So, Now the Right wants to ReRight High School History Textbooks

1. 81

   Credence2posted 9 years ago

   The Right, in its fixation on parochial thought and indoctrination has provided just another reason for outrage. Is it no wonder they are the natural enemy of independent thought and inquiry. Of course, all of our places of higher learning are dens of liberal inquity, where people are actually encouraged to think for themselves, instead of marching to the cadence of their drum beat.
   
   Geez, I have to exercise such great restraint just to be in the same room with a "Rightwinger".
   
   Seeing an ominous trend of disfunding public education and privatising, it is easy to see where these changes are leading.
   
   Check all over the web, besides the Salon article, this trend is documented in a number of credible journal sources, but not Fox News, of course.
   
   Your thoughts
   
   
   
   http://www.salon.com/2015/08/05/5_chill … y_partner/

   replyreport
   1. 89

      wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Nothing new about this - heavy indoctrination of the young and impressionable has been a solid foundation for maintaining church rolls for far longer than the country has even been here.
      
      To be fair, there is a difference in opinion on what children should be taught (evolution/ID for example) but the line was badly crossed years ago when the textbooks were re-written to include the concept of a Christian nation.  This kind of crap is indeed well documented and is outrageous.

      replyreport
      1. 81

         Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

         Thank you, most kind Sir....

         replyreport
   2. 70

      rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Nothing new here. In Texas where there are five million textbooks ordered and the basis for many other states that order the same books it is basically a political guarantee of the content.
      
      "a board member who helped write the standards, said the textbooks are supposed to reflect the standards, and the standards are set by the politicians who win election to the board."
      
      Is it any wonder why we repeat the mistakes of the past when our children have no knowledge of them?
      
      http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/t … 10809.html

      replyreport
      1. 81

         Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

         So now that they will elections, they are free to rewrite history.
         
         "Slavery' was not a significant cause of the Civil War?
         "It was a war fought primarily over states rights"
         
         This is one of their revisions and what historians are buying it? I hear that the advisory board is short of knowledge specific scholars and over represented by ideologically driven rightwing pinheads, that could not spell the word 'history' let alone discuss it.
         
         You say that the ideological angle is insignificant, hardly. It is pretty clear from what direction this is being pushed.  Why this push and what do you think is its purpose and what do the promoters hope to accomplish with it? Who is building the machinery from the ground up to make sure that a dumb and uninformed electorate remain that way? That is what I mean by those that are deliberately taking us backwards away from desirable objectives.

         replyreport
   3. 59

      Superkevposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      So would that be why so many times on college campuses that the anti-abortion displays are vandalized, commencement speakers who don't "think right" are forced to be 'dis-invited' and anything else that does not absolutely toe the progressive orthodoxy, right-think line is harassed, protested and shouted down?
      
      You have a strange definition of people being encouraged to think for themselves when these same people will not allow ANY speech that challenges their ideas to even be heard if they can prevent it.
      
      “Orthodoxy means not thinking–not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.”

      replyreport
      1. 81

         Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

         I am not condoning boorish behavior from any audience or crowd, regardless of who is speaking or is a guest.
         
         Take a look at Quills post and get educated on what is happening. Why do your sort want to play 'Mr Peabody and Sherman" with American History
         texts?
         
         
         Only non thinking people can be indoctrinated, and that is the objective behind  every rightwing initiative.

         replyreport
   4. 70

      Quilligrapherposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Hi, Credence.
      
      There is evidence of archaic thinking littering much of today’s political landscape. Some of it openly opposes the teaching of “higher order thinking skills.” Probably the most blatant example of this comes from the 2012 STATE REPUBLICAN PARTY PLATFORM published in Texas, which speaks out against challenging a student’s “fixed beliefs.”
      
      Under the heading Knowledge-Based Education on page 12 of the party’s published platform, the state committee declared,  “We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.”" {1}
      
      Republicans in Texas are the political base of two current presidential candidates, former Governor Rick Perry and U.S. Senator and Tea Party spokesperson Ted Cruz. As a body, they rejected critical thinking, an intellectual process that...
      ...encourages seeing both sides of an issue;
      ...favors being open to new evidence that challenges your ideas;
      ...calls for dispassionate reasoning;
      ...demands that claims be backed by evidence;
      ...requires deducing and inferring conclusions from available facts;
      ...and more. {2}
      
      Although no one party has all the necessary answers, at least some intellectuals are looking to engage the future with new knowledge and ideas rather than remaining stuck with the failed and uncertain concepts of the past.
      
