Slashdot Mirror


California Moves To Block Texas' Textbook Changes

eldavojohn writes "Yesterday the Texas textbook controversy was reported internationally but the news today heats up the debate as California, a state on the other side of the political spectrum, introduces legislation that would block these textbook changes inside California. Democrat Senator Leland Yee (you may know him as a senator often tackling ESRB ratings on video games) introduced SB1451, which would require California's school board to review books for any of Texas' changes and block the material if any such are found. The bill's text alleges that said changes would be 'a sharp departure from widely accepted historical teachings' and 'a threat to the apolitical nature of public school governance and academic content standards in California.'"

46 of 857 comments (clear)

  1. Fight them by Thanshin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you can't fight them... Put a fence around and let them devolve in peace.

    1. Re:Fight them by P0ltergeist333 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's the problem. Texas buys the most textbooks, and thus has undue influence on the industry. Thanks to scorched earth capitalism, making money is more important than making sure that textbooks are accurate. Anyone who does 10 minutes of research will find that the whole notion of the "Cristian Nation" is laughable. If anything our nation's ideals came from John Locke and his "The Two Treatises Of Government" through Thomas Jefferson.

      --
      One of these days I'm going to cut you into little pieces. - PF
    2. Re:Fight them by imgod2u · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He didn't say the founders weren't Christians. He said the founding principles aren't Christian. The founders were smart enough to see how politics corrupts religion and vice versa. They built the government without inserting much if any Biblical principles into it. See anything in the Constitution about coveting wives, worshiping on the 7th day or giving up worldly wealth?

      The claims this country is a "Christian" country is very much false. The founders were smart enough to separate their religious beliefs from what they learned through history and philosophy as functional, fair and resilient government.

    3. Re:Fight them by commodore64_love · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not me. I learned the U.S. Founders were "Deist" and believed in a Supreme Creator but not christianity or Jesus. It wasn't until I was an adult and started reading the actual letters/writings that I discovered how wrong that is. The textbooks we have used these last several decades are simply wrong. They DO need a rewrite.

      (Not that I think the Texas proposal is the solution.)

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    4. Re:Fight them by DesScorp · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So the area now known as Texas rose out of the gulf in 1836? Or was there a conflict in which settlers fought for independence from Mexico?

      The latter. But the larger point is that the poster I replied to was making the case that the United States "stole" Texas from Mexico, because the settlers in Texas came from other US states.

      This is a false argument on two fronts; one, the settlers left the US to start new lives, literally in another country. This wasn't some secret plot by the United States government... "OK, you guys go live in the Texas territories for 20 years, then rebel, then form your own republic for 10 years, then join the Union. Our plan is foolproof!".

      Second, that land didn't originally belong to Mexico. Nor did the land in Southern California, Arizona, or New Mexico. Mexico invaded those lands and conquered the local Indian tribes to get it. Mexican troops had a reputation for utter brutality among the Indian tribes. You think the Indians hated the US? Ask an Apache, Pueblo, or Hopi what he thinks of Mexico.

      --
      Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    5. Re:Fight them by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The tradition of religious freedom in the US stemmed from the fact that a number of important early colonial efforts were established by Non-comformists who were being heavily persecuted in England. The inspiration for the 1st Amendment was, by and large, the response to the absurdities of Catholics and non-conformists have to attend Anglican masses at least once a year, and of what amounted to religious tests for most high offices in England (in fact, the highest still denies the throne to a Catholic).

      That's what makes so much of this so sad. The Founding Fathers believed well and truly that the State had no business meddling in what went between a man and his god(s). Some of the Founding Fathers were Christians, some stood at the margins and some were clearly not Christian (Jefferson was a Deist, and actually had a rather dim view of Christianity, not uncommon among Enlightenment thinkers). They're job, in their eyes, was to create a government that protected but did not intrude upon what they felt was a fundamental liberty; the right to worship as one wished to. That meant no religious tests, no indoctrination. The State, in their eyes, had no damned business teaching religious beliefs. There are churches aplenty to do that.

