Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Texas changed it's history curriculum based on the value of promoting a conservative view.
The curriculum plays down the role of Thomas Jefferson among the founding fathers, questions the separation of church and state, and claims that the U.S. government was infiltrated by Communists during the Cold War.
Because the Texas textbook market is so large, books assigned to the state's 4.7 million students often rocket to the top of the market, decreasing costs for other school districts and leading them to buy the same materials.
Discussions ranged from whether President Reagan should get more attention (yes), whether hip-hop should be included as part of lessons on American culture (no), and whether President of the Confederacy Jefferson Davis's inaugural address should be studied alongside Abraham Lincoln's (yes).
Of particular contention was the requirement that lessons on McCarthyism note that "the later release of the Venona papers confirmed suspicions of communist infiltration in U.S. government."
The Venona papers document communication between the Soviet Union and its spies. Historians dispute the extent to which transcripts show Soviet involvement in American government.
Also contentious were changes that asserted Christian faith of the founding fathers. Historians say the founding fathers had a variety of approaches to religion and faith; some, like Jefferson, were quite secular.
Historians speak out against proposed Texas textbook changes
My guess is right wing posters here approve of this change in the history textbooks even though historican disagree.
Have you read "Venona", by Haynes and Klehr?
Have you read "In Denial" by Haynes and Klehr?
Have you read "The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB" by Christopher Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin?
I have.
It's about time Americans learned of the depth and breadth of the Communist infiltration into our government, and society.
You might want to inform yourself, as well.
Have you read the Declaration of Independance?
If you are suggesting 'secular' as meaning anti- or non-religious, you
will be surprised to find the following:
There are four references to ‘Devine’ in Declaration of Independence… 1)in first paragraph ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’ 2) next paragraph ‘endowed by their Creator,” 3) Supreme Judge of the world, and 4) ‘divine’ Providence, last paragraph.
This is important because our historic documents memorialize a government based on individuals born with inalienable rights, by, in various references, by the Devine, or Nature’s God, or their Creator, or the Supreme Judge, or divine Providence.
My guess is that the ignornant and the uneducated will disapprove of this change in the history textbooks.
Don't you agree?
Wow you think slavery made america great and not the freedoms guaranteed by the constitution through limiting the power of the govt?
Yikes!
I think Samson was being sarcastic.So far he hasn't been too sympatico with the whole concept of schools making it possible for students to have ALL the information they need to make value judgments without the government dictating those values to them. I believe he is more in agreement with that than he's letting on, but that's just a gut feeling and he certainly can speak for himself.
It is unrealistic to
1. expect students to make "value judgements" about anything: these are people who would gorge themselves on Pizza and Tacos and watch Spongebobsquarepants all day if given the choice.
2. expect their parents to be anything but slightly marginally better at making value judgements: Many cannot even be bothered to feed their kids before sending them to school, much less taking time to teach "value judgements."
Wow you think slavery made america great and not the freedoms guaranteed by the constitution through limiting the power of the govt?
Yikes!
I think Samson was being sarcastic.
"I believe he is more in agreement with that than he's letting on,..."
Yup....Samson is the 'Charlie Brown' of the USMB....
"Who walks in the classroom, cool and slow
Who calls the English teacher, Daddy-O
Charlie Brown, Charlie Brown
He's a clown, that Charlie Brown
He's gonna get caught
Just you wait and see
(Why's everybody always pickin' on me)"
A lot of the time, he's just jerkin' our chains....
I think Samson was being sarcastic.
It is unrealistic to
1. expect students to make "value judgements" about anything: these are people who would gorge themselves on Pizza and Tacos and watch Spongebobsquarepants all day if given the choice.
2. expect their parents to be anything but slightly marginally better at making value judgements: Many cannot even be bothered to feed their kids before sending them to school, much less taking time to teach "value judgements."
That is true re some. And certainly government is teaching piss poor values by taking over responsibilities, such as breakfast or nutrition in general, that was once a traditional value that parents expected to do. So we are building whole generations of people who never accept responsibility for parenting and providing for their kids.
Another traditional value was preparing yourself to support a family before you started one and that kids needed a mom and dad in the home and so they got married before they started having kids. Some of the modern generation finds all sorts of reasons to scorn such values, but the fact is people fare much better in that value system than do most who eschew it. Schools should be teaching that using real time statistics and verifiable truths to do it. That doesn't require a moral judgment but can be taught entirely objectively and practically.