      {1} http://s3.amazonaws.com/texasgop_pre/as … _Final.pdf p.12
      {2} http://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/ … inking.pdf

      replyreport
      1. 81

         Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

         What a revelation, Quill. thanks for dropping by!
         
         Without critical thinking skills, a 'belief' becomes nothing more than what you were told to believe. Professing a belief must have some basis of verification as justification for intelligent people. What kind of ideological foundation would support  saying that people who are taught to employ critical thinking skills are dangerous? Is this "1984", "Fahrenheit 451"? When it looks like, it smells like it, you call it what it is 'FASCISM'.
         
         Neither side has all the answers but to disarm people from having the tools of proper inquiry to determine the answers for themselves is below the belt.
         
         Is there some sort of sinister purpose behind the desire to dumb our young people down?

         replyreport
      2. 70

         rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         Good post!
         
         "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
         Aristotle (384 BC - 322 BC)
         
         Playing the devils advocate is the best way of understanding both sides of an issue. The argument only exists when one side becomes fixated on the outcome.

         replyreport
         1. 70

            Quilligrapherposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            Thank you. I agree with you.
            

            replyreport
      3. 82

         GA Andersonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         Greetings Quill, As usual, another thoughtful contribution.
         
         I am a bit puzzled by your connection of that particular portion of the 2012 Texas GOP platform with the two mentioned Republican candidates.
         
         The referenced section;  Knowledge-Based Education was changed in the 2014 Platform. It now reads:
         "Knowledge Based Education -
         We oppose the teaching of values clarification and similar programs that focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority. Rather, we encourage the teaching of critical thinking skills, including logic, rhetoric and analytical sciences, [my underline emphasis] "
         Source: 2014 Texas GOP Platform - pg. 20
         
         Further, a GOP spokesman claims it was a mistake that the critical thinking opposition statement was included;
         
         (TPM.com - June 29, 2012, and the Washington Post - July 9, 2012, ran stories about the plank and the GOP spokesman's claim it was a mistake) The links are easy to find if interested.
         
         So Cruz was probably aware, (during his 2012 campaign), that the plank was an error, (or not). How can you be so sure he was a supporter of that since-changed plank? I admit I did not 'diligently' search hard, but I did not find any Cruz position or issues statements  that support your contention that he opposes critical thinking, etc.
         
         Of course technically you are correct, that plank was in the GOP 2012 platform until officially changed by convention in 2014. And they are Republicans. So   "As a body..." they did, (as part of the body), support that plank, but I think it is a stretch to conclude that they were not aware of the controversy during their campaigns, and also aware that their party had identified that section as a mistake. Perhaps a campaign speech or something will be found with them proclaiming their support of the original official plank wording.
         
         Until then, I think your knot tying them to that wording is a bit loose.
         
         ps. I suppose my real puzzlement was not about the connection, but about your disregard for the readily available information that the plank was declared an error and changed.
         It is not like you to present only half the story, and it is also not like you to use such controversial 'facts' to paint a picture; "Although no one party has all the necessary answers, at least some intellectuals are looking to engage the future with new knowledge and ideas rather than remaining stuck with the failed and uncertain concepts of the past. " that might not be what it seems. Tsk. Tsk.
         
         pss. On the other hand, it is good to see you expressing an opinion. I look forward to more such postings from you.
         
         GA

         replyreport
         1. 70

            Quilligrapherposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            Hello, Gus.
            
            I do not believe you or anyone else cares about my opinions. I would be a fool to think otherwise.
            
            Back peddling is back peddling! Feel free to swallow the Texas GOP line, my friend, just don’t let the hook and sinker get caught in your cheek.
            
            I am well aware that the committee tried to distance the party from their own statement by calling it a “mistake.” I don’t buy it, but I am sure for the sake of a good argument you do.
            
            The document reads, “We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs." I do not see any typographical errors, missing punctuation, or poor syntax. This means the statement passed proofreading, was accepted and approved by the sub-committee before going to the convention for a vote. 
            
