1

Genghis Khan: totally immature

When a textbook’s bias is obvious


 

I always thought university textbooks were supposed to be objective. An unbiased source of information.

Until my history textbook referred to someone as a “mama’s boy.” Seriously.

According to the textbook, Ibbi-Sin, a king from the Dynasty of Ur, wasn’t just an incompetent ruler. He was “something of a mama’s boy.”

The term “mama’s boy” sounds like a subjective judgement, as opposed to an objective statement of fact. Sure, I know everyone has a bias. Even textbook authors. But I figured that university textbooks should at least appear to be making an attempt at sounding neutral. You know, something more along the lines of ‘attachment disorder’ or ‘parent-child relationship psychosis.’

When I saw that pharse, I was startled. If a history textbook is going to insult someone, I thought they’d call them “inadequate” or “inept.” My textbook is breaking the rules.

That Alexander guy who took over Egypt? A mega-jerk.

Aristotle thought there were only five elements. What a moron!

And Gandhi, whining about human rights and junk. Talk about a cry-ass.


 

Genghis Khan: totally immature

  1. Welcome to university, Scott, where your profs have a bias and winners really DO write the history books.

    The good news: you’re bright enough to think critically about what you’re reading.

    The bad news: the world is full of bias, even (and often especially) in academic sources.

Sign in to comment.