School Books Rewritten in Texas

[Idaho]

Texas Schools Rewrite US History

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.

Is there generally support for this kind of thing over there?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

[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.

[Megas Methuselah]

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.

[PanzerJaeger]

America's not a nation, thankyouverymuch.

I will not submit to your stubborn refusal to recongize commonly accepted references, sir.

What do you call the United Mexican States in every day conversation?

[Megas Methuselah]

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.

[Ice]

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.

[Strike For The South]

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

[Kadagar_AV]

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.


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*

[Rhyfelwyr]

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.

[A Nerd]

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.

[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.

[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…

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

[PanzerJaeger]

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?

And please define a "Christian nation", as you understand it.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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.

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.

[Ironside]

PJ, from that list:

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.

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).

[Pannonian]

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).

I revisited SMAC recently, and found it just as addictive as it was back when.