Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Phid: The question then becomes – why not just get the book right the first time so the teacher doesn't have to?
1. Textbooks are written by committees and PC at that... need to write what the current educational fuzzy wuzzies are up for. 2. Textbook companies are always looking to sell more books and materials (adoptions run about every 5 years, soooo... having corrections and updates wait. 3. And what you and I think is correct may not be the ACORN or (insert flavor of the month radical org) whoever thinks is correct.
scout:I had this same argument with my son's history teacher several terms. I got variations on that is the official version every time I said something, regardless of the facts and sources I brought to bear. I even went to the school board once, got nowhere then too. I have since contented myself with pointing out innaccuracies in fact to my son when he does his homework.
Sorry to hear that... having had parents that expressed concerns I know that they must, at least, be satisfied that the teacher is listening... sometimes the teacher has to throw the official version under the bus!As for school boards... Twain was correct: God made the Idiot for practice, and then He made the School Board. On the whole you've done as much as you can unless the teacher comes around.
ski:I don't ever remember learning about the diseases brought over that nearly descimated the native populations, neither do I remember being taught the brutality of the Spanish conquest.
Generally speaking the idea is this... teach the kids what they (the average ones) are "ready" (emotionally, academically, socially, etc.) to understand and deal with. First graders don't need to know that many of the sailors on Columbus' crews were criminals that had been released to ease crowding in Spainish prison system... my 10th graders thought it pa pretty cool way to deal with the situation... if they survived they earned their freedom, if not, no great loss.Like sausage, seeing how education is made can distrub folks with a weak stomach.
But remember their union woirked rather like Poland, of old, all tribes had to agree or it wasn't a done deal and then everyone for themselves.
Far too true; knowing facts are the first step in figuring out what history means and while we may offer some possibilities we really can't tell people this is what it is (we weren't there and can't know for sure). The catch is offering (or allowing) as many reasonable possibilities as we can with out an agenda (which in itself is an agenda ;)).Next to NCLB, the best reason to be a former teacher! 8)
I dont think they ever will get it. Identinty politics and a sense of grievance are part of how some people identify themsleves whether the facts of their situation warrant it or not. Sad but true. 🙁
Not to play both sides here but I guess we are built on ID politics and sense of grievance... witness our own American Revolution. We identified as a different sort of crown subject (a citizen with God given rights) and a grievance (the crown not respecting, protecting, and promoting those rights)... darn, looks like we're right back where we started. 😮
Textbooks are the current political football in education; getting what you want into (or excluded from) a textbook is a huge advantage to promoting an agenda. if you have one. For folks that want to see the students exposed to as much information as possible, in the course of learning how to think, this is a concern. Far too often, without apparent bias only one side of an issue is stated. If the teachers doesn't present the other… flys straight with the book… the kids assume thae book is the whole story. That is rarely the whole story.Several years ago we adopted new textbooks for social studies. The 6th grade book didn't arrive on time. The hold up was the state was being sued by a religious group that claimed they were being portrayed in a bad light... they were said to have supported the caste system and that women didn't have as many rights as men in ancient India. This group sued the state to prevent the use of a book that told the truth. The book ultimately came to us and even the kids in my class the were of that group understood the book was talking about historical fact and not slamming folks today.Sadly we are still in a teach to the test mode (NCLB) and the textbooks are all geared to the so-called standards. To me the book was just another tool, used it when it was appropriate and skipped it when it was a drag on the lesson. My students didn't get too many book fines... the books were usually more drag than appropriate.
I am actually sick and tired of being called a racist for having an opinion that conflicts with a black guys opinion. The minority groups are perpetuating identity politics and now it seems that that strategy is starting to backfire on them. It's kind of hard to claim racism when you are sitting in a position of privilege or wealth isn't it?
Agreed. Too bad they don't get it.
“A racist is a person who discriminates or holds prejudices based on race. Discrimination is treatment based on category rather than individual merit,” said Tom Molloy, a 65-year-old retired financial services executive from Brentwood, N.H. “Barack Obama favors policies that will give preference to groups based on race rather than individual merit. It's called affirmative action.” –from 'Dueling “racist” article.
Racism, by this definition, is a form of stereotyping. Anytime we judge a group by a members of that group or an individual by the group that individual is a member of we are sterotyping. Not always wrong but usually unfair. Remember, stereotypes exists because there is a basis in truth to each of them... might be a very small % but always something to point to. The Prez, however, is just the latest in a long line of pols to use the affimative action ploy to redress old wounds. Remember Clinton apologized to Africa for slavery. Who sold the slaves to the white guys? Martians?
The rise in whites accusing blacks of racism is the inevitable result of years of black identity politics, which created a blueprint for whites who feel threatened by America's changing demographics, says Carol Swain, a Vanderbilt University professor and author of "The New White Nationalism In America." "We need to rethink what is racist and who can legitimately call whom racist," Swain said, citing the argument that blacks can't be racist because racism requires power. --same article.
I disagree that power is required... just the feeling one (or ones group) is being disadvantaged by the other group. Affirmative action seems to have not leveled the playing field but tipped it the other direction.Dr. King wanted to be considered for the "content of character" not skin color. Me too. Too bad the Democraps and the Reflublicans don't get it.
And right you are. My point was the misunderstanding of the term, think of darkest Africa; not lack of daylight, light-skinned people, nor lighter colored anything… just (at the time) lack of knowledge about it.
Not a good idea, calling the era the Dark Ages. Case in point; many years ago while introducing that era a student asked me, “So why do they call it the Dark Ages anyway?” My reply was that one night when the sun went down it never came back up for 1000 years. Seems a bit unkind I know but just having spent 10 minutes or so explaining about the stagnation (mostly) of things during that time and hearing the collective groan from 90% of the class I couldn't pass up the shot."Wow, how did they know when it was day time and when to go to bed and stuff?" Don't remember my reply but after about 2 more minutes of chain pulling I explained euphemisms....
The war by timetable theory that says that Germany gave Hungary the Green light and that once Russia mobilized germany had to respond and was forced to invade France because of the French treaty with russia etc.
My read has always been that every country was so far into the others' business (and behind backs) with nationalism, alliances, imperial motives, and militarism as a political tool, the assassination was just the sparke in the powder magazine. Thatt and the family feud angle... all related (inbred perhaps?) to Queen Victoria.
As to industrialization...
I can go with this... it fits well within the items I listed.
Critical mass idea for my part. Much of history is “right place at right time” scenario.BTW which WWI origin at you speaking of?
The thing was that the Protestant Reformation didn't occur until around the 1520s-1530s, and I believe the Counter Reformation was in swing closer to the 1550s or 1570s. I can see how Catholic-Protestant political rivalries could have figured into exploration efforts after the mid-16th century....but obviously they couldn't have when Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492.
Indeed, and I stand corrected... the mind is one of the first things togo... I forget the others.The logic in ski's text position is easy to see and seems to sum it up.
I would have to disagree with "religious motivation" ... along the lines that Ski mentioned.....
More likely just the idea of the Catholic Counter-reformantion; the Church made sure missionaries went on all the exploratory voyages to get more souls since many in Europe were converting to the new Protestant brands. Disturbing but organized religion works like a tobacco company, hooking them young (to stay) as the old ones are dying off. 😮