            You accept the excuses of a GOP spokesman because you choose to do so. I am happy that works for you. But, someone wanted these words in this section of the platform and there they are. You are free to believe the words simply typed themselves into the document without any Texas Republican ever having meant them to be there. Meanwhile, I believe real unintentional “mistakes” are corrected with an eraser, white-out, or an addendum.
            
            However, in this case, an unforeseen political blunder that became embarrassing and very public was characterized as a “mistake” and was left to stand without being redacted for two years as part of the Party’s official record. Oops, America. We really did not mean to say what we so carefully, explicitly, and specifically said.    
            
            I will decline to comment about any opinions held by Senator Cruz regarding this plank. It is a straw man of your making. I did connected former Governor Rick Perry and U.S. Senator and Tea Party spokesperson Ted Cruz to the same political base that wrote the plank opposing critical thinking. And, this connection is the truth. I am puzzled by your trying to fabricate an argument against something I did not say.
            
            Finally, Gus, I try to choose my words very carefully. When I said, "Although no one party has all the necessary answers, at least some intellectuals are looking to engage the future with new knowledge and ideas rather than remaining stuck with the failed and uncertain concepts of the past," that is exactly what I intended to say.
            
            Peace, bro.
            

            replyreport
            1. 82

               GA Andersonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               "Peace Bro" I like that. Another touch of 'Quill' variety.
               
               I certainly won't call you a fool, (or leave room for it to be implied), but I do care about your opinion, and those of others, because I enjoy my forum participation, and well-formed opinions are what make these forums different from typical 'Reddit-type' discussion groups.
               
               As for swallowing the Texas GOP 'mistake' line - maybe I did, or maybe I didn't.
               
               It appears to me that to any semi-rational person the 2012 Knowledge Based Education plank - as written, is so dumb, and lethal to the party that I cannot imagine it being a sanctioned party statement. And the "HOTS" statement you noted was also removed in the 2014 platform. That original inclusion is another puzzler. The program is intended for disadvantaged, (I read this as meaning less educationally and emotionally prepared for grade level curriculum), in the 4 to 7 grade level. Why any Repub would think this worthy of being a platform plank is again beyond me.
               .
               I do agree with you that someone did want that line included.
               " I do not see any typographical errors, missing punctuation, or poor syntax. This means the statement passed proofreading, was accepted and approved by the sub-committee before going to the convention for a vote."
               ... but who and why is beyond me.
               
               The reason I did maybe swallow the error explanation is that regardless of whether I agree or disagree with the party's positions, (and I do disagree with many), I do not believe the party's movers and shakers are politically dumb enough to support those planks.
               
               So...  a little walk down the platform formation trail revealed that the platform committee is about 31 members, (one for each voting district). which then sends its formulations to a higher review committee - approx. 6 members, which is responsible for approval and dissemination for convention ratification and disbursal to candidates. 2012's platform was about 62 pages.
               
               Yep, I think there was a skunk in the woodpile, on a sub-statewide level. I think those planks were representative of someone with an agenda - not Texas Repubs as a party. Kinda like identifying the Democrat party by Barry Sanders' positions.
               
               I guess I will have to wait to check for lead residue to see if I swallowed anything at all.
               
               ps. As for the "let stand for two years" part, I am certain you are aware that party platforms can only be changed by state convention actions - which are held every two years.
               
               GA

               replyreport
               1. 81

                  Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  "It appears to me that to any semi-rational person the 2012 Knowledge Based Education plank - as written, is so dumb, and lethal to the party that I cannot imagine it being a sanctioned party statement"
                  
                  Well, I can and They have! It is quite consistent with attitudes of anti-intellectualism and disdain for higher education taken by the party regulars.
                  
                  "I do not believe the party's movers and shakers are politically dumb enough to support those planks."
                  
                  Oh, yes they are. If this was a mistake, it was a humdinger. It was more like they got caught with their breeches down and had to retrench in the pinch, THIS is your Republican party.
                  
                  I will address your comment to me in short order...
                  
                  Regards, Cred2

                  replyreport
                  1. 82

                     GA Andersonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     Well, here we are again. Progressive vs. Conservative Moderate, (as in "A Purple")
                     
                     You could be right. Then again I may be right. But considering the review steps, and as Quill pointed out - the simple task of proof reading and editing, I think my chances of being right are slim.
                     
