History Is Texas Reshaping American Education with Conservative Textbooks?

[DanP]

Interestingly, I feel just the opposite. I think that a course on religion would be good for high schools. I see too many people who misunderstand Islam, or don't know what agnostics are, or say false things about atheists, or set up strawman Christian beliefs, etc. A semesterlong course that discusses those and Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto, Judaism, Sikhism, and various philosophies like Confucianism would be a good idea in my view. Real-world examples (motives of Sept. 11th terrorists, destruction of Buddha statues by the Taliban, Sharia law, etc.) would also be nice, if there was time in the curriculum.

I love reading about origins of religions and history of religion. I would not object such a measure as long as all religions get equal "screen time", and the approach is scientifically sound, much like history of religion is studied in a humanity faculty, but at a lower level. But at the same time , HS students have enough to learn, and overloading them with not very useful materials would not be wise. Because I don't think that the study of religions would do anything to change the mind of extremists of any side. By the time in HS, their families already brainwashed them.

I would stay away from real life discussions of events like 9/11 from a religious perspective. It is impossible to keep a discussion without interfering it heavily with politics. It would result in hate rather than understanding.

Creationism and any religious activities which are linked to ethics and morale on the other hand should be strictly forbidden in schools. Besides being a non-scientific approach to life,they are dangerous in another way.

It may be the building the biggest voter base yet for fundamentalists. Imagine a curriculum at national level where ppl are pushed toward religious morale, it's social values, creationism, and brainwashed into fundamentalism. Free votes from zombies.

 

[Char. Limit]

turbo... Why must someone always connect every political issue to race? Why?

It's impossible to have a completely unbiased school system. If the textbooks don't influence you, the teachers will, unconsciously or no.

 

[turbo]

turbo... Why must someone always connect every political issue to race? Why?

It's impossible to have a completely unbiased school system. If the textbooks don't influence you, the teachers will, unconsciously or no.

I have spent a great deal of time in the deep south doing consulting work. When "W" kept suggesting vouchers for every child to be used in any public or private school, he know exactly what he was doing and which audience he was playing to. He kept mentioning how vouchers would help the poor inner-city kids without addressing the fact that many inner-city schools are already badly over-crowded, and wouldn't have the flexibility to accept an influx of new students, PLUS there was no provision to pay for kids from school A to be transported to school B if their parents wanted the change. The voucher suggestion was highly cynical.

Don't think race plays a role in which schools get funding and which don't? Spend some time in Camden or Thomasville AL. Neo-cons harp on vouchers because it buys them votes.

 

[DanP]

turbo... Why must someone always connect every political issue to race? Why?

Because today's society is still deeply prejudiced. We cannot pretend that we don't see it. Some will *choose* to close their eyes and sleep pacefully, others will do everything they can to maintain the status quo, while others will fight against a prejudiced society.

Race, gender & ethnicity are still some of the biggest issues our society has to face. The situation improves slowly, but we must not become oblivious to their existence.

It's impossible to have a completely unbiased school system. If the textbooks don't influence you, the teachers will, unconsciously or no.

This doesn't mean that you have to give up. There is always place for improvements.

 

[BobG]

The difference is that Texas (but not California) approves and buys books for all the school districts in the state. Publishers often edit and revise textbooks in order to meet specific demands of the members of the Texas board.

NCSE: Consequences of the flawed standards in Texas? (concerning creationism, but I think it is equally valid for this topic)

What you say is true for high school textbooks. California selects textbooks on a statewide basis for K-8, but each district selects their own high school textbooks.

This long article (or short book) describes some of the problems with having textbook content dominated by two or three state boards in large states - http://www.edexcellence.net/detail/news.cfm?news_id=335&pubsubid=1013#1013

I'm not sure they really sell the connection between state adoption, lousy textbooks, and its connection to student performance. Arguing by rankings sounds convincing, but the actual differences in average test scores are rather small. But designing textbooks by checklist does encourage a lack of depth (in fact, the art of "mentioning" to spoof automated "key phrase" checkers is one of the problems mentioned).

There's a tendency to merge the California/Texas criteria into checklists and ensuring the textbooks at least mention the things desired by those two large states (or Texas, alone, for high school textbooks). There's no way members of the reviewing board can actually read all of those textbooks in the allotted time, so the key phrases become very important.

 

[Nebula815]

A favorite refrain of the neo-cons, because they can count on getting votes from the segment of the religious right that is intent on continuing segregation. I don't want my tax money flowing to all-white "Christian academies" in the deep south while their public school systems languish and fail to educate students.

I think you have a gross misunderstanding of what neoconservatives are.

As far as neoconservatives are concerned, vouchers have little to do with race or religion and neoconservatives are not the ultra-right racists you speak of. The racists you speak of, who hate the Federal Reserve and believe it is a Jewish banking cartel that secretly controls the world, who hate the federal government, who are pro-Confederate, etc...are wholly different from the neoconservatives. Most of these types hated George W. Bush, the quintessential neoconservative, who was a very strong supporter of Israel and who tried to grant all the illegals amnesty. Not exactly a Tom Tancredo type. Also Bush was a big-government, compassionate conservative, much to the opposite of the ultra-right, who want pretty much no federal government (or they want the states more powerful than the federal government).

