Texas is at it again: textbooks to acquire a more conservative slant

Not a very creative thread title, but come on; what else can be said at this point?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/ed...n/13texas.html

The short of it is that Texas is going to make school textbooks that paint Republican ideology in a more positive light, with topics like the separation of church and state being sold short. Meanwhile, topics like the conservative backlash of the 70's, the free market, personal responisbility and, perhaps most terrifyingly of all, McCarthyism will be portrayed more positively.

So, I mean, there's a lot that could be said about this. The conservative movement of the 70's that I mentioned left us saddled with a debt we're still paying off. The free market has been disastrous in it's implementation far more often than not. Personal responsibilty is pretty much code for "I hate the disadvantaged". All of those things are fairly negative, and it's hard to describe them any other way. But it's the McCarthy bit that honestly freaks me out. The man was completely deranged and it boggles my mind how anyone can honestly defend him.

Oh, and I nearly forgot; Texas produces a huge percentage of the nations textbooks; this isn't just confined to their state. I shudder to think of what the next generation will be like if this keeps up...

I'll stop haranguing you guys now and simply say it once more; Texas sucks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jabarto

So, I mean, there's a lot that could be said about this. The conservative movement of the 70's that I mentioned left us saddled with a debt we're still paying off. The free market has been disastrous in it's implementation far more often than not. Personal responsibilty is pretty much code for "I hate the disadvantaged". All of those things are fairly negative, and it's hard to describe them any other way.

---

Oh my.



Anyway, does this mean Thomas Edison gets back in, or does that black guy who invented peanut butter still have his place?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Oh my.



Anyway, does this mean Thomas Edison gets back in, or does that black guy who invented peanut butter still have his place?

---

I don't know, but you just reminded me of something I forgot; they're trying to downplay Thomas Jefferson's role in history because he coined the term "separation of church and state".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jabarto

So, I mean, there's a lot that could be said about this. The conservative movement of the 70's that I mentioned left us saddled with a debt we're still paying off. The free market has been disastrous in it's implementation far more often than not. Personal responsibilty is pretty much code for "I hate the disadvantaged". All of those things are fairly negative, and it's hard to describe them any other way.

---

Wow...

And just when is the glorious Soviet Union expected to crush the imperialist US and lead the proletariat to a utopia in this history of yours?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NYT article

In economics, the revisions add Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek, two champions of free-market economic theory, among the usual list of economists to be studied, like Adam Smith, Karl Marx and John Maynard Keynes. They also replaced the word “capitalism” throughout their texts with the “free-enterprise system.”

---

:daisy: Keynes and Marx were featured, but not Friedman or Hayek? Replacing the word capitalist is silly, though, as are a few other things.

Quote:

---

The conservative movement of the 70's that I mentioned left us saddled with a debt we're still paying off.

---

Yeah, thank goodness for Obama and his balanced budget ways, and the glorious Democrats who gave us social security and medicare, along with other entitlements that absolutely dominate the federal budget.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

And just when is the glorious Soviet Union expected to crush the imperialist US and lead the proletariat to a utopia in this history of yours?

---

You know, that's a good question. I'm hoping sooner rather than later, but I suspect I shall be disappointed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

:daisy: Keynes and Marx were featured, but not Friedman or Hayek? Replacing the word capitalist is silly, though, as are a few other things.

---

It's not really surprising. Don't most economist regard Austrian/Chicago-school thoughts the way philosophers regard Ayn Rand?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Yeah, thank goodness for Obama and his balanced budget ways, and the glorious Democrats who gave us social security and medicare, along with other entitlements that absolutely dominate the federal budget.

---

No, sorry, our federal budget is dominated by defense spending. Try again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Wow...

And just when is the glorious Soviet Union expected to crush the imperialist US and lead the proletariat to a utopia in this history of yours?

---

Only the nutjobs still believe in either free market or a planned economy, CR. The other 99% of the world's population has embraced a mixed economy, which has shown itself to be the only sensible economy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

:daisy: Keynes and Marx were featured, but not Friedman or Hayek? Replacing the word capitalist is silly, though, as are a few other things.

---

Keynes, Marx and Smith sounds like a very good mix, as they cover all three economies, the planned one(Marx), the mixed one(Keynes) and the free market(Smith).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

:daisy: Keynes and Marx were featured, but not Friedman or Hayek?
CR

---

As far as I know, the trio Smith + Marx + Keynes is what is taught in most high school in the world, because, as HoreTore rightly pointed out, they basicaly theorized planned and mixed economy as well as free market. That's what I've been taught in high school, and that's what my cousin's kids are being taught in a german high school.

