hesitated to invent one that I
thought was representative, but in a number of instances I have borrowed without acknowledgment
from papers by students under my supervision. The illustrations that I have thus unceremoniously
appropriated, it will be noted, are not always of horrible examples to avoid. This is perhaps the place to
acknowledge my great debt to the many able young men and women who in "History 300 or its
equivalent" and "History 408 or its equivalent" have contributed, among other things, to my training in
how to teach historical method at least as much as I have contributed to their learning it.

Several friends have helped me to prepare this work. They have been loyally and intelligently severe in
their criticism. I should like to thank especially James L. Cate, Fruma Gottschalk, William T. Hutchinson,
and Margaret Maddox, all of whom made corrections and suggestions at some stage before the
manuscript went to press and caused me to eliminate certain weaknesses. If the book still has
shortcomings, they are probably more attributable to my persistence than to any oversight on the part
of these friendly critics.

Contents
41-61
The Meaning of "History"41
"Objectivity" and "Subjectivity"42
Artifacts as Sources of History43
Historical Knowledge Limited by Incompleteness of the Records45
History as the Subjective Process of Re-creation46
Historical Method and Historiography Defined48
Imagination in Historiography49
History of Historical Method51
Sources52
The Distinction between Primary and Other Original Sources53
Primary Particulars Rather than Whole Primary Sources Sought56
The Document57
The "Human" and the "Personal" Document

CHAPTER VI: The Problem of Authenticity, or External Criticism118

Forged or Misleading Documents118
Tests of Authenticity122
Garbled Documents124
The Restoration of Texts125
Sciences Auxiliary to History126
Chronology as an Auxiliary Science129
ariants Among the Sources131
The Problem of Meaning: Semantics133
The Problem of Meaning: Hermeneutics134
Historical-Mindedness136
Identification of Author and of Date138
CHAPTER VII: The Problem of Credibility, or Internal Criticism139
What Is Historical Fact?139
The Interrogative Hypothesis141
The Quest for Particular Details of Testimony143
Identification of Author144
Determination of Approximate Date147
The Personal Equation148
General Rules149
Ability to Tell the Truth150
Willingness to Tell the Truth155
Conditions Favorable to Credibility161
Hearsay and Secondary Evidence165
Corroboration166
Certitude vs. Certainty 170

SHORTER NOTICES 87 historic rightsof Englishmen but not in the moretheoretical rightsof man. The
excerpts in whichthese ideasandbeliefs areembo•ed,varying in length froma single sentence orepigram
toseveral pages, arechosen toillustrate also the historic evolution of Conservatism from ,the French
Revolution ,tothe presen.t, from Burkeand Coleridge to T.S. Eliot and QuintinHogg. Peelis
drawnuponextensively to present the attitude of Co-hservatism to political change in theAgeof Reform,
Disraeli andLordRandolph Churchill toexplain ToryDemocracy, Disraeli andJoseph Chamberlain to put
thecase forEmpire. Readers mayrecallpassages whichtheywouldhaveliked,tos•eincluded in one or other
of the volumes,but within the limits which the editors have setforthemselves, ,they have been
remarkably successful in illustrating aspects of theBritish political tradition bymeans of selections varied,
representative, and of historical interest. A. C. Cooxv. TheUnivers/ty ofBritish Columbia Understanding
History: A Primer o•Historical Method. ByLou•s GOTTSCHALK. New York: Alfred A. Knopf
[Toronto:McClelland& Stewart].1950. •. xk, 290,vi. $$.25. PaOFESSOR Goa•rsc•LX hasfornearly twenty
years takena leading partin teaching alaboratory course inhistorical method intheUniversity of Chicago,
andthisvoltune, portions ofwhich have already appeared in print,represents thefruits ofhisexperience
onthesubiect. Thebook isdivided intothree parts. Firstcomes "Objectives of Historians," with chapters on
the evaluation of historical writingandtherelation of historical method to life andlearning. PartII
dealswith methods of historical research (historical sources and subiectsof research, external
andinternal evidence, historical technique). Part III, "Theory ofHistory," discusses theselection
ofmaterials, historical causation, andthehistorian andpresent dayproblems. Asbefits itssubti,tle
of"Primer" thebook isrelatively brief.Theauthor is more concerned toestab•sh principles
andgivedirection thantoworkoutthe subject at length. Heknows theproblems andpitfalls ofthehistorian
andis balanced in hisiudgments. In short, without beingparticularly original in healanent orcontent,
thevolume should bea valuable aidto students engaged in learning howto writehistory.
Bu.ttherearelimitsto whatcanbe learned fromcourses in historical method. History writing, astheauthor
says in his preface, isanartaswellasa social science, andiustasthepainter learns by studying theworks of
thegreat masters, sothewould-be historian mustturn totheworks ofthegreat historians andwriters
ofEnglish ,tolearn byexample aswellasbyprecept. Nodoubt Dr.Gottschalk would agree. Butit ishardly
enough when referring to "style andcomposition" (p. 186) to content himsel •withrecommending
thepossession of dictionaries andmanuals of correct English. R. FLENLEY TheUniversity ofToronto ...

