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."
"He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future."
They can do that?
They are not even trying to cover up that they are trying to indoctrinate everyone: "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."
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Of course it is absurd that the Texas school board is even considering such changes, but it really is up to the people of Texas to fix their school board.
On the other hand, if an education in Texas gets bad enough, universities and employers might start to pass over applicants from Texas because they are under qualified. This seems like a good thing as it is basically the free market sorting out the educated from the ignorant.
Zero comments after most of a day? Really?
Okay, I'll throw one down. Probably a bit OT, but WTF.
I live in Arizona, ground zero for this crap. I had an interesting conversation about Our State Issues this week.
And I left there thinking:
The problem is not the 25% hardcore dipshits who will always lean this way. Nothing can be done to help them.
The problem is the 30% of otherwise kind, intelligent, educated people who because of some flaw in their heads find themselves thinking things like: "Hmmm, that Glenn Beck fella makes some good points."
I wish there were more I could do to reach them, beyond conversing with them delicately and providing an alternative example by what I say and how I live my life. It will never be enough to turn the tide in the nation, or this state. Maybe not even enough to turn it in this town. But it's what I have. And hoping against hope, I'll keep going with it, and just pray to a god who doesn't exist that power ends up in the hands of better people.
while introducing a new focus on the 'significant contributions' of pro-slavery Confederate leaders during the civil war
I'm a little concerned about the way that is worded... Putting a pair of words in quotes generally means that the author doesn't share that opinion. So does someone really believe that slave owners contributed nothing of value to society? George Washington was a slave owner (albeit a progressive one), and he most certainly contributed greatly to American society. It's rather disturbing to me that someone might want to blackwash something like slavery as all bad and only practiced by vile, useless people.
OTOH, slavery is the antithesis of America. Slaves are neither free, nor can they improve their situation through hard work. I'm frankly worried that history is getting to be more focused on "good guys" and "bad guys" than an actual understanding of what lead the "bad guys" to do what they did, and why we see it as "wrong" given a modern perspective. If you just attribute evil acts to "evil" people then you lose sight of what caused those people to become "evil", and insight into how to prevent similar things from happening again. The only thing you can do with "evil people" that you don't understand is kill them, which hardly solves the long-term problem since it's very difficult to kill *all* of them.
That said, I have no idea how the Texas School Board is presenting the concept. They could easily paint slavery as the result of cultural sensitivity, since slavery was the traditional practice in Africa. (So many people seem to think slavery was about white guys going to African and throwing nets over random black villagers.) Or they could state that the Africans were less developed and imply that it wasn't so bad to use them for Western goals since most Americans descended from slaves are better off then their modern-day African counterparts. Presenting perspectives such as these would be very dangerous, since they're half-truths that ignore the bigger picture. Furthermore, they have a very obvious connection to modern politics.
*That* is a brilliant fucking idea.
No slashdot discussion of the stupidity of textbooks would be complete without a reference to Richard Feynman's little thing on the horribleness of how textbooks get approved. Spoilers: it involves sex, lies, bribery, political cronyism, plagiarism, and other delicious things.
Is there an easy way to find schools with curricula that are less dependent on what happens in Texas? I mean, without having to read hundreds of textbooks and do lots of gruesomely painful research on my own (I get enough of that in my day job).
World War 3?
Really, if you look at how everything began, that led to WW2... it looks like this: The start of a reality distortion gaining power, and taking over. A mass-schizophrenia.
It may take another 10 years, but this already looks like a mind-virus of the level of the Nazis or the inquisitions.
I just hope we can quickly cure people.
(The cure to delusions is to give reality a greater appeal, and make the delusions look really bad. And I mean in the minds of the infected. They must have an excuse to keep their self-respect, and get back into a better reality. So we must first and foremost stop all the “threats”. Like the “economic crisis”, the growing poverty, and especially the easy-to-kill fake ones like the way overblown “terrorist threat”, or the whole Obama fear. I say, the primary target should be to shoot Glenn Beck and close down FOX News ASAP. BUT: Let give them a reason, so THEY do it, or it will only get worse. And then go for the “churches”. They are THE professionals since thousands of years, and the feed on it like no other. )
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
"Whatever happens, we have got the Gatling gun and they have not..."
like the "economic crisis"
Yep, no crisis at all right. Easy to find jobs. We didn't waste billions of taxpayer dollars "bailing out" businesses. Not sure if that was your primary point that it didn't exist, but putting "economic crisis" in quotes seem to indicate it...
or the whole Obama fear.
