Org Mobile Site
Thread: School Books Rewritten in Texas
Texas Schools Rewrite US History
Is there generally support for this kind of thing over there?
Originally Posted by :
Cynthia Dunbar does not have a high regard for her local schools. She has called them unconstitutional, tyrannical and tools of perversion. The conservative Texas lawyer has even likened sending children to her state's schools to "throwing them in to the enemy's flames". Her hostility runs so deep that she educated her own offspring at home and at private Christian establishments.
Now Dunbar is on the brink of fulfilling a promise to change all that, or at least point Texas schools toward salvation. She is one of a clutch of Christian evangelists and social conservatives who have grasped control of the state's education board. This week they are expected to force through a new curriculum that is likely to shift what millions of American schoolchildren far beyond Texas learn about their history.
...
What I find disturbing about these nutjobs is that they see rationalism as a 'side' which should be equally counterbalanced by their 'side' - making stuff up and presenting history how you would have wanted it to be, rather than an enquiry into how it probably was.Cynthia Dunbar does not have a high regard for her local schools. She has called them unconstitutional, tyrannical and tools of perversion. The conservative Texas lawyer has even likened sending children to her state's schools to "throwing them in to the enemy's flames". Her hostility runs so deep that she educated her own offspring at home and at private Christian establishments.
Now Dunbar is on the brink of fulfilling a promise to change all that, or at least point Texas schools toward salvation. She is one of a clutch of Christian evangelists and social conservatives who have grasped control of the state's education board. This week they are expected to force through a new curriculum that is likely to shift what millions of American schoolchildren far beyond Texas learn about their history.
...
Is there generally support for this kind of thing over there?
Interesting.
I can see that American schools may not always present what everyone considers a balanced view of history, and I do think that the American claim to seperate Church and State is somewhat fallacious historically speaking. However, this is an attempt to instill a very particular Christian doctrine in children, and possibly white Supremism as well.
I can see that American schools may not always present what everyone considers a balanced view of history, and I do think that the American claim to seperate Church and State is somewhat fallacious historically speaking. However, this is an attempt to instill a very particular Christian doctrine in children, and possibly white Supremism as well.
Originally Posted by Idaho:
Texas Schools Rewrite US History
What I find disturbing about these nutjobs is that they see rationalism as a 'side' which should be equally counterbalanced by their 'side' - making stuff up and presenting history how you would have wanted it to be, rather than an enquiry into how it probably was.
Is there generally support for this kind of thing over there?
It's Texas... I mean what do you expect? I never believed all the hype about Texas until I met my cousin for dinner one night. The guy is a professor at Texas Tech, and he reassured me that Texas is... well as unique as people say.Texas Schools Rewrite US History
What I find disturbing about these nutjobs is that they see rationalism as a 'side' which should be equally counterbalanced by their 'side' - making stuff up and presenting history how you would have wanted it to be, rather than an enquiry into how it probably was.
Is there generally support for this kind of thing over there?
I don't understand. When you only have 200 to 300 pages in which to condense 234 years of a nation's history (plus the events and circumstances that lead to its creation), you are going to have to be selective in what makes it into the history books. Using ideology to influence what makes it in and what does not is not a new practice. For example, most American history books these days ignore or minimize crucial historical events in favor of minority studies. I always thought it was funny that in my 8th grade history book they would have biography sections for American heroes, and George Washington's was no longer or more in depth than George Washington Carver's. Overall, the American history books I have encountered have used selective history to paint an overall negative view of our history and emphasize many minor events way out of proportion to their importance at the expense of actual major historical events that shaped the nation.
I think the article is mixing what these people (actually only one Board member and one advisor) believe with the actual changes they have proposed, which are really quite minor. For example, the article makes a big deal about the horror of Christians influencing history texts. However, America has always been a majority Christian nation, and many of the most influential Americans have been driven by deeply held Christian beliefs. I don't know what is so wrong with American students exploring the role Christianity played in the development of the nation. It doesn't mean they have to be Christian, or that non-Christians are somehow less American. It is no worse than portraying the Underground Railroad as a major American historical event. Everyone's views of what parts of history are important are ideologically driven to a certain extent, and until they start actually rewriting history (having Texas conquer Mexico or some such), instead of simply choosing slightly different elements of it to emphasize, I'm not too concerned.
