Texas wants to rewrite the US History books

[tryfuhl]

Here are some of the main points that they wish to address

Here are some of the other signal shifts that the Texas Board endorsed last Friday:

- A greater emphasis on “the conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s.” This means not only increased favorable mentions of Schlafly, the founder of the antifeminist Eagle Forum, but also more discussion of the Moral Majority, the Heritage Foundation, the National Rifle Association and Newt Gingrich's Contract With America.

- A reduced scope for Latino history and culture. A proposal to expand such material in recognition of Texas’ rapidly growing Hispanic population was defeated in last week’s meetings—provoking one board member, Mary Helen Berlanga, to storm out in protest. "They can just pretend this is a white America and Hispanics don’t exist," she said of her conservative colleagues on the board. "They are rewriting history, not only of Texas but of the United States and the world."

- Changes in specific terminology. Terms that the board’s conservative majority felt were ideologically loaded are being retired. Hence, “imperialism” as a characterization of America’s modern rise to world power is giving way to “expansionism,” and “capitalism” is being dropped in economic material, in favor of the more positive expression “free market.” (The new recommendations stress the need for favorable depictions of America’s economic superiority across the board.)

- A more positive portrayal of Cold War anticommunism. Disgraced anticommunist crusader Joseph McCarthy, the Wisconsin senator censured by the Senate for his aggressive targeting of individual citizens and their civil liberties on the basis of their purported ties to the Communist Party, comes in for partial rehabilitation. The board recommends that textbooks refer to documents published since McCarthy’s death and the fall of the Soviet bloc that appear to show expansive Soviet designs to undermine the U.S. government.

- Language that qualifies the legacy of 1960s liberalism. Great Society programs such as Title IX—which provides for equal gender access to educational resources—and affirmative action, intended to remedy historic workplace discrimination against African-Americans, are said to have created adverse “unintended consequences” in the curriculum’s preferred language.

- Thomas Jefferson no longer included among writers influencing the nation’s intellectual origins. Jefferson, a deist who helped pioneer the legal theory of the separation of church and state, is not a model founder in the board’s judgment. Among the intellectual forerunners to be highlighted in Jefferson’s place: medieval Catholic philosopher St. Thomas Aquinas, Puritan theologian John Calvin and conservative British law scholar William Blackstone. Heavy emphasis is also to be placed on the founding fathers having been guided by strict Christian beliefs.

- Excision of recent third-party presidential candidates Ralph Nader (from the left) and Ross Perot (from the centrist Reform Party). Meanwhile, the recommendations include an entry listing Confederate General Stonewall Jackson as a role model for effective leadership, and a statement from Confederate President Jefferson Davis accompanying a speech by U.S. President Abraham Lincoln.

- A recommendation to include country and western music among the nation’s important cultural movements. The popular black genre of hip-hop is being dropped from the same list.

U.S. history textbooks could soon be flavored heavily with Texas conservatism - Yahoo! News

[Monkeydad]

They're teaching some legitimate history that is being whitewashed from most textbooks, I see no issue with it.

Lately, the education system has been pushing the studies of minority cultures, liberalism and completely ignoring anything that the teachers' unions and very liberal teachers do not agree with, both at the high school and secondary levels. They're going to get their liberal points of view in college, on the news, in the media, Hollywood...EVERYWHERE. I've seen textbooks that have a ton on Clinton, but ignore Reagan. They are both relevant and the events that occurred in the 1980s should not be ignored, just as other historical events should not be embellished. I've heard of schools spending more time on George Washington Carver than George Washington. They are attempting to "balance" and "create diversity" when historical facts don't necessarily support an equal relevance. It's not a hateful or bad thing that certain groups or types of people had more importance in the scope of history, it's just how things happened. History should be taught AS IT HAPPENED, no excuses. To artificially place important on certain events and individuals to try to create a racial or idealistic balance for political correctness' sake is to ruin history and teach it improperly. History is to be taught, not adjusted to fit and promote your views or belief system.

