Changes in History Curriculum in Texas

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Based on what I’ve seen of your grasp of American history on this forum you should definitely be sitting on the sidelines of this debate. You don’t get everything wrong of course, but the gaffes you make from time to time are astounding. I’m not kidding, Irish, you don’t realize how bad you muff it from time to time. You are the spitting image of a neo-revisionist PC modern university history robot.[/quote]

I don’t care what you think.

Hey dipshit, I qualified it when I wrote it that I have not read it. Glad your comprehension’s all intact.

23

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Rosie, do you think I care if you care or not? Honestly, schoolboy, is this the best retort you could come up with?[/quote]

You’re the one who replies to my posts.

I don’t know if you noticed, but I don’t bother arguing with you because for the thousandth time, I don’t believe you to be that intelligent and you’re not worth my time. You don’t offer much in the way of intellectual discourse.

25

[quote]pushharder wrote:

I think it has much more to do with the fact that you get your ass handed to you frequently.[/quote]

HAHAHAHA. Whatever makes you sleep better father time.

27

http://tfninsider.org/2010/03/13/the-list-of-shame-in-texas/

As near as I can tell, the Texas Freedom Network is the main group raising hubbub over the changes in social studies curriculum. As near as I can tell, the vast majority of complaint is either groundless or questionable. For example, the TX Board of Education:

  1. Intends to replace Thomas Jefferson with John Calvin or Phylis Schafly in world history.

  2. Changed the American form of government from ‘Democracy’ to ‘Constitutional Republic’.

  3. Approved a standard requiring students to learn about â??any unintended consequencesâ?? of the Great Society, affirmative action and Title IX.

  4. Decided to use ‘BC’ and ‘AD’ instead of ‘BCE’ and ‘CE’.

  5. Changed the name of US foreign policy during the 19th century from ‘imperialism’ to ‘expanionism’, arguing that it was different from European Expanionism. This, I can see gripe about.

  6. Added a requirement to study the decline of the dollar since either a) the creation of the federal reserve or b) from the break with the gold standard, I can’t tell.

  7. Removed having to differentiate between sex and gender as social constructs in a HS sociology course.

  8. Requires students to learn about the 2nd amendment under the theory of engaging diverse viewpoints

  9. Passed a standard for the eighth-grade U.S. history class requiring students to learn about the ideas in Jefferson Davisâ?? inaugural address as president of the Confederacy during the Civil War.

  10. Wants children to learn about the communist infiltration of the US government during WW2.

I mean, that’s just a sampling, most of the rest is in the link. Somewhere in there they mentioned Austrian economics, so for all you free-thinking rational anarchists out there, you’re probably getting a shout out too.

On review, a couple of these things are troubling. A high-school sociology class should differentiate between sex and gender. Changing the term from Imperialism to Expansionism strikes me as inappropriate; while different from European Imperialism, it was no less brutal and little more altruistic. And while there’s been a lot of research on communist agents in America during WW2, and that social studies courses should discuss this, it does not, and should not, vindicate McCarthy.

But for real, most of these are not something to bitch about. They’re not removing Thomas Jefferson, just taking him out of World History. They’re not white-washing American History, they’re pointing out that the VAST MAJORITY of the key players would have ticked the ‘white’ box on their census, if they would have ticked any census box for race. And perhaps most importantly, textbooks matter little.

Seriously. Textbooks matter very, very little.

Teachers teach what they want, not to the book- and kids sure as shit aren’t going to read the book (well… most of them won’t). Due to time constraints most of the elements included in textbooks aren’t covered. It’s a good idea to make sure that lies don’t enter the textbook (COMMUNISM WAS INVENTED BY ALIENS TO INCREASE GAS PRICES WORLDWIDE), but so long as the education is vaguely centrist, I don’t see anything to bitch about.

The TFA, and most editorialists, and many newspapers, apparently disagree with me.

28

Oh, and referring to those of us in the south as ‘Yanks’ is about as accurate and insulting as referring to Russian’s as ‘Gooks’.

31

[quote]pushharder wrote:
I wonder how the above list would differ if it had originated from a website not quite so hostile to the TSBE actions.[/quote]

Indeed.

“Board member Don McLeroy even claimed that women and minorities owed thanks to men and â??the majorityâ?? for their rights.”

And it is quotes like this that can be taken out of context. Without a doubt women and minorities wouldn’t have had any rights unless men and “the majority” gave them to them.

