Making Our Children Stalinists

[PoliticalChic]

You sound EXACTLY like a holocaust denier!

So....you don't care to defend that statement?


I guess you'd rather retract that, huh?

"Since you don't read, you probably don't know that most of the "genocide of Indians" is a Liberal myth": Most huh?

On March 25, 1838 more than fourteen thousand members of the Cherokee Nation were forced from tribal lands in Georgia, Alabama and Tennessee and 'escorted' along an 800 mile trail for somewhere between 93 and 139 and an estimated 4,000 people died, mostly infants, children and the elderly.

For some detail on the "liberal myth" please refer to this link and follow it up with research of your own.

American Indian Wars - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Although you weren't my original target....

...I never miss an opportunity to slap you arou.....er....educate you.


Lack of precision in language in endemic to you Leftists.....as you seem to believe that it is the only way you can win an argument.

Not today.


1. Genocide means deliberate and systematic. As described by the UN Convention, Article II, it involves “ a series of brutal acts committed with intent to destroy, …a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group as such.”

a. The Trail of Tears does not constitute 'genocide.'

2. Guenter Lewy is an author and historian, and a professor emeritus of political science at the University of Massachusetts.
In September 2004, Lewy published an essay entitled "Were American Indians the Victims of Genocide ?" in which he says [Ward] Churchill's assertion that the U.S. Army intentionally spread smallpox among American Indians by distributing infected blankets in 1837 is false. Lewy calls Churchill's claim of 100,000 deaths from the incident "obviously absurd".

3. Academia brings out all sorts of America-hatred....and you appear to be a consumer of much of this dime-novel hysteria.

Pop culture unfailingly paints the army as brutal killers, as in the famous South Dakota Wounded Knee ‘massacre,’ December 29, 1890. Robert Marshall Utley (born in 1929) is an author and historian who has written sixteen books on the history of the American West, including The Last Days of the Sioux Nation. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT (1963) in which he concludes that the army court of inquiry was correct in clearing the soldiers, and that “the Indians fired at least 50 shots before the troops returned fire.”


4. Potentates of Pop-Culture suggest the dignity and gentleness of native societies in pre-Columbian North America, regularly find phrases such as “noble civilizations,’ and “lived in peace,” etc. “Harvard archaeologist [Steven] LeBlanc and his co-author [in Constant Battles: The Myth of the Peaceful, Noble Savage ] dismantle the notion of the noble savage,... most people envision prehistoric people as peace-seeking nature lovers. LeBlanc insists repeatedly that it is not only foolish, but also dangerous, to believe in an Edenic past when the evidence reveals overpopulation and violence wherever we look.” (Publisher’s Weekly)


5. To actually learn about the habits of Native Americans, and the atrocities committed by same, I suggest you pick up a copy of "Our Savage Neighbors: How Indian War Transformed Early America," by Peter Silver.

a. From his book: "[W]hite people in this period were nearly always depicted as suffering at Indians’ hands rather than triumphing over them, and if Europeans did not identify with, and move to mitigate this suffering, then they did not deserve to rule them: this served as a test first of Quaker’s, and then British rule in the middle colonies. This was an important source of the fundamental revolutionary idea of a sovereign people."

6. Attacks by French-allied Indians hit Pennsylvania in October 1755. Sixty to one hundred arrived beyond the settlements, and divided into smaller groups, which went into different valleys to reconnoiter. Each spy ”lay[ing] about a House some days & nights, watching like a wolf” to see ”the situation of the Houses, the number of people at Each House, the places the People most frequent, & to observe at each House where there is most men, or women.” The individual farmsteads they chose a targets were at last attacked in parallel by still smaller groups, each only big enough to kill or capture the number of people it was likely to meet.
Col. James Burd, “Pennsylvania Archives,” 199-104

a. The brunt of these attacks fell on people who were outside doing field work. The attacks were manufactured to instill paralyzing fear- and they did.

