HISTORY TEXTBOOKS
Like current debate, the past is polarized
Jonathan Zimmerman has a good point about textbooks ("Funny thing about history: It has more than one angle," Opinion Exchange, March 20). There often is more than one viewpoint. Although Zimmerman's solution -- two texts -- is impractical for logistical and financial reasons, it seems that a clever editor could combine the two.
This is exactly what the intelligent design community has been asking for in the area of evolution: Let the evidence against it be placed next to the evidence for it. But that educationally and scientifically sound proposal has been repeatedly shot down by the evolutionary monopoly. What are they afraid of?
ROSS S. OLSON, MINNEAPOLIS
• • •
I hold a master's degree in history, and one thing the master's program emphasized was that history is like a detective story, and objectivity is the key to unearthing the truth. We only know for sure that something happened: What exactly happened and why it happened are open to interpretation, depending on the sources. Even primary sources, such as letters from the participants, could be biased. That is why professors emphasized exploring many points of view -- conservative, liberal, communist, whatever.
Liberals and conservatives do their causes an injustice when they deliberately bend the truth or choose to ignore uncomfortable evidence. I have always searched for the "straight skinny," however uncomfortable it may be, and however many cherished icons were smeared or shattered.
MICHAEL MAYER, LAKEVILLE
• • •