Because we should all be just happy that we have a president who has wasted billions of taxpayer dollars, supports a supreme court nominee vowed against true freedom of speech and supports unsustainable programs. Right?
I say, the primary target should be to shoot Glenn Beck and close down FOX News ASAP.
News flash. News sources are biased. It isn't new. Look at MSNBC, heck, look at the Guardian which TFA is taken from. The Guardian doesn't even make any claims to be balanced or fair.
Oh and is the new tactic to eliminate anyone with views who you don't agree with now?
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
I just hope we can quickly cure people.
I seriously doubt that - these people are still waving the FUCKING CONFEDERATE FLAG. They lost the war, going on 150 years ago, and they still haven't given up. They've lost every battle in their self-proclaimed "culture war", and they still believe that one day America will return to the "good ol' days", where wimmins stayed in the kitchen, faggots stayed in the closet, niggers stayed in the ghetto and "White America" was some sort of tax-free libertarian redneck version of Leave It To Beaver.
The fact that such a time never existed (look up the marginal rates during the Eisenhower era, for instance) or that 99% of the Social Security collecting teabaggers who worship it would have been dirt poor sharecroppers without shoes, electricity or running water doesn't enter into the equation.
I'm all for this. If they want to diminish science and taint history, let 'em.
That'll give my child that much bigger of an advantage in about 15 years when she's applying for jobs. She'll understand the scientific method. She'll know her history. She'll be well educated, while the children from texas will believe that there is no USSR/soviet union.
This works for me.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
You know, back when it was the US and Mexico?
There. Fixed it for you.
Have gnu, will travel.
Manifest Destiny ... look it up.
You almost had it. I think you're referring to American Exceptionalism.
And it was actually the liberals that toyed with the books first; removing all references to "patriotism" and God in the text books. I guess this is just a retaliation.
jeff... you are incredibly blind. did you read John's message at all? The guardian isn't a messenger; it's Wormtongue. A hyped up, out of context, article isn't a message, it's propaganda.
What makes any of you think you know the "Real" history anyway? Who was your history book written by? What were their biases?
When you've lived outside of your parents' basement for a few years, you might find that the "facts of the world" have changed.
OP poster here. Looks like I now have to invest some time to school you. Sorry to have to do this, but ah well.
If you actually read all of the wikipedia information you would have seen this too.
Of course I did. The idea that this is a treaty between sovereign nations in now way detracts from the very clear statement that the US is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion. It as if the treaty said "2 + 2 = 4" and you are waving around "ah, but does not 2 + 3 = 5?!!" Uh, yeah. So going back to the point, the US is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.
If you actually were taught your history correctly all our founding fathers were religious men.
Notwithstanding your distinction between "religious men" and "deeply religious men", the extent to which our founders were "religious" is dependent on what you mean by "religious". They were certainly not, with few exceptions, religious in the sense that fundamentalist Christian right-wingers wish they were. The majority were deists, who did not believe that any "Creator" played a personal or interested role in the day to day activities or events of humankind. I will discuss this further below.
But they believed all religions should be allowed to be practiced without persecution.
I agree with that. Again, 2+3 = 5. It has nothing to do with the understanding that the United States was in no way founded on the Christian religion.
Thomas Jefferson was not religious but he did believe in a Creator. He is the writer of the Declaration of Independence.
No shit. He was also an author of the Constitution, the IMPORTANT document that put down the groundwork for our country, not the statement that explained why we were separating from England. The Dec of Independence is a beautifully written document, but has NO LEGAL import.
As for TJ-- you clearly know very little of the man. He was probably a deist, but certainly not a Christian. While he was an admirer of Jesus' message, he did NOT believe in the claims that Jesus performed miracles or did anything supernatural. In fact, he famously rewrote the bible, taking out all the magic bits. Feel free to enjoy the religion-free "Jeffersonian Bible". The best feature of this bible is perhaps how you will shut your pie hole as you digest it and realize how wrong you are.
But Jefferson's version "omitting the question of [Jesus's] diety" isn't enough to convince you of TJ's disbelief in Christianity, why don't you take in his general beliefs about religion and government. I could direct you to the famous "wall of separation of church and state" stuff, but how's this to start:
Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787
Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.
