This is really scary. It made me start thinking about my high school textbooks. The only one I remember wondering about the political proclivity of the author was Bailey's American history book (I think about the tenth edition of
this one), probably published about 1990. My year was the last year it was used. Anyway, it was sort of the anti-politically correct book. Besides being really Anglophilic, the book contained such gems as "the Indians got their revenge on the white man by giving him syphilis" and "In the roaring twenties, the car changed the fabric of society. Teenagers spent dates in the back seat 'necking' and 'petting'." I'm paraphrasing, but only a little. It was a great book.
I didn't take a lot of world history in high school. We had one year of Georgia history (shut up-- I'll bet you don't know how many guns were in Savannah when Sherman took the city), one year of civics/econ/geography, one year of world history, one year of American history, and one year of US government. I don't remember the name of the world history book we used (and I can't find a book online when all I remember about it was that it was pretty and new), but we also used old red books (probably printed about 1970) which were a collection of essays on world history, so I think we probably got spared most of the politically correctisms in history. I definitely don't remember any chapters praising Mao in any of my books.
As for Lit... My AP English teacher did her PhD on Eliot (of the TS variety), so we read a lot of modernist stuff. I didn't read anything for that class that could be considered non-Western unless you count
Crime and Punishment. Almost everything else was written in English and was very much a part of the Western canon (from Shakespeare to
Lord of the Flies, if you know what I mean). Junior year was American Lit, and though we read Equiano and a few thigns by women, it was again very canonical. I don't remember world lit well, but we read Sartre and Kafka, who I'd already read in German. So I thought it was kind of dumb. But we definitely didn't read any of the really good non-Western writers, and we read Hamlet (mmm, world lit) and a lot of ancient stuff (Livy, Gilgamesh, the Odyssey, Oedipus Rex, I think some of the Augfessions).
And at the U of C, I took Western Civ, Classics of Social and Political Thought, and Ancient Civ (all very dead white men classes). Hum was the only at all non-canonical class, but other than
Clockwork Orange, everything we read would have fit in nicely in my high school classes.
So I think I had the anti-politically correct education. And I think I missed out. I haven't read any of the really great Japanese writers, I'm still trying to catch up on Garcia Marquez and Borges, and I've read very little that was written after say 1960. I'm trying to catch up on that, but there's just so much I want to read. I feel kind of gypped.
Can't there be a middle ground? Can't we read non-sanitised history that attempts to deal with the world beyond western Europe? Can't we read Shakespeare
and Murakami? I think a lot of the problem in my high school was that we only had two years of history. If they turned the dumb geo/civics/econ sequence into European history and turned world history into non-Western history would that have been better? Personally, I find it hard to separate history like that. I would have preferred a three year long sequence that really dealt with world history-- the history of everywhere. Maybe the first year could go through the beginning of the Renaissance, the second year through the French Revolution, and the last year deal with the long nineteenth and short twentieth century. I think that crowds up the last year a lot, but I don't know of another good place to divide it up.
To the one person who actually made it through this rambling, boring post, what do you think?