Hayek and Friedman are taught later, to people who keep on studying faulty economics. I can't really see your outrage anyway, since Hayek and Friedman have proved to be as wrong as Marx in the end *shrugs*.

Now, while I think the whole attempt at "presenting Republican political philosophies in a more positive light" is bollox because american republicanism and conservatism as a whole is bollox, I'd be as shocked if it were an attempt at "presenting Democrat/Liberal political philosophies in a more positive light".
Since when school is supposed to present certain event in a more positive light? What a load of BS. It's like trying to "present colonization in north africa in a more positive light", or "the germano-french relationship during the 18th and 19th century in a more positive light". As if colonization was awesome and as if France and Germany didn't fight in three wars in less than 70 years.

It's not the role of the State or of the School to present things in a more positive light. Screw that. You can get crazy about Obama's spendings, or about the fact that a complete free market is awesome, you just don't answner jabarto's question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

It's not the role of the State or of the School to present things in a more positive light.

---

Indeed it is not. History belongs to historians. Figuring out what to teach kids is a job for professors.

Politicians should be kept a mile away from that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Politicians should be kept a mile away from that.

---

Good luck with that....

Intrusive, totalitarian, Orwellian.

US conservatism isn't about freedom. It is about prescribing a single truth, a single way of life. If history, nature or the Founding Fathers run contrary to it, these will have to make way.


No history is objective. Every history must choose a narrative. Etc. But this must run its own course, not be decided top down by outsiders. Certainly history, indeed science itself, should not be the playground of whomever happens to be in power.
PJ's little provocation hits the mark: this is all as exasparating as the height of the PC movement in the 1990's and their re-writing of herstory.


On the upside, print-on-demand is gaining traction. The Texas and California markets will lose their grip on national school textbooks, different editions are not a problem anymore. In ten years time, most Americans will still learn who Jefferson was. Texas schoolchildren can learn Jesus moved to Houston in 1848 and instituted free enterprise.



You need to get up pretty early in the morning to beat me to Texas news.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

US conservatism isn't about freedom. It is about prescribing a single truth, a single way of life. If history, nature or the Founding Fathers run contrary to it, these will have to make way.

---

Next you're going to claim that George Washington never fought a tiger in a hurricane. Commie.

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...g-A-Bengal.jpg

This would be useful if we had students who could read.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jabarto

Personal responsibilty is pretty much code for "I hate the disadvantaged".

---

:inquisitive:

Quote:

---

I'll stop haranguing you guys now and simply say it once more; Texas sucks.

---

Maybe that's what you can put in your textbook :beam:

********

Students don't read textbooks, schools pick out ones they like, and teachers teach what they want to teach. They are full of simplistic nonsense already, unfortunately.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Students don't read textbooks, schools pick out ones they like, and teachers teach what they want to teach.

---

So from this post I take it that neither you nor anyone you know has been in a public American school in the last three decades.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

So from this post I take it that neither you nor anyone you know has been in a public American school in the last three decades.

---

Maybe you do.

They are shifting towards that silly standardized test way of teaching, it's true. But I usually skimmed the book as did most people at best. If the teacher didn't like something in the book they pointed it and talked about it. Presumably conservative schools pick out conservative textbooks, though I've never served on a school board.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jabarto

In recent years, board members have been locked in an ideological battle between a bloc of conservatives who question Darwin’s theory of evolution and believe the Founding Fathers were guided by Christian principles, and a handful of Democrats and moderate Republicans who have fought to preserve the teaching of Darwinism and the separation of church and state.

---

Hmm... why do people make it sound like the fact that the US was founded on Christian (read: Protestant) principles, and the separation of church and state, should somehow be opposite to each other? The whole US political system is a product of specifically Protestant ideologies. And yet, that in no way means that the Protestant religion need be given any institutionalised status.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jabarto

It's not really surprising. Don't most economist regard Austrian/Chicago-school thoughts the way philosophers regard Ayn Rand?

---

What? Both of the men I listed won Nobel prizes for their work in economics and advanced the field tremendously. So, no, not at all. Both those schools, and individuals I named, have had a huge and lasting impact on economics.

