Religious nutjobs change history

victor

victor

Antediluvian as Feck
Orderite
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35839979/ns/us_news-education


I saw this on I Am Bored and had to post it here. The article says that after a vote in the Texas State Board of Education, elements indirectly advertising the Christian faith and traditions, along with ultraconservative ideology, will be taught in various school lessons.

What's your reaction to this? Is it as bad/major as the article suggests, or is it just biased media hype?

Apparently arguments were tossed around that seem completely trivial to me:

Board members argued about the classification of historic periods (still B.C. and A.D., rather than B.C.E. and C.E.); whether students should be required to explain the origins of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and its impact on global politics (they will); and whether former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir should be required learning (she will).
Click to expand...


The board also replaced the word “capitalism” throughout the texts with the “free-enterprise system.”
Click to expand...




But yeah, no matter what you think, is it right to politicize children like this? For instance:

Conservatives also included a plank to ensure that students learn about “the conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s, including Phyllis Schlafly, the Contract With America, the Heritage Foundation, the Moral Majority and the National Rifle Association,” The New York Times reported.
Click to expand...

This hardly seems relevant.


Well, Texas sure seems to live up to the stereotype Europeans have of it. Then again, this is an MSNBC article. But could this affect education all over the United States? What are the long-term consequences, if there are any?
 
This has been posted and vatted before. What do you think people are going to respond with other than 'Oh yeah this is pretty bad'?

Note - this is not a new or unique phenomenon for Texas. State interference in education content, especially for history lessons, is common throughout the world and even the Western European world.
 
Doesn't sound that bad to me. It's definitely slanted towards the right, but it's not "religious nutjob" material. Also, it's pretty typical MSNBC would make it sound bad. They are just as biased as Fox News (only more politically left) and I hate Fox News.
 
OakTable said:
Doesn't sound that bad to me. It's definitely slanted towards the right, but it's not "religious nutjob" material. Also, it's pretty typical MSNBC would make it sound bad. They are just as biased as Fox News (only more politically left) and I hate Fox News.
Click to expand...

He didn't really include the worst parts.

How are you gonna omit that any Mexicans died at the Alamo? Then how are you going to argue that McCarthy was right and that the Red-Scare had solid reasoning. Plus Thomas Jefferson being gone from the textbooks and all of that as well, it's pretty bad.
 
Yes, but isn't that expected from the Chinese?

Why was this vatted before? This isn't an attempt to get people to go "oh that's bad" it's just to hear what people think of the consequences of it. As I said, MSNBC is pretty biased. Any other sources?
 
I don't see the problem 'cause all education is tainted by misinformation at some point, even if ever so slightly.
Hell, I was taught Columbus discovered America, for instance, while L'Anse aux Meadows had already been discovered in the sixties. I was taught to not use certain words (like 'paraplu' or 'punaise') 'cause they sounded too French and taught to use other words for them ('regenscherm' and 'duimspijker' in this case) - which was all wrong, but at that point teachers thought it made perfect sense.
It'll self-correct at some point, I reckon. Plus: AFAIK the nature of studying has changed quite a bit since the internet. I can't see how they'll erase Jefferson from the public domain.
 
certain "false" informations always tainted history, thats natural. You dont have always all informations or sources present to you and history as science is I think more dependent from interpretation then other areas like math for example which has usualy clear definitions. So its always a moving subject that if you do it right changes overtime the more and better informations and acurate sources you have. Or the better you can prove your point and the more logic your interpretations sound. But to "change" or simply "remove" parts of history is a whole different matter in my eyes. And well what ever if Jefferson is known by the Public or not but since he is seen as one of the Founding Fathers it does sound strange to me to simply remove him.

Hoxie said:
He didn't really include the worst parts.

How are you gonna omit that any Mexicans died at the Alamo? Then how are you going to argue that McCarthy was right and that the Red-Scare had solid reasoning. Plus Thomas Jefferson being gone from the textbooks and all of that as well, it's pretty bad.
Click to expand...
I could understand Alamo and the parts of McCarthy not the best US moments. But why the hell Thomas Jefferson ? :o

What has he done that its worth to remove him from US-History *scratching head* ?
 
