Slashdot Mirror
Texas Schools Board Rewriting US History
suraj.sun picked up a Guardian (UK) piece on the Texas school board and their quest to remake US education in a pro-American, Christian, free enterprise mode. We've been keeping an eye on this story for some time, as it will have an impact far beyond Texas. From the Guardian: "The board is to vote on a sweeping purge of alleged liberal bias in Texas school textbooks in favor of what Dunbar says really matters: a belief in America as a nation chosen by God as a beacon to the world, and free enterprise as the cornerstone of liberty and democracy. ... Those corrections have prompted a blizzard of accusations of rewriting history and indoctrinating children by promoting right-wing views on religion, economics, and guns while diminishing the science of evolution, the civil rights movement, and the horrors of slavery. ... Several changes include sidelining Thomas Jefferson, who favored separation of church and state, while introducing a new focus on the 'significant contributions' of pro-slavery Confederate leaders during the Civil War. ... Study of Sir Isaac Newton is dropped in favor of examining scientific advances through military technology."
Um...Did you RTFB? It had everything to do with rewriting history. "We've always been at war with Eastasia." It was a reference to the actions of Stalin's regime. Hence the famous pictures of Stalin with the guys airbrushed out once they became persona non grata.
> The problem is not the 25% hardcore dipshits who will always lean this way. Nothing can be done to help them.
In my opinion, the actual problem is that kind of statement. How come someone that does not agree with you should need help? What help? Letting them know that they are wrong and you are right? Don't you see that to them, you are the one that needs help?
The purpose of democracy is not to be right or wrong. The purpose of democracy is to let people decide for themselves. And everywhere it works in the same way: a minority of people is leading the way while the majority is silently following. This is still consent, like it or not.
Freedom is freedom. That includes freedom to choose God, Science, or both, and to influence public policy. If you want to impose your views without having other people trying to do the same, then what you need is not democracy, you need dictatorship.
lucm, indeed.
> When I say 'help them', what I mean is: help them find a way to live that doesn't involve them imposing their ways on me and anyone else with a brain and a heart.
That changes everything! Now that I understand that you don't want to impose your way on them, that you just want to help them understand how superior your opinion is and that they should recant their shameful dogma, I have no choice but to heartily agree with you.
This being said, since you have such a deep understanding of relativism, then I don't have to explain to you that those people probably want to help you also because they believe that people with a brain and a heart should agree with them. I even suspect that for some of them, people with a different opinion are "dipshits". Tsk tsk.
> They want my tax dollars to fund police stopping anyone off-white.
I'll quote Fred Thompson on this one:
"The Times Square bomber wasn't flagged at the airport even though he paid cash for his ticket. Which is understandable. Why would you worry about a nervous, cash-paying Pakistani when there are grandmothers in wheelchairs to be searched?"
Should the police "stop anyone off-white"? I don't think so. But shouldn't they be more suspicious when they see a nervous Pakistani paying his ticket in cash, or when they see young white men in militia uniforms driving around federal buildings in a white Econoline? I mean, at some point one has to stop being self-righteous and let some common sense take over.
> If they want to take my money, and use it in fascist ways, then yes, I'm going to have a major problem with that, and I'm going to say so when I have the chance, as loudly as I dare.
My guess is that if it was up to you, *their* money would be spent on "multicultural education in the Tucson schools". But face it - who got the most votes at the last election? People vote for whoever they want so the public policy is going the way they want. Democracy 101.
> If you don't like it, you can whine at me some more on Slashdot, I reckon, and I'll see you at the polls.
I am not whining at you. I try to respectfully point out that insulting people that disagree with you is not a good start for that great mission of Truth and Dialog you talk about.
Good luck at the polls. I guess you'll enjoy it - after all, a vote is anonymous, just like your comments.
lucm, indeed.
I was indoctrinated with a liberal public education full of PC bullshit. And the only effect it had on me was a contempt for those who would push their agendas onto me. I ended up being somewhere between libertarian and conservative, with a strong feeling that the state should neither support nor suppress religious beliefs. I'm an atheist myself, but realize that religion is very important to many people. And atheist conservative, I suppose I challenge the narrow view political labels has taken in the last few decades. But I suggest that perhaps it was the Christian Right that made state religion part of a "conservative" platform.