b. In 1756,William Fleming gave an unrivaled account of life in one of these little attack groups. Delawares stormed the house of Fleming’s neighbor, a farmer named Hicks, and took one of the Hicks boys as prisoner. The Indians then went on to instill fear by having Fleming witness the Hicks boys’ murder: they bludgeoned the boy to the ground with a tomahawk, split open his head- pausing at this point, in “Sport…to imitate his expiring Agonies” – and scalped him, and continued “all over besmared with [Hicks’s] blood.”

c. Fleming wrote of watching while a youth from a neighboring family was taken by Indians while inside were “numerous Family of able young Men” and despite his “scream[ing] in a most piteous Manner for help,” his brothers made no attempt to help. A narrative of the sufferings and surprizing deliverances of William and Elizabeth Fleming [electron... | National Library of Australia

d. Northampton County, Pennsylvania, 1778. Four men, two with wives and eight children, were attacked by Indians. [T]his occaion’d our men to flee as fast as they could,…before they were out of sight of the wagon they saw the Indians attacking the women & Children with their Tomahawks.” The net day, the three men came back to the scene for the corpses, which include the stabbed and scalped bodies of Smith’s wife, and of “a Little girl kill’d & sclped, [and] a boy the same.” Pa. Arch. 1:6:591


Don't hesitate to ask should you require further enlightenment.

 

[koshergrl]

4000 Indians does not a genocide make. Sorry.

I guess it depends on how many Indians there are and whether or not you're an Indian.

Why on earth would it depend on whether or not I'm an Indian, and what does the numbers of Indians have to do with it? Have you any leanings towards logic at ALL?

No, not really. I'm sorry you don't understand the term "genocide". Particularly distressing, since you seem to like to use it.

See...genocide is the intentional targeting of a population with the intent to wipe them off the face of the earth. The piece I quoted and linked tackled pretty much the entire history of the conflicts between Europeans and Indians on this continent, and showed there was no intent to wipe out the entire Indian *race*. While there were definitely very strong feelings on both sides, and unfortunate incidents, the majority of Indians were killed by disease, and the intent of immigrants coming to this country was never to wipe out Indians via disease (biological warfare).

There are isolated incidents where Indians took a serious beating, and many instances of terrible damages inflicted upon them...but again, these were acts of war, and never indicative of any overweening desire to eradicate Indians from the face of the planet.

PS...my children are Indian, and my grandmother was born on the reservation.

 

[Wry Catcher]

So....you don't care to defend that statement?


I guess you'd rather retract that, huh?

"Since you don't read, you probably don't know that most of the "genocide of Indians" is a Liberal myth": Most huh?

On March 25, 1838 more than fourteen thousand members of the Cherokee Nation were forced from tribal lands in Georgia, Alabama and Tennessee and 'escorted' along an 800 mile trail for somewhere between 93 and 139 and an estimated 4,000 people died, mostly infants, children and the elderly.

For some detail on the "liberal myth" please refer to this link and follow it up with research of your own.

American Indian Wars - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why don't we step away from wiki, mmkay?

"In 1928, the ethnologist James Mooney proposed a total count of 1,152,950 Indians in all tribal areas north of Mexico at the time of the European arrival. By 1987, in American Indian Holocaust and Survival, Russell Thornton was giving a figure of well over 5 million, nearly five times as high as Mooney’s, while Lenore Stiffarm and Phil Lane, Jr. suggested a total of 12 million. That figure rested in turn on the work of the anthropologist Henry Dobyns, who in 1983 had estimated the aboriginal population of North America as a whole at 18 million and of the present territory of the United States at about 10 million.
From one perspective, these differences, however startling, may seem beside the point: there is ample evidence, after all, that the arrival of the white man triggered a drastic reduction in the number of native Americans. Nevertheless, even if the higher figures are credited, they alone do not prove the occurrence of genocide."

"The most hideous enemy of native Americans was not the white man and his weaponry, concludes Alfred Crosby,"but the invisible killers which those men brought in their blood and breath." It is thought that between 75 to 90 percent of all Indian deaths resulted from these killers."