Why not teach both sides? It doesn't look like they're eliminating all liberal ideas, they'll be teaching them side-by-side.

Dropping "rap education" can only help the kids. Also, promoting assimilation to the culture rather than the rest of us learning new languages to accommodate immigrants is something that is long overdue.

There is no denying there are unintended consequences from Affirmative Action, welfare, Social Security and other Government Social Programs that have gone off-track due to corruption and waste, or have simply grown too much or outlived their usefulness.

General Stonewall Jackson, aside from his and the Confederacy's stance on slavery WAS one of the greatest military leaders of our history despite being on the perceived "wrong side" of the issue. Just because he was leading the side that we do not agree with in today's society does not mean he was an ineffective General or leader. Also, what is wrong with teaching BOTH Davis' and Lincoln's words and views?

I have to admit that Jefferson DOES need to be included in the teaching of history though. Of course, he is often incorrectly cited along with the nonexistent "Separation of Church and State" that does not actually exist in the founding documents, so perhaps that is part of their reasoning.

If anything, this new curriculum is impressive for being balanced in an education system dominated by those who want to teach only one side...their side.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Buster

They're teaching some legitimate history that is being whitewashed from most textbooks, I see no issue with it.

Lately, the education system has been pushing the studies of minority cultures, liberalism and completely ignoring anything that the teachers' unions and very liberal teachers do not agree with, both at the high school and secondary levels. They're going to get their liberal points of view in college, on the news, in the media, Hollywood...EVERYWHERE. I've seen textbooks that have a ton on Clinton, but ignore Reagan. They are both relevant and the events that occurred in the 1980s should not be ignored, just as other historical events should not be embellished. I've heard of schools spending more time on George Washington Carver than George Washington. They are attempting to "balance" and "create diversity" when historical facts don't necessarily support an equal relevance. It's not a hateful or bad thing that certain groups or types of people had more importance in the scope of history, it's just how things happened. History should be taught AS IT HAPPENED, no excuses. To artificially place important on certain events and individuals to try to create a racial or idealistic balance for political correctness' sake is to ruin history and teach it improperly. History is to be taught, not adjusted to fit and promote your views or belief system.

Why not teach both sides? It doesn't look like they're eliminating all liberal ideas, they'll be teaching them side-by-side.

Dropping "rap education" can only help the kids. Also, promoting assimilation to the culture rather than the rest of us learning new languages to accommodate immigrants is something that is long overdue.

There is no denying there are unintended consequences from Affirmative Action, welfare, Social Security and other Government Social Programs that have gone off-track due to corruption and waste, or have simply grown too much or outlived their usefulness.

General Stonewall Jackson, aside from his and the Confederacy's stance on slavery WAS one of the greatest military leaders of our history despite being on the perceived "wrong side" of the issue. Just because he was leading the side that we do not agree with in today's society does not mean he was an ineffective General or leader. Also, what is wrong with teaching BOTH Davis' and Lincoln's words and views?

I have to admit that Jefferson DOES need to be included in the teaching of history though. Of course, he is often incorrectly cited along with the nonexistent "Separation of Church and State" that does not actually exist in the founding documents, so perhaps that is part of their reasoning.

If anything, this new curriculum is impressive for being balanced in an education system dominated by those who want to teach only one side...their side.

Funny how the rest of the world has no problems learning multiple languages, why can't we? Start teaching it at an early age and it won't be an issue. I cringe when I hear people say if you don't know the language here then leave. Kinda goes against what this country was built on in the first place. Aren't we supposed to be the melting pot? With that stubborn mentality we're going to be left in the dust in no time.

[Daseal]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Funny how the rest of the world has no problems learning multiple languages, why can't we? Start teaching it at an early age and it won't be an issue. I cringe when I hear people say if you don't know the language here then leave. Kinda goes against what this country was built on in the first place. Aren't we supposed to be the melting pot? With that stubborn mentality we're going to be left in the dust in no time.

