Texas: Palm, meet Face.

This is shocking! Wait, no, sadly it's not.

"History has already been skewed. Academia is skewed too far to the left."

Since when does the left hate history English math and science?

Yes, but when Sarah Palin mentioned that 'fact' the media called her an 'idiot'.

The left is not against history when it conforms and is molded into thier belief system. The word is 'revisionist'. White slave owners created the country and fostered the slave trade. No one mentions the majority of the founders who were against slavery, just the few targets required. Both Abraham Lincoln and Fredrick Douglas (1858) stated that slavery in the US would die on its own as the population of the south increased and the need for jobs for that population overwhelmed the slave market. But few know the progression of slavery in the South from the founding and the individuals most responsible for its continuation. And which party right up to the 60's was segregationist.

I think the major swing was in the 60's just after the Civil Rights Act. The Democrats (Dixiecrats) were firmly segregationists and it took Republicans to push the bill to passing. George Wallace ran on a segregationist as well as the Dem party platforms. The 'radicals' as they were called drifted to the more 'socialist' inclined Democrats as the Dems reeled from defeat in 68, and looked for a new voter base, and platform to counter the Republican Conservative message. The Democrat change actually chased the Dem Dixiecrats to the Republicans.

Research the 68 Democrat Presidential contenders, and the major shift in platforms after the defeat of 68. I still remmember Georgia in the early 70's and even today in the deep south as I drove my truck in Democrat led communities where Dems are firmly in charge politically and there is a very distinct culture line drawn and supported politically in Mississippi, Alabama, Louisianna, and still along racial lines.

Edited by oldsoldier - 16 March 2010 at 11:45pm

As an aspiring History teacher/atheist, this rubs me the wrong way in many ways, but if I can play devil's advocate (something the discipline should require) I'd like to share my thoughts.

Academia IS slanted to the left, my leftist professors would agree and not necessarily think it's a good thing. Most will admit that they have a personal bias, the good ones acknowledge that and he great do such a good job you could never tell what it is.

From what I have read, the new criteria covers some important issues that have been ignored. The '94 elections were covered in my high school textbooks, but the influence of conservatism has been a great force shaping modern politics, and it's about tie it has been examined and recognized for it.

Teachers in many districts don't need to teach directly from the text. Accommodations to those with special needs, I think you could each an effective lesson in a cave drawing in the sand with a stick. Ultimately a teacher's task is to provide students with information, preferably primary sources and he tools to make sense of them. Even if you have a bias textbook, it doesn't mean you're going to automatically brainwash students into believing the text word for word. Hell, my future students are going to read some of the nti-federalist papers if I have anything to say about it.

Overall I find the process and motivations behind this disgusting, and the downplaying of Jefferson retarded, but our history has a bad habit of sanitizing historical figures. The lack panther's and race riots should get time along with Dr. King and Rosa Parks. Parks' treatment by history disturbs me a lot. I don't think she gets enough credit for her activism, she's often portrayed as someone who committed a spontaneous ac of passive resistance, students need to whole story of how she was actually involved in the civil rights movement.

I refuse to see this as an assault on history, considering the ever changing nature of how it interpreted, crazy as these people are, they do have some points, and this is nowhere near as intellectually insulting as teaching intelligent design. I'll withhold final judgment until I can get my hands on one of these textbooks.

OLD...

Edited by FreeEnterprise - 17 March 2010 at 8:10am

ParielIsBack wrote: The issue here isn't that Texas is conservative, it's that it's full of stupid people, then. Although these guys aren't doing any better than what you're accusing the liberals of doing.

The trouble with an elected body is that at times they need to pander to the electorate. That's exactly what's happened here. They're changing the curriculum for POLITICAL reasons. Nobody here is arguing that capitalist market theory ought not be included in a curriculum. I'm 100% in agreement with you there. But they're taking out Jefferson, for instance, who was very prominent in the development of Western democratic liberalism, but whose politics the school board doesn't agree with. 

FE, you can't just brush off their pretty blatent agenda on this one. I'm with bri on this one. Yes, teach them about capitalism. Seriously tho? Removing Jefferson? Even you have to admit there is some really stupid things going on here, even if you don't dissagree with the entire thing.