      That is, I suspect, why Jefferson is such a substantial target, because he was the first to substantially explain the Establishment Clause in his letter to the Danbury Baptists. Here we have one of the major formulators of the Bill of Rights telling people exactly why they had written what they had written, and he's been the chief obstacle in any number of battles between religious fundamentalists, reconstructionists and all manner of whacked-out religious malcontents and reactionaries. The obvious thing to do, at that point, is to minimize his role. The Soviets used to do the same thing, becoming experts and expunging important figures from the historical record. It's odd how fanatics of all political stripes end up acting just about the same.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    6. Re:Fight them by Carewolf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually the "settlers" were illegal immigrants, and the actions where they slowly took over land was called filibustering.

    7. Re:Fight them by c_sd_m · · Score: 4, Insightful

      About equivalent to deeming someone a Norse pagan for signing something "on this Thursday, 2010".

    8. Re:Fight them by besalope · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So?

      Was there or was there not an independent nation called Texas from 1836 to 1846?

      Louisiana Territory was full of Americans. That doesn't mean we didn't get it from France.

      Yes, but we bought the Louisiana Territory. Texas would be the equivalent of Canadians moving into Michigan, then claiming Michigan as an independent nation, and finally taking the independent nation and joining Canada.

    9. Re:Fight them by ArcherB · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Texas wasn't WON, it was TAKEN from the mexicans

      Mexico wasn't WON. It was TAKEN from the Spanish. (Who had taken it from the Indians.)

      The US wasn't WON. It was TAKEN from the English.

      We can do this all day.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    10. Re:Fight them by Tom · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That doesn't mean everyone should be forced to be a Christian. Be whatever you want (I am atheist). BUT at the same time to deny the reality that the founders of this country were Christians who devoutly beloved in God and a Christ/Messiah is ALSO a bias, and that bias has perverted our textbooks for decades.

      Very few people at their times in the west were not christians. Mostly because not long before, there was a strong correlation betwen not giving the right answer to the question and a sudden downturn of life expectancy. Heck, punish disbelief in anything with death for a few hundred years and you can create a society of believers in it, no matter how ridiculous it is. Easter bunny, M&Ms, virgin birth, doesn't matter.

      At their times, the important difference wasn't whether you were a christian or not, that was pretty much a given, but how much power you wanted to grant the church over everyday life. On the one hand, some people wanted the middle ages back, where the pope crowned kings and was generally the #1 bigshot. On the other hand, some people wanted the church to attend to matters of faith and the state to attend to matters of state. I think there's no doubt where the founding fathers stood on that debate.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    11. Re:Fight them by Asklepius+M.D. · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Forgive me, but I fail to see how a few quotes that reference the word "God" or illustrate a belief in the potential of a "Creator" makes the authors of these quotes "Christian". Even regular church attendance in an era where a church was simultaneously a house of worship and a community gathering place does not justify the label. Show me their writings in defense of religion and religion alone. Show me private documents (not those written for a public, and often Christian audience). Show me references to Jesus, Apostles, and core tenets of Christianity. Tell me what denomination each followed (I continue to marvel at how each denomination/sect is "wrong" until a "Christian majority" is needed). I use both "God" and "Creator" in discourse when it eases communication to my audience. This makes me neither deist, or Christian - merely cognizant of constructs that are widely recognized. The ultimate irony to me is, even should this "rewriting" of history succeed....simply look back at the Roman empire to witness what a devout populace integration of church and state engenders.

      --
      He who would be a man, must be a nonconformist. -- Emerson
    12. Re:Fight them by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So accepting evolution because the overwhelming majority of scientists, and all but a vanishing minority in any discipline related to biology is just mindless groupthink?

      Well I am reasonably well versed on most evolutionary concepts and I can tell you flat out that anyone who denies the veracity of evolutionary theory is either a liar or a fool, and that anyone who advocates teaching Creationism or Intelligent Design or tries in any way to minimize the importance of biological evolution as one of the major theories of the last four hundred years to try to bolster non-scientific notions of origins in a science class is doing so simply to use the powers of the State to indoctrinate. The First Amendment, and a number of key court decisions, but most importantly Edwards v. Aguillard made it clear that the teaching of such nonsense in public schools is illegal.