"The larger picture also does not conform to Stannard’s idea of disease as an expression of"genocidal war." True, the forced relocations of Indian tribes were often accompanied by great hardship and harsh treatment; the removal of the Cherokee from their homelands to territories west of the Mississippi in 1838 took the lives of thousands and has entered history as the Trail of Tears. But the largest loss of life occurred well before this time, and sometimes after only minimal contact with European traders. "

So no genocide.

Glad we could clear that up.

History News Network | Were American Indians the Victims of Genocide?

Was it genocide or ethnic cleansing (the latter term become popular in the 1990's) or something else when Native Americans were forced to move from their ancestral homes? How do you factor in the slaughter of the Buffalo as part of Manifest Destiny, do you believe the slaughter of these great beasts simply for their robe was benign? How about the land grants of land traditionally used for hunting Buffalo to the builders of the Rail Road?

How would you define the Holocaust and the forced removal of the Jewish People and other human beings from their homes because the German Government found them to be undesirable?

 

[koshergrl]

You just don't do definitions, do you?

It's a lefty thing.

Again. There was no premeditated plan to wipe out the Indians. Even the Trail of Tears was not undertaken with the specific intent to kill all the Cherokee. Certainly the diseases that wiped out the majority of the Indians who died were not deliberately threaded through the population by the first European settlers.

Get a grip, in other words.

"
In the end, the sad fate of America's Indians represents not a crime but a tragedy, involving an irreconcilable collision of cultures and values. Despite the efforts of well-meaning people in both camps, there existed no good solution to this clash. The Indians were not prepared to give up the nomadic life of the hunter for the sedentary life of the farmer. The new Americans, convinced of their cultural and racial superiority, were unwilling to grant the original inhabitants of the continent the vast preserve of land required by the Indians’ way of life. The consequence was a conflict in which there were few heroes, but which was far from a simple tale of hapless victims and merciless aggressors. To fling the charge of genocide at an entire society serves neither the interests of the Indians nor those of history."

http://hnn.us/article/7302

 

[Mustang]

4000 Indians does not a genocide make. Sorry.

I guess it depends on how many Indians there are and whether or not you're an Indian.

Why on earth would it depend on whether or not I'm an Indian, and what does the numbers of Indians have to do with it? Have you any leanings towards logic at ALL?

No, not really. I'm sorry you don't understand the term "genocide". Particularly distressing, since you seem to like to use it.

See...genocide is the intentional targeting of a population with the intent to wipe them off the face of the earth. The piece I quoted and linked tackled pretty much the entire history of the conflicts between Europeans and Indians on this continent, and showed there was no intent to wipe out the entire Indian *race*. While there were definitely very strong feelings on both sides, and unfortunate incidents, the majority of Indians were killed by disease, and the intent of immigrants coming to this country was never to wipe out Indians via disease (biological warfare).

There are isolated incidents where Indians took a serious beating, and many instances of terrible damages inflicted upon them...but again, these were acts of war, and never indicative of any overweening desire to eradicate Indians from the face of the planet.

PS...my children are Indian, and my grandmother was born on the reservation.

I haven't used the word genocide.

 

[koshergrl]

I guess it depends on how many Indians there are and whether or not you're an Indian.

Why on earth would it depend on whether or not I'm an Indian, and what does the numbers of Indians have to do with it? Have you any leanings towards logic at ALL?

No, not really. I'm sorry you don't understand the term "genocide". Particularly distressing, since you seem to like to use it.

See...genocide is the intentional targeting of a population with the intent to wipe them off the face of the earth. The piece I quoted and linked tackled pretty much the entire history of the conflicts between Europeans and Indians on this continent, and showed there was no intent to wipe out the entire Indian *race*. While there were definitely very strong feelings on both sides, and unfortunate incidents, the majority of Indians were killed by disease, and the intent of immigrants coming to this country was never to wipe out Indians via disease (biological warfare).

There are isolated incidents where Indians took a serious beating, and many instances of terrible damages inflicted upon them...but again, these were acts of war, and never indicative of any overweening desire to eradicate Indians from the face of the planet.

PS...my children are Indian, and my grandmother was born on the reservation.