Vouchers are to create competition between the schools. One huge proponent of the idea was the late great free-market economist Milton Friedman, who was not a neoconservative, he was a libertarian, but not a libertarian of the pro-Confederate, hate-the-Federal Reserve, Ludwig von Mises Institute, John Birch Society types, but a libertarian in the sense of being a proponent for universal human freedom.

I am not saying that the voucher idea is flawless, or even that it won't do as you say (segregation), but that is not the idea behind it as far as neoconservatives are concerned and that is not what it resulted in when put into practice in Washington D.C. for awhile from what I understood (they just killed the voucher program there).

You are way over-generalizing to suggest all who support vouchers only want it for racism reasons.

It's like welfare. Plenty of Leftists want welfare because they believe it truly helps people. There are others, however, who know exactly what it does (creates dependency) and want it to keep minorities down so they can buy their votes ("Don't vote for that evil Republican, he'll take away your entitlement, vote for me and I'll increase it"). Many of these are very elitist ultra-leftist whites who only like black people and minorities "in their place" so-to-speak.

But it would be wrong to generalize all people who are proponents for increased welfare because of a few.

I have spent a great deal of time in the deep south doing consulting work. When "W" kept suggesting vouchers for every child to be used in any public or private school, he know exactly what he was doing and which audience he was playing to. He kept mentioning how vouchers would help the poor inner-city kids without addressing the fact that many inner-city schools are already badly over-crowded, and wouldn't have the flexibility to accept an influx of new students, PLUS there was no provision to pay for kids from school A to be transported to school B if their parents wanted the change. The voucher suggestion was highly cynical.

Or, he assumed vouchers were a way to add a free-market component to the schools. Also, slightly off-topic, but what you're saying, essentially, is you are okay with Barack Obama's having attended a church with a pastor who was a raving racist for twenty years whom he was very close to, that is fine, but when George W. Bush suggests adding a free-market component to improve schools, he is a closet racist

Here is how you (and some other Obama voters I have seen) are coming off as:

George W. Bush: "Let's create a school voucher program to help inner-city kids."

turbo-1: "Baloney, this is about racism and creating segregation, he knows exactly what he is doing."

Barack Obama: "I had no idea that the Reverand Wright happened to be a raving racist those twenty years I was in his church."

turbo-1: "Okay fine."

Don't think race plays a role in which schools get funding and which don't? Spend some time in Camden or Thomasville AL. Neo-cons harp on vouchers because it buys them votes.

The South isn't neoconservative territory. Also, that kind of racism stuff goes both ways in society. For example, remember the Black Panther Party scaring away people outside a polling station in Philadelphia? You think if it was a few white Klaners at a polling station doing that, that it would fly? There would be a national outrage. Eric Holder would never let that one slip by.

Do not make the mistake of assuming racism is only in one direction (white-to-black), it goes both ways, or of assuming it's in one party, and do not make the mistake of generalizing a whole party because of a few morons that give the rest a bad name.

 

[CRGreathouse]

You start teaching about various religions and most of the religions will be offended that they were given exactly equal treatment with every other religion.

This doesn't bother me. Clearly, most ____s think that their ____ should be given more coverage, whether we're talking about religions, states, ethnic groups, etc.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I love reading about origins of religions and history of religion. I would not object such a measure as long as all religions get equal "screen time", and the approach is scientifically sound, much like history of religion is studied in a humanity faculty, but at a lower level.

We basically see eye to eye on this one, then. Although I hope you don't mean equal time too literally -- I wouldn't want to spend as long on Zoroastrianism as on Islam or atheism. (Actually, *I* might like to personally -- along with the religion of Mithras and Dionysus and other Roman mystery religions -- but this wouldn't be well-suited to the class I had in mind.)

 

[turbo]

Nebula, your straw-man arguments, mis-direction, and putting words in my mouth make it impossible to make a reasonable response. Do you know anything about the history of the Civil Rights movement? When integration was on a roll, Southern bigots hid behind their churches. They created "Christian academies" that could only be attended by the children of church members. Church members = all-white = Christian academies = all white. When I took consulting contracts in the deep south over 2 decades later, I naively thought that such segregation would have softened. I was very wrong.

The "Southern strategy" of the GOP played on bigotry, and captured the South from the Democrats. Southerners had been strongly pro-Democratic since Reconstruction, but revolted at the Democratic support for Civil Rights. Neo-cons have since taken over the GOP and have purged most true conservatives from their ranks, and they continue to go to the "voucher" well over and over, knowing that it plays well to parents of kids in segregation academies.

The GOP neo-cons shed crocodile tears for the fate of poor inner-city children and claim that their insistence on vouchers is for the sake of such poor minority children. They lie. They know that there is insufficient capacity and flexibility in inner-city schools to allow wholesale movements of students from failing schools to better schools, and NO mandate to pay for the transfers and transportation of such students.