Matty. Dead on man. We need to start teaching a second language at an early age to children, like 1st grade early. Children can pick up language much easier than adults. Being bilingual does nothing but give your child an advantage. I don't care if you learn French, Spanish, Latin, or that clicky shit the aborigines in Australia speak. A 2nd language should be mandatory in US schools.

[BleedBurgundy]

Originally Posted by Daseal

Matty. Dead on man. We need to start teaching a second language at an early age to children, like 1st grade early. Children can pick up language much easier than adults. Being bilingual does nothing but give your child an advantage. I don't care if you learn French, Spanish, Latin, or that clicky shit the aborigines in Australia speak. A 2nd language should be mandatory in US schools.

I agree with this to a point. Right now, spanish is the obvious choice for a second language, but what happens when another demographic surpasses the Hispanic population's numbers? It's beyond impractical to have multiple official languages. We've all just received our census forms, imagine getting 10 copies of that in the mail, and the associated administrative and fiscal problem it poses. I don't think anyone (anyone rational, anyway) has any issue with what another person speaks socially, just officially. And I think that learning the official language of the nation you are CHOOSING to join is a small price to pay for the myriad benefits you are granted on day one of your citizenship.
The U.S. being the "melting pot" implies that we are a mishmash of diversity, which is a great thing. But there's no reason we should forgo common sense.

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy

I agree with this to a point. Right now, spanish is the obvious choice for a second language, but what happens when another demographic surpasses the Hispanic population's numbers? It's beyond impractical to have multiple official languages. We've all just received our census forms, imagine getting 10 copies of that in the mail, and the associated administrative and fiscal problem it poses. I don't think anyone (anyone rational, anyway) has any issue with what another person speaks socially, just officially. And I think that learning the official language of the nation you are CHOOSING to join is a small price to pay for the myriad benefits you are granted on day one of your citizenship.
The U.S. being the "melting pot" implies that we are a mishmash of diversity, which is a great thing. But there's no reason we should forgo common sense.

Spanish is maybe the obvious choice as far as population in our own nation goes. The language of business in America will be in English though, at least big business. If I had a child right now I'd probably rather them learn something from Asia or Europe. Sure Spanish might make it easier to communicate with some kids in school, but more business will be with France (nuclear tech) and Asia (everything). Chinese, Japanese, Korean.. those would be some languages to learn.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Funny how the rest of the world has no problems learning multiple languages, why can't we? Start teaching it at an early age and it won't be an issue. I cringe when I hear people say if you don't know the language here then leave. Kinda goes against what this country was built on in the first place. Aren't we supposed to be the melting pot? With that stubborn mentality we're going to be left in the dust in no time.

No, people say if your not willing to learn the language then leave and that makes perfect sense.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by firstdown

No, people say if your not willing to learn the language then leave and that makes perfect sense.

Who's to say they aren't willing?

And maybe if we had a bilingual education system to begin with it wouldn't be such a problem.

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Who's to say they aren't willing?

And maybe if we had a bilingual education system to begin with it wouldn't be such a problem.

There actually are plenty of ESL programs right now, we all pay for them with taxes.

However, when I go to an ATM or post office, I don't think spending exorbitant money on documents and systems in 8 languages is appropriate or necessary.

Like it or not, English is the language of business and therefore success in this nation. If coming here, they need to know it and use it without the expectation of some that WE cater to THEM.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Who's to say they aren't willing?

And maybe if we had a bilingual education system to begin with it wouldn't be such a problem.

The problem is that people move here but will not learn the language. Yes. people are unwilling or too lazy to learn the language. I have customers that only one person in the family has learned to speak english. My mother-in-law moved from Germany and she learned to speak english because that is our language and she did not expect us to learn Germany.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by Buster

They're teaching some legitimate history that is being whitewashed from most textbooks, I see no issue with it.