                     However, I still cling to the thought that as far right as the Repubs have gone, they haven't quite stepped over the cliff bearing that 2012 anti-thinking plank. At least not the majority of the party's constituents. 
                     
                     I bet the party bigwigs had a conniption when the actual wording was publicized; "Who the hell put that in there! It's a mistake! A mistake! We don't say that in public!" 
                     
                     When you see Credence2 again, tell him I said Hi! He knows the Repubs aren't MY party.
                     
                     ps. I too will respond again. After I finish the quest Quill prompted; To find out the party, and candidate's position on that 2012 plank, in the 2012 campaigns. Did you know that every Republican candidate has to submit a questionnaire response concerning all the planks in the party's platform? I am trying to track down a source for information on candidate's responses. That might add a little clarity to the "Was it really a mistake?" question.
                     
                     GA

                     replyreport
   5. 82

      GA Andersonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      OK, shooting from the hip, here are a couple...
      
      Yep, I agree, Salon has a definite left-wing bias, and perhaps you should follow a few of the sub-links included in your articles to get a better understanding of what is behind Salon's 'Banner' statements.
      
      For instance;
      The first of their "5 despicable ways the right is trying to undermine the way we teach U.S. history" was the challenge to the AP History course teaching guidelines. The Right-wing critics you denounce claimed the new teaching guidelines left out too much of our good stuff to make more time for the bad stuff.
      
      As I followed the linked stories, it appears to be a valid point. As noted here;
      "Supporters say critics are misinterpreting the purpose of the course’s guidelines. They are only a broad overview. The topics excluded from the guideline are areas that teachers know must be taught, they say.
      
      “How would you not talk about Martin Luther King?” said Sue Baumann, who teaches U.S. history, including Advanced Placement, at Richland Northeast High School.
      
      In an open letter to critics, the authors of the guidelines wrote, “Any United States history course would, of course, include King as well as other major figures, such as Benjamin Franklin and Dwight Eisenhower."
      
      Well gee whiz, we all know that recommended guidelines are only guidelines right? Teachers wouldn't really only teach by the guidelines... right?
      
      My finishing impression was that in the end the new teaching guide retained the bad stuff critics opposed, but now includes an American Exceptionalism segment.
      
      Is it the teaching that America is/was exceptional what you think the Right-wingers are nuts about?
      
      Then their 2nd point; "Trying To Ban AP U.S. History Altogether:"was just a follow-up on the critics efforts against the new AP History course guidelines of their first point. They weren't trying to ban the teaching of history, or to revise it. They were objecting strenuously to the new guidelines of point #1.
      
      Moving to the third point; "Controlling the History Textbook Market: I followed the first link in that segment to an article that led off with this paragraph: "Liars for Jesus: Christian conservatives in Texas force false historical narratives into public school textbooks, claim the Founding Fathers based the Constitution on the Bible, and the American system of democracy was inspired by Moses."
      
      Geez Louise! Doesn't that just fill you with a feeling of trust for what you are about to read?
      
      Here is their first example of dastardly CHRISTIAN propaganda forced into the text books;
      "[The] biblical idea of a covenant, an ancient Jewish term meaning a special kind of agreement between the people and God, influenced the formation of colonial governments and contributed to our constitutional structure.”
      
      Now I read that as an example of the seriousness with which the colonists took their liberty, constitution, and government. But I suppose I missed the boat in understanding that it was a covert attempt to push Christianity on me.
      
      Point 4 - "Koch-Approved Education:" Oh Gawd... an Alternet article as a credible source? You should be kidding. I said should because I know you are not. The Right-wingers have Sorros and MediaMatters as a Boogieman, and you guys have the Koch brothers. Really Credence2? Are you getting referrals for all this Salon stuff you are promoting? Do you ever look further than the banner statements for the facts behind them?
      
      And then... along came the clincher - point #5 "Eliminating Courses That Teach Critical Thinking"
      
      I won't go long on this one. It appears the court-upheld Ban was in regards to ethnic courses, such as the example given; Mexican American studies, that were deemed as divisive. Here is their reasoning;
      "Still, Arizona Atty. Gen. Tom Horne this week called the ruling on HB 2281 a “victory for ensuring that public education is not held captive to radical, political elements and that students treat each other as individuals — not on the basis of the race they were born into.”
      