-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom
I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the being worshipped by many who think themselves Christians.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Richard Price, Jan. 8, 1789
Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814
You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself
Maybe Texas did, but they were wrong.
When Geordi LaForge is taking Advanced Warp Field Theory at Starfleet Academy, when the Narn and the Centauri are running student exchange programs, it will still be "Newton's time."
When we get the Grand Unification Theory and we're about to Ascend beyond the Stargates we've planted all over, we're still going to teach Newton as a rough-and-ready method for most mundane physics and as a precursor for what came next.
Have you heard about this newfangled math called calculus?
BTW, I'm a Christian too, and excuse me as I go repent of the anger in my heart toward this comment, and beg your forgiveness for the snark in this reply.
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."
My grandfather and my wife's grandfather were on opposite sides of WWII. We have radically different interpretations of the events of that conflict. You should hear some of the conflicting explanations my wife and I offer our kids when we travel to some places around the Pacific Rim.
But, to borrow from Lewis Black, we "agree on what the fuck reality is." We agree that you can't talk about Truman without Hirohito, you have to include both Tojo and MacArthur, the A6M and the Corsair.
Only telling part of the truth is a famous method of deception. In fact, the Devil is famous for telling the worst lies by speaking only part of the truth.
The Texas Board of Education isn't even trying to look like they're working in good faith.
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."
Except the US didn't take Texas from Mexico in the first place. Texas revolted; mostly by a lot of whites immigrants who slowly become a majority, then deciding they wanted to join the country next door. No wonder modern Texans are worried about immigrants, they may suspect history could repeat itself.
From the Guardian:
You really think the Guardian, one of the most liberal news organizations in the world, is going to give a non-biased opinion on this story?
Those corrections have prompted a blizzard of accusations of rewriting history and indoctrinating children by promoting rightwing views on religion, economics and guns,
As opposed to what, indoctoring them with left wing views? Didn't the summery state that they were trying to get rid of liberal bias? So, it sounds like you are replacing one form of biased history with another. I would love to see history that is truely purged of any bias, but have yet to see it. Historical accounts are generally recorded by survivors or by the victors, and so you have to take some things with a grain of salt.
As to science, stuff that is proven, that shouldn't be messed with. If Texas wants to teach religion in ADDITION to science, that's one thing, teaching it in place of science is another. Living in Texas, I can tell you that the thought is NOT to throw out science.
Lastly, they used the words "accusations" - that does not mean there is necessaraly any truth to it.
And finally (this really is lastly), it looks that while it is an ongoing newsstory, in my skiming of the article, it does not look like the Guardian is introducing any new information. It sounds like an editorial of an ongoing newsstory.
Don't talk to me in that petulant tone. You know perfectly well I'm not suggesting that we compromise the planet.
No; I'm suggesting we compromise on the means to achieve our goals. What we want is to reduce c02 emissions; how we get there is not the important thing.
We must compromise the means, because we don't want to compromise the ends, and if we don't compromise anything, then we won't get anything. Then the planet is endangered.
What I suggest is that the environmental movement become rabidly pro-nuclear, and that they strongly favor nuclear big business. They should also suggest reducing safety requirements at nuclear reactors. Yes, I said it. The environmental movement should favor reducing safety requirements at nuclear reactors. That would make nuclear reactors cheaper than burning coal and would be politically possible, unlike the everyone-grow-your-own-food-and-stop-using-electricity scenario. If the environmental movement did as I'm suggesting, then they could conceivably have the effect of reducing c02 emissions rather than increasing them.
Jews and Muslims are easily elected.
Well, Jews are. In 2005-6, there were 11 Jewish senators and 26 Jewish representatives, for a total of about 7% of all seats in Congress, a much higher proportion than the ~2% of the US population that is Jewish.
Muslims, on the other hand, have a much tougher time of it. There have been only 2 Muslims in Congress (both currently in office), for a total of 0.4% of all seats in Congress, and a much lower proportion than the ~1% of the US population that is Muslim. In both the campaigns of Muslim candidates, their religious faith was used against them. You can also judge whether being Muslim helps when you consider the people who were in hysterics because they thought (contrary to all evidence) that Barack Obama was Muslim.
I am officially gone from