These are cold, hard truths, and unpopular. That doesn't make them less true. Never attribute altruism and purity of intent to ANY political party. You will lose every time.

Note: I know that this is pulling the thread off-topic, and I apologize; but it is important to understand how racism and religion can derail the education of our kids. It is incumbent upon us to understand how extremists can leverage their influence in school curricula to promote their own agendas, regardless of the harm to students.

 

[DanP]

We basically see eye to eye on this one, then. Although I hope you don't mean equal time too literally -- I wouldn't want to spend as long on Zoroastrianism as on Islam or atheism. (Actually, *I* might like to personally -- along with the religion of Mithras and Dionysus and other Roman mystery religions -- but this wouldn't be well-suited to the class I had in mind.)

Sure, I didn't meant it literally. If you want to give equal time to all faiths and religions beleifs you have enough material to take you out of grad school. Some made from this the work of their life time, for example prof. Mircea Eliade. He is Romanian, but I believe he spent his last 20 years or so in USA at University of Chicago.

 

[BobG]

The "Southern strategy" of the GOP played on bigotry, and captured the South from the Democrats. Southerners had been strongly pro-Democratic since Reconstruction, but revolted at the Democratic support for Civil Rights. Neo-cons have since taken over the GOP and have purged most true conservatives from their ranks, and they continue to go to the "voucher" well over and over, knowing that it plays well to parents of kids in segregation academies.

Technically, the neo-conservaive movement is completely unrelated to racial issues. It was originally comprised of Democrats with strong national defense concerns (i.e. - the "New Conservatives").

It did tend to consist mainly of Southern Democrats that also disagreed with the rest of the Democratic Party on racial issues, so I guess I could understand a belief that the national defense issues were really just a smoke screen to avoid being called racists.

I think it is a misuse of the term, though (either by the original neo-cons or by you - it's a toss up).

 

[Nebula815]

Nebula, your straw-man arguments, mis-direction, and putting words in my mouth make it impossible to make a reasonable response.

You claimed in a previous post that vouchers are nothing but an excuse for "neocons" to create segregation, and you are accusing me of a strawman?

Do you know anything about the history of the Civil Rights movement? When integration was on a roll, Southern bigots hid behind their churches. They created "Christian academies" that could only be attended by the children of church members. Church members = all-white = Christian academies = all white. When I took consulting contracts in the deep south over 2 decades later, I naively thought that such segregation would have softened. I was very wrong.

The "Southern strategy" of the GOP played on bigotry, and captured the South from the Democrats.

A lot of the pro-Confederate, racist Southern Democrats transferred over to the Republican party during the 1960s and 1970s when the Democrat party began becoming much more socially-liberal. Like I said, you cannot generalize a party.

Southerners had been strongly pro-Democratic since Reconstruction, but revolted at the Democratic support for Civil Rights.

Yes.

Neo-cons have since taken over the GOP and have purged most true conservatives from their ranks, and they continue to go to the "voucher" well over and over, knowing that it plays well to parents of kids in segregation academies.

What is a "true conservative?"

Once again, the neoconservatives are completely different from the racist ultra-right that one can find in the South.

Your neoconservatives are much more your professional, East Coast, country-club, big business types. These are a whole different breed of conservative from the ones you tend to find in the South.

Not all the Southern conservatives, BTW, are the racist variety. But one complaint of conservatives in the South is how the establishment neoconservatives are embarassed to be in the same party as them.

You have standard Reagan conservatives, which you can find in the South and everywhere else, who are pro-free market, strong on national defense, limited government, socially conservative, etc...

You have the ultra-right, who are a combination of libertarian and conservative. They have racists in their ranks, hate the Fed, are pro-Confederate leaning, etc...

You have neoconservatives, whose only real uniting aspect is being very strong on national security. Otherwise, there are neoconservatives who are pro-life, some who are pro-choice. Some are for limited government, some are for big government. George W. Bush was a big government neoconservative.

Neoconservatism arose partially as a reaction to Nazi Germany in World War II and then the rise of the Soviet Union.

The GOP neo-cons shed crocodile tears for the fate of poor inner-city children and claim that their insistence on vouchers is for the sake of such poor minority children. They lie.

Says who? And how is this not a strawman argument?

They know that there is insufficient capacity and flexibility in inner-city schools to allow wholesale movements of students from failing schools to better schools, and NO mandate to pay for the transfers and transportation of such students.

No they don't. It is issues such as these which is why it is good to debate something like vouchers.

These are cold, hard truths, and unpopular. That doesn't make them less true. Never attribute altruism and purity of intent to ANY political party. You will lose every time.

This is another strawman. They are cold, hard truths only for a select group of people within the parties perhaps. It is a cold, hard truth that certain Democrats only favor big government to gain control and buy votes. But many favor it because they believe wholeheartedly in it as well.

 

[turbo]

I think it is a misuse of the term, though (either by the original neo-cons or by you - it's a toss up).