BIASES

Americans place great faith in textbooks as a means of providing their children with an understanding of
American history. To a significant extent, textbooks define and determine what is important in American
history. Yet textbooks do not deserve their reputation as impartial educational tools that simply teach
students facts and skills. History textbooks incorporate attitudes and ways of looking at the world. In
making judgments about what should be included and what should be excluded, and how particular
episodes in history should be summarized, textbook authors assign positive or negative interpretations
to particular events, thereby asserting a set of values. The fact that these values are often not declared
explicitly, but remain implicit, does not make them less powerful. As FitzGerald pointed out more than
fifteen years ago,
what sticks to the memory from those textbooks [from her schooldays] is not any particular series of
facts but an atmosphere, an impression, a tone. And this impression may be all the more influential just
because one cannot remember the facts and the arguments that created it. (FitzGerald 1979, 18)
In my opinion, the problem with history textbooks is not that they promote a particular understanding
of history-it would be impossible to do otherwise-but rather that they pretend rhetorically not to do
this. As McLaren argues, "Knowledge acquired in school-or anywhere, for that matter-is never neutral or
objective but is ordered and structured in particular ways" (1989, 169). The ideas of German social
theorist

Jurgen Habermas are also relevant to this issue. In the view of Habermas (1971), "knowledge" cannot be
considered something that is objectively "out there," but consists of information and ideas that reflect
specific interests that we bring to the knowing process. Different interests construct different ways of
knowing that influence our perception of the world.
Although Habermas identifies three forms of knowledge, this article is concerned with what he would
regard as technical knowledge. Technical knowledge assumes that an objective world exists where
knowledge can be neutral and value-free. In the social sciences, a commitment to technical knowledge is
reflected in a belief that "what is important is to get the facts straight"; the philosophical origins of faith
in technical knowledge lie in positivism,1 the approach that attempts to analyze societies and social
relations in the same "scientific" way in which natural scientists analyze physical phenomena. The
influence of this approach is visible in those history textbooks that focus on the collection and
classification of facts.

In textbooks, being "factuaquot; does not necessarily mean being unbiased or value-free. As any good
lawyer knows, it is possible to present extremely biased arguments that can be alleged to be
"factuaquot; because they are compatible with a given set of facts. By the careful choice of what facts to
include or exclude, it is possible to construct arguments that can be wholly one-sided, yet can be
asserted to "fit the facts." Textbooks are influenced by the political, ideological, or moral beliefs of their
authors (or by the beliefs that authors presume to be held by the "typicaquot; teacher for whom they
write). Usually, these beliefs support the status quo, or conventional understandings about what is
praiseworthy or blameworthy in history.

In short, passages in textbooks that are "factually correct" may also be communicating very selective
values and moral judgments. This form of bias is more subtle than is bias resulting from inaccurate facts,
but it can still be very powerful.

One of my principal concerns is with the presentation by textbooks of issues that are important to
understanding the historical situation of minorities in the United States. I am concerned in particular
with the way in which the plight of Japanese Americans in World War II is portrayed, as well as with
ways in which major historical developments are described as having an impact on minorities. In this
article, I will describe some conclusions of a review I made of ways that textbooks treat these subjects. It
is important to point out that it is not my purpose to make a full assessment of the merits and demerits
of each textbook cited, or to attempt to rate textbooks against each other. My intention is rather to
review ways in which apparently "factuaquot; passages in textbooks can communicate biased
assumptions and judgments.

I examined the content of five well-known secondary school American history textbooks.2 The
publishers of these books were the top five major textbook publishing companies, according to
information supplied by the American Textbook Council and the American Association of Publishers.

Because publishers consider certain information dealing with textbook usage confidential, it is difficult
to estimate the number of schools and students that actually use any one of the books in the sample. I
requested that the marketing department of each publishing company supply me with the title for what
they considered to be their "best-selling" secondary American history textbook.3 Because a limited
number of textbooks are on the market, their best sellers serve as a valid sample of the major history
textbooks used in most American public schools.

Treatment of Minorities
An example of the kind of passage I examined was the following statement about the American home
front in World War II:
Americans also suffered deep anxieties and fears. However, these fears did not lead to the widespread
repressions of minority groups that occurred in World War I. (Todd and Curti 1990, 807)
The communication of the idea that there was no "widespread" repression of minority groups in World
War II allows the authors to present the impression that an improvement had taken place in American
treatment of minorities. Yet the treatment of Japanese Americans-not to mention continuing
discrimination against many minorities-was surely sufficiently dramatic in its violation of human rights
that it would be more appropriate to present its historical context as one of continuing American failure
to treat minorities justly rather than as one of improvement in the minority situation.

Another related example is that in many textbooks, the issue of Japanese American loyalty is raised, but
loyalty is reduced to the concept of military service and performance. The same book discusses loyalty in
the following manner:

Yet there had never been any real proof that these Japanese Americans had been disloyal. Indeed,
nearly all of the Nisei remained loyal, patriotic American citizens despite their harsh, unfair treatment.
Many of those allowed to serve in the armed forces distinguished themselves for bravery. (1990, 808)

For the Japanese American, proof of loyalty is reduced to military service and performance. This not only
eliminates many possible alternative aspects of what it means to be loyal, but also camouflages issues of
justice and equality. For example, Japanese Americans were citizens by birth, taxpayers, members of
communities, voters, parents, and children alike. Even though "there had never been any real proof of
disloyalty," the implication is that Japanese Americans needed to prove their loyalty through military
service. The result is a draconian message that the standard for determining the civic and national
loyalty of an American minority group is the willingness of its members to make war as Americans on
persons sharing the same ethnic heritage. And in this particular chapter, many important issues are not
properly discussed, such as the government's denial of basic civil rights and its moral and legal
responsibilities for the welfare of its citizens; racism and discrimination; and other ethical questions of
justice and equality for all citizens. In contrast to the issue of just and equal treatment of citizens, the
usefulness of military service is presented as the criterion for loyal citizenship. A concept of citizenship in
which military service is more important than is a commitment to justice communicates a sense of
priorities that can encourage non-democratic values.

Regarding the treatment of African Americans and their economic advancement at the time of World
War I, Bragdon, McCutchen, and Ritchie argue that although discrimination against workers led to race
riots in 26 northern cities in 1917, African Americans in the north made significant economic gains
during the war. (1992, 747)
This sentence structure suggests that violence and racism against African Americans can be tolerated in
exchange for economic gains. The use of the word "although" to describe the race riots reduces the
reference to racist violence to a subordinate clause in the sentence, while the main part of the sentence
stresses improvements in the African American situation. This deflects attention from a consideration of
our democratic ideals and suggests that issues of discrimination and violence are less important than is
economic gain. It considers issues related to justice and equality unimportant because blacks were
rewarded with economic gain.

Jordan, Greenblatt, and Bowes describe the plight of African Americans in a similar manner when they
argue that "despite the violence, however, the economic standing of blacks improved considerably
during the war" (1988, 661).

These passages suggest that economic growth is the ultimate goal, well worth the suffering Black
Americans endured. In a sense, economic gain is presented as equivalent to justice. This represents a
particular understanding of our democratic ideals in which issues of human and democratic rights are
balanced against economic advantages. Justice is treated on the same level as is compensation
(economic gain), and equality is discussed in economic terms. This view is at odds with true
interpretations of democracy, and it should not be presented as a textbook-certified truth.

The Authority of Language

Although textbooks claim rhetorically not to promote a particular understanding of history and to be
objective, they advance a value-laden perspective of reality. Because the selection and structure of
knowledge affect our perception of the world, the language and context used to articulate knowledge
are crucial. Textbook authors select particular language that creates impressions in the minds of
students. These impressions have power and authority because they are presented in the printed and
bound textbook with its aura of an authority that is beyond question and criticism.
Although textbooks are used in many different ways, they are still dominant and powerful educational
tools that shape students' views. I believe that the authority of textbooks coupled with the "objectivity"
of the technical knowledge that they communicate encourages students to accept unquestionably the
impressions and worldview created by the language of textbooks. In turn, this shapes their view of
American history and our democratic ideals.

As an example, in several textbooks, the portrayal of Japanese people and culture prior to the
internment of Japanese Americans creates a particular image. The Japanese are described from a
military perspective in which the impression is strongly conveyed that they are aggressive, militaristic
kamikazes. The language portrays the Japanese in a deterministic manner, i.e., all Japanese are
aggressive. This perspective is reinforced by most textbooks when they fail to discuss the difference
between the military and the civilian population in Japan. Excluding other vital elements of Japanese
culture helps in reinforcing the aggressive image. I believe that this impression of the Japanese as
"kamikazes" (Bragdon et al. 1992, 874) who are "willing to risk war to get their way" (Boorstin and Kelley
1990, 541) might reinforce stereotypical images held by readers, and that those impressions may affect
students' views of the internment.

If students accept and believe this image, it is possible that their view of the internment and their
definitions of justice and equality will be affected, because they may presume that Japanese Americans
were also militaristic, and loyal to their ancestral land, and that their internment might have been a
military necessity. And if they believe, as one text states, that "defending the country becomes a matter
of life and death" in times of war (Boorstin and Kelley 1990, 677), they may come to the conclusion that
those who love justice and equality should not look too closely into wartime violations of human rights
that are carried out in the name of "military necessity" or "national security."

In addition, the use of specific expressions often camouflages significant issues of justice and equality.
For example, Bragdon, McCutchen, and Ritchie (1992, 882) select the term "bargain hunters" to describe
individuals who profited from the Japanese American internment, in terms of property, money, and
material items:

Detainees had as little as 48 hours to make arrangements for their homes, businesses, and farms. Many
had to sell their property at a loss or abandon it. Bargain hunters descended on them, taking advantage
of their plight.
In our culture, the expression "bargain hunter" conveys a positive image that downplays the lack of
ethical responsibility of individuals who gained economically from the internment. The term justifies
economic gain by any means instead of addressing the ethical issues regarding the exploitation of the
victims. Furthermore, the textbook fails to mention that much of the property not immediately sold was
stolen, vandalized, or sold through legal loopholes, and downplays the issue that Japanese Americans
were treated unjustly, and that the U.S. government denied constitutional rights to a group of its
citizens without due process. The language used creates an overall impression that conceals significant
ethical issues related to "taking advantage of their plight," which remains unquestioned. In a sense,
students may learn from this passage that certain injustices are deemed acceptable in the name of
economic advancement or "getting a bargain."

In contrast, the textbook American Voices uses the term "human vultures" to describe those who took
advantage of the Japanese American plight, and this constructs a different impression. The term creates
an image of individuals preying upon victims and striking "with cunning and cruelty" (Berkin et al. 1992,
669). It is possible that the expression raises questions about the fairness and justice of the selling and
profiting from confiscated Japanese American property. In turn, this encourages students to raise issues
about the morality of the action, and requires them to struggle with issues of justice and equality.4 It is
important to realize that the impressions created and legitimized by textbooks become important
elements in shaping how students understand our democratic ideals.

Conclusion
One of our educational goals in a democratic society is that schools develop critically thinking, socially
conscientious students who have grasped the meaning of democratic values. Although educators
consider these values vital for a democracy to survive and flourish, my findings suggest that most history
textbooks that I analyzed describe historical events in a manner that promotes a worldview of which
students are barely conscious, but nonetheless shapes their understanding of the world. This
unarticulated worldview defines our democratic ideals in terms of means-to-ends reasoning,
performance, economic profit, and advancement. This language fails to raise other morally significant
issues about our democratic ideals such as justice, equality, and individual civil rights.
These findings indicate that we need to encourage changes in our assumptions about the content and
use of textbooks. Students cannot learn the meaning of our democratic ideals by studying textbooks
that underemphasize the need for justice and equality or by memorizing historical events that portray
injustices. We must begin to respond critically to the meanings and impressions history textbooks
construct. As Carlson argues, students must learn to "penetrate the ideological subtexts embedded in
their history textbooks and also the contradictions within these ideologies" (1989, 53). History classes
must begin to use strategies that identify and challenge biases found in textbooks, and develop ethical
frameworks based on justice and equality that students and teachers can use to interpret and evaluate
American history.

Notes
1 Habermas identifies three forms of knowledge based on the theory of knowledge-constitutive-
interests. These are the technical, the practical, and the emancipatory.

2 The U.S. history textbooks surveyed were the following: Carol Berkin, Alan Brinkley, Clayborne Carson,
Robert W. Cherny, Robert A. Divine, Eric Foner, Jeffery B. Morris, Arthur Wheeler, and Leonard Wood,
American Voices (Glenview, Ill.: Scott Foresman and Company, 1992); Daniel J. Boorstin and Brooks M.
Kelley, A History of the United States Since 1861 (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1990); Henry W.
Bragdon, Samuel P. McCutchen, and Donald A. Ritchie, History of a Free Nation (Westerville, Ohio:
Glencoe Division, Macmillan/McGraw-Hill School Publishing, 1992); Winthrop D. Jordan, Miriam
Greenblatt, and John S. Bowes, The Americans (Evanston, Ill.: McDougal, Littel and Company, 1988);
Lewis P. Todd and Merle Curti, Triumph of the American Nation (Orlando, Fla.: Harcourt, Brace and
Jovanovich, Inc., 1990).

3 The five publishing companies whose books were used in this study refused to release information
concerning the number of books sold, the number of schools using the particular title, or any estimates
concerning the number of students using their textbooks. However, the marketing departments agreed
to disclose the titles of their best-selling books. These titles are not based on the publisher's opinion of
the quality of the textbooks; each title simply represents the U.S. history book that sells the most copies.
Because the top five publishers provided the information, the books examined can be considered to be
very popular U.S. history textbooks used in American public schools.