Reply #5: I've used it in my classes as well.

[enlightenment]

It is a well-done book.

In defense of history classes - consider that the most students usually get (or take, in college) is survey. US survey, European survey ('Western Civ') - maybe some World history. It is a daunting task to try to cover even the basics in a survey class. The typical European survey, offered over two classes, covers centuries. Even US survey, broken into shorter increments, is reduced to nothing more than a drive-by in a 16 week semester.

Are some things sugar-coated? Sure. But mostly it's just a question of how much can you cram into a semester. If you pour it in like water, it goes right out the other ear. That's not helping students at all; it's just reinforcing what a lot of them already believe - that history is dull and useless. If you pick and choose to concentrate on some things, you do it to the detriment of something else. That's usually what happens, though, because most history teachers really do want their students to take something away from the class.

I'd love to be able to insist that student's take more history classes - we could offer more classes looking at specifics - just imperialism, for example. The best history class I ever had as an undergrad was a semester long class, taught by an history prof, a poly sci prof, and a literature prof - looking at one century in Greek history. 5th century Athens. It was a fabulous class - but it's not the kind of thing that you see a lot of, anywhere.

Your critique isn't wrong, but there are plenty of reasons that don't have anything to do with glossing over or sugar coating the past.

Really! :)