- This topic has 6 voices and 23 replies.
-
Posts
-
Ought we to be concerned about the state of Texas selecting History textbooks that seem to be something less than balanced and in fact may be quite overtly biased? It reminds me about Charles De Gaulle who, when writing a History of France, was so overcome by love of country he failed to mention Waterloo.What is the scoop in Texas?
Ought we to be concerned about the state of Texas selecting History textbooks that seem to be something less than balanced and in fact may be quite overtly biased?
What, specifically, is the "overtly biased" part of the textbooks?I can understand how someone who is a fan of Howard Zinn's book might disagree with the Texas history curriculum. Take a look at this snippet from an article about the situation:
Ken Mercer, R-San Antonio, said the proposed standards reflect the desires of his constituents to emphasize ?personal responsibility and accountability? and ?to honor our Founding Fathers, and our military.?Mary Helen Berlanga, D-Corpus Christi, said the standards ignore the Ku Klux Klan in Texas, Texas Rangers ?killing Mexican-Americans without justification? and the U.S. Army's role in the attempted extermination of American Indians.?Until we are ready to tell the truth about history, we don't have a good history or a good social studies curriculum for Texas,? she said.
If Ms. Berlanga statement is indicative of the larger Democratic feeling, then the reason they are upset is because they were unable to lay guilt on the United States in textbooks about American history - or at least not to the degree that they desire. I think that the Democratic position which lost out was the real source of bias and activism.
I saw this yesterday and figured someone would bring it up. It is sour grapes, the Dems are upset because their previously liberal curriculum has been overturned. The article even mentions that when it was last updated not a single conservative amendment was adopted.
I read that Jefferson was left out because he represented the “secularism” of the Enlightenment. I havenot seen the book so all I have to go on is commentary.I am sure that we all agree that there ought not to be a Liberal and a Conservative version of History.Anyway, I shall keep checking on this as it is most illuminating.
And I'm sure we all agree that there has been a Liberal/Leftist version of history being taught in our public school and higher education for the past 20 years or so. This alleged Conservative “slant” is not really Conservative, it's just an attempt to bring back teaching history as it was rather than through the eyes of Leftist idealism.
....I am sure that we all agree that there ought not to be a Liberal and a Conservative version of History.....
Agreed; so too, there is the consideration that writers are able to publish anything that their publisher thinks the market will bear. The publisher will seek a venue like public education that presents a large (and captive market), supplying them with whatever they will buy thousands of copies of. While this would seem to be a good capitalistic trend... the market is not held captive by the publishers themselves but their state and local school boards and the socio-political movers and shakers. In a previous post, in another thread, I've waxed philosophical on this already and will not labor my view further, except to say that having tried in the past to influence what was included in my state's standards that individual teachers aren't who the state listens to... it the socio-political tail that wags the dog.
.... This alleged Conservative "slant" is not really Conservative, it's just an attempt to bring back teaching history as it was rather than through the eyes of Leftist idealism.
While I would like to agree, I think much of the flap isn't just good old fashioned history by often knee-jerk fundamental philosophy that is just as far gone to the right as the libs want the slant to be to the left. History is supposed to be fact based and not make judgments, IMHO.
While I would like to agree, I think much of the flap isn't just good old fashioned history by often knee-jerk fundamental philosophy that is just as far gone to the right as the libs want the slant to be to the left. History is supposed to be fact based and not make judgments, IMHO.
Here, Here. Could not have said it better myself. Why can we not let the facts speak for themselves? If schools taught kids how to think instead of what to think, we would not be having this argument in the first place.
I have heard this stated, but I do not believe that it universally true–perhaps in some districts. So I do not agree at all.
Here, Here. Could not have said it better myself. Why can we not let the facts speak for themselves? If schools taught kids how to think instead of what to think, we would not be having this argument in the first place.Teach the kids how to think? This could be a very dangerous precedent in High School especially in the Social Sciences. Students might well find themselves in the vestibule of the house of conflicting ideaswhich could lead to chaos and arguments with parents. High school is not a democracy, but a despotism--theoretically quasi benevolent.
Teach the kids how to think? This could be a very dangerous precedent in High School especially in the Social Sciences. Students might well find themselves in the vestibule of the house of conflicting ideaswhich could lead to chaos and arguments with parents. High school is not a democracy, but a despotism--theoretically quasi benevolent.
If you are afraid teaching logic just come right out and say so. I don't want a society of mindless automatons, I want fellow citizens that can string logical sentences and arguments together. Maybe too much to ask, I know, but I am asking anyway.
Here, Here. Could not have said it better myself. Why can we not let the facts speak for themselves? If schools taught kids how to think instead of what to think, we would not be having this argument in the first place.
I don't think that's the sole issue here. Rather, the debate is over which facts are spoken in the first place.
Here, Here. Could not have said it better myself. Why can we not let the facts speak for themselves? If schools taught kids how to think instead of what to think, we would not be having this argument in the first place.
I don't think that's the sole issue here. Rather, the debate is over which facts are spoken in the first place.
True, but then this discussion just becomes one more repetition of the plaintive whine about "why cant we all just get along?" The fact is that if students were taught logic and reason they would be able to tell when they were getting unbalanced information and might even be inspired to research on their own. Neither side, liberal or conservative, really want that, they would rather force feed the youth with their own particular brand of truth than get them to look on their own. They might find uncomfortable facts out there, and not only in history but in other areas as well. This is sad but true.
It always comes down to the money--how sad
[cynical mode]Yes; who has it, how much, and what they are willing to spend to promote their agenda.[end cynical mode]
.... The fact is that if students were taught logic and reason they would be able to tell when they were getting unbalanced information and might even be inspired to research on their own. Neither side, liberal or conservative, really want that, they would rather force feed the youth with their own particular brand of truth than get them to look on their own. They might find uncomfortable facts out there, and not only in history but in other areas as well. This is sad but true.
Far too true.
True, but then this discussion just becomes one more repetition of the plaintive whine about “why cant we all just get along?” The fact is that if students were taught logic and reason they would be able to tell when they were getting unbalanced information and might even be inspired to research on their own. Neither side, liberal or conservative, really want that, they would rather force feed the youth with their own particular brand of truth than get them to look on their own. They might find uncomfortable facts out there, and not only in history but in other areas as well. This is sad but true.
In my opinion, I don't think the situation is necessarily like that where there's "Liberal Truth" "Conservative Truth" and "Actual Truth" in between. Think of it this way - the Democrat I cited earlier wanted the inclusion of "killing Mexican-Americans without justification". If it's included, is that liberal truth? If it's not added, is that conservative truth? Or what kind of truth is it if there's a section focusing on Newt Gingrich's rise to power in the 1990s? Somebody's going to make these decisions about what students learn. If it's not the school board in Texas, it's the school teacher in Nebraska, or the textbook writer for schools in California.So I think that it's a bit off to reduce this to each side wanting to promote its "brand of truth". There has been a "brand of truth" that has been promoted since the time history textbooks were first published; it's just that the process of publishing back then wasn't open to such a democratic or transparent process as it is today.