I haven't used the word genocide.

My bad. Regardless, the number of Indians that existed, and my own bloodlines, have exactly zero bearing on whether or not genocide took place.

And regarding Sand Creek...please, please step away from wiki just for a moment:

" No less significant is that a massacre like Sand Creek was undertaken by a local volunteer militia and was not the expression of official U.S. policy. No regular U.S. Army unit was ever implicated in a similar atrocity. In the majority of actions, concludes Robert Utley,"the Army shot noncombatants incidentally and accidentally, not purposefully." As for the larger society, even if some elements in the white population, mainly in the West, at times advocated extermination, no official of the U.S. government ever seriously proposed it. Genocide was never American policy, nor was it the result of policy."

History News Network | Were American Indians the Victims of Genocide?

 

[Mustang]

Why on earth would it depend on whether or not I'm an Indian, and what does the numbers of Indians have to do with it? Have you any leanings towards logic at ALL?

No, not really. I'm sorry you don't understand the term "genocide". Particularly distressing, since you seem to like to use it.

See...genocide is the intentional targeting of a population with the intent to wipe them off the face of the earth. The piece I quoted and linked tackled pretty much the entire history of the conflicts between Europeans and Indians on this continent, and showed there was no intent to wipe out the entire Indian *race*. While there were definitely very strong feelings on both sides, and unfortunate incidents, the majority of Indians were killed by disease, and the intent of immigrants coming to this country was never to wipe out Indians via disease (biological warfare).

There are isolated incidents where Indians took a serious beating, and many instances of terrible damages inflicted upon them...but again, these were acts of war, and never indicative of any overweening desire to eradicate Indians from the face of the planet.

PS...my children are Indian, and my grandmother was born on the reservation.

I haven't used the word genocide.

My bad. Regardless, the number of Indians that existed, and my own bloodlines, have exactly zero bearing on whether or not genocide took place.

And regarding Sand Creek...please, please step away from wiki just for a moment:

" No less significant is that a massacre like Sand Creek was undertaken by a local volunteer militia and was not the expression of official U.S. policy. No regular U.S. Army unit was ever implicated in a similar atrocity. In the majority of actions, concludes Robert Utley,"the Army shot noncombatants incidentally and accidentally, not purposefully." As for the larger society, even if some elements in the white population, mainly in the West, at times advocated extermination, no official of the U.S. government ever seriously proposed it. Genocide was never American policy, nor was it the result of policy."

History News Network | Were American Indians the Victims of Genocide?

Well, I'm not at all surprised that genocide was never 'official' American policy considering the probable uproar that would ensue even in an age prior to television. That doesn't mean that our gov't wasn't complicit in pursuing policies that they clearly understood were genocidal in nature.

However, if you're an American Indian living in the 1800s, and your numbers are being reduced (decimated would probably be a better word) by disease, starvation (which was helped along by US gov't policies), forced migration, and flat out murder, you would be a complete fool if you didn't conclude that genocide was the likely outcome if current trends continued.

As long as the birthrate was below the replacement rate, and our gov't was responsible for the policies that brought about those changes, the policies are genocidal whether it's official gov't policy, or not.

The critical issue was time.

 

[Borillar]

Why on earth would it depend on whether or not I'm an Indian, and what does the numbers of Indians have to do with it? Have you any leanings towards logic at ALL?

No, not really. I'm sorry you don't understand the term "genocide". Particularly distressing, since you seem to like to use it.

See...genocide is the intentional targeting of a population with the intent to wipe them off the face of the earth. The piece I quoted and linked tackled pretty much the entire history of the conflicts between Europeans and Indians on this continent, and showed there was no intent to wipe out the entire Indian *race*. While there were definitely very strong feelings on both sides, and unfortunate incidents, the majority of Indians were killed by disease, and the intent of immigrants coming to this country was never to wipe out Indians via disease (biological warfare).

There are isolated incidents where Indians took a serious beating, and many instances of terrible damages inflicted upon them...but again, these were acts of war, and never indicative of any overweening desire to eradicate Indians from the face of the planet.