      Makes sense to me, but apparently you must think the push to teach different cultural and ethnic versions of our history to different groups is Ok. No more 'Melting Pot,' now it's every culture/ethnic group for itself. Right?
      
      If you follow your own referenced supporting link; "Outright Ban" you might see that Salon's 'Banner' statements are often more than incomplete, it appears they are sometimes purposely misleading.
      
      But, remember now, I was shooting from the hip, just perusing your own link's links. Maybe your enthusiasm for Salon might change if you looked behind the curtain. (because I know you are a thinking man and not the Left-wing talking points man that has been posting under your byline recently.
      
      GA

      replyreport
      1. 81

         Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

         GA, in reply to this comment I offer the following.
         
         I saw no problem with your first point. Reading that Newsweek article, the changes to the AP History was harmless and appropriate.
         ---------------------------
         As to the second point:
         "The attempt by right-wing legislators in Oklahoma to ban the teaching of Advanced Placement (AP) U.S. History courses looked like it might have been successful. That was before educators, parents and students stood up and spoke out against the proposal."
         
         I find it troubling that partisan legislators interfere with curriculum that should be under the purview of educators.
         ---------------------------------------------------------
         Yes, in your third point, referencing a clear advocate defining itself as a publication for the secular humanist is not without bias. This might be a bit better, an editorial article from Newsweek.   
         
         http://www.newsweek.com/2014/10/03/text … 72351.html
         
         So, what was that all about? That is where my 'beef" is...
         ----------------------------------
         4th point, The issue surrounding Common Standards for Education, with the left in favor and the Right wanting to revise is too contentious for me call right now. So, I will give you this one. I can't really say that the GAtes Foundations and others like them are now involved in this sort of thing but from a different angle.
         
         Ok on point 5, I can probably agree that ethnic studies at the public school level may be inappropriate. But, the reason that they have been proposed is that the general history curriculum has consistently overlooked the participation of minorities and women in the American story. So, that needs to be corrected.
         
         Who says that there is a conflict between leftwing talking points and thinking? They are are one in the same. It is just on the otherside where those those concepts are not harmonious
         
         Until next time.....

         replyreport
         1. 82

            GA Andersonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            Well Damnnn... Now which Cred am I dealing with?  A little lead-off jab, followed by a series of pointed thrusts... Is there a third Cred2?
            
            I am not sure I want to continue shooting from the hip. I liked the Newsweek article author's work. I think I will check out more of his writing
            
            Anyway...
            
            I think I might be able to hold onto most of my contentions, but I need to reload and aim before I reply.
            
            But there is one I don't need any research on; My opinion of the difference between a thinking man vs. a talking-points man.
            
            
            
            
            
            
            Nahh... you thought I was going to open that door for you.
            
            "I find it troubling that partisan legislators interfere with curriculum that should be under the purview of educators."
            
            I don't have trouble with the concept. I do not mean this instance of such interference is right. I do not mean I agree with the motive behind the effort. As a shortcut, let's just say we are talking about a hypothetical example; What if a proposed new curriculum - accepted and endorsed by experts in the field, was provably a bad move? Wouldn't a student's parents deserve to be heard and represented by their chosen representatives?
            
            I also don't have a problem with teaching about the warts on our character and the bad moves in our history. I think AP level courses should be much more grounded than earlier grade courses - so maybe a curriculum update is the right move. But, I don't think a one-sided curriculum should be taught either. So I am not defending the party's methods, nor their standards, but if the bottom line is as the articles I read lead me to conclude; which is the proposed new curriculum was too much of our bad stuff and not enough of our good stuff, then I do agree that an objection should be raised.
            
            ps. I think it was to you, or maybe not, but after seeing more examples, along with the context of their use, in the Kurt Eichenwald article,  I would like to step away from a Moses example I quoted to contest the `pushing Christianity` accusation. Live and learn.
            
            GA

            replyreport
2. 0

   ahorsebackposted 9 years ago

   Oh , it's just so interesting to hear this one,..... " Now the right wants to re-write history .........."  Isn't it the LEFT that believes  that we  are taught only one history in America ?    You know , the old Columbus 1492, thing .....? The left that want's "ALL the real  history " to be included ?   All the atrocities  of native Americans , the Kluless- Klux Klan stuff , All the real and truthful history that has never been put in the history books ?
   
