Texas schools to get controversial US History Syllabus/Books

[FreakyLocz14]

So on the subject of the Texas school board's actions, I feel this move is just one of many to come in the future where Conservatism is romanticized. Soon, aesthetic changes like putting Ronald Reagan on your money will gain traction, although that itself is no big deal (Put FDR on money too then!). The decision to remove Thomas Jefferson from the textbooks to me is a big mistake.

Reading this article, I feel there is a sense that the material taught in these books are designed to promote the growth of a new generation of Conservative thinking. With the removal of Jefferson and thus the notion of "separation of church and state," what will happen?
Clearly a view of the "combination of church and state" will be what children are taught to believe in.

Renaming the U.S. government form from "democratic" to a "constitutional republic" seems pretty insignificant at first, but is it possible that this is an effort to take away the connotation "democratic" (Democratic Party) may have, and instead replace this connotation with "constitutional republic" (Republican Party), the connotation being that what the form is named is the political party which should "rightfully" be in power?

I don't understand the voodoo that Conservatives use to make their decisions, but my guess is that the Texas school board's thinking is something along these lines.

Why is changing "democratic" to "constitutinal republic" bad? It's the truth! The United State is not a democracy, a democracy is where everyday people make decisions through a direct popular vote. Instead, we elect represenatives and appoint judges to make decisions for us. That is why we are a constitutional republic and NOT a democracy.

 

[lx_theo]

But like you said, history either happened or it didn't. The Black Panthers might not have represented the civil rights movement but they existed, so they are a part of history. Excluding them is also a denial of history. And no, the National Rifle Association is a civil rights group because they lobby for a constitutional right.

History itself is not subjective, let me rephrase my words. History classes are subjective. I had a history class where we had to watch Al Gore and Michael Moore films and an anti Fox News and Wal-Mart film. That is certainly biased.

We need to teach about Ronald Reagan just as much as we need to teach about Kennedy or Roosevelt. Reagan was a well-loved President. We also need to teach the fact that black civil rights was a product of the Republican Party and Jim Crow segregation (and also slavery) was a product of the Democratic Party.
Whenever someone wants to teach that the liberal media goes bananas but when they want to say that the New Deal was a success when in reality it was World War II that ended the Great Depression the media is okay with it.

Its teaching what to believe, not what happened. That is what the problem is.

I've never had a teacher who was told to show anything or teach anything that would be biased. I didn't have one that did anything like that until high school. Now I have my opinions of the world and I'm not influenced by their opinions. One of my teachers showed an inconvenient truth once, but that was because we had nothing left to do in class, and we weren't told that we had to pay attention to it or anything like that.

We don't need to learn about Regan just because some people liked him. I did and have learned about him about as much as Kennedy because his overall accomplishments were probably around the same amount. Roosevelt did much more in his three full terms and partial fourth. Dealing with the Great Depression, the New Deal (which did help a lot with relieving the pain of the depression), the second World War (which was the event that kickstarted what the New Deal had started and got us out of the Great Depression), as well as his effect on the term limit of a president. The teaching about the civil rights stuff and who you want them to be credited to is completely unnecessary though. Its just telling students why one side as bad and why the other is good which is a horrible thing to do.

Any 'liberal bias' that I've ever experienced is completely the teacher's fault and I've seen none of it actually endorsed by any superior in any way or form. There's just as much conservative biased, like how my brother told me how he was forced to watch a movie which proved to be basically the opposite of An Inconvenient Truth.

As for all the separation of church and state and how they don't think it should be, its complete ****. Freedom of Religion is the same as saying Freedom from Religion, as both apply.


EDIT: Oh, and technically, we are a representative democracy.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Its teaching what to believe, not what happened. That is what the problem is.

I've never had a teacher who was told to show anything or teach anything that would be biased. I didn't have one that did anything like that until high school. Now I have my opinions of the world and I'm not influenced by their opinions. One of my teachers showed an inconvenient truth once, but that was because we had nothing left to do in class, and we weren't told that we had to pay attention to it or anything like that.

We don't need to learn about Regan just because some people liked him. I did and have learned about him about as much as Kennedy because his overall accomplishments were probably around the same amount. Roosevelt did much more in his three full terms and partial fourth. Dealing with the Great Depression, the New Deal (which did help a lot with relieving the pain of the depression), the second World War (which was the event that kickstarted what the New Deal had started and got us out of the Great Depression), as well as his effect on the term limit of a president. The teaching about the civil rights stuff and who you want them to be credited to is completely unnecessary though. Its just telling students why one side as bad and why the other is good which is a horrible thing to do.

The Constitution, as interperted by the Supreme Court, says that the American people are guaranteed a republican form of government. They did not say they are guaranteed a democratic form of government.
Any 'liberal bias' that I've ever experienced is completely the teacher's fault and I've seen none of it actually endorsed by any superior in any way or form. There's just as much conservative biased, like how my brother told me how he was forced to watch a movie which proved to be basically the opposite of An Inconvenient Truth.

As for all the separation of church and state and how they don't think it should be, its complete ****. Freedom of Religion is the same as saying Freedom from Religion, as both apply.