PS...my children are Indian, and my grandmother was born on the reservation.

I haven't used the word genocide.

My bad. Regardless, the number of Indians that existed, and my own bloodlines, have exactly zero bearing on whether or not genocide took place.

And regarding Sand Creek...please, please step away from wiki just for a moment:

" No less significant is that a massacre like Sand Creek was undertaken by a local volunteer militia and was not the expression of official U.S. policy. No regular U.S. Army unit was ever implicated in a similar atrocity. In the majority of actions, concludes Robert Utley,"the Army shot noncombatants incidentally and accidentally, not purposefully." As for the larger society, even if some elements in the white population, mainly in the West, at times advocated extermination, no official of the U.S. government ever seriously proposed it. Genocide was never American policy, nor was it the result of policy."

History News Network | Were American Indians the Victims of Genocide?

"Genocide was never American policy, nor was it the result of policy." What was it then? A happy coincidence?

 

[koshergrl]

It wasn't genocide, genius. That's the point.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

and the right holds the angelic halo of righteousness yet again.

Getting more tarnished and rusted with each passing day.

This thread deserves some sort of medal for hi-falutin, holier-than-thou-horse shit.

Congrats, rw's. Congrats.

 

[koshergrl]

It would be great if you'd actually learned anything, but your steadfast determination to prevent any knowledge from seeping in is unlikely to waver.

 

[JoeB131]

I'm less worried about kids learning their history from Zinn and more worried they don't learn it at all.

or worse, from here...

Hillbillies or Pawn Shops?

 

[Wry Catcher]

You just don't do definitions, do you?

It's a lefty thing.

Again. There was no premeditated plan to wipe out the Indians. Even the Trail of Tears was not undertaken with the specific intent to kill all the Cherokee. Certainly the diseases that wiped out the majority of the Indians who died were not deliberately threaded through the population by the first European settlers.

Get a grip, in other words.

"
In the end, the sad fate of America's Indians represents not a crime but a tragedy, involving an irreconcilable collision of cultures and values. Despite the efforts of well-meaning people in both camps, there existed no good solution to this clash. The Indians were not prepared to give up the nomadic life of the hunter for the sedentary life of the farmer. The new Americans, convinced of their cultural and racial superiority, were unwilling to grant the original inhabitants of the continent the vast preserve of land required by the Indians’ way of life. The consequence was a conflict in which there were few heroes, but which was far from a simple tale of hapless victims and merciless aggressors. To fling the charge of genocide at an entire society serves neither the interests of the Indians nor those of history."

History News Network | Were American Indians the Victims of Genocide?

Two points. You 'speak' as if no one in authority "premeditated (a) plan to wipe out the Indians" - that's not true. Maybe genocide was not the final solution, but getting them out of the way of the Rail Road, Gold and Silver Discoveries, and the fertile land where their sustenance roamed - the buffalo - was tantamount to exterminating their existence.

Point two is not that I "fling the charge of genocide at an entire society", yet many members of that 'society' didn't give a damn about the Native Americans, making that population little different than the Callous Conservative of today. Human nature doesn't change. For another side of the story I refer you to the book, "The Real All-Americans".

From a Review: The Real All Americans is Sally Jenkins' sweeping nonfiction account of two coinciding chapters in American history: Just as the Western frontier was closing, football "jumped up out of the mud" to replace it in the national psyche. Jenkins' tale takes readers from a real battle in 1866 to a football contest in 1912, pitting the Carlisle Indians against West Point. "Football," says the veteran sportswriter, "became a substitute for war," and in its earliest days the game, like the real thing, could be mortally dangerous.

 

[HUGGY]

Making Our Children Stalinists ?


Are our children selectively rounding up and executing thier political enemies?

Are our children hording all thier neighbors income and belongings?

As far as I can tell today's children are the same hormone driven know it all nitwits they were when I ws a child some 50 years ago..

Want them being taught that Mao, Castro, and Stalin were correct, and really not bad guys?

Didn't think so.