I think the article is mixing what these people (actually only one Board member and one advisor) believe with the actual changes they have proposed, which are really quite minor. For example, the article makes a big deal about the horror of Christians influencing history texts. However, America has always been a majority Christian nation, and many of the most influential Americans have been driven by deeply held Christian beliefs. I don't know what is so wrong with American students exploring the role Christianity played in the development of the nation. It doesn't mean they have to be Christian, or that non-Christians are somehow less American. It is no worse than portraying the Underground Railroad as a major American historical event. Everyone's views of what parts of history are important are ideologically driven to a certain extent, and until they start actually rewriting history (having Texas conquer Mexico or some such), instead of simply choosing slightly different elements of it to emphasize, I'm not too concerned.
Originally Posted by Ice:
It's Texas... I mean what do you expect? I never believed all the hype about Texas until I met my cousin for dinner one night. The guy is a professor at Texas Tech, and he reassured me that Texas is... well as unique as people say.
It's Texas... I mean what do you expect? I never believed all the hype about Texas until I met my cousin for dinner one night. The guy is a professor at Texas Tech, and he reassured me that Texas is... well as unique as people say.
Wreck'Em Tech!
As per the topic. We aren't all crazy but these kind of people are the ones who get pissed off enough to run for the local school board.
I would also like to point out these people are probably good for nothing carpetbaggers/East Texans
Originally Posted by Idaho:
Texas Schools Rewrite US History
What I find disturbing about these nutjobs is that they see rationalism as a 'side' which should be equally counterbalanced by their 'side' - making stuff up and presenting history how you would have wanted it to be, rather than an enquiry into how it probably was.
Is there generally support for this kind of thing over there?
That is the general problem discussing an issue like this with a religious nutjob. Their assumption that if you have two ideas, you should meet in the middle. However, sometimes they are just plain wrong, and schools / media / whatever should not blur this to a grey mass. Texas Schools Rewrite US History
What I find disturbing about these nutjobs is that they see rationalism as a 'side' which should be equally counterbalanced by their 'side' - making stuff up and presenting history how you would have wanted it to be, rather than an enquiry into how it probably was.
Is there generally support for this kind of thing over there?
Example:
Religius nutjob>>> The world was made in four and a half days only last week and then god also created the animals and us humans.
Scientist>>> Uh, actually the world is billions of years old and evolution is what got us here.
Religious nutjub>>> Ok, you can the children your stuff if I can teach them mine! Deal?
Scientist>>> *facepalm*
Don't see anything new here...
Schools are always going to be used to push whatever sort of agenda the people in charge want, screw the reality. Scottish history consists of watching Braveheart and learning about William Wallace fighting teh evil English, then nothing happens for the next 500 years or so because that would cause sectarianism with the religious wars etc. Then we learn about WWII, and the Nazi's (huzzah!) of course came straight out of the gates of hell, the whole Second World War happened because Hitler was a bad man, never mind studying why Nazism actually developed the way it did.
And then there's religious education, where they tell you about hippie Jesus, how Muslims are all actually really nice and tolerant, blablabla.
Some of it is just social engineering, although being realistic, some things really are too complicated to teach children about properly. Most children can't be expected to understand the complex debates about the role of states rights in the American Civil War, economic factors etc... so they say it was just slavery (and maybe it was, but children won't know the ins and outs etc).
Although this woman sounds like she is going too far with her own agenda.
Schools are always going to be used to push whatever sort of agenda the people in charge want, screw the reality. Scottish history consists of watching Braveheart and learning about William Wallace fighting teh evil English, then nothing happens for the next 500 years or so because that would cause sectarianism with the religious wars etc. Then we learn about WWII, and the Nazi's (huzzah!) of course came straight out of the gates of hell, the whole Second World War happened because Hitler was a bad man, never mind studying why Nazism actually developed the way it did.
And then there's religious education, where they tell you about hippie Jesus, how Muslims are all actually really nice and tolerant, blablabla.
Some of it is just social engineering, although being realistic, some things really are too complicated to teach children about properly. Most children can't be expected to understand the complex debates about the role of states rights in the American Civil War, economic factors etc... so they say it was just slavery (and maybe it was, but children won't know the ins and outs etc).
Although this woman sounds like she is going too far with her own agenda.
I've heared of text books being 'altered/improved' to benefit certain demograpics or political leanings. History is a prime example. Sounds like the Ministry of Truth if you ask me.