Quote:

---

Only the nutjobs still believe in either free market or a planned economy, CR. The other 99% of the world's population has embraced a mixed economy, which has shown itself to be the only sensible economy.

---

What eloquence and reasoning. If by mixed you mean Keynes, then :rolleyes:.

Quote:

---

No, sorry, our federal budget is dominated by defense spending. Try again.

---

Oh really?

In 2007, social security, medicare, medicaid, and welfare and unemployment spending took over 50% of the budget - a figure expected to grow significantly.

CR

Stop the transformation of Texas public schools into Christian fundamentalist Madrasses:


http://www.tfn.org/site/PageServer :us-texas:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

What eloquence and reasoning. If by mixed you mean Keynes, then :rolleyes:.

---

No I don't mean keynes. I mean "everyone but the wingnuts".

Communism has crashed. Unlimited free market has crashed. What remains is government regulated capitalism.

lol, most textbooks, especially history books, are left. I haven't opened one since freshmen year so i dont even know. not to mention your mostly left educators even before the brainwashing that is often college. That being said i dislike this for one reason, school, especially history, should be in a totally neutral light so the students can make their own decisions. yes, Yes i know ill go move to the real world now.

for example PC has reached MATH. When you open up to a word problem you get three students, Taquisha, Shaniqua, and Consuela. These kids can barely read and now your throwing that **** at them.

Quote:

---

Not a very creative thread title, but come on; what else can be said at this point?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/ed...n/13texas.html

The short of it is that Texas is going to make school textbooks that paint Republican ideology in a more positive light, with topics like the separation of church and state being sold short. Meanwhile, topics like the conservative backlash of the 70's, the free market, personal responisbility and, perhaps most terrifyingly of all, McCarthyism will be portrayed more positively.

So, I mean, there's a lot that could be said about this. The conservative movement of the 70's that I mentioned left us saddled with a debt we're still paying off. The free market has been disastrous in it's implementation far more often than not. Personal responsibilty is pretty much code for "I hate the disadvantaged". All of those things are fairly negative, and it's hard to describe them any other way. But it's the McCarthy bit that honestly freaks me out. The man was completely deranged and it boggles my mind how anyone can honestly defend him.

Oh, and I nearly forgot; Texas produces a huge percentage of the nations textbooks; this isn't just confined to their state. I shudder to think of what the next generation will be like if this keeps up...

I'll stop haranguing you guys now and simply say it once more; Texas sucks.

---

Ahem, Texas is amazing and i want to move back there. Second off Liberals with their entitlements saddled us with a huge debt that can't be solved, you can cut defense spending quite easily, how about you try cutting social security or medicaid. Third, Your entire post is "code" for far left fringe rambling and misplaced ideology. Fourth, california produces even more books and that populist utopia isnt exactly pumping out the Einsteins are they not to mention the revenue, either. finally, you are reading the new york times which i trust about as much as the National Enquirer regarding anything remotely related to the Republican party. And i have truly felt that way since they allowed a large ad from moveon.bull:daisy: called General Betrayeus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Oh really?

In 2007, social security, medicare, medicaid, and welfare and unemployment spending took over 50% of the budget - a figure expected to grow significantly.

CR

---

Well it all depends on how you look at that. Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are paid for by separate taxes (payroll taxes) not income tax. The 2010 US budget put Defense at 63% of discretionary spending, costing around 901 billion dollars. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Income Security beifits cost a total of 1915 billion, or 1.915 trillion. Of that 939 billion was paid for by payroll taxes, so those programs took 976 billion from other places including the deficit. So in that regard defense and entitlement programs are on equal footing.

WallStats Death and Taxes & Taxes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Next you're going to claim that George Washington never fought a tiger in a hurricane. Commie.

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...g-A-Bengal.jpg

---

I'd hardly call that a tiger. That's more like Battle Cat.

I was just reading about this the other day. **** my life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

lol, most textbooks, especially history books, are left. I haven't opened one since freshmen year so i dont even know.

---

Hahaha... sorry but these two sentences are so incongruous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

not to mention your mostly left educators even before the brainwashing that is often college.

---

Who is placed in charge of these institutions? Professors, academics, etc. Who is pushing them where they want to go? No one at all - they have reached the views they teach through rational thought, long-term study and their own inquiries. To claim that they are thus "brainwashing" anyone is utterly ludicrous because it implies someone is standing behind them pulling the strings. There is no way that any of my lecturers have ever been like this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

That being said i dislike this for one reason, school, especially history, should be in a totally neutral light so the students can make their own decisions. yes, Yes i know ill go move to the real world now.

