Perfection
The Great Head.
First hit states the reason, pre civil-war textbooks are used in a different grade level. So, no that's not some liberal conspiracy.
WAS IT SO FRIGGIN' HARD TO READ YOUR FIRST LINK?
U.S. history textbooks could soon be flavored heavily with Texas conservatism
- Thread starter yellow_peril
- Start date
First hit states the reason, pre civil-war textbooks are used in a different grade level. So, no that's not some liberal conspiracy.
WAS IT SO FRIGGIN' HARD TO READ YOUR FIRST LINK?
The OP is not identified as being a partisan source. No one considers "Fox news" to be a news source. It's all opinion.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
It is ironic that the far-right finds any propaganda which is contrary to its own perspective to be so offensive, but it frequently engages in the same tactics.
Quackers
The Frog
Cutlass I thought Fox News articles were fine it was just when you got into the realm of Bill O''/
Anyway this is just a culture war raging on. The battle in Europe has been won by the liberal elite so we teach our children masturbation at 5 lol don't sweat it US your a long way from that barbarism.
Anyway this is just a culture war raging on. The battle in Europe has been won by the liberal elite so we teach our children masturbation at 5 lol don't sweat it US your a long way from that barbarism.
If any part of Fox touches a political issue, it's partisan propaganda. Without exception. They literally do not no neutrality.
Of course, everything you claim liberals are doing is something that was simply made up to demonize your enemies.
plarq
Crazy forever
It's only a state education board, not some federal thingy. BTW, is there a federal guideline?
Most of the U.S.'s History books are made in Texas.
I'm just glad that my textbook is written by a guy from the University of Illinois and is published in Boston
Not really. Texas is influential enough so that if they won't buy a text book, the publishers won't print it.
As much as it would remove an important part of history from schools, maybe it's for the best if anything post-1950 is left out of history curriculum? Maybe not, but the overt partisanship present in this would seem to suggest that not learning about it all is better than learning a solely biased viewpoint.
Bill O'Reilly is like the skinniest kid at fat camp.
Jon Stewart is awesome.
Bill O'Reilly is like the skinniest kid at fat camp.
Jon Stewart is awesome.
Terxpahseyton
Nobody
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 10,759
Yea, stupid liberals and their stupid education... People have to think for themselves - and not only that, but also critically!
On topic: I still don't understand why Texas dominates your school book market.
For illustration: Germany is a lot smaller and it's 16 separate "states" are even smaller. Nevertheless none of our states really has to care what text book any other German state uses.
So if the German school book market can meet the diverse demands of such tiny states, why are the so much bigger American states held hostage by Texas? It makes no sense.
Besides that: To further political agendas by changing the school curriculum is unacceptable and it is just sad how this is even debatable. Teach children what happened, not how they have to view what happened.
And this is surely not the way to counter oppression.
Syterion
Voodoo Economist
To SiLL - Probably because America is beholden to those corporations that have lots and lots of power because of minimal government intrusion, allowing these types of near-monopolies.
Anyway, if these changes were made in the name of objectivity, that would be fine. But they are clearly reactionary in their own words! If you know anything about academic principles, you know that this would be absolutely UNACCEPTABLE historical revision because it's based on prior motivation to have a bias! They literally say that their intent is to combat the skew of academia, or to be contrary to established history. This is unacceptable. Your aim must always be to make a more objective, better researched, detailed, comprehensive textbook, without any slant. They explicitly have a slant. For a textbook, this is simply unacceptable.
Furthermore, this quote from a person on this board about the Christian founding of the US? Blatantly false, untrue, and so clearly shows an intentional, unashamed bias.
Anyway, if these changes were made in the name of objectivity, that would be fine. But they are clearly reactionary in their own words! If you know anything about academic principles, you know that this would be absolutely UNACCEPTABLE historical revision because it's based on prior motivation to have a bias! They literally say that their intent is to combat the skew of academia, or to be contrary to established history. This is unacceptable. Your aim must always be to make a more objective, better researched, detailed, comprehensive textbook, without any slant. They explicitly have a slant. For a textbook, this is simply unacceptable.
Furthermore, this quote from a person on this board about the Christian founding of the US? Blatantly false, untrue, and so clearly shows an intentional, unashamed bias.
I also think the claims of "libruls do it too" don't make any sense, because "liberals" aren't in the position to dictate textbook content for the rest of the country. California isn't a homogeneous market like Texas is, so they can't use their "larger state status" to bully them around.
The changes are pretty much indefensible, like most of Texas's recent education related actions.
The changes are pretty much indefensible, like most of Texas's recent education related actions.
How are they indefensible? I actually liked several of them (while I also disliked some others). For instance, a more balanced view of McCarthy would be nice. Sure, he was a rather despicable man who used rather despicable tactics, but after the opening of the Moscow files it is also pretty clear that the people he was targeting were in fact communists, many of which spying for or collaborating with the USSR. I don't see that mentioned enough.
I also applaud removing "Latino History", as there's no such thing. The notion that the History of mankind is the History of races is a Nazi concept. Important latino individuals should be mentioned for their importance.
I also like how they want to give a more balanced view of Great Society and similar social programs. All programs and policies should have their merits and flaws discussed; even ones which seem obvioulsy correct like Civil Rights.
The Christian related stuff is all nonsense, though.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
This kind of reasoning is amazing to me. If you believe that bias has played too great a part in education, do you correct that with adding bias? You can simply look at the media to see how that will play out. How long until you can decide to have a conservative or liberal or centre education? Deciding what needs to be taught in schools with regard to certain subject and you have no experts (historians, sociologists or economists) to advice you but simply use political reasons to include/exclude material is such a major step backwards in level of education it's staggering.
Quackers
The Frog
Thats a good thing right?
Jon Stewart is a comedian. If you follow him seriously you need to wake up. I watch him too
he's FUNNEHYea, stupid liberals and their stupid education... People have to think for themselves - and not only that, but also critically!
Umm what? I'm not against education I'm just against the inappropreate teaching of explicit sexual matters to young kids.
RedRalph
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2007
- Messages
- 20,708
And what are you talking about, specifically?
Eh, I am talking precisely of removing bias and have a more balanced discussion of the topics at hand. Read my post again; I used the word "balanced" several times. I don't want a right-wing bias to correct the left-wing bias, what I want is to add more balance to topics where currently there is a tremendous lack of it.