      There will always be people that accept things simply because. But I'll wager the average accepter of evolution theory probably knows more about that theory than the average denier does.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    13. Re:Fight them by spun · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Evolution is just as much about cooperation as it is competition. Evolution is not simply "kill or be killed." In fact, that simplification is no more than a justification used by social Darwinists to excuse brutality towards the less fortunate. Better cooperators make better survivors. As we have developed culture, we succeed not by letting our elders die, but by keeping them alive to pass on their knowledge.

      You seem to think evolution is directed, that it moves form some less good state to some better state. Not true at all. Fitness criteria change all the time. What is fit today may not be tomorrow. If we cooperate better, and make sure everyone has equal opportunities, we are changing the fitness criteria. That will not cause the human race to 'devolve' as that is not even possible. Evolution does not have a direction, it can't go 'backwards.' What will happen, is that evolution will favor cooperation more, and it will favor sociopathic monsters less. That's a good thing, IMHO.

      We can not 'interfere' with evolution, as interference comes from outside a system, and there is nothing outside the system of evolution, that we know about. All we can do is change the fitness criteria, which change all the time anyway.

      In short, you have an incorrect and dangerous view about what evolution is. It is the exact same view that some of the worst monsters in history have used to excuse some of the worst atrocities ever committed.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    14. Re:Fight them by LandDolphin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There is a fine example of why we have more than one Justice on the Supreme Court.

      --
      Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
    15. Re:Fight them by Rantastic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You seem to be missing the point, perhaps willfully. The point is not whether or not the Founders believed in the Christian God, fairies, witches, unicorns, or any magical thinking.

      The point here is whether or not the Founders intended for Christianity to be the basis of the government. From their writings, they clearly wanted a government based on reason, not religion.

      --
      Ask Slashdot: Where bad ideas meet poor googling skills.
    16. Re:Fight them by spun · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You have no idea how evolution really works. It is not directed. It does not move from 'less evolved' to 'more evolved.' Fitness criteria change all the time. What is fit today is unfit tomorrow. Cooperation plays more of a role in evolution than competition. By being better cooperators, we are not making our species weaker, we are making it stronger. We are changing the fitness criteria so they don't favor sociopaths, but decent, loving, cooperative individuals. Your false ideas about evolution serve only to excuse your own selfish belief system and do not represent reality.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  2. Is anything not political? by karcirate · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "apolitical nature of public school governance"

    Say what?

    1. Re:Is anything not political? by MightyYar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Say what?

      Even better, in TFA he follows it up with:

      "The alterations and fallacies made by these extremist conservatives are offensive to our communities and inaccurate of our nation's diverse history."

      Gotta love the evil conservative hyperbole there. I really wish people would vote for people with less of a flair for the dramatic.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    2. Re:Is anything not political? by TheMeuge · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wish I had mod points.

      The Texas revisionism is a reactionary policy, brought about by the resurgence of the "us-vs-them" mentality. Whether justified or not, they are scared, and are lashing out in reprisal. And the reaction that this evokes, is further vilification of anyone who dares call themselves conservative by the representative of the left.

      How can any voice of reason expect to be heard, when they will be labeled a "bleeding heart liberal" by the right, and "extremist right-winger" by the left?

      This isn't meant to justify the changes Texas plans to its curriculum - they are atrocious to be sure. But Mr. Lee's response to it simply reeks. He'd like to protect against the conservative revisionism by ensuring the leftist revisionism.

      It's not about a "flair for the dramatic", it's about getting votes by creating an enemy against which you can unite the masses. For the Democrats, it's the Republicans. Likewise, for the Republicans, it's the "eastern elites" and "liberals". We can't run the country this way anymore, as it's clear that we're running it into the ground.

    3. Re:Is anything not political? by Altus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      My understanding was that this bill was intended to prevent the specific changes proposed by Texas from making it into California textbooks. That is not leftist revisionism. Mr. Lee might be a bit heavy on the rhetoric but unless his bill specifically includes proposed changes to the existing curriculum (which, to the best of my knowledge) I don't think its fair to call him revisionist.