This has been going on for months, I even made a thread for it when it first came up. I think the worst things are the emphasis on the imporatnce of the free market and the idea that this is a Christian nation. Both are laughably, objectively, and demonstarbly false. The others are bad, of course, but those two really seal the deal.
History is an image a society wants to present to itself for its own benefit.
That is why the same event describe by the different protagonists will differ.
So every person involve in writing History wants his/her side seen as good, even if it wasn’t…
History taught in Classrooms is more construction of Identity with Role Model and Heroes than real history.
I have an English Colleague who can with a strait face tell me that England was never defeated. When I do answer that is why Philadelphia is still English, he just avoid answering
That is why the same event describe by the different protagonists will differ.
So every person involve in writing History wants his/her side seen as good, even if it wasn’t…
History taught in Classrooms is more construction of Identity with Role Model and Heroes than real history.
I have an English Colleague who can with a strait face tell me that England was never defeated. When I do answer that is why Philadelphia is still English, he just avoid answering
PJ, from that list:
You do seem to have unusually heavily politized history books. I'm guessing it's partially because you do have a large minority that has a long history in the US and that they weren't marginalized like Europe's Jews and Romani. Is there any in depth stuff on the Indians?
Anyway thought of this and found it very fitting.
Lord's Believers
(+2 support, +1 probe, -2 research, -1 planet)
+25% bonus when attacking other factions
No research the first 10 turns.
Very obvious that this faction is based on these people. (And for those not having played SMAC, the bonus to support and attack bonus is due to religious fanatism, probe bonus as they are single minded, -2 research self-explained. -1 planet is more game theme oriented (chosen planet), but still a bit fitting).
Originally Posted by The article:
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as driven by Islamic fundamentalism.
One amendment requires that students be taught that economic prosperity requires "minimal government intrusion and taxation".
There are strands where the free enterprise system fits appropriately but they have stretched the concept of the free enterprise system back to medieval times. The president of the Texas historical association could not find any documentation to support the stretching of the free enterprise system to ancient times but it made no difference.
Should class as enough distortion to be falsifying history. Some other points depends on presentation if they're falsifying history. So they are swinging their agenda heavy handed.the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as driven by Islamic fundamentalism.
One amendment requires that students be taught that economic prosperity requires "minimal government intrusion and taxation".
There are strands where the free enterprise system fits appropriately but they have stretched the concept of the free enterprise system back to medieval times. The president of the Texas historical association could not find any documentation to support the stretching of the free enterprise system to ancient times but it made no difference.
You do seem to have unusually heavily politized history books. I'm guessing it's partially because you do have a large minority that has a long history in the US and that they weren't marginalized like Europe's Jews and Romani. Is there any in depth stuff on the Indians?
Anyway thought of this and found it very fitting.
Lord's Believers
(+2 support, +1 probe, -2 research, -1 planet)
+25% bonus when attacking other factions
No research the first 10 turns.
Very obvious that this faction is based on these people. (And for those not having played SMAC, the bonus to support and attack bonus is due to religious fanatism, probe bonus as they are single minded, -2 research self-explained. -1 planet is more game theme oriented (chosen planet), but still a bit fitting).
Originally Posted by jabarto:
I think the worst things are the emphasis on the imporatnce of the free market and the idea that this is a Christian nation. Both are laughably, objectively, and demonstarbly false.
How is the importance of the free market laughably, objectively, and demonstrably false? Are you saying that the free market as a concept is false, or that highlighting its importance in the development of the nation is somehow false?I think the worst things are the emphasis on the imporatnce of the free market and the idea that this is a Christian nation. Both are laughably, objectively, and demonstarbly false.
And please define a "Christian nation", as you understand it.
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger:
And please define a "Christian nation", as you understand it.
Republican Utopia?And please define a "Christian nation", as you understand it.
Originally Posted by jabarto:
This has been going on for months, I even made a thread for it when it first came up. I think the worst things are the emphasis on the imporatnce of the free market and the idea that this is a Christian nation. Both are laughably, objectively, and demonstarbly false. The others are bad, of course, but those two really seal the deal.
I think the argument is that we have a secular government but that our culture and laws are heavily influenced by the Judeo-Christian tradition. Some, as with Ms. Dunbar see this as defining us, in practice, as a Christian nation. Most would suggest she's over-stating things a notch. You are correct in that any "objective" assessment would note that we are not a theocracy on any level and that our Constitution actually makes the assumption of governmental power by some theocratic cabal almost impossible, barring some form of theocratic revolution.This has been going on for months, I even made a thread for it when it first came up. I think the worst things are the emphasis on the imporatnce of the free market and the idea that this is a Christian nation. Both are laughably, objectively, and demonstarbly false. The others are bad, of course, but those two really seal the deal.