   Oh , how we whine though when it isn't the lefts  idea ?

   replyreport
   1. 70

      rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I am not sure from your post if you are for or against truthful recordings of history.
      
      If history is to be learned then it should be learned from the truth. If it is to be taught to manipulate the truth for the sake of making the student feel good then it is a disservice to the student and the country. If we don't know the past how can we decide on the future? Repetition of mistakes buried in political correctness or patriotism is a pathetic way to move forward.
      
      I hear all the time how America stands for freedom and democratic rule yet little is spoken of the way America has bullied its' way in overthrowing foreign countries and installing leaders to their liking. The CIA is famous for causing unrest and then assisting these covert actions with the support of weapons and or training. Here are a few of these countries as an example: I bet you won't see any of this in your kids history books. It is as ignorant as Middle Eastern maps that omit showing Israel in the region.
      
      •Syria 1949
      •Iran 1953
      •Guatemala 1954
      •Tibet 1955–70s
      •Indonesia 1958
      •Cuba 1959
      •Iraq 1960–63
      •Dominican Republic 1961
      •South Vietnam 1963
      •Brazil 1964
      •Chile 1970–73
      •Afghanistan 1979–89
      •Turkey 1980
      •Poland 1980–89
      •Nicaragua 1981–90
      •Iraq 1992–96
      •Venezuela 2002
      •Iraq 2002–03
      •Iran 2005–present
      •Syria 2012–present
      
      http://investmentwatchblog.com/list-of- … rica-next/
      http://investmentwatchblog.com/list-of- … pLcIfzm.99
      
      We don't even need to wait for it to be memorialized in history books to see what we don't learn from our mistakes. We fought two wars and at one time simultaneously to only be talking of going back and fighting it some more. We lost both of them and are not going to win them because the political solution has been ignored from the very beginning. Political correctness and patriotism still clouds our judgment.

      replyreport
3. 86

   Stacie Lposted 9 years ago

   Teaching history that you may personally disagree with is tough for teachers. I remember having to teach history and thinking how biased the material was.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Superkevposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Teach the truth, trust the students to make of it what they will.
      
      For example, it's not politically correct to teach students that during the Atlantic slave trade those that were taken were brought to the coasts by other Africans and sold to white slave traders, or that countries like Portugal, Brazil and the Netherlands did a far greater volume of slave taking than the US ever did, or that 4+ million African slaves were taken to Brazil as opposed to only approx. 500K that were brought to the US.
      
      If you personally disagree with facts, then perhaps teaching is the wrong career for you.

      replyreport
      1. 81

         Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

         That is correct, but all that rises to a higher level of hypocrisy with which the t Founding Fathers wrestled.
         
         When you have a Declaration of Independence, A Constitution and a Bill of Rights that trumpeted to the world the equality of man, but then accomodated chattel slavery, that would give cause for reflection. The 'other' Africans engaged in the slave trade did not make such lofty claims.

         replyreport
4. 0

   sandrawelchposted 9 years ago

   I do not understand the good from rewriting history.  Who we are individuals is based on our own personal history.  Yesterday is gone, it will not come back.  But lessons learned from the past, might keep history from repeating.  To deny the existence of events, even though the event is not politically correct today, is to erase generations of lives as though they did not matter.

   replyreport
5. 0

   ahorsebackposted 9 years ago

   As I recall AND agree with , Real and accurate history should be and generally IS taught to   older students [ high school and on  ].  We do not however , need to be teaching   seven year olds about the  realities of  true history .  If you wish to invoke   , for instance ,  the genocides  in our worlds  history onto the plate  of seven or eight year olds  ,, then you are a fool .
   If a child can learn basic history that's fine ,   without traumatizing them !
   
   The problem today however is the world  organization called N.E.A.    and the I.N.E.A.,    there is too much liberal agenda being  instilled in our public schools .    When public dollars  pay the entire  way for at least basic education  , then there has to be a fair balance in curriculum .   SLANT is no good for either partisan  political position , not in education anyway !     Save the liberal idealist  agenda's  for liberal  colleges .

   replyreport
   1. 80

      Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      +1!

      replyreport
   2. 70

      rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      " Save the liberal idealist  agenda's  for liberal  colleges." or anyone that is not in an anthropological course of study.
      
      And keep the conservative BS from tainting it as well!

      replyreport