EDIT: Oh, and technically, we are a representative democracy.

Wrong. Certain states are represenative democracies but the federal government is not. A represenative democracy would allow common people to referendum and perhaps overturn the represenatives decisons but the federal government does not allow for this. The only democracies we have in this country are at the state and local levels, which vary by jurisdiction. Saying the United States is a democracy is one of the biggest lies children are taught in school.

The Constitution, as interperted by the Supreme Court, guarantees the American people a republican for of government. It does not guarantee or even suggest that we should have a democratic form of government.

 

[superbenA2002]

I definitely don't like where this could be headed, I see this as a way for republicans to try and eliminate some of the more important liberal ideals that were presented in US History. Plus this seems like a downright conspiracy.

Kinda sounds like someone wants to partially rewrite history and also sounds like Glenn Beck wrote the textbook. My old school system when I was in school (I graduated High School in May 2002) got in trouble in the late 1990s because they wanted to teach Intelligent Design without teaching the Evolution Theory. All of the non-Christians tried to claim that the school system wanted to put Christian beliefs in the curriculum without teaching about other religions/beliefs. One of the new at the time US History teachers at my old high school had gotten fired because he didn't want to discuss the Martin Luther King, Jr. assassination as it was written in the textbook. I am also worried about my old school system (Harford County, Maryland Public Schools) since the old superintendent, Mrs. Jackie Hass passed away. She would never let the curriculum be politicized.

 

[Åzurε]

I'v also heard rumors that Texas is breaking from the union.......

Rumors are wrong. That can of worms is irrelevant, anyhow.

Feh, my only opinion at the moment is that history books should record history. Understanding the effects of what would happen, rather than what did happen, seems to be more suitable for discussion time.

 

[lx_theo]

Wrong. Certain states are represenative democracies but the federal government is not. A represenative democracy would allow common people to referendum and perhaps overturn the represenatives decisons but the federal government does not allow for this. The only democracies we have in this country are at the state and local levels, which vary by jurisdiction. Saying the United States is a democracy is one of the biggest lies children are taught in school.

The Constitution, as interperted by the Supreme Court, guarantees the American people a republican for of government. It does not guarantee or even suggest that we should have a democratic form of government.

So you're going to say I'm wrong about something that refers to basically the same thing? Good job defending everything thing else I debunked. A representative democracy, in contrast to a direct democracy, is in fact a democracy where the representatives are elected by the people. Sound familiar? Because its what we have as a groundwork to our country. Specifically, its a constitutional republic, which is a type of representative democracy, but to say its not a democracy at all is simply wrong and naive.

As for schools, young children are told lies all the time. Santa Claus, the Boogieman, where babies come from, etc. In the end its just because of the fact that at certain ages that young, its better to lie for the sake of one, protecting them, two, simplifying it. If a person grows up and doesn't learn at a point later on its specifics on the government in that regard, then they probably don't know the difference between the two in the first place.

 

[Aureol]

Wait, does this mean that by not separating the church and education they will be teaching religious views as fact? If that's true then I don't know what to say. Children shouldn't be taught what to believe, they should decide that themselves later on.

As for them teaching that the UN might restrict US freedoms, that's just... bizarre. I mean I know history is "written by the victor", but that is a little too extreme.

I highly doubt they are going to teach religious views (i.e. God is real); they're most likely not going to omit the Christian influence in the founding of America. I don't see what's so scary about that fact: religion has played a major part in many countries' foundings. Although, I do worry that the Texas textbooks will suggest that religion was the sole reason for it.

As for the U.N.... I'd rather not talk about it. But basically, global government is very against the ideas of America (whether that's a good or bad thing, you decide).

 

[Esper]

As for the U.N.... I'd rather not talk about it. But basically, global government is very against the ideas of America (whether that's a good or bad thing, you decide).

Whether the U.N. is for or against "the ideas of America" (which is a pretty murky thing to define in the first place) or if it counts as "global government" is a personal, political point and not something that should be in a history book. Or at least a history book for high school and below. Let students discuss it in debates, but don't have it taught as fact in lectures by the teacher.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

So you're going to say I'm wrong about something that refers to basically the same thing? Good job defending everything thing else I debunked. A representative democracy, in contrast to a direct democracy, is in fact a democracy where the representatives are elected by the people. Sound familiar? Because its what we have as a groundwork to our country. Specifically, its a constitutional republic, which is a type of representative democracy, but to say its not a democracy at all is simply wrong and naive.

As for schools, young children are told lies all the time. Santa Claus, the Boogieman, where babies come from, etc. In the end its just because of the fact that at certain ages that young, its better to lie for the sake of one, protecting them, two, simplifying it. If a person grows up and doesn't learn at a point later on its specifics on the government in that regard, then they probably don't know the difference between the two in the first place.

No we are not any sort of democracy whatsoever. If we were people would have referendumed the health care bill but we can't because we're not a democracy.

 

[lx_theo]

No we are not any sort of democracy whatsoever. If we were people would have referendumed the health care bill but we can't because we're not a democracy.