Schools should be hammering into kids that those who educate themselves and graduate highschool will have infinate more opportunities and likelihood of success than those who drop out. Those who choose to get some college or a college degree will do even better. We should be impressing on kids that a diploma alone won't support them but they also need to be acquiring marketable skills or know how. That also doesn't require a moral judgment but is a purely practical matter as well as being socially responsible.
There are all sorts of values that schools can be promoting without placing any kind of moral judgment on them. Kids who are never taught how to think critically or who never are pushed to do so probably do usually wind up as the irreponsible numbnuts you describe. But I believe most people given good information will in time mature enough that they will utilize it.
Texas changed it's history curriculum based on the value of promoting a conservative view.
The curriculum plays down the role of Thomas Jefferson among the founding fathers, questions the separation of church and state, and claims that the U.S. government was infiltrated by Communists during the Cold War.
Because the Texas textbook market is so large, books assigned to the state's 4.7 million students often rocket to the top of the market, decreasing costs for other school districts and leading them to buy the same materials.
Discussions ranged from whether President Reagan should get more attention (yes), whether hip-hop should be included as part of lessons on American culture (no), and whether President of the Confederacy Jefferson Davis's inaugural address should be studied alongside Abraham Lincoln's (yes).
Of particular contention was the requirement that lessons on McCarthyism note that "the later release of the Venona papers confirmed suspicions of communist infiltration in U.S. government."
The Venona papers document communication between the Soviet Union and its spies. Historians dispute the extent to which transcripts show Soviet involvement in American government.
Also contentious were changes that asserted Christian faith of the founding fathers. Historians say the founding fathers had a variety of approaches to religion and faith; some, like Jefferson, were quite secular.
Historians speak out against proposed Texas textbook changes
My guess is right wing posters here approve of this change in the history textbooks even though historican disagree.
Have you read "Venona", by Haynes and Klehr?
Have you read "In Denial" by Haynes and Klehr?
Have you read "The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB" by Christopher Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin?
I have.
It's about time Americans learned of the depth and breadth of the Communist infiltration into our government, and society.
You might want to inform yourself, as well.
Have you read the Declaration of Independance?
If you are suggesting 'secular' as meaning anti- or non-religious, you
will be surprised to find the following:
There are four references to Devine in Declaration of Independence 1)in first paragraph Laws of Nature and of Natures God, 2) next paragraph endowed by their Creator, 3) Supreme Judge of the world, and 4) divine Providence, last paragraph.
This is important because our historic documents memorialize a government based on individuals born with inalienable rights, by, in various references, by the Devine, or Natures God, or their Creator, or the Supreme Judge, or divine Providence.
My guess is that the ignornant and the uneducated will disapprove of this change in the history textbooks.
Don't you agree?
Are you a relative of Joseph McCarthy? Ann Coulter? Herbert Hoover?
Are you a fanatic? Seeing spooks everywhere? Are they jumping out at you from behind potted plants?
Though relatively short, these House Un-American Activities Committee proceedings remain one of the most shameful moments in modern U.S. history.
Where were you during Watergate?
Values Topics/issues that Should be
Taught in Public School
Friendship
Responsibility
Peace
Truth
I see. You only talk seriously amongst yourselves, and with me, you post silly. OK. I currently work in education. I sub at an elementary school as well as run my own private business. Values are interesting to me and our school has a culture of zero tolerance for bullying as a core value.
1. Do you think that children should be allowed to watch more than two hours of television a day?
2. Do you feel that condoms should be available in our high schools?
3. Is merit pay a good thing?
4. Should we have an unlimited speed limit on our highways?
If we teach values, when are we supposed to do it? Do we take time away from math or social studies? Teachers complain about the amount of curriculum that has to be taught as it is. What kind of training program would be put in place to train teachers on how to teach values? There is also the cost factor. Any program on values would require funding. Will the benefits outweigh the cost of implementing such a program. Somebody will ultimately be responsible for the expenditures. He or she will become a hero if the values curriculum is successful, but he or she also runs the risk of taking the heat if the program fails.
I see. You only talk seriously amongst yourselves, and with me, you post silly. OK. I currently work in education. I sub at an elementary school as well as run my own private business. Values are interesting to me and our school has a culture of zero tolerance for bullying as a core value.
If you want the people here to take you seriously then don't disparage them in every post. Accept that they have some political differneces with you then challenge them respectfully on the issues you want them to discuss.
I read your posts on the previous page and their nature makes it so I wouldn't want to try and discuss with you either, it appears that even if someone makes a reasonable response you will still unreasonably attack them.
That is the impression you have been giving off in recent weeks anyway, a far cry from my first impression of you as a resonable and respectful poster on these forums.