Well, I was a pretty reliable member of the GOP until the neo-cons hijacked the party during the Reagan years and afterward. Now I'm a committed Independent. Make of it what you will. I think Ivan and I are probably closer in temperament than most members of this forum.

 

[Nebula815]

Well, I was a pretty reliable member of the GOP until the neo-cons hijacked the party during the Reagan years and afterward. Now I'm a committed Independent. Make of it what you will. I think Ivan and I are probably closer in temperament than most members of this forum.

Reagan went wholly against the neoconservatives in quite a few ways (most up to them were for big government) and was despised by much of the Republican establishment for his deregulation policies which destroyed the establishment Republican domination of Wall Street.

 

[Char. Limit]

turbo, I understand the point you're trying to make, but did you have to do it by indirectly naming me a racist?

I said that I support the idea of a tax credit system. You called people who support such a thing racists. What should I believe?

Also, a strategy specifically aimed at the south hasn't been tried since 1964, and not even then.

Here's a quote from Barry Goldwater on the "Southern Strategy":

"The first writer to use the term "southern strategy" was Joe Alsop, after his visit to my office back in the 1950s. At that time I was chairman of the Senate Campaign Committee and had conducted a very in-depth survey of voting trends in the U.S. for President Eisenhower. This survey showed that the only areas in the whole United States where the Republican Party had been making gains were in the Southwest. For that reason we decided to put more emphasis on that part of the nation, where rRepublicans historically had not done well.

This is the so-called "southern Strategy". It has nothing to do with busing, integration, or any other of the so-called closely held concepts of the Southerner. The South began to move into Republican ranks because of the influx of new and younger businessmen from the North who were basically Republican. And they were aided by young southern Democrats who were sick and tired of the CDemocratic stranglehold on the South and switched over to the Republican Party. Nowhere in any platform adopted by the Republican Party since can I remember there be found any thing aimed directly at the South which could be indicative of some strategy employed by the Republican Party that the Republican Party does not employ elsewhere.""

 

[turbo]

turbo, I understand the point you're trying to make, but did you have to do it by indirectly naming me a racist?

That was not my intent. If you support vouchers, but ONLY for schools that accept students of all races and faiths, I have no quarrel with that. That is NOT the GOP way, though.

 

[turbo]

I have absolutely nothing against charter schools, magnet schools, and other progressive ideas for attracting bright students and keeping them engaged and challenged. Handing out blanket vouchers or tax credits to parents that can be used at ANY school is not the way to improve our educational system. It will not improve outcomes for poor kids in underserviced districts. If W wanted to leave no child behind, he could have come up with a viable plan to improve failing schools. Most children have very little choice in which school they will be educated, so the false promise of "choice" is a sham.

 

[mheslep]

This is rather disturbing, to say the least.

U.S. history textbooks could soon be flavored heavily with Texas conservatism

continued...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1253

Why is this disturbing to you? You just stated that it is, but not why. I read the article, and have some objection to the change in Jefferson emphasis, but otherwise I don't see anything contrary to historical or scientific fact. The state of the textbooks and their bias now is what disturbs me.

 

[Evo]

Why is this disturbing to you? You just stated that it is, but not why. I read the article, and have some objection to the change in Jefferson emphasis, but otherwise I don't see anything contrary to historical or scientific fact. The state of the textbooks and their bias now is what disturbs me.

I object to basically every proposed change. Doesn't mean that I know or approve of the content of all current social study, history and econmic books, I can only state my opposition to these changes.

- A greater emphasis on “the conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s.” This means not only increased favorable mentions of Schlafly, the founder of the antifeminist Eagle Forum, but also more discussion of the Moral Majority, the Heritage Foundation, the National Rifle Association and Newt Gingrich's Contract With America.

By "a greater emphasis" I am assuming that opposing views are downplayed or not there. I would have to see what the final text is.

Thomas Jefferson no longer included among writers influencing the nation’s intellectual origins. Jefferson, a deist who helped pioneer the legal theory of the separation of church and state, is not a model founder in the board’s judgment. Among the intellectual forerunners to be highlighted in Jefferson’s place: medieval Catholic philosopher St. Thomas Aquinas, Puritan theologian John Calvin and conservative British law scholar William Blackstone. Heavy emphasis is also to be placed on the founding fathers having been guided by strict Christian beliefs.

This is outrageous.

This is how it starts, a change here, a change there, and before long the truth is obliterated.

 

[turbo]

This is how it starts, a change here, a change there, and before long the truth is obliterated.

It doesn't take much. When people vetting textbooks decide that Andrew Jackson's ethnic cleansing of American Indian tribes isn't worth mentioning, and decide that Colonel Custer was a hero, genocide against native Americans disappears in our curricula.

Forget Jefferson's contributions as a writer, thinker, inventor because his deist philosophy doesn't jibe well with "America was founded by Christians" and never mention the children he sired with his slave...well, Jefferson has been reduced to a cardboard cut-out. No dimensionality, no context, and none of the complexities that are needed to describe us real people. Just propaganda and agenda.

