Some are, some ain't.
- 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.
Why an emphasis on specifically highlighting the achievements of the political movement that these people belong to? Since they are teaching children, do they also intend to teach these children that they will have a lower standard of living their entire lives because of the rabid irresponsibility of these say conservatives?
This one is undefensable. If there is too much emphasis on leftist politics that emphasis should be eliminated, not "balanced" by emphasis on right-wing stuff.
- A reduced scope for Latino history and culture. A proposal to expand such material in recognition of Texas’ rapidly growing Hispanic population was defeated in last week’s meetings—provoking one board member, Mary Helen Berlanga, to storm out in protest. "They can just pretend this is a white America and Hispanics don’t exist," she said of her conservative colleagues on the board. "They are rewriting history, not only of Texas but of the United States and the world."
The US is not an all white culture. Other groups influenced who we are as well.
This one I applaud.
There is no "Latino History", just like there is no "White History". There is US History, and Latino individuals are part of it. They should be mentioned in the general context of US history, not as a separate body (which they are not). As I said, the notion that races are the actors of History is a Nazi concept.
- Changes in specific terminology. Terms that the board’s conservative majority felt were ideologically loaded are being retired. Hence, “imperialism” as a characterization of America’s modern rise to world power is giving way to “expansionism,” and “capitalism” is being dropped in economic material, in favor of the more positive expression “free market.” (The new recommendations stress the need for favorable depictions of America’s economic superiority across the board.)
So they want to reword to portray a dishonest point of view.
I don't understand dropping Capitalism, that seems stupid as there is nothing wrong or negative about the term. But imperialism is way overused nowadays, some restraint would be nice.
- A more positive portrayal of Cold War anticommunism. Disgraced anticommunist crusader Joseph McCarthy, the Wisconsin senator censured by the Senate for his aggressive targeting of individual citizens and their civil liberties on the basis of their purported ties to the Communist Party, comes in for partial rehabilitation. The board recommends that textbooks refer to documents published since McCarthy’s death and the fall of the Soviet bloc that appear to show expansive Soviet designs to undermine the U.S. government.
Rehabilitate traitors and lionize one of the low spots in American history....
Read my earlier post. Most of those victims of the communist "witch-hunt" were in fact guilty. Take Julius Rosemberg for instance. The US government received a tremendous amount of criticism from the international Left for his execution. Sartre compared it to the Inquisition, Picasso said a blood stain had spread throughout the nation, movie directors like Fritz Lang all joined the choir; even Einstein protested. And yet now we know, with 100% certainty, that Rosemberg did indeed sell nuclear secrets to the Soviets, as well as many other extremely valuable information, and was thus a traitor of the worst kind and would face execution pretty much anywhere.
- Language that qualifies the legacy of 1960s liberalism. Great Society programs such as Title IX—which provides for equal gender access to educational resources—and affirmative action, intended to remedy historic workplace discrimination against African-Americans, are said to have created adverse “unintended consequences” in the curriculum’s preferred language.
Again, why reword things to specifically push a political agenda instead of telling the truth?
I see nothing wrong about talking of "unintended consequences". Programs like Great Society and Affirmative Action should be discussed, and this includes talking of the flaws. They should not receive just praise. Again, balance.
- 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.
You can't even remotely make an argument for this one. Taking one of the most important Americans out because of religious bigotry and putting unconstitutional religious teaching in. That's as anti-American as you can get.
This one is quite stupid, agreed.
- Excision of recent third-party presidential candidates Ralph Nader (from the left) and Ross Perot (from the centrist Reform Party). Meanwhile, the recommendations include an entry listing Confederate General Stonewall Jackson as a role model for effective leadership, and a statement from Confederate President Jefferson Davis accompanying a speech by U.S. President Abraham Lincoln.
3rd party candidates are in fact a piece of our history. Making heroes out of traitors is hardly a good thing to do to children.
I see no point in excluding 3rd Party candidates, but that is hardly part of some right-wing conspiracy.
As for the Confederates, again, balance.
If you want to portray them all as evil traitors fighting just for their right to own slaves, that makes you ignorant. They were not a 19th Century version of the Nazis, as some American leftists like to pretend. I see nothing wrong in presenting their point of view, and it is obvious that there were good people among them, and perhaps Stonewall Jackson was actually an effective leader.
This is not to say that their many flaws should be whitewashed, just that they should not be demonized.
- A recommendation to include country and western music among the nation’s important cultural movements. The popular black genre of hip-hop is being dropped from the same list.
I don't see why musical styles should get more than a passing mention in any case. But you certainly don't drop one because most of the people in it are black and add another because most of the people are white. Mention both and move on. Or mention neither, and none else besides, because I can't see how it could possibly matter to a high school student.
Agreed.
No, none of the proposals in the article are remotely justifiable,
Some are, some ain't.