If Texas wants to eliminate liberal bias and insert some neoconservative/christian right bias then so be it. The ideals of neocons and christian right are generally incompatible and it has fractured the Republican Party for many decades. Likely students will see the contradictions and the hypocrisy and make their own choices. With the wild Internet providing easy access to information, and the culture of this new generation being very open and honest about their beliefs (even though they are often outlandishly liberal) I have little doubt in my mind that students will overcome this minor obstacle in propaganda tainted education. The kids who aren't critical thinkers and fall prey to such propaganda would have fallen anyways, to the Church or to social pressures. They are the causalities of our society, and will be integrated into society as taxpayers and ineffective voters.
It's not like Americans haven't had to face insane propaganda mixed in their education. From Commies to Political Correctness, we over came the bullshit.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
No it doesn't clear anything up but your misinterpretation of the Treaty. If you actually read all of the wikipedia information you would have seen this too.
("According to Frank Lambert, Professor of History at Purdue University, the assurances in Article 11 were "intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers.)
If you actually were taught your history correctly all our founding fathers were religious men. Some deeply religious (Samuel Adams for one.) But they believed all religions should be allowed to be practiced without persecution. (Constitution of the US 1st Amendment.) Since history is not your strong suit let me help you with this. The pilgrims came over here because of religious persecution from the Church of England. When the founding fathers wrote all of our laws they made sure this could not happen again, as well as, made sure we would not be ruled over again.
Our country is based on the people voting for who they believe will do what they want to be accomplished. We don't work for the government they work for us.
But most of America has forgotten all of the above and are no longer being taught it in school. Instead they say how they were all slave owners (Again not true), and they were all agnostics. In fact the original Declaration of Independence stated the following. "Life, Liberty, and Property" but it was changed to "the Pursuit of Happiness" because they didn't want the southern slave owners to argue that the slaves were property. In fact, I believe it was John Adams that said (roughly) if we do not fight this battle now (In regards to slavery) we will fight it again in 100 yrs.
Funny enough he was right and we fought the civil war under Lincoln (He was an evil republican by the way. lol)
Thomas Jefferson was not religious but he did believe in a Creator. He is the writer of the Declaration of Independence. You know that paper that says,
"We hold these truths to be self evident. That all men are created equal and endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
As for the other comments about gun control do you know why each amendment was written exactly how they are? Apparently not.
The 2nd Amendment was to ensure we as a people would never again be ruled over, or invaded by another country.
I could go on and on as to the true reason all the 1st 10 amendments of the constitution were written, but if you aren't interested in it why should I bother. It seems to me everyone wants to "Interpret" the amendments to what suits them, when the original writers themselves wrote what they meant them to be.
The founding fathers weren't these career politicians we have now that write laws that they can't even understand. The Bill of Rights was written in plain English so NO ONE could misinterpret it! Just like John Hancock's signature on the Declaration of Independence was to ensure King George was able to read his signature without his glasses on.
We may need to interpret the laws created since the original Constitution was written, but the Bill of Rights is not up for interpretation it just is. They are rights given to us from above not from man.
We do not give rights to each other. We are born with those rights and no one has the right to take them from us.
I'm merely a history buff tired of hearing all this BS about what the founding fathers were, what they meant when they wrote our country's most important documents, etc,etc, etc...
This is from wikipedia in regards to the Bill of Rights.
Thomas Jefferson, at the time serving as Ambassador to France, wrote to Madison advocating a Bill of Rights: "Half a loaf is better than no bread. If we cannot secure all our rights, let us secure what we can."[12] George Mason refused to sign the proposed Constitution, in part to protest its lack of a Bill of Rights.[13]
See the full write up here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights
Except we don't really have two opposite forces, we have a right wing party and a far right wing party. So if you want things to stay in the middle you need to advocate the most "liberal" ideas possible, only then will you end up with something moderate. Sad, but true. What Republicans blast as far left liberal ideas are really quite moderate by any meaningful metric.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
Reasonable discussion isn't going to cut it any more. A woman who home-schooled her children because, and I'm quoting exactly here, sending them to public education would be "throwing them into the enemy's flames," i.e. damning them to Hell, has gotten some control over the Texas Board of Education. It's time to unleash the awesome power of ridicule.
Seriously. Look at the proposed changes from the article:
These are not the crackpot fringe. These are people in charge of educating the children of one of the country's largest populations, and who influence education thoughout the country.
We're beyond rational discussion here. Reasonable debate only works when both sides are intellectually honest. How about we begin with Harvard, Princeton, Caltech and MIT dropping all applications from students educated in Texas out of hand? I mean, surely no REAL American would want to send their kid to California or the bastions of the Liberal Elite to be educated?