Lately, the education system has been pushing the studies of minority cultures, liberalism and completely ignoring anything that the teachers' unions and very liberal teachers do not agree with, both at the high school and secondary levels. They're going to get their liberal points of view in college, on the news, in the media, Hollywood...EVERYWHERE. I've seen textbooks that have a ton on Clinton, but ignore Reagan. They are both relevant and the events that occurred in the 1980s should not be ignored, just as other historical events should not be embellished. I've heard of schools spending more time on George Washington Carver than George Washington. They are attempting to "balance" and "create diversity" when historical facts don't necessarily support an equal relevance. It's not a hateful or bad thing that certain groups or types of people had more importance in the scope of history, it's just how things happened. History should be taught AS IT HAPPENED, no excuses. To artificially place important on certain events and individuals to try to create a racial or idealistic balance for political correctness' sake is to ruin history and teach it improperly. History is to be taught, not adjusted to fit and promote your views or belief system.

Why not teach both sides? It doesn't look like they're eliminating all liberal ideas, they'll be teaching them side-by-side.

Dropping "rap education" can only help the kids. Also, promoting assimilation to the culture rather than the rest of us learning new languages to accommodate immigrants is something that is long overdue.

There is no denying there are unintended consequences from Affirmative Action, welfare, Social Security and other Government Social Programs that have gone off-track due to corruption and waste, or have simply grown too much or outlived their usefulness.

General Stonewall Jackson, aside from his and the Confederacy's stance on slavery WAS one of the greatest military leaders of our history despite being on the perceived "wrong side" of the issue. Just because he was leading the side that we do not agree with in today's society does not mean he was an ineffective General or leader. Also, what is wrong with teaching BOTH Davis' and Lincoln's words and views?

I have to admit that Jefferson DOES need to be included in the teaching of history though. Of course, he is often incorrectly cited along with the nonexistent "Separation of Church and State" that does not actually exist in the founding documents, so perhaps that is part of their reasoning.

If anything, this new curriculum is impressive for being balanced in an education system dominated by those who want to teach only one side...their side.

Here in lies part of the problem. People were so quick to attach the south with slavery. The south did not leave the Union because it wanted slavery and the Union didn't. It left the Union cause Gov. was going to tax the southern states more for their exports vs. the northern states. Davis said it wasn't fair and decided to cecede. Other states followed suit. It was about half way through the war that slavery became the issue. Because the north knew that if they created animosity between the slaves and slave owners the south would have a harder time winning the war.

Also Lincoln didn't free all slaves. He only freed the slaves of the south. Again in order to make it more difficult for the south to win. Northern states kept slavery in effect for several years after.

I honestly could care less about hispanic history. If it has something relevant for us like the Alamo then fine but other wise what do I care about South America? Take a class in college if your interested.

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

I honestly could care less about hispanic history. If it has something relevant for us like the Alamo then fine but other wise what do I care about South America? Take a class in college if your interested.

Since it's U.S. history probably the only mentions of South America will be dealing with the migration and the customs brought with them.

[Schneed10]

Yeah the Thomas Jefferson point was especially troubling. The separation between church and state is one of the things that separates us from fallen empires (Rome, etc.) of yesteryear.

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Yeah the Thomas Jefferson point was especially troubling. The separation between church and state is one of the things that separates us from fallen empires (Rome, etc.) of yesteryear.

Maybe this is a result of your school's textbook, but do you realize that Separation of Church and State does not exist in law or founding documents? Jefferson ONLY mentioned it in private correspondence.

It's a giant misconception.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Buster

Maybe this is a result of your school's textbook, but do you realize that Separation of Church and State does not exist in law or founding documents? Jefferson ONLY mentioned it in private correspondence.

It's a giant misconception.

Well I'd counter that the bill of rights, through the right to worship freely, pretty much sets the stage for the separation of church and state. I mean think about it, if the citizens are free to worship whoever and whatever they want, how can you legislate based on one set of beliefs vs another?