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

So I guess it just becomes even more critical that we have good history teachers, as opposed to lazy ones.

How much freedom do teachers have in selecting their text books in public schools?
 
Am I going to get a response on this?

No; how could you expect racist opinions that aren't based on any direct knowledge of education or even the United States as a whole to answer your question? :dunno:
 
So I guess it just becomes even more critical that we have good history teachers, as opposed to lazy ones.

How much freedom do teachers have in selecting their text books in public schools?

I don't think teachers can really use any material other than what the school supplies. It's not like college, where the teacher picks the books and the students go get them. The books are the property of the schools, and are used year after year.



Btw, about McCarthy, no, there is no excuse for rehabilitating him. The fact that the Soviets did have a handful of spies does not change the fact that the witch hunts destroyed the lives of a lot of innocent Americans without ever turning up a threat to national security. McCarthy was a drunk and a liar. And I've never heard that his infamous "list" ever had a real communist on it.
 
Btw, about McCarthy, no, there is no excuse for rehabilitating him. The fact that the Soviets did have a handful of spies does not change the fact that the witch hunts destroyed the lives of a lot of innocent Americans without ever turning up a threat to national security. McCarthy was a drunk and a liar. And I've never heard that his infamous "list" ever had a real communist on it.

I never said he should be rehabilitated. My first sentence about hime was clear: he used rather despicable methods and was a rather despicable person.

BUT the notion that he destroyed the lives of many perfectly innocent americans is false. As I said, most of the people he listed were involved one way or another with Soviet activities. Even historians who condemn McCarthy recognise that. For instance (from McCarthy's wiki entrance):

Challenging such efforts aimed at the "rehabilitation" of McCarthy, historian John Earl Haynes argues that McCarthy's attempts to "make anti-communism a partisan weapon" actually "threatened [the post-War] anti-Communist consensus," thereby ultimately harming anti-Communist efforts more than helping.[112] After reviewing evidence from Venona and other sources, Haynes concluded that, of 159 people identified on lists used or referenced by McCarthy, evidence was substantial that nine had aided Soviet espionage efforts. He expressed an opinion that a majority of those on the lists could have legitimately been considered security risks, but that a substantial minority could not.[113]
In other words, only a minority of the people listed by McCarthy were actually fully innocent. The others were involved in communist activities one way or another.
Again, I am not rehabilitating him. His methods were despicable, and he did harm innocents. But some perspective is always good.
 
I think that you may be reading far more into the phrase "security risk" than was originally intended. It certainly doesn't mean that they were personally, directly involved in Soviet activities.

Besides, McCarthy's influence was far wider than what you present in your quote; over 300 members of the entertainment industry, for example, were blacklisted as part of the witch hunt on grounds of political alignment alone. It's very hard for a "democracy" to defend actions such as these; certainly, it's hard to see how Charlie Chaplain was going to bring the United States to ruin.
 
I think that you may be reading far more into the phrase "security risk" than was originally intended. It certainly doesn't mean that they were personally, directly involved in Soviet activities.

Of course not, but being involved with the CPUSA in the 40's and early 50's was all about blind and canine obedience to Stalin.

Each and every member or sympathiser of the CPUSA of the period absolutely deserved to be named and shamed, much like Nazi sympathisers.
 
Some are, some ain't.


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.

From my recent high school experiences, I can say that the views of textbooks are rather left in nature, rather than right (aha) and I'd agree that taking out some of the bias in some of these books would be good.

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.

Yes, but America isn't a tossed salad. It's more like dirt (no insult intended), each race having their own individual layers, and that's why you can't just group everyone under one "US History".

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.

Dropping imperialism would be stupid. America's activities in the Pacific during the late 19th century is best described as imperialistic. Just because the word is used out of context today doesn't mean that it should be dropped.

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.

I agree with you on this.

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.

Agreed.
 