It is sad that history and social studies can be so perverted, though it is not surprising. All through my childhood, I heard about the bloodthirsty, savage nature of my native American ancestors, and never about the complex politics that shaped the various alliances and disputes that framed the conflicts of the French and Indian Wars in the northeast. It wasn't until I was in college that I had access to enough objective, accurate, history books, to be able to wrap my head around the history of my own ancestors and my own region.

Edit: None of that was taught in my HS, despite the preponderance (if not an outright majority) of kids who were descended from French-Canadian and Indian ancestors.

 

[Pinu7]

Evo is right, all of the things conservatives want to change, according to the article, is stupid.

However, elementary school history textbooks are crappy. Native Americans are portrayed as an innocent victim of the evil white man's colonization of the Americas. Nixon was evil because of watergate. And, yes, Jefferson is overrepresented in textbooks, not in the sense that he was not an intellectual, but that he was a hypocrite.

 

[Nebula815]

This is how it starts, a change here, a change there, and before long the truth is obliterated.

Give it some time, and the pendulum will swing back. The last time, it was the Left that were winning this. Now it is the Right.

In high school I was taught with the idea of the "noble savage," i.e. Native Americans good and kind-hearted versus evil imperialist white men (obviously a change from what turbo-1 was taught!), the New Deal fixed the Great Depression, Richard Nixon was evil, Jimmy Carter was awesome, etc...

 

[DanP]

Give it some time, and the pendulum will swing back. The last time, it was the Left that were winning this. Now it is the Right.

In high school I was taught with the idea of the "noble savage," i.e. Native Americans good and kind-hearted versus evil imperialist white men (obviously a change from what turbo-1 was taught!), the New Deal fixed the Great Depression, Richard Nixon was evil, Jimmy Carter was awesome, etc...

This happens when you are taught history in terms of "good and evil". History should the ultimate neutral witness. No interpretation of morals, ethics, of good and evil. Just cold facts.

 

[calculusrocks]

A favorite refrain of the neo-cons, because they can count on getting votes from the segment of the religious right that is intent on continuing segregation. I don't want my tax money flowing to all-white "Christian academies" in the deep south while their public school systems languish and fail to educate students.

I'd just like to point out before being bated into a race debate that everything in this post relies on deep prejudices.

 

[mheslep]

I object to basically every proposed change.

To include mentioning that Great Society programs of the 60s have had "“unintended consequences”? The McCarthy changes are probably overdue to correct a wrong, I suspect conveyed by current textbooks. Though McCarthy contributed, most of the evils of that period were carried out in the House via the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Un-American_Activities_Committee" , not in the Senate by McCarthy, a widespread mistaken belief.

Doesn't mean that I know or approve of the content of all current social study, history and econmic books, I can only state my opposition to these changes.

By "a greater emphasis" I am assuming that opposing views are downplayed or not there. I would have to see what the final text is.

I would object to removal of opposing views as well, but the article doesn't state such except for the case of Jefferson, I believe.

This is outrageous.

I agree, if the paragraph on Jefferson is verbatim accurate it is a crackpot change. I'm calling BS on the news article there.

This is how it starts, a change here, a change there, and before long the truth is obliterated.

If 'it' is textbook distortion, my take is the textbooks are already distorted and 'it' started a long time ago. This correction in Texas may be imperfect, but it overall it improves accuracy over the reviews of what I've seen.

 

[DanP]

To include mentioning that Great Society programs of the 60s have had "“unintended consequences”?

What are the unintended consequences to be listed ?

The McCarthy changes are probably overdue to correct a wrong, I suspect conveyed by current textbooks. Though McCarthy contributed, most of the evils of that period were carried out in the House via the ...

Ok, if he contributed, why do you need to him to make him look better ?

The guy was vocal as a hellhound in accusing politicians, government members and other persons he didn't liked of being communists or lacking patriotism. He made all the claims without having the slightest proof or even circumstantial evidences. He was also an alcoholic.

 

[BobG]

How could this even get in there:

Thomas Jefferson no longer included among writers influencing the nation’s intellectual origins. Jefferson, a deist who helped pioneer the legal theory of the separation of church and state, is not a model founder in the board’s judgment. Among the intellectual forerunners to be highlighted in Jefferson’s place: medieval Catholic philosopher St. Thomas Aquinas, Puritan theologian John Calvin and conservative British law scholar William Blackstone. Heavy emphasis is also to be placed on the founding fathers having been guided by strict Christian beliefs.

What exactly does this mean?

It doesn't say Jefferson is being deleted from American History books. In fact, it sounds like you'll no longer have excerpts from Jefferson's writings in sidebars or on pages at the end of each chapter, nor quotes from him on the title page, etc. Instead, they want to include excerpts and quotes from conservative or religious philosophers.

St Thomas Acquinas might be kind of interesting, but the interesting parts probably aren't the stuff they intend to put into the history books. John Calvin belongs in a history book, but I wouldn't be excited enough about him to be quoting him.

