Questionable Presidential bios on White House site
15 replies, posted
[release]NEW YORK – Doris Kearns Goodwin has read a lot of upbeat material about American presidents, but some of the entries on the White House website were so sunny that they reminded her of the happy talk at Boston Red Sox games.
"When we go to the ballpark, they'll put on the scoreboard the statistics of the players who are coming to bat and they'll always find something good to say," says the Pulitzer Prize-winning historian. "Maybe the guy has a .150 batting average, but they'll say, `In the last six games, he hit .367.'"
The White House site, [url]http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents[/url], offers one-page summaries of all 44 presidents, granting equal time to sluggers and bench-warmers. Much of the material is taken directly from a companion book by the White House Historical Association first released in 1964 and last reissued in 2009. "The Presidents of the United States of America" is a glossy, illustrated paperback that includes a foreword by President Barack Obama, who writes: "I hope it not only teaches you about America's past, but also ignites a passion to build America's future."
But the White House biographies offer an unusual history lesson. Some are examples of blatant boosterism and outdated scholarship. Others are oddly selective or politically incorrect.
George W. Bush's entry, for example, makes no reference to Hurricane Katrina or the economic collapse of 2008, but does find room for the names of his dogs. Ronald Reagan's biography does not mention the Iran-Contra scandal, which made headlines during his second term. Gerald Ford's 1974 pardon of Richard Nixon is noted in a few words, with nothing about the fierce criticism it received. Vietnam is included on Lyndon Johnson's page (and spelled "Viet Nam"), but not his fateful decision to send ground troops.
Thomas Jefferson is introduced as a "powerful advocate of liberty" who "inherited some 5,000 acres of land," but is not identified as an owner of slaves. Andrew Jackson's page says virtually nothing about his advocacy of slavery or harsh treatment of American Indians. The life of William Henry Harrison, a military commander who became the ninth president, is narrated as a valiant crusade against Indians.
The White House declined to comment on the site, but spokesman Josh Earnest said the administration would consult with the historical association about updating it.[/release]
[url=http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110405/ap_en_ot/us_white_house_biographies]Source[/url]
As an amateur historian, I have only one thing to say about this.
:argh:
Are you really that surprised?
Every president has done stupid shit and good shit.
Maybe they just wanted to cover who the presidents were as opposed to what they did. Trying to keep it unbiased maybe? I dunno.
[QUOTE=Swilly;29000955]Are you really that surprised?
Every president has done stupid shit and good shit.[/QUOTE]
Dosn't mean they should try to gloss it over. That's inexcusable.
It shall all be corrected in due time.
I hear lyndon b johnson shot a man in reno just to see him die.
Not surprised. The examples sound just like how they were depicted in my history classes.
Theodore Roosevelt was also seen wrestling gigantic alligators as he traveled into the future to punch Adolph Hitler in the face [i][citation needed][/i]
You get dirt on presidents by digging, not reading off the front page.
[QUOTE=Nahyan;29010696]You get dirt on presidents by digging, not reading off the front page.[/QUOTE]
This
History is written by the victors.
[QUOTE=Psychokitten;29001133]Dosn't mean they should try to gloss it over. That's inexcusable.[/QUOTE]
We already have r-tards going, "Back in my days during the Regan administration."
Not surprising. It's like grade school social studies all over.
What do you expect them to say on the White House website, "This president was a total fuck up?"
[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;29010876]What do you expect them to say on the White House website, "This president was a total fuck up?"[/QUOTE]
If that's what a defining part of them or their presidency is then it should be there. There's no need to gloss over important events or criticisms in an official biography about a former leader of your country, and it is detrimental when a critic points it out that an important part of someone's life was completely omitted for superficial reasons.
[quote=article]
(and spelled "Viet Nam")'
[/quote]
excuse me that's the way it's spelled (Việt Nam)
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.