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

And what are you talking about, specifically?

UNESCO released a new report about sexual education revealing that 5 years need to be taught to teach there private parts etc and right now a review of sexual education is happening in the UK and it's likely stuff like this will be incorporated into it.
 
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.

And exactly how well up are you on the content of Texan schoolbooks at the moment?
 
UNESCO released a new report about sexual education revealing that 5 years need to be taught to teach there private parts etc and right now a review of sexual education is happening in the UK and it's likely stuff like this will be incorporated into it.

Oh, is it? got any sources on that? I'd be very, very interested to see them, assuming they don't come from the Mail or a UKIP press release
 
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.

That begins with the, unproven, assumption that there was bias in the first place.
 
Luiz, I wasn't responding to your reasoning, but the reasoning used in the article. I copy pasted my comments directly from the dupe thread.
 
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.

So.. are all the other states just going to accept this bs or are any of them going to say "that's enough!" and turn to another publisher? Is that even an option? If not, why not?
 
And exactly how well up are you on the content of Texan schoolbooks at the moment?

As I said I liked several of the propositions in the article. I would need much further reading to give a final veridict, which is why I asked why are they undefensible. Superficially at least, they look quite defensible (most of them anyway).
 
As I said I liked several of the propositions in the article. I would need much further reading to give a final veridict, which is why I asked why are they undefensible. Superficially at least, they look quite defensible (most of them anyway).

You said you wanted to add 'balance to topics where currently there is a tremendous lack of it'. Where specifically is the lack of balance of which you speak?
 
Thomas Jefferson wrote a book? Never heard of it. Heard of Thomas and John, but never heard of William. So 50/50?

Jefferson wrote this little document (maybe people have heard of it) called the “Declaration of Independence.” You do not have to write books in order to be considered a writer.

Author of the Declaration of Independence, third President of the United States, major architect of the U.S.'s westward expansion and founder of the University of Virginia, Thomas Jefferson is a figure of world historical significance. His writings are important documents for the history of America's founding and for the Founders' attempts to put into practice theories associated with the eighteenth century Enlightenment. Jefferson's concepts of democracy remain inspirational for many people today, even as his views on religion and race remain a source of controversy.

http://guides.lib.virginia.edu/TJ

Jefferson was the biggest proponent for a fundamental philosophy of our nation's founding (the separation of church & state), and now they are removing him as an influence of the country’s philosophical & intellectual origins, and replacing him with Calvinism and a Saint/Philosopher responsible for the largest influence on Christian theology since Jesus?? -_-

I can understand if they replaced Jefferson with John Locke, since that is one of Jefferson's influences, but this? This is a farce and I understand now why some of the board members have walked out in protest.

Placing a "heavy" emphasis on the founding father's "strict Christian beliefs" is contemporary indoctrination at it's finest. Or worst, depending on how you look at it.
 
Defensible?

- 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?

- 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.

- 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.

- 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....

- 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?

- 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.

- 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.

- 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.

No, none of the proposals in the article are remotely justifiable,
 
Defensible?
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.
 
The Article said:
- 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.

I thought those three guy weren't even American. So why would they be in a U.S. history textbook :confused:
 
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.

Being right 1/100 times does not justify the witch hunt. The McCarthy era was a blight in US history.

I see no point in excluding 3rd Party candidates, but that is hardly part of some right-wing conspiracy.

Getting rid of references to 3rd party candidates makes it easier to paint things as simple as black & white. Under normal circumstances, I could understand taking out obsolete information, but it is apparent that there is a strong conservative agenda at work here.

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 I agree with. We should not be demonizing the south without going through all of their reasons for succession & explaining their POV.

I thought those three guy weren't even American. So why would they be in a U.S. history textbook :confused:

Because they're supposedly strong influences on the origin of American thought & philosophy.
 
Surprise surprise, it was reported on Fox News.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1920024,00.html

The obsession with onanism is a bit curious, given that the 102-page document mentions masturbation only five times: twice to explain to 5-to-8-year-olds what the term means, saying teachers should note that it's "not harmful, but should be done in private," and the other three times in a section referring to 9-to-15-year-olds, pointing out that these kids should be told it "does not cause physical or emotional harm" and is "often a person's first experience of sexual pleasure."
 
Well I was about to post anyway but I guess your angry for some reason.

Don't worry about it take my word.

I'm not angry at all, I've a day off tomorrow so I'm in quite good mood. So let's see your sources.
 
Also found a telegraph article.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/educatio...sk-questions-or-report-abuse-says-Unesco.html
Five year-olds should be given sex education so they can ask questions about their bodies and tell adults if they have been abused, according to Unesco.

The United Nations’ education and cultural agency claims that primary school children must learn the facts of life as they “receive messages about their sexuality when they are very young”.

It recommends teaching pupils about their bodies and how they work before they can be “dangerously misinformed” by their friends.

The new guidelines come after the Government ruled that sex education classes will be made compulsory in English schools.

Under the plans announced in April, infants aged five to seven will learn about the "simple physical changes to their bodies since birth'' and the differences between boys and girls in PSHE – personal, social, health and economic education - classes.

Between seven and nine, pupils will be taught about puberty while in the final two years of primary school they will learn about human reproduction.

But Unesco’s international guidelines, which are non-mandatory, urge teachers to do more to protect the youngest pupils from “coercion, abuse and exploitation”.

Asked if five was “a little early to understand the concept of sexuality”, Nanette Ecker, one of the authors of the guidance, replied: “Children are born sexual beings and as adults, die sexual beings. Sexuality extends from birth to death.
 
I'm not angry at all, I've a day off tomorrow so I'm in quite good mood. So let's see your sources.

There is no point I will give you a source and you will give it the same respect for it as the Daily Mail or UKIP press releases.
 
Back
Top Bottom