I think Jefferson excerpts and quotes are overdone and we could do with some writings from other founding fathers, but a lot of that is because Jefferson just put out so much more written material than the others. I wouldn't dilute the Jefferson material with choices they chose, however. They could have picked Madison, Hamilton, and Adams.

Except Adams might violate the "strict Christian beliefs" criteria, since the Unitarian religion isn't very Christian anymore. At least he wasn't one to sugar coat things in a rosy hue:

I have accepted a seat in the [Massachusetts] House of Representatives, and thereby have consented to my own ruin, to your ruin, and the ruin of our children. I give you this warning, that you may prepare your mind for your fate.

John Adams, to Abigail Adams, May 1770

 

[DanP]

I'd just like to point out before being bated into a race debate that everything in this post relies on deep prejudices.

What are the prejudices you accuse Turbo of committing ? Can you enumerate them ?

 

[mheslep]

What are the unintended consequences to be listed ?

They don't specify, but surely many are visible. I hesitate to mention, because I fear this might degenerate into "Texas is denying any credit of the Great Society..." which they article does not say; it says they're 'including' unintended consequences. Anyway, here's a couple: 1. Out of wedlock births and deadbeat dads due to the Welfare program (well documented - the rate collapsed after welfare reform in the 90s). 2. Exploding cost of entitlement programs (SS, Medicare, Medicaid).

Ok, if he contributed, why do you need to him to make him look better ?

The guy was vocal as a hellhound in accusing politicians, government members and other persons he didn't liked of being communists or lacking patriotism. He made all the claims without having the slightest proof or even circumstantial evidences. He was also an alcoholic.

I didn't say I want him to 'look better'. It is not the job of history texts to make someone 'look' anything. I want an accurate portrayal of the times. By far most of the career and lifestyle destruction came at the hands of HUAC. Because of this fact, if a textbook allocated limited space of, say, four pages to the red scare in the Eisenhower era, then I might have, say, two pages on HUAC, one on McCarthy, and not the other way around, and maybe even one on the numerous communists like Alger Hiss and the Rosenbergs.

As it is now, most people have heard of McCarthy-ism. I expect it is equally fair to say that a majority have never heard of HUAC, and that warrants correction. It reflects a historical shortcoming of the education process.

 

[DanP]

I didn't say I want him to 'look better'. It is not the job of history texts to make someone 'look' anything. I want an accurate portrayal of the times. By far most of the career and lifestyle destruction came at the hands of HUAC. Because of this fact, if a textbook allocated limited space of, say, four pages to the red scare in the Eisenhower era, then I might have, say, two pages on HUAC, one on McCarthy, and not the other way around, and maybe even one on the numerous communists like Alger Hiss and the Rosenbergs.

As it is now, most people have heard of McCarthy-ism. I expect it is equally fair to say that a majority have never heard of HUAC, and that warrants correction. It reflects a historical shortcoming of the education process.

This is fair. I do agree that history's job is to record cold events.

 

[mheslep]

What exactly does this mean?

It doesn't say Jefferson is being deleted from American History books. ...

The first sentence "Thomas Jefferson no longer included among writers influencing the nation’s intellectual origins.", if accurate, does them in. If they want to say, perhaps, that Jefferson was derivative of some more fundamental thinkers from the enlightenment period prior to him, fine, probably to the good. As I recall my grade school history it read a little bit like Jefferson et al invented everything from scratch, so that it came as a slight surprise to later see how many of them referred to Locke, Hobbes, the Pericles period in ancient Greece and the Romans. That said, it is nuts to claim Jefferson no longer gets credit for intellectual influence, given the visibility of the Declaration and much else. It is so far out from the rest of the changes that I suspect the article has it wrong.

 

[mheslep]

I think Jefferson excerpts and quotes are overdone and we could do with some writings from other founding fathers, but a lot of that is because Jefferson just put out so much more written material than the others.

I suspect that is closer to the truth of what's going on with the Tx school board.

I wouldn't dilute the Jefferson material with choices they chose, however. They could have picked Madison, Hamilton, and Adams.

Personally I can't ever get enough of Jefferson, and I despise the preening Hamilton, genius though he was, but generally I agree with you that Jefferson could share more of a textbook page with them. That said, there's a good argument that current textbooks have a bit too much of an American bent to the intellectual ancestry, to the exclusion earlier philosophers and societies. If that's where Texas is going, I'd say it is an improvement in accuracy.

 

[Al68]

That was not my intent. If you support vouchers, but ONLY for schools that accept students of all races and faiths, I have no quarrel with that. That is NOT the GOP way, though.

Any evidence of such a hateful claim? Especially considering that you just claimed to have no problem with any GOP voucher plan, apparently without realizing it.

Can you even reference a single school that doesn't accept students of all races or faiths?

 

[turbo]

As it is now, most people have heard of McCarthy-ism. I expect it is equally fair to say that a majority have never heard of HUAC, and that warrants correction. It reflects a historical shortcoming of the education process.