      It seems to me that you are engaging in exactly the behavior you are calling out.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    4. Re:Is anything not political? by halivar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In modern politics, one finds it essential to consider the opposition either stupid, evil, or both. That way we don't have to listen to them anymore.

    5. Re:Is anything not political? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There has been a slow rise in us-vs-them mentality since the wealthy and powerful noticed around the time of Reagan that if they pumped the religious and abortion issues hard, they could keep the other 99% of the population split 50/50 on everything.

      This was a perfect situation for them. They managed to get 50% of the population voting against itself in the face of mass unemployment and increasing concentration of wealth and income among less than 1% of the population. For some reason, multi millionaire talk show hosts can get people making $46k to vote against themselves using these issues.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  3. Apolitical? by cbs4385 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is he seriously implying that current curricula was set with political blinders on. Not that I agree with the slant Texas has put on history, but to imply that the current histories taught do not have one is disingenuous.

    1. Re:Apolitical? by Millennium · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, and this is a serious problem. There is no such thing as an apolitical view of history, as among other things, every viewpoint has its own judgments of the same events. There is no way to teach history independently of those judgments; the best you can do is point out where the judgments are and hope that the students will figure out what to take with a grain of salt and what not to.

      To block "deviating from the accepted teachings" is really nothing more than an attempt to cement one's own judgments into the curriculum. I'm no fan of what Texas is doing here, but this particular solution is not an acceptable way of blocking it. Go back to the drawing board.

      Heck; I'll give you a new hook. Go after the bit about the US being "chosen by God as a beacon" as a flagrant violation of the First Amendment, because if it's not a case of a government entity (the school board) establishing a civic religion, I don't know what is.

  4. "apolitical"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "a threat to the apolitical nature of public school governance and academic content standards in California."

    "apolitical"? Huh?

    There's no such thing in an organization that exist solely via government, aka "public schools".

  5. Sarcastic summary by codeButcher · · Score: 4, Insightful

    said changes would be "a sharp departure from widely accepted historical teachings"

    Because something that is widely accepted is always true.

    --
    Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
    1. Re: Sarcastic summary by anyGould · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ok, let's start by physics. Which part of what was widely accepted as true two thousand years ago ended up being true?

      This would be a good point, if we were teaching class 2000 years ago.

      All I want in my classroom is the best information we have at the time - no-one's asking for The One True Truth here. (Heck, you only have to go back 10 years to find differences in physics - we lost a planet, didn't ya know.)

      I wouldn't object to religion being taught in school - just teach *all* of them, and put it in "Religion" class.

    2. Re: Sarcastic summary by imgod2u · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Surprisingly many. In fact, the wonderful thing about science is that it really was true to observation. There are just certain conditions that it doesn't work for. The idea of atoms, geometry, planetary bodies, etc. all come from the Greeks and for the most part, are true today. Euclidean geometry is simply true for certain scales of size and time and energy levels. It doesn't describe things at high energy or small size very well.

      The Earth was known to be round-ish (still true today, last I checked), the Sun was the center of the solar system (still true) and the planetary bodies orbited in an elliptical orbit (still true).

      But that's not even the point here. It isn't just "commonly accepted" data that is being rejected by Texas. It's knowledge reviewed, scrutinized and accepted by historians who've devoted their lives to studying this field. Those "experts" that Texas has to "stand up to".

    3. Re:Sarcastic summary by Chris+Burke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, and therefore there's no difference between what a large number of learned historians consider true, and what a small group of people whose entire motivation is to restructure history in favor of their political ideology are willing to say is true.

      But hey I'm sure that's not your point, since that would be stupid. You're just pointing out that, in general, number of people who agree with something is not an indication of veracity. That's all well and good.

      Now let's bring this out of the hypothetical realm of pure logic where an existence proof (long since proven) is all you need to demonstrate the imperfection of historians. Let's talk about this specific case.