I fail to see, however, how anyone could credibly deny the importance of the "free market" to US history. While it is true that no nation has allowed (or could allow) a completely unfettered marketplace, the USA has approached that condition far more closely then have most other polities. Can you argue that we are not a true "free market" society? Of course, as there have always been regulations etc. that have influence marketplace interaction. Can you argue that the "free market" wasn't all that important? I think any such argument would be fatuous.
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh:
I think the argument is that we have a secular government but that our culture and laws are heavily influenced by the Judeo-Christian tradition. Some, as with Ms. Dunbar see this as defining us, in practice, as a Christian nation. Most would suggest she's over-stating things a notch. You are correct in that any "objective" assessment would note that we are not a theocracy on any level and that our Constitution actually makes the assumption of governmental power by some theocratic cabal almost impossible, barring some form of theocratic revolution.
I agree. Some seem to see any mention of Christianity as playing any part in the shaping of the nation as having some sort of theocratic intentions. Maybe Mrs. Dunbar (the only board member the Guardian decided to highlight for a story about the Board's decisions) does feel that way and maybe she doesn't, but the actual changes do not seem to reflect such a goal. I think the argument is that we have a secular government but that our culture and laws are heavily influenced by the Judeo-Christian tradition. Some, as with Ms. Dunbar see this as defining us, in practice, as a Christian nation. Most would suggest she's over-stating things a notch. You are correct in that any "objective" assessment would note that we are not a theocracy on any level and that our Constitution actually makes the assumption of governmental power by some theocratic cabal almost impossible, barring some form of theocratic revolution.
Every president has been a Christian, most other politicians and policy makers have been Christian, and the vast majority of the nation's populace has always been Christian. I think those facts can exist along with the very important concept of the separation of church and state in America's history books without creating any cognitive dissonance among students. Trying to erase Christianity from textbooks is a true example of agenda-driven revisionism.
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh:
I think the argument is that we have a secular government but that our culture and laws are heavily influenced by the Judeo-Christian tradition.
For the most part, you're right. This, however, just isn't true. Our legal traditions derive from Engish law, which in turn derived from Viking law, which was cribbed from Germanic law. Our legal traditions have more to do with naked face-painted barbarians than they ever did with Christianity.I think the argument is that we have a secular government but that our culture and laws are heavily influenced by the Judeo-Christian tradition.
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh:
I fail to see, however, how anyone could credibly deny the importance of the "free market" to US history. While it is true that no nation has allowed (or could allow) a completely unfettered marketplace, the USA has approached that condition far more closely then have most other polities. Can you argue that we are not a true "free market" society? Of course, as there have always been regulations etc. that have influence marketplace interaction. Can you argue that the "free market" wasn't all that important? I think any such argument would be fatuous.
I should have phrased that better. It's not so much that the free market wasn't important, because it was. The problem is that people think the free market was solely responisble for giving them what they have, and that's what's wrong. Sure, they didn't say that aloud, but we're talking about Texan conservatives here; do you really think they're going to give socialism and state intervention the proper due for making our country what it is?I fail to see, however, how anyone could credibly deny the importance of the "free market" to US history. While it is true that no nation has allowed (or could allow) a completely unfettered marketplace, the USA has approached that condition far more closely then have most other polities. Can you argue that we are not a true "free market" society? Of course, as there have always been regulations etc. that have influence marketplace interaction. Can you argue that the "free market" wasn't all that important? I think any such argument would be fatuous.
Originally Posted by jabarto:
For the most part, you're right. This, however, just isn't true. Our legal traditions derive from Engish law, which in turn derived from Viking law, which was cribbed from Germanic law. Our legal traditions have more to do with naked face-painted barbarians than they ever did with Christianity.