---

There is no neutral light on history. Everything is so dependent on our context unless you look at history as simply a list of dates. Of course, even then you will naturally have to pick which events are worth writing about, which in turn is based on some ideology or episteme and we are back where we started.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

Your entire post is "code" for far left fringe rambling and misplaced ideology.

---

Your entire post is "code" for far right fringe rambling and misplaced ideology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Obama is teh d3v1l
CR

---

Congrats for avoiding the topic's issue and bringing in some more "teh left will destroy us" rambling.

So, your hatred for Obama and democrats put appart, do you think it's normal that history text books try to present certain events "in a more positive light"? Because honestly, we don't really give a crap about Obama's spending and the silly fight between american religious, fascists nutjobs and godless, paedophile stalinist hippies.

Note however that I agree with CA that history is never neutral. But I don't think it's the state or school's role to do anything like this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

lol, most textbooks, especially history books, are left. I haven't opened one since freshmen year so i dont even know.

---

Yes, you don't know.

Quote:

---

not to mention your mostly left educators even before the brainwashing that is often college. That being said i dislike this for one reason, school, especially history, should be in a totally neutral light so the students can make their own decisions. yes, Yes i know ill go move to the real world now.

---

As Stephen Cobert said "Reality has a well known liberal bias.", this is actually supported by studies and claims where attempts to provide anything as neutral or objective automatically comes under attack by the right/conservative establishment. Also, the majority of the reason why this is the case, is that the conservative establishment is very often wrong, and it dislikes to be wrong. So instead of correcting themselves, they attack it.

Sorry Centurion, you are out of your depth, you simply do not know what you are talking about and sprouting rhetorical conservative propaganda. As summarised by this is phrase "The truth?! You cannot handle the truth. Welcome to the Fox News channel."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Sorry Centurion, you are out of your depth, you simply do not know what you are talking about and sprouting rhetorical conservative propaganda. As summarised by this is phrase "The truth?! You cannot handle the truth. Welcome to the Fox News channel."

As Stephen Cobert said "Reality has a well known liberal bias.", this is actually supported by studies and claims where attempts to provide anything as neutral or objective automatically comes under attack by the right/conservative establishment. Also, the majority of the reason why this is the case, is that the conservative establishment is very often wrong, and it dislikes to be wrong. So instead of correcting themselves, they attack it.

---

so are you.

sure it does...... to those already slurping down the kool-aid, others have a different opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

so are you.

sure it does...... to those already slurping down the kool-aid, others have a different opinion.

---

:laugh4: If you think there is a total consensous within Science or even within my own department, you are very mistaken indeed. Even I could even have different opinions to the person next to me, but even then, we can work together to work out the results of an experiment and both objectively come out with the same results. That is the beauty of Science. It is objective and neutral in its pure form.

While there are some really broad/general concepts which are accepted if taken on as a "whole" simply because the evidence is there for it to be that way and the challenge is "conduct the same experiment and do see your own results", this happens, it gets peer-reviewed to make sure it follows the academic guidelines, etc, and most likely, they end up that way. Then the person will give their opinion on why that is, and if they are simply point blank ignorant about it, it shows they are actually a pretty bad academic.

So ultimately, your statement is a sign of your ignorance and not of mine. It isn't about slurping"cool-aid", Science is a bunch of drinks, but you won't make many friends by giving people bad drinks (in otherwords, bad Science). Also, unlike Centurion1 who is in High School and doesn't even read the material, I have peer-reviewed work, review journals, and conduct my own experiments, so I have theoretical and real practicable experience.

I have a relative that works for a textbook publishing company in Texas. Business has been bad lately, I think they had finished a round of editions a few years back and were basically twiddling their thumbs waiting for new work. Which was not forthcoming because most states are bankrupt. It wouldn't surprise me if this is partly a handout to the publishing firms, a justification for new editions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

Because honestly, we don't really give a crap about Obama's spending and the silly fight between american religious, fascists nutjobs and godless, paedophile stalinist hippies.

---

Gee, maybe that's why I wasn't responding to you.

:yes:

Quote:

---

Well it all depends on how you look at that. Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are paid for by separate taxes (payroll taxes) not income tax.

---

It doesn't matter. It's all used as a big slush fund by congress. There's no reason for payroll taxes to somehow 'not count' when looking at the size of the federal government.

CR