Texas School board ready to vote

[B5C]

Texas School Board to Vote on Textbook Changes: Is It Rewriting History?

Members of the influential Texas School Board are about to vote on a set of changes to Texas textbooks. Given the state's influence over textbook publishers, its decisions could have national significance..

Protesters gathered this week in Austin to air their objections to the changes, which critics say are attempts to rewrite history. The new textbook standards would require texts to emphasize the Christian faith of the nation's founding fathers. Some earlier versions even removed references to Thomas Jefferson, who coined the phrase "separation of church and state," though those references have since been reinstated.

The changes are expected to pass when the board takes its final vote.

Conservatives on the board argue that they're balancing a liberal slant that they believe has permeated textbooks in recent decades, but others say their changes amount to dangerous meddling and is a disservice to Texas students.
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/texas-schoo...ry?id=10708687

This is nuts. Here is a video of the guy who forcing changes in text books.

[Stavroforos]

The people who don't care about history will do what they can to pass their classes, but will forget it the day they're done with the course or with high school.

The people who already have a view biased towards what is being said in the textbooks would continue holding their view no matter what their textbook said.

The people who truly care about history or have an interest in it will be able to find the truths not presented properly or not presented at all in the textbook.


All in all, much will go on as it had before, though I do oppose such changes in principle.

[Ex Tenebris Lux]

The people who don't care about history will do what they can to pass their classes, but will forget it the day they're done with the course or with high school.

The people who already have a view biased towards what is being said in the textbooks would continue holding their view no matter what their textbook said.

The people who truly care about history or have an interest in it will be able to find the truths not presented properly or not presented at all in the textbook.


All in all, much will go on as it had before, though I do oppose such changes in principle.

my feelings exactly.

though traitor such as Jefferson Davis should not be held in the same esteem as Lincoln.... makes my blood boil...

[Lonck]

my feelings exactly.

though traitor such as Jefferson Davis should not be held in the same esteem as Lincoln.... makes my blood boil...

why not? They both had the same goals. And Davis wasn't a traitor he just didn't like Northern influence.

[Disaray]

why not? They both had the same goals. And Davis wasn't a traitor he just didn't like Northern influence.

The are you smoking, Davis wasn't a traitor? He only led an active, armed, rebelion against the US. I don't think you can get more treasonous than that.

Anyway this Texas thing dosen't make snece. They said in a press release that their goal was to bring balance back to public education. Now one can argue long into the night wether or not there is balance in the public education system now, personaly I found it to be fairly balanced when I went thru it all of six years ago but lacking in depth in history. The confusing bit comes in when I look at the means by wich they will achieve this, removing "liberal influences" and replacing them with "conservitive ones". Perhaps I am deranged but this seems like it would just result in the same problems but with a conservitive bent. Is this realy any better than what they claim is hapening now?

Personaly I think that education should be about the facts, at least in terms of math, the sciences, history and language, and leave political and moral philosophy out of it; except in political science classes and philosophy classes naturaly.

[kesa82]

The are you smoking, Davis wasn't a traitor? He only led an active, armed, rebelion against the US. I don't think you can get more treasonous than that.

Yeah, well, George Washington had a British officers commission and had sworn a loyalty oath to the King.

As for later history, it was the U.S. government that took it into its head to over-rule the U.S. Supreme Court .........by force, and run right over the 10th amendment, by force. And this isn't really debatable.
Jefferson Davis was one of the foremost constitutional scholars in America at the time, so they thought twice about putting him on trial for treason. Their motive was not , " forgive and forget . "
They were scared to put him on trial. He asked for a trial.
In any case, I don't give a damn what his supposed "noble" motives were, Lincoln tried to kill my family , he was either a crack pot fanatic or a garden variety scumbag and tons of white wash and marble shrines will never cover it up really.

[♔DeusVult!♔]

my feelings exactly.

though traitor such as Jefferson Davis should not be held in the same esteem as Lincoln.... makes my blood boil...

Well personally, I don't hold Lincoln in very high esteem...

[MathiasOfAthens]

my feelings exactly.

though traitor such as Jefferson Davis should not be held in the same esteem as Lincoln.... makes my blood boil...

I agree with presenting two opposing viewpoints for students to research - whatever their motive was for putting davis in, as long as he is presented neutrally than all is well. But what gets at me is the fact they decided to take out so many other people because their views contradict their beliefs. They say on one hand that their side is unrepresented so they try to put in people from their side like McCarthy and Davis but when it comes to the other side they remove people who are critical of capitalism. Should students not read about both sides of a debate, apparently this guy does not think so, only his side is correct like only his god exist... these kinds of people are so ing stubborn.

[Stavroforos]

All the Confederacy were traitors, hence their leader was a traitor.

[Boyar Son]

All the Confederacy were traitors, hence their leader was a traitor.

Aren't all Americans traitors?

[Ramashan]

Aren't all Americans traitors?

As a Brit you may think this to be the case, until you look at the immigration factor. In which case only a small part of the current population would be related to the so called 'traitors' of the 1770's.

Many Irish, Italian, Eastern Europeans, Germans, Africans, and Chinese came much later, not to mention the Mexicans, Hawaiians, and Spanish acquired through later expansion and war.