He was a Deist and not a Christian which is a real sticking point for the far rights "America is founded by Christians" argument.
 
alec said:
Plus: AFAIK the nature of studying has changed quite a bit since the internet. I can't see how they'll erase Jefferson from the public domain.
Click to expand...

Let's not forget the most part of the population are not (yet) computer geeks spending hours on internet to enlighten themselves about such subjects...
Casual users use internet for facebook, youtube and chatroulette.

So I'd not be that optimistic about erasing whole parts of the history from textbooks. If you're educated as a religious right-wing fanatic and are teached selectively parts of history that support your views, there's a good chance you will remain just that all your life : a religious right-wing fanatic. I see just a slight role for Internet in all this hypocrisy.
 
There are two big revolutions in Brazil. One made by some military guys and some rich merchants aiming the construction of a university, the end of some taxes and more autonomy of the provinces. This one was quite unsuccesful. Just 7 guys plotted agaisnt portuguese crown, and their leader was hung. He is now our national hero, Tiradentes. We learn LOTS of stuff about him. Even his pictures make him look like jesus (beard and long hair).

The other one was made by the poor people and slaves, declared independece for the Bahia State, wanted the end of slavery, wanted a democratic republic. It was quite succesful, until portuguese troops came and killed every man, woman and children.

Guess which one we learn at school, the one which the people get united because of their bad conditions and ask for fair demands, and the right to govern themselves, or the one which the white guy just wanted to pay less taxes and wanted more education for the white people with money?
 
Why are you guys still saying they are right-wing religious fanatics? They mentioned Christianity had an influence on the Founding Fathers. That's it. It's not they are adding a huge passage with the express purpose of calling gay people sinners or anything. Also, where does it say Jefferson is being removed from the book?

Anyway, I like some of these changes.
Conservatives beat back multiple attempts to include hip-hop as an example of a significant cultural movement.
Click to expand...
In sociology, requires the teaching of "the importance of personal responsibility for life choices" in a section on teen suicide, dating violence, sexuality, drug use and eating disorders.
Click to expand...
The leader of the conservative faction, Don McLeroy, pushed through a change to the teaching of the civil rights movement to ensure that students study the violent philosophy of the Black Panthers in addition to the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s nonviolent approach.
Click to expand...
Another amendment deleted a requirement that sociology students "explain how institutional racism is evident in American society."
Click to expand...

I do disagree with making McCarthy look good (Dumbass led the U.S. on a goose chase, letting actual Communist spies do their jobs in peace), and deleting the fact that the people at the Alamo fought with Tejanos allies (What's wrong with that fact? They were helping the Texans out for fuck's sake).
 
There was a talk on NPR radio a few weeks back that mentioned how a ton of states were coming together to try and create a standard curriculum for all of the United States in hopes of elevating the education system. However, a few states were adamantly opposed to it, one of them being Texas. Texas (which has one of the lowest performing education systems in the United States) didn't want anyone deciding what was right for Texans to learn but Texans themselves.

The lead post seems to highlight the issues with this pretty well.
 
I wouldn't worry too much about curriculum as long as schools are still hiring competant teachers and there are at least a few inquisitive students in every class.

Teachers - ignoring school boards incompetent and biased curriculum since 400 B.C.
 
Yup, history is always biased.

Howcome we spent several lessons on the french revolution to laud what it had done for the rights of people all-around and the british Glorious Revolution was but a mere skipped footnote in the lessons?

*meh*

Yes, we should try to fight bias like OP's post, but I'm hardly surprised at all.
 
SimpleMinded said:
There was a talk on NPR radio a few weeks back that mentioned how a ton of states were coming together to try and create a standard curriculum for all of the United States in hopes of elevating the education system. However, a few states were adamantly opposed to it, one of them being Texas. Texas (which has one of the lowest performing education systems in the United States) didn't want anyone deciding what was right for Texans to learn but Texans themselves.

The lead post seems to highlight the issues with this pretty well.
Click to expand...

This is funny as hell, actually. Most countries with strong standard curriculum requirements have been trying to move away from the system to be more like the American system (Eastern European education), and here the Americans are thinking of doing the opposite thing. :roll:
 
What is wrong with the strong standard system? I would think an attempt at a minimum standard for what people should know across the country would be beneficial as it would help create a base expectation of knowledge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top