I did see a post where you didn't do that and I'll go respond for you now.
It is unrealistic to
1. expect students to make "value judgements" about anything: these are people who would gorge themselves on Pizza and Tacos and watch Spongebobsquarepants all day if given the choice.
2. expect their parents to be anything but slightly marginally better at making value judgements: Many cannot even be bothered to feed their kids before sending them to school, much less taking time to teach "value judgements."
That is true re some. And certainly government is teaching piss poor values by taking over responsibilities, such as breakfast or nutrition in general, that was once a traditional value that parents expected to do. So we are building whole generations of people who never accept responsibility for parenting and providing for their kids.
Another traditional value was preparing yourself to support a family before you started one and that kids needed a mom and dad in the home and so they got married before they started having kids. Some of the modern generation finds all sorts of reasons to scorn such values, but the fact is people fare much better in that value system than do most who eschew it. Schools should be teaching that using real time statistics and verifiable truths to do it. That doesn't require a moral judgment but can be taught entirely objectively and practically.
Schools should be hammering into kids that those who educate themselves and graduate highschool will have infinate more opportunities and likelihood of success than those who drop out. Those who choose to get some college or a college degree will do even better. We should be impressing on kids that a diploma alone won't support them but they also need to be acquiring marketable skills or know how. That also doesn't require a moral judgment but is a purely practical matter as well as being socially responsible.
There are all sorts of values that schools can be promoting without placing any kind of moral judgment on them. Kids who are never taught how to think critically or who never are pushed to do so probably do usually wind up as the irreponsible numbnuts you describe. But I believe most people given good information will in time mature enough that they will utilize it.
A. This is a MYTH: "Another traditional value was preparing yourself to support a family before you started one and that kids needed a mom and dad in the home and so they got married before they started having kids." Humans have never embrased this value to the extent that it has ever been "traditional" with the possible exception of Islam where the value can only be enforced with the treat of being STONED TO DEATH!
B. You don't think schools are already "hammering into kids that those who educate themselves and graduate highschool will have infinate more opportunities????"
C. "There are all sorts of values that schools can be promoting without placing any kind of moral judgment on them." Name ONE, and I will place a moral judgement on it.
I see. You only talk seriously amongst yourselves, and with me, you post silly. OK. I currently work in education. I sub at an elementary school as well as run my own private business. Values are interesting to me and our school has a culture of zero tolerance for bullying as a core value.
If you want the people here to take you seriously then don't disparage them in every post. Accept that they have some political differneces with you then challenge them respectfully on the issues you want them to discuss.
I read your posts on the previous page and their nature makes it so I wouldn't want to try and discuss with you either, it appears that even if someone makes a reasonable response you will still unreasonably attack them.
That is the impression you have been giving off in recent weeks anyway, a far cry from my first impression of you as a resonable and respectful poster on these forums.
I did see a post where you didn't do that and I'll go respond for you now.
How have I disparaged you today? Be specific. Put whatever sentence you find so insulting forward so I can take a look at it. I'm trying to tone it down. I happen to be a passionate person and I get the impression that some of you wish I would "stifle myself?"".
.If you want the people here to take you seriously then don't disparage them in every post. Accept that they have some political differneces with you then challenge them respectfully on the issues you want them to discuss.
I read your posts on the previous page and their nature makes it so I wouldn't want to try and discuss with you either, it appears that even if someone makes a reasonable response you will still unreasonably attack them.
That is the impression you have been giving off in recent weeks anyway, a far cry from my first impression of you as a resonable and respectful poster on these forums.
I did see a post where you didn't do that and I'll go respond for you now.
How have I disparaged you today? Be specific. Put whatever sentence you find so insulting forward so I can take a look at it. I'm trying to tone it down. I happen to be a passionate person and I get the impression that some of you wish I would "stifle myself?"".
Me personally? Not at all. I was just observing your behavior across several threads this week. I understand that you get attacked too and its easy to let that give you an excuse to respond in kind but sometimes we need to rise above that. C'mon I know you've read Buddha's writings
I'm just trying to remind you of the path.
In a controversy the instant we feel anger we have already ceased striving for the truth, and have begun striving for ourselves.
In the sky, there is no distinction of east and west; people create distinctions out of their own minds and then believe them to be true.
What the "norm" was when Fox and I were kids is not what the "norm" is now. Conservatives want to go backward in time to what they consider "traditional" (time long past) values.
Our country has changed in the last 50 years and we have to change with it. JMO That's a liberal or progressive view of values. Equality was once NOT a "tradtional" value, now it is.