You just don't get it, do you? Do I need to spell it our for you? Because I've already made it near to being clear as day. The ability to referend doesn't define a democracy. A constitutional republic is style of doing a representative democracy. This isn't opinion, its definition and fact. I learned all this in my American Government class. Can I make it any clearer for you?

 

[Aureol]

Whether the U.N. is for or against "the ideas of America" (which is a pretty murky thing to define in the first place) or if it counts as "global government" is a personal, political point and not something that should be in a history book. Or at least a history book for high school and below. Let students discuss it in debates, but don't have it taught as fact in lectures by the teacher.

Oh, I do apologize, yes. I didn't mean to suggest that it should be taught in schools. I was just interwebz raging. Obviously, this is opinion, so this particular part should be avoided.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

You just don't get it, do you? Do I need to spell it our for you? Because I've already made it near to being clear as day. The ability to referend doesn't define a democracy. A constitutional republic is style of doing a representative democracy. This isn't opinion, its definition and fact. I learned all this in my American Government class. Can I make it any clearer for you?

Yes it does. In your class did they fail to mention that a democratic government is defined by the common citizen voting to decide policy. A republican government is when represenatives create policies.

Big difference.

 

[donavannj]

You just don't get it, do you? Do I need to spell it our for you? Because I've already made it near to being clear as day. The ability to referend doesn't define a democracy. A constitutional republic is style of doing a representative democracy. This isn't opinion, its definition and fact. I learned all this in my American Government class. Can I make it any clearer for you?

Representative democracy in America is just one of those terms that politicians have used to make their constituents feel involved very involved. We are officially a federal republic, as we are a federation of states. We'd be a representative democracy if our states did not have rights.

And, here's another reason we aren't a representative democracy: the Electoral College system is how our president is officially chosen. We technically have no real say in who our President will be, the electors have just have traditionally followed the popular vote of their state, since each elector is an elected federal official from the state, and most likely does not want to alienate the majority of their constituents.

AND BACK ON TOPIC:

I think that they've gone too far with some of it, especially that bit about the UN, but they are right in pointing out that there was nothing written about total separation of church and state in this country's original founding documents.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

I don't understand how the UN hurts the United States when the United States is a permanent member on the Security Council and runs the UN.

 

[donavannj]

I don't understand how the UN hurts the United States when the United States is a permanent member on the Security Council and runs the UN.

That's a good point you just brought up. The United States is among the five countries that get to stay permanently on the Security Council. Though the United States doesn't officially run the UN.

The other part I don't enjoy is that it's going to affect more than just Texas because of what the publishers will do.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

That's a good point you just brought up. The United States is among the five countries that get to stay permanently on the Security Council. Though the United States doesn't officially run the UN.

The other part I don't enjoy is that it's going to affect more than just Texas because of what the publishers will do.

The United States in concert with the rest of the Security Council do run the UN. Any one Security Council member can veto anything and vetos can't be overruled.

What's wrong with what Texas is doing? It's not any worse than students being fed Al Gore or Michael Moore propaganda.

 

[Ivysaur]

What's wrong with what Texas is doing? It's not any worse than students being fed Al Gore or Michael Moore propaganda.

Because the best way of action is not feeding the students any kind of propaganda, not feeding them conservative propaganda to make up for the kids who are fed progressive propaganda @_@

(And Technically the US is a Democracy because the Representatives who make the policies are chosen in a free election. Actually, the citizens decide both Houses and the President via elections. And any kind of Government based on elections is a form of Democracy).

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Because the best way of action is not feeding the students any kind of propaganda, not feeding them conservative propaganda to make up for the kids who are fed progressive propaganda @_@

(And Technically the US is a Democracy because the Representatives who make the policies are chosen in a free election. Actually, the citizens decide both Houses and the President via elections. And any kind of Government based on elections is a form of Democracy).

But we don't elect our President, the Electoral College does that.

And I agree that we shouldn't teach propaganda but fat chance of that happening. If it's not the textbooks sneaking their ideals by as educational it's the teachers themselves.

 

[txteclipse]

In terms of the debate as to whether America is a democracy or not...

The founding fathers were divided between creating an American government that matched the monarchical system of Britain and creating a direct democracy. Ultimately, they chose a middle road. A direct democracy would have a weak central government which existed only to enact the will of the people immediately and without question. America is still a democracy in some sense due to its electoral nature, but it's a representative democracy, not a direct democracy.

You can read the Wikipedia article about different forms of democracy, as well as the philosophies behind them, here. It's pretty fascinating, at least in my opinion. It's a delicate balancing act of minimizing government without allowing anyone to be stepped on. A mixture of flexibility and rigidity. I have a habit of calling it "the katana government," just because I'm weird like that.

 

[lx_theo]

But we don't elect our President, the Electoral College does that.

And I agree that we shouldn't teach propaganda but fat chance of that happening. If it's not the textbooks sneaking their ideals by as educational it's the teachers themselves.

Listen, there are two major types of democracy: Direct and Representative

Direct is where each citizen votes on nearly every issue.

Representative is where they vote for others to represent them in their voting and their interests.

You obviously don't have as much as a grasp on this as you've been claiming, since like said before, democracy is a much more general and broad term, but is still true to our government.