I honestly don't have a problem with teaching that the 'Founding Fathers' were of a christian faith, so long as they also spend as much time teaching about Hunamism, the Age of Reason, and Freemosanry which truly reflected the belief of the founders.

Religion did play a role in the history of the US, this can not be denied, especially look at the debates that occurred in both the French and Indian war and the Revolution out of Penn and its Quacker population and passifist beliefs. But I doubt that will even be touched upon.

[MadBurgerMaker]

But I doubt that will even be touched upon.

Probably not. They just blow through this stuff because of the limited amount of time they tend to have, among other things. They make sure (edit: most of, or as many as possible) the students can regurgitate it properly for the standardized tests and move on. Everything revolves around those tests.

[Xanthippus of Sparta]

This is ridculous.

What's really catching the headlines right now is that the board tried to get all references to the word "slave" removed from....well...the slave trade.

The 6 "Conservatives" on the board are utterly insane. And the 4 "Liberals" are asleep at the wheel. If I was on this board, I would be talking some serious .

EDIT: Repost from a previous thread.

Unlike in the last thread on this, where I and many others tore into how ridculous the changes were in and of themselves, I'm gonna post some infomation about the Texas Council members who voted for this.

Maybe it'll give a peek into the mindset here. Morteduzionism is not wrong, many of the conservatives on the council are self described religious fundalmentalists. For example, Don McLeroy, a council member, is a strict creationist who doesn't believe in evolution, and has stated that he thinks that the earth is only "a few thousand" years old.

Here's some quotes...

"History tell us that the first thing that happens when a conquering army comes in is eliminate conservative opposition."
-Ken Mercer

Delusional paranoia about the Democrats winning recent elections at work.

"The establishment of public schools is unconstitutional and even tyrannical."
-Cynthia Dunbar

Ok, so, average American kids should not get an education at all? How far-right of you.

There's other quotes from this woman about Obama allowing a potential terrorist attack aganist the US, because he sympathizes with them. Also, before the President was elected she suggested that he would immediately declare martial law upon coming into office.

“I reject the notion by the left of a constitutional separation of church and state. I have $1,000 for the charity of your choice if you can find it in the Constitution."
-David Bradley

I'll cite the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the US Consitution.

Looks like someone failed their Middle School Civics exam.

I'll take my $1,000. Make the check out to the Red Cross.

Recently I had the displeasure of viewing a High School History textbook, with a "Christian" perspective added on...meant for home school students. In it, Evolution and Modern Psycology are literaly listed as "failed theories" of the 19th century. The Progressive era of the turn of the last century is bashed, especially the formation of public schools. Exremely important advancements in our social structure and improvements to our standard of living are left out entirely. Communism is of course torn into constantly. Not that I have a huge problem with this, but its done to the point of being way out of context at times. Despite the fact that the book was published in 2007, George W. Bush's presidency is viewed in an extremely postive light. You would think GW was Abe Lincoln the way he is spoken about. One of the last events of his presidency that the textbook covers is Hurricane Katrina. Nothing negative is said about the response. Even though shortly after the fact it was legit that it was a monsterous failure, even evident today with those trying to call the Gulf Coast oil spill "Obama's Katrina".

The point I'm trying to make is that this is what the conservative members of the Texas board want our public school texts to look like.

[Tiberios]

Though Stavroforos has a point, I'd say this is disturbing.

[removeduser_487563287433]

It's insane. I hate Texas, but I would have thought they'd be a respectable enough state not to teach political views as fact.

[Pickle_mole]

It's insane. I hate Texas, but I would have thought they'd be a respectable enough state not to teach political views as fact.

have you read any american history textbooks? I can say the ones at my highschool were very leftist in nature.

[Last Roman]

have you read any american history textbooks? I can say the ones at my highschool were very leftist in nature.

I have yet to come across one history that's "leftist" all of them tout how Columbus was a noble adventurer, the pioneers were rugged frontiersmen, etc. while seemingly blissfully glossing over or all out ignoring the plight of indians, blacks and the average poor. methinks you're just so far right that anything seems "leftist" to you.

[Gromovnik]

I have yet to come across one history that's "leftist" all of them tout how Columbus was a noble adventurer, the pioneers were rugged frontiersmen...

well Columbus was a noble adventurer, and the pioneers were rugged frontiersmen.

[Xanthippus of Sparta]

well Columbus was a noble adventurer, and the pioneers were rugged frontiersmen.

See this is part of the problem too...not picking on you one bit, just using your quote (and Last Roman's by extension) to illustrate viewing people and events as black and white, one way or the other....

Columbus was a visionary, out of the box thinker, and a skilled sailor. But he was also a bit of a slave driver, being incredibly harsh on his own men as well as on the Native Americans living on Hispaniola.

In mind knowing all the facts and taking them into account makes the subject more interesting. You gotta get away from trying to view historical figures and events in moral abosolutes.

The Texas board has no idea whatsoever about this concept.

[Last Roman]

well Columbus was a noble adventurer, and the pioneers were rugged frontiersmen.

there was not much noble about Columbus, nor were all pioneers the idealistic frontiersmen.