Are Secular History Text Books Trustworthy? Part 2
Part 2—The High Road of History: The Oppressed and the Oppressor
Without the moral guidance of God providentially leading history along, we are left to question the justification for so many of the problems that we see throughout history. What is good or evil? From the Marxist perspective foisted upon American classrooms, those who are powerful take from those with less power, thereby establishing a never-ending cycle of the oppressors taking from those who have nothing (which, oddly, should be considered a good thing according to the Darwinian concept of survival of the fittest). From a Christian perspective, each person has individual value in the eyes of God, as a soul created in his image who is lost and in need of saving by the shed blood of Jesus (Romans 3:23). Christianity sees worth in the individual, regardless of who he is, and notes his need for salvation (Romans 10:9).
In contrast, secular philosophies break down the world into two distinct sides of good and evil: Those who are in power (evil), and those who are oppressed by the powerful (good). There is no reaching out to the individual; instead, you are only looked upon with favor if you are part of an oppressed group of people. Your responsibility for your personal actions does not matter in this worldview—only your status as oppressor or oppressed. And if your ancestors “may” have oppressed others, then you are still part of the problem according to critical race theory, a form of repackaged Marxism. Yes, these topics do show up in secular history textbooks.
In A People’s History of the United States, the arrival of Europeans in the Americas is implied to be a genocide. For example, the textbook states this:
Behind the English invasion of North America, behind their massacre of Indians, their deception, their brutality, was that special powerful drive born in civilizations based on private property. It was a morally ambiguous drive; the need for space, for land, was a real human need. But in conditions of scarcity, in a barbarous epoch of history ruled by competition, this human need was transformed into the murder of whole peoples.5
The text supports this claim with the Spanish conquistadors, battles between the English and Native Americans, and a quotation from Roger Williams that condemns greedy men in early America. While there were indeed selfish, greedy individuals, this is quite a broad brush to paint all of the first European colonists in America with. Many of these colonists arrived looking for freedom from religious oppression, and nearly all came to the new world seeking a better life. As William Bradford explains in Of Plymouth Plantation, his fellow Pilgrims chose to sail to America after they “came to the conclusion to live as a distinct body, under the general government of Virginia; and . . . to sue to his Majesty that he would be pleased to grant them freedom of religion.”6 The Quakers came to America for similar reasons, for “when William Penn set up the Holy Experiment in Pennsylvania, religious toleration and peace were its two key ideals.”7 And of course, as the Puritan John Winthrop told his congregation preparing to establish Massachusetts Bay Colony, “We shall find that the God of Israel is among us . . . when He shall make us a praise and glory that man shall say . . . ‘may the Lord make it like that of New England.’ For we must consider that we shall be a city upon a hill.”8 While many tragedies in the founding of America did occur, there was violence initiated on both sides of most conflicts, and it is misleading to claim that the goal of all Europeans was to wipe out indigenous people. Also, the word genocide, even today, is still defined as “the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group.”9 There are situations in American history where “ethnic cleansing,” which describes the systematic removal of a people group from an area, may be appropriate, such as when numerous tribes were forced on to designated reservations or when the Spanish conquistadors fought many bloody battles in Mexico and South America. The treatment of the Native Americans is not a shining point of American history, and it is important for students to know about our nation’s historical shortcomings. But counting diseases and displacement as genocide is certainly incorrect, and planting these thoughts in the minds of students is dangerous because it misinterprets history, in some cases deliberately.
An example of such deliberate misinterpretation is when A People’s History tries to argue that this supposed genocide was justified as a means of progress, “As it was made by Stalin when he killed peasants for industrial progress in the Soviet Union, as it was made by Churchill explaining the bombings of Dresden and Hamburg, and Truman explaining Hiroshima.”10 To begin with, it is wrong to compare a Communist dictator murdering his own citizens with difficult and tragic decisions made during wartime. And even putting this false comparison aside, the textbook then comments,
That quick disposal might be acceptable . . . to the middle and upper classes of the conquering and “advanced” countries. But is it acceptable to the . . . prisoners in Soviet labor camps, or the blacks in urban ghettos, or the Indians on reservations—to the victims of that progress which benefits a privileged minority in the world? Was it acceptable . . . to the miners and railroaders of America, the factory hands, the men and women who died by the hundreds of thousands from accidents or sickness, where they worked or where they lived—casualties of progress?11
The text makes two glaring assumptions: First, that all these events were one-sided, oppressive situations, and second, that those in power all supported violence and oppression. Rather than making sweeping generalizations, it is important to look at the details of each situation before making a conclusion. And while the majority came to America for a chance at a new dream, not everyone came willingly. For example, while some of my ancestors enthusiastically arrived at Ellis Island, others were forced to America as conscripted Hessians to fight for the British in the American War for Independence. But regardless of how my ancestors ended up here, it has no bearing on my actions today. Our children should be learning that in spite of the failing of many individuals and a discouraging and increasing loss of godly direction, we can still see that the hand of God providentially swept through history to create one of the greatest nations in history that still is a beacon of light for Christianity and freedom for all people groups.
by Cory Von Eiff on January 28, 2026
Featured in Answers in Depth
Time and time again, man tries to rewrite history because he doesn't like the one that has already been written by God. It just can't be done. When will they ever learn?