BUT the notion that he destroyed the lives of many perfectly innocent americans is false.
Ah, but it's not "false" in the least:

Spoiler :
Way back in the 1950's, Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy had his own little version of the Spanish Inquisition, an hysterical attempt to root out the communism that he thought he saw climbing the walls all around him. No one was safe from his probing, beady little eyes. Government workers, college professors, playwrights and Hollywood screenwriters, actors, artists, musicians, fags, Jews and anyone with a goatee was suspect. . . . Many people's careers were destroyed by just knowing the wrong person.

The most intensive focus of the Red Hunters was on Hollywood, perceived as the shaper of public thought. Many writers and performers moved to Mexico or Europe to avoid being put in prison. There was great pressure to avoid controversial subject matter in films or on TV, and the result was the Ozzie and Harriet myth, Doris Day and Annette Funicello, Beach Blanket Bingo: silly, vapid entertainment.

The ice began to melt in 1960, with breakthrough films like "The Brave One" (written by Dalton Trumbo under a fake name because he was blacklisted) and "Spartacus," both highly acclaimed and both addressing the plight of the downtrodden, repressive government, human rights, etc.

................................................................................................................................................................

Americans were afraid of the communists for good reason, in light of the atrocities committed by Josef Stalin and Mao Tse Tung. Through American spies, the Commies had gotten the recipe for the Atom Bomb, a truly terrifying prospect. To be suspected of being a communist was worse than being a murderer or rapist. Just being suspected meant one was a traitor, cutting the throats of American babies. Anyone who refused to take the pledge was blacklisted and found it impossible to get work, and was harassed constantly by 'agents' for names of other 'sympathizers'.

Many refused to take the pledge on principle; after all, it is a free country. People like Dalton Trumbo, Ruth Gordon, Zero Mostel, Dashiell Hammett, Lillian Hellman, Jose Ferrer and Orson Welles were blacklisted.


McCarthy did not create the communist problem, but he exploited it shamelessly for political ends, accusing the Democrats in general with baseless, sweeping, shotgun allegations. He was a master of the soundbite, and played the press like a harp.

The reign of stupidity called McCarthyism was big news for most of the 50's, and shaped future national mood swings. It brought 'denial' to new heights, and showed once again how easily fascism can take root.

His efforts helped the Republicans win in the Congress and Senate, and also helped to put Republican Dwight Eisenhower in the White House. But instead of quitting while he was ahead, McCarthy kept up his attacks, accusing respected Government officials and Army personnel of being Communist sympathizers. No McCarthy charge against a government official was ever proven.

The new media of television captured McCarthy's final moments, where in dazzling black and white he showed the world what an anal-retentive idiot he really was.

At the end, during hearings when he took on the US Army, the Army's well respected attorney Joseph Welch asked him "Have you no shame?", and said that McCarthy was a lout deserving no further attention, again on the shimmering eye of television. The tide of public opinion turned against him, after seeing him in all his revolting, alcoholic glory. He died shortly after that, like a poisonous mushroom spreading his spores and then shriveling into nothing.

----------------------------------------------------------------

From Seeds of Repression; Harry S. Truman and the Origins of McCarthyism- by Athan Theoharis, Quadrangle Books, Chicago, 1971; McCarthy and McCarthyism in Wisconsin, Michael O'Brien, University of Missouri Press, Columbia and London, 1980; Blacklist: Hollywood on Trial, AMC, broadcast Feb 28, 1996
 
Of course not, but being involved with the CPUSA in the 40's and early 50's was all about blind and canine obedience to Stalin.

Each and every member or sympathiser of the CPUSA of the period absolutely deserved to be named and shamed, much like Nazi sympathisers.
Were the "security risks" members of the Communist Party, though? Or those subjected to blacklisting, in the entertainment industry and elsewhere? Again, you make certain assumptions which you have yet to justify.
 
I sat on a textbook purchasing committee in Janurary. I'll explain how the process worked after school today.

Okay, so here is how the process worked for us. I teach in a fairly large school district (serving about 43,000 students) in Louisiana.

My school was reviewing which Science textbook to purchase for our building. Some places require every building in the district to purchase their own textbooks...ours doesn't, but they do require that every building use the same. Textbooks cost way too much money for one teacher to use a different series (An elementery school Science Text costs over 60 bucks). We had 4 different texts to choose from.