While I agree that the ancient custom of weregeld was a large component of common law -- at least regarding torts -- there are simply too many laws that codify doctrines from the ten commandments and even (usually quite selectively) the Levitican proscriptions to ignore the influence of the Hebraic tradition, and too many doctrines that draw indirectly on canon law as well (not to mention the whole latinist character of US law). In addition, there is a bit of influence from the Brehon tradition in English law as well, not just the Skanda-Germanic. Moreover, while your point has a good deal of merit regarding the Law, the cultural influence of the Christian tradition on the USA simply cannot be minimized.For the most part, you're right. This, however, just isn't true. Our legal traditions derive from Engish law, which in turn derived from Viking law, which was cribbed from Germanic law. Our legal traditions have more to do with naked face-painted barbarians than they ever did with Christianity.
Originally Posted by Jabarto:
I should have phrased that better. It's not so much that the free market wasn't important, because it was. The problem is that people think the free market was solely responisble for giving them what they have, and that's what's wrong. Sure, they didn't say that aloud, but we're talking about Texan conservatives here; do you really think they're going to give socialism and state intervention the proper due for making our country what it is?
I think socialism has had more of an impact in our reactions (and sometimes over-reactions) thereto. Will the conservatives of Texas give it short shrift? Possibly. Regrettably, we've got 518 years of continuous Euro-American history that is directly relevant to the present, to say nothing of the contributions of the Amerinds and tangential impacts like those of the Norse (and others?). Since we're talking a survey of history that has to fit into two textbooks of 400 pages or less, little or nothing will get a complete discussion. Since editing must occur, some "agenda" influence is inevitable.I should have phrased that better. It's not so much that the free market wasn't important, because it was. The problem is that people think the free market was solely responisble for giving them what they have, and that's what's wrong. Sure, they didn't say that aloud, but we're talking about Texan conservatives here; do you really think they're going to give socialism and state intervention the proper due for making our country what it is?
It's important to teach the High Schoolers to become critical consumers of information -- at least to the extent that they do not CHOOSE to wallow in ignorance.
Then we learn about WWII, and the Nazi's (huzzah!) of course came straight out of the gates of hell, the whole Second World War happened because Hitler was a bad man, never mind studying why Nazism actually developed the way it did.
Whilst we didn't study the development of nazism per say we did do quite a bit of work on the treaty of versailles and the inter war years (great depression, currency change, hitler made chancellor and finally the riechstag) unless the scottish history you did pushed out the inter war years and versailles, although I did do some welsh history (merthyr rising) maybe theres more scottish history to study as Wales has basically been a small part of England for hundreds of years
Those believers were hardcore on AC, would always find they would be my main competitor as the Spartan faction, she didn't seem to be to big on diplomacy either she would reject even the most lopsided deals...
To those who are saying obviously there is going to be an agenda one way or the other as theres only so much you can teach... then why replace what you have with rubbish like.... the israel palestine conflict is fueled by islamic extremism. If you are going to go into a topic you have to present the different sides of the argument, in my history class on ww2 we learnt about the reasoning behind the conflict different events and how they played out to lead us to WW2. If they were just going to come into the class tell us the germans were aggressive nazis we were the good guys and then just us some basic deatils of the conflict (D-Day, fall of france, stalingrad ect.) we would be better off not being told anything...
Infact I don't think history should be about teaching conclusions, obviously sometimes there is right and wrong, black and white, but there is so much more grey out there. Teachers should tell you what happened leading up to whatever evenbt your studying but you should make your own conclusions on the evidence. If your teachers just comes out and says Islamic extremism fuels the israeli-palastinian conflict your not giving him a little bit of the puzzle (well you may be but not as far as he's concerned) you have given him the answer, for him to ever come to his own conclusion now he has to reject the original one that was forced on him and assess the evidence for himself. Sure lots of clever people will go back and look at all the events and make thier own conclusion, but even among the most intelligent people in society if they have no interest in that area they may accept something wildly inaccurate as fact as they were taught it, so most people who pay little attention but turn up on voting day.... they'll only have the conclusion they were given back in school
Whilst we didn't study the development of nazism per say we did do quite a bit of work on the treaty of versailles and the inter war years (great depression, currency change, hitler made chancellor and finally the riechstag) unless the scottish history you did pushed out the inter war years and versailles, although I did do some welsh history (merthyr rising) maybe theres more scottish history to study as Wales has basically been a small part of England for hundreds of years
Those believers were hardcore on AC, would always find they would be my main competitor as the Spartan faction, she didn't seem to be to big on diplomacy either she would reject even the most lopsided deals...