      In this specific case, the historians are right, and the ideologically motivated revisionists are full of crap.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  6. Apolitical my Aunt Fannie by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Brrring...hello Texas? This is California...umm...you're black. I offer into evidence the California teacher spouting off a few days ago about how California is "stolen occupied Mexico". Guess that guy never heard about the Mexican American War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican%E2%80%93American_War) which Mexico lost. Apolitical? How about historically accurate? Try that for once.

    1. Re:Apolitical my Aunt Fannie by Scrameustache · · Score: 4, Insightful

      the California teacher spouting off a few days ago

      You really don't understand the difference between one teacher's opinion and a standard textbook distributed nationwide?

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

  7. History has a lot of opinon in it. by LWATCDR · · Score: 4, Insightful

    History education as a whole is terrible and really all too often is used to teach an agenda.

    A great example is the Atomic bombing of Japan. A good friend of mine went to a very good college. When she told me about what she was taught about WWII was was shocked.
    It seems that the the US was racist and that is why we nuked Japan and that we treated the Germans with much more respect.

    When I asked her about the Batan death march she had never heard of it.
    When I asked her about the rape of Nanking. She had never heard of such a thing.
    When I asked her about the threats to kill all the POWs in Japan if the US invaded she never heard of that.
    But she did tell me that they told here Japan was willing to surrender before we dropped the bomb if we would have promised them that they could keep their emperor. "BTW that is a myth. The goal of negotiations was to prevent the occupation of Japan and not to just preserve the status of the Emperor".
    It doesn't matter it is all slanted.
    The teacher brought in a old woman that was a child when the bomb was dropped... That will help bring balance.

    Truth is that with the exception of Japan and Germany in WWII the villains tended to not be as bad as history teaches and the heroes then to not be as pure. Notice that I left Italy out. Frankly they where just your average tin pot dictatorship and not really all that evil. The just fell in with a bad crowd. Oh and yes Stalin was just as bad as history says. Heck the only reason that Germany really lost on the Russian front was because Hitler was the on person on the planet that treated the Russians worse that Stalin did!

    I get the feeling that all too often History is taught as a way to make use feel superior to those that went before us. Frankly that is a dangerous and stupid thing to do.
    I would love to see a history class about the atomic bombing where they actually tried to teach the students to understand why Truman thought dropping the bomb was a good idea. What information he had and what was going on at the time.
    Maybe then we could actually start learning form history instead twisting it to make us feel so much more enlightened than the historical figures from that past.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  8. Re:Note to the President by BitZtream · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Thats a really freaking ignorant statement.

    You think everyone should see it your way. Unfortunatly you are a minority of one because no one else sees it exactly your way. Everyone has their own views and opinions.

    If Texans have a way they want to do something, LET THEM, and don't live there if you don't like it.

    They take all our tax money and return nothing. They dumb down the rest of the nation, and they are also probably largely responsible for most of the failed mortgages.

    Wow ... just fucking WOW ... there is absolutely nothing correct about any part of that entire statement. Get a clue.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  9. Re:Get rid of textbooks already by MozeeToby · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes, textbooks are dangerously biased so lets set the elementary aged kids loose to learn everything from the internet. Seriously? There's so much noise that gets thrown around the web that most adults have trouble identifying what is and isn't real (if I had a dollar for every email I get telling me that cleaner X is going to kill my pets and babies I wouldn't have to worry about the mortgage). Letting someone run free to learn on the internet is like saying "go find information that you agree with", that's all that 99% of people are ever going to do.

    I realize you specifically call out primary sources, but do you really think that such sources aren't just as politically bent as modern sources. I guarantee you that you can find primary sources that describe the Kent State incident as everything from a horrible accident, to an violent demonstration, to murder of innocent college students. There's no way that a young kid is going to be able to sift through it and find the facts of the situation, that's why we pay professional historians to gather the facts in the first place.

  10. Re: Note to the President by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The next time a southern state wants to secede from the union.... LET THEM!!!!!!!!

    'Cause we always wanted a third world country comprised of gun-toting Rednecks led by religious whackjobs right on our border.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  11. Re:Thats the way its supposed to work. by GreatAntibob · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This post misses the point of the entire debate.