Only one of the books was specifically alligned to our state (written for LA standards). The other three were technically written for other states (two for Texas, one for Georgia), and had little "inserts" to hit on the LA specific material. One was also written on waaaaay too high a reading level for our kids.

The companies that sell to multiple states can make their books a lot cheaper though, (volume sales). We fought about it, but eventually selected a less-than-aligned text because it would have saved our building seveal thousand dollars. Teachers are expected to make up the difference in alignment.

My concern is that the same thing will happened to these politically-trumped up books (the people on the board are pretty blantant about the purposes for the review...to "conservative up" the texts...thats what I think is indefensible) are going to be bought by a lot of districts because a huge company can make them cheaper. A more well-heeled suburban district can afford to spend a little extra on a more alligned book, but not all of us have that option.
 
They are doing a great dis-service to our country and educational system. The guy leading the agenda has already been voted out of office. He's just trying to do as much damage as he can before he goes.

So the people who decide what will be in the curriculum are elected to their positions? Well that's not exactly a recipe for success.
 
I never said he should be rehabilitated. My first sentence about hime was clear: he used rather despicable methods and was a rather despicable person.

BUT the notion that he destroyed the lives of many perfectly innocent americans is false. As I said, most of the people he listed were involved one way or another with Soviet activities. Even historians who condemn McCarthy recognise that. For instance (from McCarthy's wiki entrance):


In other words, only a minority of the people listed by McCarthy were actually fully innocent. The others were involved in communist activities one way or another.
Again, I am not rehabilitating him. His methods were despicable, and he did harm innocents. But some perspective is always good.

9/159 is not a majority. :crazyeye:
 
Okay, so here is how the process worked for us. I teach in a fairly large school district (serving about 43,000 students) in Louisiana.

My school was reviewing which Science textbook to purchase for our building. Some places require every building in the district to purchase their own textbooks...ours doesn't, but they do require that every building use the same. Textbooks cost way too much money for one teacher to use a different series (An elementery school Science Text costs over 60 bucks). We had 4 different texts to choose from.

Only one of the books was specifically alligned to our state (written for LA standards). The other three were technically written for other states (two for Texas, one for Georgia), and had little "inserts" to hit on the LA specific material. One was also written on waaaaay too high a reading level for our kids.

The companies that sell to multiple states can make their books a lot cheaper though, (volume sales). We fought about it, but eventually selected a less-than-aligned text because it would have saved our building seveal thousand dollars. Teachers are expected to make up the difference in alignment.

My concern is that the same thing will happened to these politically-trumped up books (the people on the board are pretty blantant about the purposes for the review...to "conservative up" the texts...thats what I think is indefensible) are going to be bought by a lot of districts because a huge company can make them cheaper. A more well-heeled suburban district can afford to spend a little extra on a more alligned book, but not all of us have that option.

How the hell do you "align" a science book to a state without screwing over the science? :crazyeye:
 
How the hell do you "align" a science book to a state without screwing over the science? :crazyeye:

Thats pretty easy. Align just means that the textbook lines up with what the state requires those kids to know.

For example, Louisiana wants their 4th graders to know a lot about life sciences...in particular, plants and animals, their habitats, how they are related in ecosystems, the human body, etc. It doesn't focus as much on things like physics or chemistry (which play a bigger role in 5th grade) or the solar system (which is in 3rd grade).

Ideally then, I'd want a textbook that places a larger emphasis on life science topics, and has enrichment opportunities that coincide with our most important learning objectives.

When you use somebody else's text, you find that your book may have gaps in material that your kids still need to learn.
 
I take it a state like Texas which believes in small govt etc etc turned down all that stimulus money ?
Or are they Texas conservatives, saying one thing while grabbing the dosh with both hands ?
 
medieval Catholic philosopher St. Thomas Aquinas
Wow. They're not only teaching Children wrongly about the history of our Republic, but of the Catholic Faith at the same time.
 
Back
Top Bottom