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
I disagree that a lack of bias necessarily makes history boring.
And I would say that not knowing history, is better then knowing a fake version of history.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Are you seriously suggesting that curriculum should be an exercise in majoritarian mythology, rather than a best-effort/historical-evidence thing?
Should we replace bridge inspections with votes about whether or not they are going to fall down, as well?
I think the goal is to achieve a middle-ground compromise between most American citizens' opinion.
Do you subscribe to a consensus model of the truth? I mean, you don't seem to be the least concerned as to the historical facts of the situation.
While it is practically impossible to cast history free from ideological perspective, good history must always be bound by the documentary* evidence. I find it unacceptable to pretend Jefferson didn't exist simply because his view on the separation of church and state potentially offends the sensibilities of most American citizens'.
How about we forget about achieving any sort of "compromise" and actually teach History? You know that battleground of different ideological interpretations built spun around the surviving ensemble of documents.* Teaching kids that different people have different opinions might just turn out to be educational. Or is that what the educators fear?
[*using 'documents' in an extremely wide sense nowadays]
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
Phew! Thank god you attacked the messenger instead of trying to discuss the subject. Otherwise we might have to discuss the merits of TX rewriting history. Now we can just plug our fingers in our ears and shout "LA LA LA LA LA".
Nope, you just have to profess some mainstream faith. Jews and Muslims are easily elected. However public opionion polls state that we atheists are less likely to be elected President than a homosexual.
You'd have an argument if we were only adding such a topic to the curriculum. However, we're also removing Newton, who's still way more important...after all, without his work most of our military advances wouldn't happen.
I'm more bothered that shredding the first amendment is just fine to you, as long as it's your religion.
The free market has failed because it allows people to make billions by merely manipulating money in creative ways. This generation of unproductive wealth siphons the hard work of productive members of society and gives it to people who produce nothing, create nothing, and contribute back nothing. They use their new wealth to buy political power and advocate even lower taxes and less regulation. It's an endless cycle of exploitation with the hard working segments of society supporting the decadence of the rich who feel they are entitled to the wealth they have done nothing to earn.
The solution to this problem is NOT less regulation, lower taxes, or a more "free" market.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
No.
You're entitled to your opinions. You're not entitled to your facts. The "majority" is often incorrect regarding the facts. Voting about the facts doesn't change the facts.
In my opionion, the Texans that voted these standards in are trying to alter facts. They're also attempting to fabricate facts, ignore facts, and spread religious and philosophical intent into what should be textbooks, not books on philosophy and religion. These board members are doing a disservice to their constituency. They should be removed from their positions, as they have cleary been (IMHO) irresponsible and have violated US Federal Law as regards discrimination regarding race, national origin, and creed.
They embarrass every Texan.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
"Had" would only apply if we were talking about history. We are not.
In order to get elected to high office in the United States in 2010, you have to profess some mainstream faith.
There is one atheist member of Congress, who avoids discussing religion at all. Polling shows most of his constituents don't know he is an atheist because he has been able to avoid it (it's a very blue district and hasn't seen a serious Republican challenger in a long time).
Wow, this is hilarious! It's like watching a video of a cat barking! Seriously?!? A right wing and a far right wing?
Yes, seriously. There is no major left-wing party in US politics today. Far right-wingers who claim that the Democrats are "left-wing" or "socialist" or "communist" only reveal their absymal ignorance of history, which Texas is apparently doing its best to reinforce in the next generation.
To put it in more concrete terms: Obama's policies are in essence Republican policies of a generation or two ago, and ever Republican President of the latter half of the 20th c. -- yes, even St. Ronald -- would be considered far too liberal to find a place in the Republican Party of today.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
No.
Here's what a real leftist government would look like. Immigrants would be given amnesty and a path to citizenship. The top marginal tax rate would be closer to 90% than the current 35%. Regressive taxes like sales tax and vehicle taxes would be eradicated. There would be a massive investment in a single payer government run health care system for all. A massive reinvestment in education from bottom up, focusing on leveling the inequality of poor school districts in minority neighborhoods and inner cities. Wall Street would be heavily regulated and much of what currently goes on would be illegal. Housing, food, and a meaningful job would be a right just like speech currently is. Workers would collectively own the businesses they work for. The level of income inequality would be unacceptable. And the military industrial complex would be dismantled, removing the troops we have stationed over seas. We would also never use our military again in an unprovoked war of aggression.