Without the moral guidance of God providentially leading history along, we are left to question the justification for so many of the problems that we see throughout history. What is good or evil? From the Marxist perspective foisted upon American classrooms, those who are powerful take from those with less power, thereby establishing a never-ending cycle of the oppressors taking from those who have nothing (which, oddly, should be considered a good thing according to the Darwinian concept of survival of the fittest). From a Christian perspective, each person has individual value in the eyes of God, as a soul created in his image who is lost and in need of saving by the shed blood of Jesus (Romans 3:23). Christianity sees worth in the individual, regardless of who he is, and notes his need for salvation (Romans 10:9).
In contrast, secular philosophies break down the world into two distinct sides of good and evil: Those who are in power (evil), and those who are oppressed by the powerful (good). There is no reaching out to the individual; instead, you are only looked upon with favor if you are part of an oppressed group of people. Your responsibility for your personal actions does not matter in this worldview—only your status as oppressor or oppressed. And if your ancestors “may” have oppressed others, then you are still part of the problem according to critical race theory, a form of repackaged Marxism. Yes, these topics do show up in secular history textbooks.
In A People’s History of the United States, the arrival of Europeans in the Americas is implied to be a genocide. For example, the textbook states this:
Behind the English invasion of North America, behind their massacre of Indians, their deception, their brutality, was that special powerful drive born in civilizations based on private property. It was a morally ambiguous drive; the need for space, for land, was a real human need. But in conditions of scarcity, in a barbarous epoch of history ruled by competition, this human need was transformed into the murder of whole peoples.5
The text supports this claim with the Spanish conquistadors, battles between the English and Native Americans, and a quotation from Roger Williams that condemns greedy men in early America. While there were indeed selfish, greedy individuals, this is quite a broad brush to paint all of the first European colonists in America with. Many of these colonists arrived looking for freedom from religious oppression, and nearly all came to the new world seeking a better life. As William Bradford explains in Of Plymouth Plantation, his fellow Pilgrims chose to sail to America after they “came to the conclusion to live as a distinct body, under the general government of Virginia; and . . . to sue to his Majesty that he would be pleased to grant them freedom of religion.”6 The Quakers came to America for similar reasons, for “when William Penn set up the Holy Experiment in Pennsylvania, religious toleration and peace were its two key ideals.”7 And of course, as the Puritan John Winthrop told his congregation preparing to establish Massachusetts Bay Colony, “We shall find that the God of Israel is among us . . . when He shall make us a praise and glory that man shall say . . . ‘may the Lord make it like that of New England.’ For we must consider that we shall be a city upon a hill.”8 While many tragedies in the founding of America did occur, there was violence initiated on both sides of most conflicts, and it is misleading to claim that the goal of all Europeans was to wipe out indigenous people. Also, the word genocide, even today, is still defined as “the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group.”9 There are situations in American history where “ethnic cleansing,” which describes the systematic removal of a people group from an area, may be appropriate, such as when numerous tribes were forced on to designated reservations or when the Spanish conquistadors fought many bloody battles in Mexico and South America. The treatment of the Native Americans is not a shining point of American history, and it is important for students to know about our nation’s historical shortcomings. But counting diseases and displacement as genocide is certainly incorrect, and planting these thoughts in the minds of students is dangerous because it misinterprets history, in some cases deliberately.
An example of such deliberate misinterpretation is when A People’s History tries to argue that this supposed genocide was justified as a means of progress, “As it was made by Stalin when he killed peasants for industrial progress in the Soviet Union, as it was made by Churchill explaining the bombings of Dresden and Hamburg, and Truman explaining Hiroshima.”10 To begin with, it is wrong to compare a Communist dictator murdering his own citizens with difficult and tragic decisions made during wartime. And even putting this false comparison aside, the textbook then comments,
That quick disposal might be acceptable . . . to the middle and upper classes of the conquering and “advanced” countries. But is it acceptable to the . . . prisoners in Soviet labor camps, or the blacks in urban ghettos, or the Indians on reservations—to the victims of that progress which benefits a privileged minority in the world? Was it acceptable . . . to the miners and railroaders of America, the factory hands, the men and women who died by the hundreds of thousands from accidents or sickness, where they worked or where they lived—casualties of progress?11
The text makes two glaring assumptions: First, that all these events were one-sided, oppressive situations, and second, that those in power all supported violence and oppression. Rather than making sweeping generalizations, it is important to look at the details of each situation before making a conclusion. And while the majority came to America for a chance at a new dream, not everyone came willingly. For example, while some of my ancestors enthusiastically arrived at Ellis Island, others were forced to America as conscripted Hessians to fight for the British in the American War for Independence. But regardless of how my ancestors ended up here, it has no bearing on my actions today. Our children should be learning that in spite of the failing of many individuals and a discouraging and increasing loss of godly direction, we can still see that the hand of God providentially swept through history to create one of the greatest nations in history that still is a beacon of light for Christianity and freedom for all people groups.
by Cory Von Eiff on January 28, 2026
Featured in Answers in Depth
Time and time again, man tries to rewrite history because he doesn't like the one that has already been written by God. It just can't be done. When will they ever learn?
70-79, M