    Texas is such a large market for textbooks that publishers bend over backwards to produce texts catering to Texas' standards. Other, less populous states don't have the population to force publishers to make any sort of changes. They are mostly stuck with textbook standards set by big states like Texas or California. You can say "live somewhere else", but that's precisely the problem - short of states like New York, California, or Texas, you can't live anywhere else that has an effective say on textbooks. These states are the ones that, through sheer size, drag everybody else along. So, heaven forbid you decide you want to live in state with low population density where you're not surrounded by insufferable right wing nut-jobs or by liberal hippies.

  12. seriously by circletimessquare · · Score: 3, Insightful

    that joke map showing canada absorbing the west coast and the east coat down to maryland, calling the south and the middle "jesusland" was a funny internet meme at one time, but as of late, is looking more like a serious cause

    i admire canada's healthcare, it's sober banking rules, it's pragmatic international policies. and meanwhile i am stuck in this country with these fucking morons in the south ruining this country with neocon presidents, religious fundamentalism and ignorant libertarian wish fulfillment fantasies of the market just taking care of itself with unicorns and rainbows

    give the south and the plains their assault guns and their abstinence education leading to lots more pregnant teens and their creationism denying leading to ignorance of basic science, and let them sink into the third world hellhole they so fervently desire to be

    canada: give them alberta for the northeast usa, pretty please?

    i honestly feel more affinity with canadians, in terms of morality and values, then i do with faux news zombified morons in the lower regions of my own country

    i seriously, seriously have a major problem with some of my own countrymen who live in some sort of medieval parallel universe of prideful ignorance

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  13. Re:Note to the President by gtall · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Nonsense, the primary responsibility for the irresponsibility in home loans is...the American people. They signed papers they didn't understand and reveled in being ignorant, they bought houses they could not afford, they bought second houses, they took out the equity in their current dwelling, they did everything they could think of to make a buck before the game of economic musical chairs stopped. Now that they got caught holding the bag, they are looking for scapegoats.

    That doesn't mean they were not enabled by the federal gov. and by Wall Street securitizing loans and thus removing the connection between risk and collateral. They were ill-served by builders, realtors, local banks, mortgage companies, rating agencies, etc. All that, yet no one put a gun to the American dolt's head and said sign here or else. They did that all by themselves and I (being one myself) do not believe we should let us off the hook for cleaning up the mess.

  14. Re:Note to the President by Altus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    To imply that Texas can make these changes without impacting the education of the rest of the nation is to be completely ignorant of the way in which textbooks are produced.

    --

    "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

  15. Re:a sharp departure from widely accepted.... by SnowDog74 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There are departures from fiction, and there are departures from fact. The geocentric model of the universe was not arrived at through modern skeptical scientific inquiry.

    But this issue goes much deeper. It's not just that they are removing references to the progress America has made intellectually, socially and culturally, but they are replacing these references with inferences of their own, alleging that America is a Christian nation, recognizing the accomplishments of pro-slavery confederates and rationalizing McCarthyism as justified by some of the results.

    However, it's not liberal bias to say that America is not a Christian nation. It simply isn't. There is not a single reference to the words "god", "Bible", "Jesus", "Christian", "religion" or "Church" anywhere in the Articles of the Constitution, and the single reference to religion in the Bill of Rights is the Establishment Clause which prohibits Congress from enacting any law concerning religious institutions, Christianity being one of them. This isn't a liberally-biased viewpoint. It is a fact. Just like evolution is a fact. We can debate how precisely either occurred, but that they are is a fact.

    The problem with certain appeals to emotion, such as the "equal time" argument is that all opinions and arguments aren't equal. Some views, such as Intelligent Design, have zero scientific merit whatsoever, at least in the manner in which their proponents have presented them.

    I know that we live in the Age of Entitlement, but no... not all opinions are equal. Some are substantiated in fact far better than others.

  16. Re:Note to the President by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is exactly the kind of thinking and behavior that leads others to do things like, I don't know, threaten to secede. They assume the rest of the country knows absolutely nothing about them and is completely willing to disparage them for no reason, and it's usually due to willful ignorance like the kind you're displaying.