Being from Maine, I probably was exposed more to information about HUAC and McCarthy than most US students, in large part because of Margaret Chase Smith (R, ME). It wasn't in the textbooks, but our teachers seemed to be anxious to drive home civics lessons about our Congress, and about how one person can stand up and make a difference. They had to come up with their own ways to bring the materials into the classroom.

Even by the time I got to study history in HS, Smith's rebuke of McCarthy wasn't mentioned in our texts. Luckily, our history teacher generously bought subscriptions to Time for every student in her class, and she made it a point to tie current affairs to history.

 

[DanP]

The first sentence: "Thomas Jefferson no longer included among writers influencing the nation’s intellectual origins."

This is somehow ironic. You would say that influential writers for intellectual origins of a nation would be members of the nation itself.

It's kinda ironic to go back in time to 13th century and claim a catholic philosopher is a influential factor for the birth of American nation. Ditto for Calvin. (Note, both deeply religious figures)

Yes, there was once a great Republic in the Mediterranean but 17 centuries later somebody in America **had** to support the Republican ideals, fight to gain political support for it, and have the vision of the Republic fighting against the British Empire ideals. He (and others) fought for it , and in their wake the great American nation was formed.

My personal opinion is that they want Jefferson minimized because he introduced something which is one of the pillars of a democracy, the separation of church from state. They want the church meddling with the sate, they move inch with inch towards a religious corruption of the public school systems.

 

[calculusrocks]

A favorite refrain of the neo-cons, because they can count on getting votes from the segment of the religious right that is intent on continuing segregation. I don't want my tax money flowing to all-white "Christian academies" in the deep south while their public school systems languish and fail to educate students.

I'd just like to point out before being bated into a race debate that everything in this post relies on deep prejudices.

What are the prejudices you accuse Turbo of committing ? Can you enumerate them ?

K.

1) What in blazes is a neocon in this context?
2) Um, "the religious right that is intent on continuing segregation"
3) Reliance on white southerners, deep south

He accuses white people of being racist/segregationist because they live in the south and happen to be white, and may go to church on Sundays. The arrogance and condescension is palpable, and makes assumptions that are skin deep.

 

[techmologist]

My personal opinion is that they want Jefferson minimized because he introduced something which is one of the pillars of a democracy, the separation of church from state. They want the church meddling with the sate, they move inch with inch towards a religious corruption of the public school systems.

You are forgetting that America is officially "One Nation Under God". Has been since 1954. All over my town, you see little placards in people's front yards reminding you of this important national fact. So, Jefferson and the secularists can suck it.

 

[DanP]

You are forgetting that America is officially "One Nation Under God". Has been since 1954. All over my town, you see little placards in people's front yards reminding you of this important national fact.

May very well be, but it doesn't exclude that fact that the most probable explanation from minimizing Jefferson is separation of church from state. If the church gets access to power structures in government, the democracy will be in great danger.

What city are you living in ?

 

[Al68]

Because today's society is still deeply prejudiced. We cannot pretend that we don't see it. Some will *choose* to close their eyes and sleep pacefully, others will do everything they can to maintain the status quo, while others will fight against a prejudiced society.

Race, gender & ethnicity are still some of the biggest issues our society has to face. The situation improves slowly, but we must not become oblivious to their existence.

Absurd and hateful statements, like those of turbo, hurt the cause instead of help it. Claims like those are the biggest reason that many cases of discrimination get lost in the noise.

Ever read "The Boy Who Cried Wolf"?

What if millions of men in the U.S. were accused of rape every day? Would that help or hurt the cause of reducing the incidence of rape?

 

[turbo]

Any evidence of such a hateful claim? Especially considering that you just claimed to have no problem with any GOP voucher plan, apparently without realizing it.

Can you even reference a single school that doesn't accept students of all races or faiths?

Google on Segregation Academies. When I worked in Alabama in the 90's the Seg Academies had become affiliated with churches, which have freedom of association rights. Keep the church all-white (legal) and restrict academy acceptance to church members only (also legal) and you have a legal, segregated school. I'm not making this up, as I'm pretty sure you know. We've gone 'way OT on this (sorry, Evo).

We're never going to get the religious right to quit using our educational system to leverage their political and religious biases. The Texas history-book example is just one example, and the only reason that it hit the news is that it will impact a LOT of students.

 

[BobG]

You are forgetting that America is officially "One Nation Under God". Has been since 1954. All over my town, you see little placards in people's front yards reminding you of this important national fact. So, Jefferson and the secularists can suck it.

I think you might be overestimating the impact of the legislation that changed the pledge. Using the same logic, I assume that America became the official continent of the United States in 1924? And the United States finally became the official country of our flag in 1923? You're talking about the wording designed to be recited by school children.

Here's the official Bellamy Salute to be used during recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/Pledge_salue.jpg

It was changed to placing the hand over the heart during World War II to make it clearly different from Germany's salute.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance

 

[BobG]

Interestingly, the Pledge of Allegiance is one of the instances where the US Supreme Court violated the idea of stare decisis, reversing it's ruling only 3 years later.

