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.'"
If the liberals that are ruining the USA are fighting the conservatives that are ruining the USA then the rest of us can have some peace and quiet for a while.
If you can't fight them... Put a fence around and let them devolve in peace.
Or just invoke Mohnihan's Law: they're entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
...another fine bit of "historical spin".
It was American settlers that were doing the original settling and subsequent rebelling.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
In Peru, in the 80s, there was a group of maoist nutjobs called the "Shining Path," who vowed, among other things, to surround the cities from the countryside. What they were and are is a rural terrorist organization.
I've traveled in rural Texas recently. What you have there are a lot of poor, uneducated, disenfranchised white people sporting racist tatoos buying knives and swords at stands by the side of the road. The gun trade is a bit more private but still quite active. The textbook changes just reflect a wider change in worldview in the rural south. What they are poised to do are to become the next generation of terrorist nutjobs fobbing bombs at wealthier people, mostly in cities. They're just waiting for the next corn-pone Hitler, which the networks that gave us the Becks and Palins of the world will be all too happy to provide.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
Studying stuff you know you will never use seems unappealing enough. Now students will understand that their studies are not only useless, but a load of half-truths made to fit whichever political agenda is in control.
Just memorize stuff long enough to regurgitate it on the exam, and if you can get away with it: cheat. I mean, why not? It's nothing but a lot of useless lies anyway, right?
Maybe, just maybe, subjects like math will not be overly politicized. But that stuff is all being offshored to the world's "best and brightest" i.e. cheapest.
Mexico did not exist as a country until 1821, when it declared independence from Spain and became the first Mexican Empire. Mexico did not become a Constitutional Republic until 1824. In 1835, General Antonio López de Santa Anna seized control of Mexico and abolished the Constitution of 1824.
Stephen F. Austin began his Anglo settlements in Texas in 1821, the same year that Mexico first declared independence from Spain. Texas won its revolution from Mexico 15 years later, in 1936.
It is really hard to argue from a historical perspective that Americans stole Texas from Mexico, when American settlers were in possession of Texas from the beginning of Mexico's existence as a country.
Pardon? It was both a civil war and a war for independence. If the south would have succeeded in seceding it would be called a war of independence today. The unionists prevailed, so because the primary feature of the war was that it was between two groups who were part of the same country both before and after the conflict, it is accurate to call it a civil war.
I don't go picking fights with people who insist on calling is a war of independence (because as I've mentioned it was), but I do consider that they're trying to make it something more noble than it was. The only thing that irritates me is people who persist in flying the battle flag of the confederacy. I know that they've been taught that it's a sign of southern heritage, but this is a perfect example of politicization of history. It's a battle flag. It symbolizes rebellion against the United States of America. The only heritage it is attached to is a heritage of racially motivated anti-government sentiment. What really cracks me up is people who fly the flag of a failed rebellion and yet claim to be patriots.
Not a good guy? Not a good president?
Oooo-kay. He submitted year-after-year to the Virginia government laws to abolish slavery (which of course got turned down every time). He was firmly anti-slavery (as we many of the Founders like Washington, Adams, etc) He added the Right of Freedom of Religion to the Virginia Constitution, in spite of stern opposition from the official State church. He (along with his successor) paid off the U.S. National Debt for the first and only time in history.
He formed the Democratic Party. He founded a university and allowed several of his students to attend for free. When Washington was burned to the ground, he denoted his entire personal library to rebuild the LOC. He stood against the power of Megacorps and the Central Bank, and vetoed it out of existence (I wish our current president would do that).
TJ not a good guy? YES he was. I wish he was running for president today. He'd have not only my vote, but also my free services as a volunteer to help him succeed. Jefferson was not a perfect man, but he was still a far better president/statesman/freedom fighter than any we've had since 1900.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
The Spanish government had been active in those areas before there was a Mexico. And I'm not sure pointing at Mexican atrocities is a particularly effective way of defending American atrocities (not that the Indians were simply quiet, innocent victims, there was plenty of violence from lots of corners). The whole thing is one of many historical messes I am glad to say that I did not take part in.
My point was mostly that your response still painted an overly simplistic view of the situation (which I would say is the wrong tack to take when you are complaining that they have poorly characterized things).
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Actually, if you examine history closely, you'll find that most settlements and colonisations(by Anglo-Saxons at least) follow this exact model. Settlement is ostensibly a completely private enterprise, but usually has the tacit approval of government and the explicit backing of powerful elements within or around government. The settlement of Texas was always supported and sold as part of the American manifest destiny franchise, and everyone knew it--especially the Texan settlers.
May the Maths Be with you!
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!".
Much in the manner that Russia is encouraging much smaller neighboring "states" to seek independence so that it can absorb them. (Any Georgian citizen in South Ossetia is eligible for a Russian passport. By the way, if we were smart about it, we would encourage the same trend in Mexico and use it as a pretext to seize Mexican territory but, hey, we don't do that anymore, right? And besides, none of the white folk would stand for all those new brown US citizens, right?) You can sit there and spout that idea that that Texas was an independent nation all you want but the larger goal of the US government was territorial expansion and the Texans were a tool in that goal.
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.
Which is interesting, because you're trying to say that the US is different from any other power in the paragraph prior to this one (Texas wasn't forced into the Union nor was Texas any part of an assault on Mexican sovereignty), while in this paragraph, you claim that the US is no worse than the Mexican government. Well, if you consider ethnic cleansing to be superior to forced integration, I suppose that's true.
Final point, in case you're thinking of jumping down my throat for being all "anti American". The past is the past. The country was far more nationalist (and less secure in itself) 200 years ago. We're a different country and it's unlikely that we'll repeat past mistakes but it's a good idea to understand that the US did some pretty rotten, nasty things in the past. Slavery was one, the ethnic cleansing of the indigenous peoples was another, the list goes on but only if we know the list and can put it into context can we avoid making those mistakes again.
I think the correct term for most of them is "Free Thinker". E.g, Jefferson was very interested in religion and philosophy. He was a Deist AND a Mason AND a Christian (and probably other things as well)...and above all, a politician. But a politician with philosophical ideals.
Calling Jefferson a Christian is like calling a liberal Unitarian a Christian. He'll accept the label, but it's not really very descriptive.
FWIW, I doubt that MOST Christian faiths deserve to be called Christian, even though that's the traditional term. They've got precious little to do with J.C., even though they worship his words (usually in some particular translation). Worship doesn't imply any degree of understanding. It just implies that you can find some phrase that can be used out of context to justify what you have decided to do for other reasons. The more someone claims to be a Christian, the more I think of "Honest John's Used Cars".
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.