THAT would be a leftist party. Do we have a viable party like that on the national level? Do you have that in Maryland.
Get some perspective. Your "far left" is demonstrably to the right of center.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
Only by American standards. Most european conservatives, even UK conservatives (where the movement started) are to the left of the democrats.
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
the confederate south was largely democratic. Those were the guys with the slave economy. Lincoln, a republican, issued the emancipation proclamation.
Those facts are correct, but you are getting the point wrong because you are confusing Republican with conservative.
As he said "The modern Republican party is the party of sexism and racism, of homophobia and xenophobia, of fear-mongers and war-mongers, of liars and hypocrites, of systemic incompetence and systemic corruption. They are anti-environment, anti-education, anti-science". And he was correct.
And he later wrote "Never mind the simple fact that conservatives have never been right about anything, or on the right side of any issue... they've been on the wrong side of slavery, the wrong side of allowing women the vote, the wrong side labor rights, the wrong side of civil rights, the wrong side of gay rights, the wrong side of the torture issue". And he was correct.
He got it right both times. If you note that he specifically referred to the modern Republican party and later to conservatives. Around the time of the civil war Lincoln and the Republicans were the more liberal party and the Democrats were the more conservative party. Hell, the democrats of that time were trying to conserve the traditional institution of slavery and segregation
The positions of both parties have varied quite substantially over time, but around the time of FDR and WWII there was a particularly historic reversal between the two parties.
The plain fact is that almost 100% of blacks today have joined the Democrats, as have a majority of Jews, Asians, Latinos, and any other minority you care to name. And the undeniable fact is that virtually all racists have joined the Republican party, if only to get away from the huge number of blacks and other minorities "infesting" the Democratic party. Not all Republicans are racist, but virtually all of the racists infest the Republican party. And it's absolutely hysterical when Republicans constantly reach back a HUNDRED AND FIFTY FREAKING YEARS pointing to Lincoln as a Republican over and over again, trying to deny Republicans are The Racist Party. The fact that you have to reach back a hundred and fifty years for a defense just demonstrates how pathetic that defense is.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
I do not mean this to offend, or taint your argument, or as a direct attack on your character: but that is precisely what Karl Marx argues in the Communist Manifesto.
I think the big problem is not with the economy (not that there aren't problems), but with our corporate-controlled political system. I, like you, am tired of seeing millionaire candidates elected to represent us. Not many of us seem to care, and the ones that do are called socialists, pinkos, etc. I believe there should be a real attempt to lessen the amount of money spent on political campaigns, to level the playing field and allow us to elect true representatives from our cities and states. (Representatives with a lowercase-r, in the sense that all politicians are elected to represent the will of the populace)
Our current political system allows corporations to back their favorite millionaire candidates, who then proceed to start wars for purpose of monetary gain for those corporations. You better believe Haliburton profits off our wars. And that's just the peak of it. On the local level it's the same story. You have local industries helping out local millionair candidates for state governor. Similarly educated regular people don't have a chance in hell getting elected because they don't have the money to compete during the election campaign cycle.
And sure, a lot of the time we get a 'benevolent king', like Bill Clinton, who doesn't screw us over. But that's just luck. He was rich too - he went to the same Ivy League schools as the rest of them. Most of the time we'll just get a crook or a businessman. And I don't think that's what the founding fathers ever intended.
I don't believe much should be done from an economic perspective to prevent this. This problem has to be solved politically. Unfortunately, unless held at gunpoint, our representatives in government (again, little 'r') will never vote to reduce their chances at re-election.
Meanwhile, they get free reign to do whatever they want, and spin reality to their liking. We may remain the world's most powerful nation for decades to come, but we are losing what made our country great. These people who claim to be against big government are really for big government - big government in their favor. And when government favors the rich over the poor, and huge banks over small business, religion over science - you've got a slope leading to corporatism... dare I say outright fascism.
Our kids are going to grow up reading this stuff they're forcing on them now. They will be the ideal voters for the politicians of the future. Imagine what life will be like for us then. Maybe there will be another witch hunt. Maybe there will be more prisons to facilitate the result of more victimless crimes. Law will be a minefield, the government will be all powerful and all knowing, and the majority will support the government's effort in the name of the war on terror. In the name of fighting the Muslims. In the name of Christianity!
The future is bleak.