Blood and Guts Fight for Place in Textbooks

by Renee Winterstetter

A goal to kill for the cause prevails. Whether that cause be to take freedom or to preserve it is not always remembered, but the results are. Devastated towns, mangled bodies, and a destruction inside the survivors that often cannot be repaired live on as reminders of war.

These are just a few of the horror stories—blood and guts side of military conflicts that many believe textbooks try to ignore.

In a recent issue of U.S.A. Today, it was reported that two researchers—Sergeu Herscovif of the City University of New York, and Sharon Wigott, an authority on sex and racism in children’s books, have taken a new slant on how history books deal with the subject of war. Their results were published in a study titled Militarism in Textbooks. The survey found that none of the texts “raised philosophical questions about the acceptability of war, and presents it in a very visible and reasonable way of solving conflicts.” They feel that these books gloss over the horrors of battle.

Many students agreed with the findings.
“Textbooks don’t tell everybody what war’s all about,” said Steve Crawford. “They should, because we have to face the reality sometime.”

“They do need to write more about it,” agreed Donna Druepper, who didn’t live in war zones. “I don’t know what it’s like.”

“Concerning”
“When Hiroshima, everything is left out. We need to know how the people suffered, how long it took to rebuild their cities,” said Jon Oh. “They just don’t give all the reasons for conflicts and the aftermath.”

But, history teachers disagree.
“Most recent revisionist texts since WW II don’t try to gloss over the horrors of war. They do point out a clear picture on the long term impacts of the changes in the nation’s foreign policy.”

“The textbooks I’ve read to not neglect to relate the horrors of war, or the devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki,” added another history teacher, A. G. Smith. “But, as for raising philosophical questions, it is not the job of a historian to decide whether war is acceptable or not. He should present the facts and describe it accurately.”