Medved's book is an excellent counterpoint to the Left, which lately has gotten in the habit of America-bashing. I don't believe the U.S. is perfect. Like Medved I agree it's a darned good country.

The book systematically debunks narratives that state that the U.S. was disproportionately brutal towards the Indians, on the issue of slavery and numerous other matters. ( )

Admittedly, I didn't finish the book, and my impression was only formed by the little I did read. My idea of the book could be partially off, but I'm fairly confident I captured the flavor of the message.

Medved seemed to start with each segment with an extreme and minority viewpoint, presented it as if it was the widely-held mainstream belief, and then, by showing errors or inconsistencies in the extreme views, make it sound that if those extreme minority views can be proven incorrect, then the entire subject is incorrect and therefore can simply be dismissed. I didn't disagree with his rebuttals of the premise necessarily, just didn't think there was much need to make the argument in the first place. So my feeling was, why bother? I found myself thinking that the argument didn't need to be made in the first place.
The next level he seemed to want to lead us to was that because he could disprove the initial premise, that the net outcome was that we, as a Country, have nothing to be criticized for. That could be a reach, and leads to the belief, sometimes touted by very conservative spokespersons, that you're an "America Hater" if you admit to seeing any faults in our Country's past or present policies. However, it's my belief that if you aren't willing to look honestly at your faults or weaknesses, past or present, you're not likely to maintain high values or improve in the future. So I think that's a tenuous position to hold, and I got the distinct feeling that's the direction Medved was heading toward.

For example, in "Lie #1", the premise is that the U.S. had an established policy of genocide against the native American Indians, and therefore we as a Nation should recognize this and the erroneous ways of our forefathers. So Medved explains how and why there was no sanctioned official National policy of genocide, aka like the official government policy of Nazi Germany against the Jews during the Holocaust. He admits that there were isolated incidents of slaughter of native Americans, but argues that it wasn't "official government policy". That may be correct, in general, but isolated cases of the opposite also exist. But the feeling you're left with is that since there was no official U.S. policy to exterminate the Indian Nations, that any examples of killings were evil acts by evil individuals, and therefore the U.S. has nothing to be ashamed of in the resulting treatment of the indigenous population. So in spite of any examples history tells us of unfortunate treatment of the Native Americans (e.g., "Indian Tribes") across the country, we can proudly hold our collective heads high. It's as if that excuses every evil from the past, or at least that's the feeling I was left with.

And in his "Lie #2", he sets out to disprove that the U.S. was exclusively responsible for slavery in the world and the exploitation of African slaves in particular. I don't imagine many thinking citizens of this country believe that the U.S. was exclusively responsible for slavery. Far from it. I would like to believe that most citizens are aware that it's been a long-held practice by various civilizations throughout history. But by disproving an belief which I suspect isn't as widespread as the author presents, I was left with the feeling that Medved was trying to foster the idea that we, as a Country, were the good guys in terms of the African slave trade. But by finding and pointing out that someone else was worse may make you "better" by comparison, you can't necessarily extend that to the point that you were "good".

So it was at this point in the book that I got the feeling that Medved was echoing the take-no-prisoners / make no apologies sentiments of some radio talk show hosts who take the stand that to admit the any of our Country's past policies were faulty is akin to bashing the Country. To some, to admit to any past faults is to be a liberal weenie who hates our Country. I don't buy into that argument, and think it's important to recognize the facts, and by so doing, recognize that maintaining high ideals means you have to work at it, not just sit back and smugly feel that we're always right because we want to believe that, and that the position of our leaders are always automatically right simply by virtue of our nationality. I've traveled a lot, and am firmly convinced that we do have the best Country, are a noble and well-intentioned people, and we have it so good compared to most of thw world. But that doesn't exempt us from the possibility never having a policy which isn't noble, and if we don't recognize a miss-step on occasion from the past, we won't foresee a similar miss-step facing us in the future. I think the author was presenting more of the "we're Americans, and therefore we're always right" viewpoint. I think sometimes we need to challenge our leaders to make the right choices, not necessarily the easiest or most politically expedient choices.
( )

Although written in 2008 the book was remarkably relevant to the political climate today except toward the end when Medved was largely opining. Slightly dated throughout but in that human nature doesn't change, it was interesting to read, not compelling by any means, but interesting. ( )

This book was not a quick read. It took a while to get through, but was very interesting and informative. I enjoyed learning the information provided and helped me to see things in a different perspective. ( )

This book was not a quick read. It took a while to get through, but was very interesting and informative. I enjoyed learning the information provided and helped me to see things in a different perspective. ( )