Were they are unalienable rights they should have had from the get-go? Of course. Would they have had them unless the white male majority wanted them to? No.

And I think it is important to note this legislation was passed because white males decided that blacks and women were equals. You would think it was obvious but it isn’t to many people.

32

There is a big problem with textbooks here. Many of them are very biased, and they are poorly written. They are kind of machined out, and actually have authors names on them who never even worked on them.

Some science textbooks actually have faulty experiments in them that will not work.

I dislike any liberal propaganda in the school, and do not believe it should be replaced with conservative propaganda.

History is history. We do not need to show only the bad of history, as if too often done, nor do we need to show only the good of history either. We need to teach all of history, with all it’s glory and blemishes intact. We are supposed to learn from history, to prepare for the future, and we have done a terrible job of that.

Even growing up in a tiny Midwest town (I think there were 21 people in my graduating class,) we were told that America had violated every treaty we had ever signed, and that we were the only country that did.

Later we were told of all the wonders of the USSR, and how they supported rights of people, and pretty much made it look like the promised land. And I actually believed all this crap.

33

Kids don’t read books anymore. Public school teachers don’t teach anymore, so it would seem everyone is missing the big problem and complaining about a non issue.

34

[quote]John S. wrote:
Kids don’t read books anymore. Public school teachers don’t teach anymore, so it would seem everyone is missing the big problem and complaining about a non issue.[/quote]

Maybe if they make History a video game the children would be more interactive, or fit all of history on a single text. That might do it.

Without learning all of history are we destined to repeat it. I think we are on our way to repeating it. WW III here we come.

35

I think it is perfectly acceptable for a nation to teach its ideological foundations and to try to instill a sese of national pride. As we all know - despite the best efforts of our teachers, we all end up making up our own minds about things.

A s long as the infroamtion being taught is taught factually and contextually i have no issue with the premised goals outlined in that “objective” article.

We are a republic, we owe our liberty to firearms, we were founded on Judeo-Christian principles as expressed in Western Civilization, our founding fathers were religious - so what’s wrong with being honest about that?

37

LMAO - yeah I know - mostly rhetorical anyway

38

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
I think it is perfectly acceptable for a nation to teach its ideological foundations and to try to instill a sese of national pride. As we all know - despite the best efforts of our teachers, we all end up making up our own minds about things.

A s long as the infroamtion being taught is taught factually and contextually i have no issue with the premised goals outlined in that “objective” article.
[/quote]

The problem is that everyone has a different idea of what “objective” means when talking about history.

It’s easy to post that on a message board and make it seem like it solves everything, but in reality if you talked to Howard Zinn and Rush Limbaugh, you’d get a drastically different version of American history from each.

[quote]
We are a republic, we owe our liberty to firearms, we were founded on Judeo-Christian principles as expressed in Western Civilization, our founding fathers were religious - so what’s wrong with being honest about that?[/quote]

The country is not based on Judeo-Christian principles, and no one is saying that the founders weren’t religious- but making it seem like they were all Christian would be false.

39

I never said anything about “objectivity” except to mock the article. I did say “factually” and “contextually” - that assures the objective standard would be met. Their words, their documents, the actual facts - no interpretaion - just facts.

Oh, but I beg to differ, we are most certainly founded on (use the whole phrase) Judeo-Christian Principles as Expressed in Western Civilization - I can bury you in documentation and resources if you like.

I said the founding fathers were religious - I placed no qualifiers on that statement - again, would you like me to bury you in documentation and resources?

40

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
I never said anything about “objectivity” except to mock the article. I did sai=y “factually” and “contextually” - that assures the objective standard would be met. Their words, their documents, the actual facts - no interpretaion - just facts.
[/quote]

I know what you wrote. That still doesn’t mean that what’s perfectly objective to one party will be anywhere near considered objective to another.

Let me first ask you what you’re alluding to with “Judeo-christian values.” There are several ways of looking at that phrase, and mine may not be yours.

[quote]
I said the founding fathers were religious - I place dno qualifiers on that statement - again, would you like me to bury you in documentation and resources?[/quote]

Save your “burying.” It has been a topic on this board before where several people will make it out to sound like the founders were all loyal christians, when in fact many of the most influential were far from that.

That doesn’t mean that they’re not religious, of course, or spiritual in the deist sense, but it does not mean what the Christian right has so often made it out to be.