In 1940 the Supreme Court, in Minersville School District v. Gobitis, ruled that students in public schools could be compelled to swear the Pledge, even Jehovah's Witnesses like the defendants in that case who considered the flag salute to be idolatry. A rash of mob violence and intimidation against Jehovah's Witnesses followed the ruling. In 1943 the Supreme Court reversed its decision, ruling in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette that "compulsory unification of opinion" violated the First Amendment.

They reversed this in the middle of a war, no less.

 

[DanP]

Absurd and hateful statements, like those of turbo, hurt the cause instead of help it. Claims like those are the biggest reason that many cases of discrimination get lost in the noise.

So the cause for discrimination is the fact some humans say discrimination do exist, and that many humans choose to turn a blind eye ? It doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Then you go on claiming that my statements on the fact that prejudice exists are absurd & hateful, and in the same paragraph you claim that discrimination gets ignored ?

Make up your mind.

 

[Al68]

Any evidence of such a hateful claim? Especially considering that you just claimed to have no problem with any GOP voucher plan, apparently without realizing it.

Can you even reference a single school that doesn't accept students of all races or faiths?

Google on Segregation Academies. When I worked in Alabama in the 90's the Seg Academies had become affiliated with churches, which have freedom of association rights. Keep the church all-white (legal) and restrict academy acceptance to church members only (also legal) and you have a legal, segregated school. I'm not making this up, as I'm pretty sure you know. We've gone 'way OT on this (sorry, Evo).

We're never going to get the religious right to quit using our educational system to leverage their political and religious biases. The Texas history-book example is just one example, and the only reason that it hit the news is that it will impact a LOT of students.

I'll take this as a no.

I notice you seem to also be repeating the absurd claim about churches in the south not allowing non-whites.

Forum rules can be found here: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=113181 .

 

[Al68]

Absurd and hateful statements, like those of turbo, hurt the cause instead of help it. Claims like those are the biggest reason that many cases of discrimination get lost in the noise.

So the cause for discrimination is the fact some humans say discrimination do exist, and that many humans choose to turn a blind eye ?

No, that's not even remotely close to what I said.

Then you go on claiming that my statements on the fact that prejudice exists are absurd & hateful

You must have misread my post. I never called your statements absurd or hateful. I apologize if that wasn't clear.

 

[turbo]

http://www.britannica.com/bps/additionalcontent/18/24418662/THE-RISE-AND-FALL-OF-SCHOOL-VOUCHERS-A-STORY-OF-RELIGION-RACE-AND-POLITICS

Scroll down to 561. It's a UCLA Law Review Article on school vouchers. Apparently the author of this article is a hateful person, just like me, because he dares to acknowledge that racism and segregation still exist.

Take special note of the Ralph Reed quotes. If you don't trust my veracity, perhaps you'll trust his.

 

[DanP]

No, that's not even remotely close to what I said.You must have misread my post. I never called your statements absurd or hateful.

Ok, I agree I misread if your intention was not to call my statements absurd.

I have deep reasons to consider the society prejudiced.

In group favoritism, social identity theory, the correlations between self-esteem increase and prejudice, modern racism studies, legal studies regarding impartiality of trials, all speak towards existence of prejudice in today's society. And it's here to stay. Unfortunately, the progress is slow.

The best way to get over prejudice seems to be a increased social contact among the members of different groups.

 

[calculusrocks]

Reading turbo's link to the UCLA study.

While voucher defenders have vastly overstated the racial-justice claim, there is some prospect that vouchers might improve educational outcomes for low-income African American children. I argue that vouchers should be permitted at least until they can be more thoroughly evaluated to determine their impact on a group so in need of better educational opportunities.

Thoughts?

ADD: This quote is taken right before the introduction.

 

[Al68]

http://www.britannica.com/bps/additionalcontent/18/24418662/THE-RISE-AND-FALL-OF-SCHOOL-VOUCHERS-A-STORY-OF-RELIGION-RACE-AND-POLITICS

Scroll down to 561. It's a UCLA Law Review Article on school vouchers. Apparently the author of this article is a hateful person, just like me, because he dares to acknowledge that racism and segregation still exist.

Take special note of the Ralph Reed quotes. If you don't trust my veracity, perhaps you'll trust his.

Well, I didn't realize you were using the word "neocon" to refer to Democrats from decades ago. My bad.

Seriously, you know full well I never referred to acknowledging the existence of racism as hateful.

And you know full well that evidence that racists existed, or exist now, is a far cry from the outrageous, much more general sweeping claims you were making.

Are you backpedaling now to only claim that you agree with me that racism exists?

 

[Dembadon]

California is too busy trying not to fall into the ocean to care about textbooks.

I believe Texas has more clout than California when it comes to decision making.

In Texas there are most likely more people who are reading the textbook than compared to California.

Many of the finest universities/institutions in the nation (Stanford, Cal Tech, Berkeley, UCLA etc.) are located in California. I'd say they're reading quite a bit!