What I want does not matter. Parents are responsible for thier own children. There is also this thing called the internet. If your dumb ass kid takes an unusual liking to Stalin there are thousands of places they can go to get the truth. My teachers did not shape the way I thought about things. If yours did then you were and are a loser.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Making Our Children Stalinists ?


Are our children selectively rounding up and executing thier political enemies?

Are our children hording all thier neighbors income and belongings?

As far as I can tell today's children are the same hormone driven know it all nitwits they were when I ws a child some 50 years ago..

Want them being taught that Mao, Castro, and Stalin were correct, and really not bad guys?

Didn't think so.

What I want does not matter. Parents are responsible for thier own children. There is also this thing called the internet. If your dumb ass kid takes an unusual liking to Stalin there are thousands of places they can go to get the truth. My teachers did not shape the way I thought about things. If yours did then you were and are a loser.

Given how liberals so easily followed Obama in lockstep for the past 5 years, that makes you a liar.

 

[HUGGY]

Want them being taught that Mao, Castro, and Stalin were correct, and really not bad guys?

Didn't think so.

What I want does not matter. Parents are responsible for thier own children. There is also this thing called the internet. If your dumb ass kid takes an unusual liking to Stalin there are thousands of places they can go to get the truth. My teachers did not shape the way I thought about things. If yours did then you were and are a loser.

Given how liberals so easily followed Obama in lockstep for the past 5 years, that makes you a liar.

As much time as you neglect grandma on the internet and here at USMB I find it odd that you skipped over the many times I've mentioned that I didn't vote for Obama.

Seemingly your "opinion" is just a hodgepodge of ideas YOU cling to and blindly as in some lame "pin the tale on the donkey game" in nanna's basement you assign your own fears on people that do not represent what you wish them to be.

AKA... You are full of shit. If there really were any Templars living they would hunt you down and take granny's little parasite out behind the barn for some restitution.

 

[American4Americ]

Foremost, be clear: this is about politics...not education.



How's this for a neat plan: we have avowed communists write the curricula, and we make sure that at every turn of the wheel of history, America comes as the evil predator....
yeah....that's the ticket!

Any doubt that the more power the Left accrues, the less freedom and liberty will be emphasized in our schools?




Read this and weep:

1." Philadelphia city council wants socialism taught in schools

2. Philadelphia city council members have approved a resolution that calls for socialist historian Howard Zinn’s book “A People’s History of the United States” to be taught in public high schools.

a. .... council members ... believe that Zinn’s far-left socialist vision of American history is currently missing from high school textbooks.





3. “Council does hereby recognize the need for students to be taught an unvarnished, honest version of U.S. history that empowers students to differentiate between moments that have truly made our country great versus those that established systemic inequality, privilege, and prejudice which continue to reinforce modern society’s most difficult issues,” the resolution states.

4. Zinn’s book is lauded in far-left circles, but many conservative thinkers believe his self-described “history” is really social activism masquerading as fact. Former Indiana Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels believed strongly that the book had no place in K-12 classrooms–...




5. Zinn was an apologist for communist dictators like Fidel Castro, who has brutalized and oppressed the people of Cuba for decades.....Councilwoman Blackwell defended the Castro regime. “Castro did not do everything wrong, or he would not have lasted so long,” she said in a statement to CBS.

6. Philadelphia Daily News columnist Will Bunch praised the decision to demand that Zinn be taught in class, happily explaining that his own radicalism was fostered by “A People’s History of the United States.” “Although readers here assume because of my fondness for the radical ’60s that I emerged from the womb carrying a picture of Chairman Mao, the truth is that I was a bland center-left voters and a pretty “balanced” journalist in the ’90s,” he wrote. “Reading Zinn helped me understand what went wrong, and how everyday people could fight to get things right.”

7. Mao, the Chinese dictator whom Bunch recalled fondly, ruled communist China from 1949 to 1976. His policies of mass starvation and execution are responsible for an estimated 50 million deaths.