To those who are saying obviously there is going to be an agenda one way or the other as theres only so much you can teach... then why replace what you have with rubbish like.... the israel palestine conflict is fueled by islamic extremism. If you are going to go into a topic you have to present the different sides of the argument, in my history class on ww2 we learnt about the reasoning behind the conflict different events and how they played out to lead us to WW2. If they were just going to come into the class tell us the germans were aggressive nazis we were the good guys and then just us some basic deatils of the conflict (D-Day, fall of france, stalingrad ect.) we would be better off not being told anything...
Infact I don't think history should be about teaching conclusions, obviously sometimes there is right and wrong, black and white, but there is so much more grey out there. Teachers should tell you what happened leading up to whatever evenbt your studying but you should make your own conclusions on the evidence. If your teachers just comes out and says Islamic extremism fuels the israeli-palastinian conflict your not giving him a little bit of the puzzle (well you may be but not as far as he's concerned) you have given him the answer, for him to ever come to his own conclusion now he has to reject the original one that was forced on him and assess the evidence for himself. Sure lots of clever people will go back and look at all the events and make thier own conclusion, but even among the most intelligent people in society if they have no interest in that area they may accept something wildly inaccurate as fact as they were taught it, so most people who pay little attention but turn up on voting day.... they'll only have the conclusion they were given back in school
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger:
I don't understand. When you only have 200 to 300 pages in which to condense 234 years of a nation's history (plus the events and circumstances that lead to its creation), you are going to have to be selective in what makes it into the history books. Using ideology to influence what makes it in and what does not is not a new practice. For example, most American history books these days ignore or minimize crucial historical events in favor of minority studies. I always thought it was funny that in my 8th grade history book they would have biography sections for American heroes, and George Washington's was no longer or more in depth than George Washington Carver's. Overall, the American history books I have encountered have used selective history to paint an overall negative view of our history and emphasize many minor events way out of proportion to their importance at the expense of actual major historical events that shaped the nation.
I think the article is mixing what these people (actually only one Board member and one advisor) believe with the actual changes they have proposed, which are really quite minor. For example, the article makes a big deal about the horror of Christians influencing history texts. However, America has always been a majority Christian nation, and many of the most influential Americans have been driven by deeply held Christian beliefs. I don't know what is so wrong with American students exploring the role Christianity played in the development of the nation. It doesn't mean they have to be Christian, or that non-Christians are somehow less American. It is no worse than portraying the Underground Railroad as a major American historical event. Everyone's views of what parts of history are important are ideologically driven to a certain extent, and until they start actually rewriting history (having Texas conquer Mexico or some such), instead of simply choosing slightly different elements of it to emphasize, I'm not too concerned.
America's not a nation, thankyouverymuch.I don't understand. When you only have 200 to 300 pages in which to condense 234 years of a nation's history (plus the events and circumstances that lead to its creation), you are going to have to be selective in what makes it into the history books. Using ideology to influence what makes it in and what does not is not a new practice. For example, most American history books these days ignore or minimize crucial historical events in favor of minority studies. I always thought it was funny that in my 8th grade history book they would have biography sections for American heroes, and George Washington's was no longer or more in depth than George Washington Carver's. Overall, the American history books I have encountered have used selective history to paint an overall negative view of our history and emphasize many minor events way out of proportion to their importance at the expense of actual major historical events that shaped the nation.
I think the article is mixing what these people (actually only one Board member and one advisor) believe with the actual changes they have proposed, which are really quite minor. For example, the article makes a big deal about the horror of Christians influencing history texts. However, America has always been a majority Christian nation, and many of the most influential Americans have been driven by deeply held Christian beliefs. I don't know what is so wrong with American students exploring the role Christianity played in the development of the nation. It doesn't mean they have to be Christian, or that non-Christians are somehow less American. It is no worse than portraying the Underground Railroad as a major American historical event. Everyone's views of what parts of history are important are ideologically driven to a certain extent, and until they start actually rewriting history (having Texas conquer Mexico or some such), instead of simply choosing slightly different elements of it to emphasize, I'm not too concerned.
Originally Posted by Brenus:
History is an image a society wants to present to itself for its own benefit.
That is why the same event describe by the different protagonists will differ.
So every person involve in writing History wants his/her side seen as good, even if it wasn’t…
Actually, Historiography is about trying to make sense of the past, that it used to push an agenda is merely a by-product of human nature. Nor are you correct to say that all history attempts to show the historian's own side as positive. Two examples of the latter pitch are German history of the Second World War and the British history of Colonialism. Any history has a bias, because any person has a bias, but Historiography is not about pushing a particular viewpoint above all else.History is an image a society wants to present to itself for its own benefit.