    You've obviously never been to the south and have only seen it on television. Not everyone is a redneck or extreme conservative, the percentage of people who have guns is comparable to the rest of the nation, the foreclosure rate is comparable to the rest of the nation, we pay taxes like everyone else. Educational standards are similar to other parts of the nation, and yet it's true that there tend to be more dropouts, but it's not because the kids are stupid. It's because they're told their whole lives that they'll never be anything but dumb, failed rednecks by bigots like you. (That's right, YOU'RE the bigot here.) Try having that shoved at you, day in and day out, by the media, other Americans, even politicians. It certainly doesn't make most people want to go to school and be an overachiever just to prove everyone in the world wrong, because they're not going to recognize it anyway. Southerners will still be dumb old hillbillies who don't do anything for this country.

    But you know, next time you think about some place where you imagine people ride on 4-wheelers all day with guns, who live on welfare and are willing to live with intolerance for those not like them, I'll point to this entire country, because you go an hour outside of any major metropolitan area in the U.S. and you can find people who are exactly the same. And you can come here, to the south, and see beautiful cities, people who work hard for nice things, people who vote based on how they feel, not how their preacher tells them, all those things. Because not everyone is the fucking same.

  17. Re:Thats the way its supposed to work. by canajin56 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You are alleging that Thomas Jefferson is a fictional character created by New Yorkers and Californians? OK, yeah, you're not utterly insane.

    --
    ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
  18. The correct name would be by daninaustin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Who calls it the War for Southern Independence? Everyone in the south knows it as the War of Northern Aggression :)

  19. Re:Texas a lot like Peru in the 80s by yoshi_mon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What you have here is a buncha people who are independent and are tired of government encroaching on civil liberty and forcing "help" on us.

    The huge problem with this argument is where was this outrage when we had 8 years of unchecked infringement on our civil liberty's, government expansion, insane government spending, and a host of other issues. (I'm not going to even go in to your "help" bit as that rebuttal could fill up a whole other post.)

    What you are saying rings so hollow in the wake of a lot of crazy things that went on. Instead only because now the media wing of the far right has gone on the warpath are you all acting as if our governments are acting contrary to their purpose. And furthermore because the far right is feeling so threatened we get what happened in Tx, Az, and what is happening in the GOP primary's now. Sure the far left has it's batch of crazy's but your blind if you don't see that it's the far right at this point that is, and has done, an insane amount of damage to the US in almost every way possible.

    --

    Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
  20. Re:Thats the way its supposed to work. by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Entertaining this claim as being true, we see that TWO highly liberal states (California and New York) are also warping what goes into text books.

    Except you're missing an important point. Neither New York nor California passed laws telling history book writers what version of history they were allowed to include nor what religious or political slants were required by the state. Texas did, forcing California to react in order to put an equal and opposite pressure on textbook publishers, to prevent Texas's slant from being pushed into their state by the new Texan law and their large influence on the market. Now other states have to decide if they're going to follow suit one way or another in order to try to have an unbiased or specifically biased version of history taught. It sets the stage for textbooks not written primarily by the best info of historians, but instead by political bodies as political game pieces. It will almost certainly result in less accurate textbooks in many places along with higher prices for those books.

    Now, you were saying about Texas being a problem? Its only a problem if you want to maintain the bias.

    Textbook publishers were not required by law to have a bias prior to the Texan law. You can claim they did, but you need to support that hypothesis with real evidence. We know textbooks are being forced to have a slant now, because a law was passed requiring specific things determined by politicians, not historians.

    Its not a problem if you want things to be more centrist.

    Are you so blindly partisan? I don't want centrist textbooks. I want accurate textbooks based upon the best info historians have and the best supported interpretations of that info.

    We as a nation benefit if Texas gets changes made, and are harmed if California blocks those changes.

    We as a nation have less well informed children if Texas gets it's changes made and less well informed children everywhere if other states pick up this trend. We also have less economy of scale and so more expensive textbooks for kids. That helps no one.