Texas Board Passes Social Studies Curriculum

Status
Not open for further replies.
and why .... would a Confederate General violate FEDERAL segregation laws of the time and teach African Slaves to read? :hmm:

Was it because he was a "rebel"?
 
No, but I will say that there is liberal political agenda being taught in schools. Everything needs to move to the center because both sides have good and bad ideas.

Can't deny that. But I fail to see how anyone can approve of an attempt to re-write history no matter which side the proposal comes from. The only reasonable move would be to center. Provide all of the facts from an unbiased perspective, and give the students a chance to utilize critical thinking skills by forming opinion based on fact, rather than on a distorted presentation of fact. The need to manipulate educational material so that it shows a one sided perspective is simply unnacceptable, and is indicative of some underlying fear of knowledge.
 
and why .... would a Confederate General violate FEDERAL segregation laws of the time and teach African Slaves to read? :hmm:

Was it because he was a "rebel"?

The topic, Steinhauer, the topic.:roll:
 
Again, this is not about the Civil War, nor is it a history lesson. It is about the move by the state of Texas to intentionally water down and falsify historical fact. Are you in favor of this move?

re-read the article (especially what I highlighted in red). Thanks :P
 
Well, most of the schools teach the 8th Graders from 1607 (The Pilgrims' era) to 1865 (the end of Civil War) until another US history in 11th Grade for 1865 to Civil Rights in 60's, they didn't taught us anything about Vietnam War and Korean War and the Confederate States which I was disappoint.
 
re-read the article (especially what I highlighted in red). Thanks :P

Read the article, and I don't need you to change the font to red to attempt to direct me to what you think supports your position. The topic here is the attempt by conservative to alter the curriculum to include several inaccurate protrayals of American History, not to mention a shift to the conservative political view in the process.

I also read several responses to this move and posted such. Perhaps you missed those.

Fact, Texas is attempting to revise standards for the social studies curriculum to reflect a conservative political bent and to water down and leave out salient points that would give students an accurrate portrayal. Are you in favor of teaching children fantasy instead of fact when it comes to history?
 
Well, most of the schools teach the 8th Graders from 1607 (The Pilgrims' era) to 1865 (the end of Civil War) until another US history in 11th Grade for 1865 to Civil Rights in 60's, they didn't taught us anything about Vietnam War and Korean War and the Confederate States which I was disappoint.

Yes. Textbooks being used were too old to include the Korean and the Vietnam War. I have even run into a couple that declared the U.S. "winners" in both.:roll:
 
Can't deny that. But I fail to see how anyone can approve of an attempt to re-write history no matter which side the proposal comes from. The only reasonable move would be to center. Provide all of the facts from an unbiased perspective, and give the students a chance to utilize critical thinking skills by forming opinion based on fact, rather than on a distorted presentation of fact. The need to manipulate educational material so that it shows a one sided perspective is simply unnacceptable, and is indicative of some underlying fear of knowledge.

Genius. Acually makes me feel better to see that someone else feels this way
 
Well, most of the schools teach the 8th Graders from 1607 (The Pilgrims' era) to 1865 (the end of Civil War) until another US history in 11th Grade for 1865 to Civil Rights in 60's, they didn't taught us anything about Vietnam War and Korean War and the Confederate States which I was disappoint.

But now they can.

Like I said earlier ... shouldn't children be taught the truth? No matter what the truth may be?

(i.e. Honest Abe was a white supremacist and wanted to kick African Slaves out of the country).

Anything less would completely undermine the Civil Rights Movement ....

which coincidentally happened nearly 100 years after the Civil War ended:

An African-American Icon Speaks Truth to the Lincoln Cult by Thomas DiLorenzo


Since very few Americans have spent much time educating themselves about Lincoln and nineteenth-century American history (much of which has been falsified anyway), it is easy for members of what I call the Lincoln Cult to dismiss all literary criticisms of Lincoln as the work of "neo-Confederates," their code-word for "defenders of slavery" (as though anyone in America today would defend slavery), or "racist." Although they label themselves "Lincoln scholars," the last thing they want is honest scholarship when it comes to the subject of Lincoln and his war. They are, at best, cover-up artists and pandering court historians who feed at the government grant trough, "consuming" tax dollars to support their "research" and their overblown university positions.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Forced+Into+Glory:+Abraham+Lincoln's+White+Dream-a0128705074
 
But now they can.

Like I said earlier ... shouldn't children be taught the truth? No matter what the truth may be?

(i.e. Honest Abe was a white supremacist and wanted to kick African Slaves out of the country).

Anything less would completely undermine the Civil Rights Movement ....

which coincidentally happened nearly 100 years after the Civil War ended:

An African-American Icon Speaks Truth to the Lincoln Cult by Thomas DiLorenzo

This proposal does not seek to teach the truth. That is the problem with it.
 
The answer is C. However, it is a statement taken out of context. There are numerous qualifiers that must be included if it is to be understood in its intent and context.:roll:

I picked up a book titled "101 things you didn't know about Lincoln" by Brian Thorton. It is very interesting. He didn't want to abolish the slavery but he wanted to fence it in, hoping it will eventually died out. I think it is because there was law about slavery already on the books so he didn't seek out to change it until much later.
 
Read the article, and I don't need you to change the font to red to attempt to direct me to what you think supports your position. The topic here is the attempt by conservative to alter the curriculum to include several inaccurate protrayals of American History, not to mention a shift to the conservative political view in the process.

I also read several responses to this move and posted such. Perhaps you missed those.

Fact, Texas is attempting to revise standards for the social studies curriculum to reflect a conservative political bent and to water down and leave out salient points that would give students an accurrate portrayal. Are you in favor of teaching children fantasy instead of fact when it comes to history?

I never changed the topic ... you did. That was in red the whole time, un edited.
 
I was taught the Southern version of the Civil War. But what the heck does that got to do with the original topic?

De-railed his own topic. :|

It has virtually nothing to do with the topic. But this does:

As part of the new curriculum, the elected board - made up of lawyers, a dentist and a weekly newspaper publisher among others - rejected an attempt to ensure that children learn why the U.S. was founded on the principle of religious freedom.
But, it agreed to strengthen nods to Christianity by adding references to "laws of nature and nature's God" to a section in U.S. history that requires students to explain major political ideas

Texas Social Studies Goes Conservative - CBS News
 
I have to say though:

draw an equivalency between Jefferson Davis's and Abraham Lincoln's inaugural addresses, say that international institutions such as the United Nations imperil American sovereignty, and include a long list of Confederate officials about whom students must learn.

Okay...

Why did the United States even PROPOSED it in the first place? I means they even got veto power.
 
I never changed the topic ... you did. That was in red the whole time, un edited.

Looks like you missed your own post. That would be #7. It is where you derailed the topic into a discussion regarding the Civil War.:roll:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top