[Recall that other far-left activists, e.g., SDS, the Weathermen, planned the same fate for Americans]


8. There has been no word yet on whether district officials plan to turn Philadelphia students into apologists for mass-murdering dictators."
Philadelphia city council wants socialism taught in schools | The Daily Caller
Read more: Philadelphia city council wants socialism taught in schools | The Daily Caller



This is the state of secular America, wherein apologists for Castro and Mao, and, no doubt, Stalin, are powerful enough to offer imprimatur to genocidal maniacs.

These are to be the models or American children.

Although I mostly agree with you, a secular America does not automatically equal a communist dictatorship. On the contrary, Obama and the Obamabots will instead seek to utilize religion in order to advance their demented goals.

 

[Sunni Man]

Secularism is basically communism lite. .

 

[Spoonman]

Foremost, be clear: this is about politics...not education.



How's this for a neat plan: we have avowed communists write the curricula, and we make sure that at every turn of the wheel of history, America comes as the evil predator....
yeah....that's the ticket!

Any doubt that the more power the Left accrues, the less freedom and liberty will be emphasized in our schools?




Read this and weep:

1." Philadelphia city council wants socialism taught in schools

2. Philadelphia city council members have approved a resolution that calls for socialist historian Howard Zinn’s book “A People’s History of the United States” to be taught in public high schools.

a. .... council members ... believe that Zinn’s far-left socialist vision of American history is currently missing from high school textbooks.





3. “Council does hereby recognize the need for students to be taught an unvarnished, honest version of U.S. history that empowers students to differentiate between moments that have truly made our country great versus those that established systemic inequality, privilege, and prejudice which continue to reinforce modern society’s most difficult issues,” the resolution states.

4. Zinn’s book is lauded in far-left circles, but many conservative thinkers believe his self-described “history” is really social activism masquerading as fact. Former Indiana Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels believed strongly that the book had no place in K-12 classrooms–...




5. Zinn was an apologist for communist dictators like Fidel Castro, who has brutalized and oppressed the people of Cuba for decades.....Councilwoman Blackwell defended the Castro regime. “Castro did not do everything wrong, or he would not have lasted so long,” she said in a statement to CBS.

6. Philadelphia Daily News columnist Will Bunch praised the decision to demand that Zinn be taught in class, happily explaining that his own radicalism was fostered by “A People’s History of the United States.” “Although readers here assume because of my fondness for the radical ’60s that I emerged from the womb carrying a picture of Chairman Mao, the truth is that I was a bland center-left voters and a pretty “balanced” journalist in the ’90s,” he wrote. “Reading Zinn helped me understand what went wrong, and how everyday people could fight to get things right.”

7. Mao, the Chinese dictator whom Bunch recalled fondly, ruled communist China from 1949 to 1976. His policies of mass starvation and execution are responsible for an estimated 50 million deaths.

[Recall that other far-left activists, e.g., SDS, the Weathermen, planned the same fate for Americans]


8. There has been no word yet on whether district officials plan to turn Philadelphia students into apologists for mass-murdering dictators."
Philadelphia city council wants socialism taught in schools | The Daily Caller
Read more: Philadelphia city council wants socialism taught in schools | The Daily Caller



This is the state of secular America, wherein apologists for Castro and Mao, and, no doubt, Stalin, are powerful enough to offer imprimatur to genocidal maniacs.

These are to be the models or American children.

I for one, have never been less proud of my country.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Foremost, be clear: this is about politics...not education.



How's this for a neat plan: we have avowed communists write the curricula, and we make sure that at every turn of the wheel of history, America comes as the evil predator....
yeah....that's the ticket!

Any doubt that the more power the Left accrues, the less freedom and liberty will be emphasized in our schools?




Read this and weep:

1." Philadelphia city council wants socialism taught in schools

2. Philadelphia city council members have approved a resolution that calls for socialist historian Howard Zinn’s book “A People’s History of the United States” to be taught in public high schools.

a. .... council members ... believe that Zinn’s far-left socialist vision of American history is currently missing from high school textbooks.

You homeschool your kids. Are you prepared to tell us that you do not in any way slant your teaching of history in way that tends to promote your conservative view of the world?