That is why the same event describe by the different protagonists will differ.
So every person involve in writing History wants his/her side seen as good, even if it wasn’t…
Originally Posted by :
History taught in Classrooms is more construction of Identity with Role Model and Heroes than real history.
I have an English Colleague who can with a strait face tell me that England was never defeated. When I do answer that is why Philadelphia is still English, he just avoid answering
True to an extent, but your English colleague clearly didn't pay attention in his history classes, as such a perverse view has never been taught in English schools. The closest you might come to that in the English educational system is the Churchillian cult of "We Won the War" in the 1950's during the post-Imperial period.History taught in Classrooms is more construction of Identity with Role Model and Heroes than real history.
I have an English Colleague who can with a strait face tell me that England was never defeated. When I do answer that is why Philadelphia is still English, he just avoid answering
Generally speaking, history is a perspective of the past constrained within the available facts.
i dislike ancient history textbooks. It bothers me that sub-saharan africa gets as much notice as western europe and east asia. Yes, they ar eusually ignored and need to be learned about but there just isnt enough important stuff about the region as compared to the ME, Asia, Europe before colonization.
Oh and we learned about native americans in US history for about 6 straight years in middle school.
Oh and we learned about native americans in US history for about 6 straight years in middle school.
Originally Posted by Centurion1:
Oh and we learned about native americans in US history for about 6 straight years in middle school.
We didn't. Pretty amazing, considering how important we are in contemporary Canada. A study of the treaties should be an absolute necessity in the school system.Oh and we learned about native americans in US history for about 6 straight years in middle school.
Native Americans are often overlooked. I learned most of what I know about them from the 1950's American Western and Last of the Mohicans. I know, it's pretty sad.
Are you guys kidding me your not that much older............ That is like all we did for most of grade school.
sorry megas but i can only learn about one thing for so long.
sorry megas but i can only learn about one thing for so long.
Native Americans as far as what I can remember from school were: interactions with colonials (Jamestown, Plymouth), slight reference to French and Indian war, trail of tears (one paragraph), Custer. My history classes seldom made it past 1865 before summer vacation. One may want to discount Custer from my class room learnings actually. This is New England though, perhaps they thought we should learn 'more important' things?
Why would we be kidding you? I know many Org members are from the USA, but that doesn't rule out the possibility one might hail from such regions as the UK, or France, and thus have a different perspective on it? I know there are many teenagers on this board but on the flip side we have many people raised before the WWW, too?
i was speaking specifically to nerd and megas. both of whom are not that much older or from outside north america.
Originally Posted by Megas Methuselah:
America's not a nation, thankyouverymuch.
I will not submit to your stubborn refusal to recongize commonly accepted references, sir.America's not a nation, thankyouverymuch.
What do you call the United Mexican States in every day conversation?
The mob and its press only call it a nation because the idiots don't know the difference between a nation and a state. I expect more from you, PJ. 
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger:
I agree. Some seem to see any mention of Christianity as playing any part in the shaping of the nation as having some sort of theocratic intentions. Maybe Mrs. Dunbar (the only board member the Guardian decided to highlight for a story about the Board's decisions) does feel that way and maybe she doesn't, but the actual changes do not seem to reflect such a goal.
Every president has been a Christian, most other politicians and policy makers have been Christian, and the vast majority of the nation's populace has always been Christian. I think those facts can exist along with the very important concept of the separation of church and state in America's history books without creating any cognitive dissonance among students. Trying to erase Christianity from textbooks is a true example of agenda-driven revisionism.
Source?I agree. Some seem to see any mention of Christianity as playing any part in the shaping of the nation as having some sort of theocratic intentions. Maybe Mrs. Dunbar (the only board member the Guardian decided to highlight for a story about the Board's decisions) does feel that way and maybe she doesn't, but the actual changes do not seem to reflect such a goal.
Every president has been a Christian, most other politicians and policy makers have been Christian, and the vast majority of the nation's populace has always been Christian. I think those facts can exist along with the very important concept of the separation of church and state in America's history books without creating any cognitive dissonance among students. Trying to erase Christianity from textbooks is a true example of agenda-driven revisionism.
The right wing gains much from this claim, you want to back it up? From what I have read you seem to be wrong, but I will accept the facts you speak of if you can produce them.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO