Glencoe High School History Books are Woefully Inadequate

It is to be assumed that no book can be 100 percent perfect; nearly any history book will have either a handful of translation/interpretation of event errors or, at the very least, present positions that are still in dispute and cannot be immediately verified. Under normal circumstances, this would be overlooked as the education in the book would be sufficient to give a satisfactory level of proficiency in a topic such as world history. However, a basic glance at the latest books put out by Glencoe that are being sent across the nation show just how woefully inadequate some of these books are.

One might be fooled by the National Geographic image on the front of the book into thinking that it was a great and authoritative source on what lay within – however the many factual errors in the book are dwarfed only by the incredible amount of downplaying attributed to history changing and effecting events.

One could start with the basics. In a book fancying itself an overview of world history, it offers ancient Rome a respectful glance before scurrying along to the next topic – almost as though it recognized that historically it was a time period worth acknowledging but not worth delving into. If one were to take this new history book as a reference, one would assume that Feudal Japan played a larger part in the grand scheme of world history than the Roman Republic, whose model of government exists to this very day.

Before dealing with the brazen inaccuracies, it’s important to point out that the entire history of ancient Rome comprises a total of eleven pages. In fact, in the very same section that it mentions the emergence of Rome, it discusses the rise of Christianity and the Empire. Amusingly, before a reader is even introduced to explanations of Tarquinius, he or she are exposed to images of Hannibal Barca. While he is indeed a major figure in world history, this kind of focus shows a popular media approach, using classical icons rather than historically important figures to the time periods.

It explains in the first paragraph that Rome fought Etruscans – without ever actually explaining what an Etruscan is. It conjures images of Conan the Barbarian, when the narrator explains that the leaders rode to the south and the children rode north with the Vanir – all the while you are left wondering what exactly is Vanir, only by going into R.E. Howard’s sources themselves do you find out that a Vanir is a barbarian race of people at war with the Cimmerians. However, as a student, I should not have to find supplemental sources and back up material to explain what a race of people is that is pivotal to this subject.

While it is understood that in a world history book, time needs to be alloted for other points in history, the downplaying of Roman history in such a fashion only serves to inhibit the students. Once more the book smacks of pop culture history, which is why it so easily bounces from boring Etruscans to honorable Samurai, and hold them in any way as comparative contributors to international society or history.

On the page after it explains that Tarquinius was overthrown and replaced by a Republic – although Marcus Junius Brutus is never mentioned, missing a key point in this history as this family turned Rome upside down with the assassination of Julius Caesar and subsequently and inadvertently caused the rise of the Principate (another word that is never mentioned in this book) – it says there were a number of civil wars. One of them was between Pompey and Caesar, then Caesar was assassinated.

This appears to leave otu a few details – such as the political upheaval brought about by Lucius Cornelius Sulla, or the invasion and subsequent conquest of Gaul and any other number of highly important events of this time.

As it goes on to explain the way the Republic is run, it discusses the importance of the Senate as a legislative body – towards the end of this paragraph it mentions a “plebeian council” for “plebs only” because of social disputes.

Theoretically this could pass as a pseudo-satisfactory answer. In truth however, this is both woefully inadequate and could constitute as educational malpractice. It nowever neglects to mention that this was only part of the People’s Assembly, and was the Roman equivalent of the House of Representatives. Rather than being a begrudging addition to an already established Senate, the People’s Assembly existed from very early on in order to insure that the Plebeians were fairly represented on government and those with the highest stakes in war were the only ones capable of declaring it.

Amusingly, it then goes on to explain that Augustus was named imperator of the Roman Empire – and thus began the Roman Empire. This is an interesting way to cut out all the other titles and to ignore the title of Princeps, the closest title in Roman existence in stature to emperor. True, the word emperor is derived from imperator – but the word imperator is a reference to a military commander allowed to march his troops into the city in Triumph. Once more, this is another blatantly false statement.

Immediately after explaining that Augustus was emperor, it decides it’s going to skip the entire Julio-Claudian Dynasty, a good chunk of the Flavian Dynasty, and skip right to the Five Good Emperors. This misses out on a fundamental part of Roman history – the time of Christian persecution, the madness of the original emperors that led to the upheavals that allowed the Five Good Emperors, and what’s worse, the Five Good Emperors were not nice people by modern standards. Therefore with no counter balance with which to judge these Five Good Emperors (a man who has entire courtyards between two bald men slaughtered for his amusement to a man who killed the gladiator his wife was sleeping with) they are not met with the same aura of superiority that they deserve.

In a worksheet from this book, a question is asked about plebeians’ rights in which the student is expected to explain that plebs did not have the right to vote.

This is horribly negligent in teaching. Not only did Plebeians have the right to vote, this fundamentally affected the Roman economy. In a time when votes were considered tangible property to be bought or sold entire fortunes were spent on trying to buy the votes of the People. Voting was key to citizens, it was what made them who they were.

This would be akin to, on an American history test, asking them which Amendment forbids white males from bearing arms. It is just non-existent.

The same tragic approach is brought to the Crusades. All nine of these epic battles are summarized in a single paragraph. Meanwhile, an entire page is devoted to a Chapter Preview entitled “A Story That Matters”, Japan Faces Kublai Khan. It’s amusing that they feel this story matters and Rome’s and the Crusades’ don’t, because Kublai Khan never made it to Japan. His entire invasion force was wiped out by a pair of freak storms.

In essence, this was the most dramatic lack of impact on human history in human history. But it’s not exactly a story that needs to be told, as it officially teaches us nothing about where we were or where we’re going – just that weather can be fortuitous to battle.

Perhaps in summary, this paragraph can explain just how dangerous this book is at its raw barest:

“Did the Crusades have much effect on European civilization? Historians disagree.”

The author is not sure to which historians this book is referring, but presidents, historians, modern leaders and an entire modern conflict is based entirely around the Crusades. It is very possible these “historians” might need their credentials checked. The only lasting effect this book cites the Crusades as having is a “temporary benefit to the Italian city states.”

Reference:

• wh.mt.glencoe.com