My high school textbook seems politically biased and factually incorrect.

[JakeStarkey]

CeCi got this right. That's an improvement. Good.

 

[Politicskid]

Okay so I've been thinking for a while now that my AP Human Geography textbook is biased or factually incorrect, but I wanted to see if other people agreed. Let me tell you why I think so. By the way, I'm a freshman in a public high school, so if they're distributing politically biased textbooks, they are acting in an unconstitutional manner.

Here's one quote from it:

"Some of today's immigrants to the United States and Canada are poor people pushed from their homes by economic desperation, but most are young, well educated people lured to economically growing countries."

I don't think this is true. With the millions and millions of uneducated people a year we're receiving from Latin America, I don't see how it can be.

Also, here's a paragraph that attempts to briefly describe the motives of the 9/11 terrorists, linking it to opposition of globalization:

"A much more extreme opposition to globalization led to the attack by al-Qaeda terrorists against the United States on September 11, 2001, with support of the Taliban then in control of Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda selected targets- the World Trade Center and the Pentagon-they considered especially visible symbols of US domination of globalization trends in culture, politics, and economy. Afghanistan's Taliban leaders justified such actions as banning television and restricting women's activities as consistent with local traditions, and such punishments as public floggings and severing of limbs as a necessary counterbalance to strong forces of globalization."

Okay, there's nothing factually wrong here, I just think it left out a very important detail. It didn't mention the Taliban's and al-Qaedas religious beliefs, which are a very important detail to include because they pretty much control they're behavior. They don't restrict women's activities to stay consistent with "local traditions", as my textbook claims, they do it because of they're radical beliefs!

Here's what I thought was a big signal of bias. It's relating to illegal immigration:

"Hostile citizens in California and other states have voted to deny undocumented immigrants access to most public services, such as schools, day-care centers, and health clinics. The laws have been difficult to enforce and of dubious constitutionality, but their enactment reflects on the unwillingness of many Americans to help out needy immigrants."

I think the bias here is pretty obvious. It calls the citizens who vote not to allow illegals the right to use public services "hostile", for one. It also puts a very negative light on people with those views by essentially calling them unwilling to help out all immigrants, not just illegal ones.

So, after reading through these, do you agree with me that my textbook is biased? These are just some of the examples of bias, by the way, and there are many others. I'm going to look for the textbook for more as I know they're in there and I might post again on this same subject.

You're correct. Your textbooks are biased. This isn't news, unfortunately. My textbooks were biased back in the 80s; my daughter's textbooks were biased when she went to high school. Look at it as motivation to get out, research, and learn far beyond what's contained in one lousy textbook. Not only will you be better informed about the world around you - and better informed than 99% of the people around you - but it will be good training for later in life, when the disinformation is even more blatant.

I'm a little curious as to why you think this is Unconstitutional. Unethical, I grant you. Counter-productive to the long-term interests of the nation, sure. Unconstitutional? I'd like to hear your thought process on that.

Here's why I say it's unconstitutional. This is a publicly funded school, which most parents have no choice but to send their children to. Government shouldn't be allowed to endorse a certain political viewpoint, as they can't endorse a religious viewpoint (separation of church and state) Religion and politics are often related, so thus schools aren't constitutionally permitted to endorse certain political positions.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Okay so I've been thinking for a while now that my AP Human Geography textbook is biased or factually incorrect, but I wanted to see if other people agreed. Let me tell you why I think so. By the way, I'm a freshman in a public high school, so if they're distributing politically biased textbooks, they are acting in an unconstitutional manner.

Here's one quote from it:

"Some of today's immigrants to the United States and Canada are poor people pushed from their homes by economic desperation, but most are young, well educated people lured to economically growing countries." A problem. Is the claim that young, well-educated seeking economically growing countries cannot be poor? Seems we have many that fit that description right here.

I don't think this is true. With the millions and millions of uneducated people a year we're receiving from Latin America, I don't see how it can be.

Also, here's a paragraph that attempts to briefly describe the motives of the 9/11 terrorists, linking it to opposition of globalization:

"A much more extreme opposition to globalization led to the attack by al-Qaeda terrorists against the United States on September 11, 2001, with support of the Taliban then in control of Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda selected targets- the World Trade Center and the Pentagon-they considered especially visible symbols of US domination of globalization trends in culture, politics, and economy. Afghanistan's Taliban leaders justified such actions as banning television and restricting women's activities as consistent with local traditions, and such punishments as public floggings and severing of limbs as a necessary counterbalance to strong forces of globalization."

Okay, there's nothing factually wrong here, I just think it left out a very important detail. It didn't mention the Taliban's and al-Qaedas religious beliefs, which are a very important detail to include because they pretty much control they're behavior. They don't restrict women's activities to stay consistent with "local traditions", as my textbook claims, they do it because of they're radical beliefs! (Well there's lots wrong here. Women in general, Muslim or not, had nothing to do with 9/11. The reason perchance that Islam wasn't mentioned where you thought it should be, was because it was obvious. All of the conspirators were Muslims, never a question on that.

I get that you are in AP classes, but my 7th graders on 9/11 in real time, recognized both bin Laden and the Taliban, before the second plane hit the WTC tower.

Here's what I thought was a big signal of bias. It's relating to illegal immigration:

"Hostile citizens in California and other states have voted to deny undocumented immigrants access to most public services, such as schools, day-care centers, and health clinics. The laws have been difficult to enforce and of dubious constitutionality, but their enactment reflects on the unwillingness of many Americans to help out needy immigrants."

I think the bias here is pretty obvious. It calls the citizens who vote not to allow illegals the right to use public services "hostile", for one. It also puts a very negative light on people with those views by essentially calling them unwilling to help out all immigrants, not just illegal ones.

So, after reading through these, do you agree with me that my textbook is biased? These are just some of the examples of bias, by the way, and there are many others. I'm going to look for the textbook for more as I know they're in there and I might post again on this same subject.

On this you are correct. The bias is obvious and kudos to you for recognizing.

Thanks for your response. Regarding, the point about 9/11, it may be obvious, but isn't it important to at least remind people, especially when talking about the motives? Remember, most people in my class were only 3 years old when it happened.

Oh, you've had information withheld from you concerning Muslims for a lot longer than just the section on 9/11. Do you know how many years after high school it was before I found out that the Muslims were the REAL reason behind Christopher Columbus's attempts to find a new route to India? The schools left the vague impression that he and all the other great exlorers had no other motivation than zealous curiosity about what lay over the horizon.

 

[Ernie S.]

Unkotare continues to inaccurately use the term "concentration camp" for where the Japanese-American internees were housed during WWII. If he continually used the term in history class, he would be corrected then start losing points off the grade.

A place where large numbers of political prisoners or members of persecuted minorities are imprisoned, esp. in Nazi Germany and occupied...
More info » Dictionary.com

How is an "Internment Camp" different from a Concentration Camp? Stars and stripes in stead of Swastikas?

 

[Politicskid]

Regardless of whether I give into this or not, it wouldn't matter if 90% of the future voters are misinformed. We'd end up with a bunch of really lousy politicians.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Gallows, crematoria, 700-calories a day for food, no medical attention, aribtrary beatings and torture and execution?

Unkotare continues to inaccurately use the term "concentration camp" for where the Japanese-American internees were housed during WWII. If he continually used the term in history class, he would be corrected then start losing points off the grade.

A place where large numbers of political prisoners or members of persecuted minorities are imprisoned, esp. in Nazi Germany and occupied...
More info » Dictionary.com

How is an "Internment Camp" different from a Concentration Camp? Stars and stripes in stead of Swastikas?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Okay so I've been thinking for a while now that my AP Human Geography textbook is biased or factually incorrect, but I wanted to see if other people agreed. Let me tell you why I think so. By the way, I'm a freshman in a public high school, so if they're distributing politically biased textbooks, they are acting in an unconstitutional manner.

Here's one quote from it:

"Some of today's immigrants to the United States and Canada are poor people pushed from their homes by economic desperation, but most are young, well educated people lured to economically growing countries."

I don't think this is true. With the millions and millions of uneducated people a year we're receiving from Latin America, I don't see how it can be.

Also, here's a paragraph that attempts to briefly describe the motives of the 9/11 terrorists, linking it to opposition of globalization:

"A much more extreme opposition to globalization led to the attack by al-Qaeda terrorists against the United States on September 11, 2001, with support of the Taliban then in control of Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda selected targets- the World Trade Center and the Pentagon-they considered especially visible symbols of US domination of globalization trends in culture, politics, and economy. Afghanistan's Taliban leaders justified such actions as banning television and restricting women's activities as consistent with local traditions, and such punishments as public floggings and severing of limbs as a necessary counterbalance to strong forces of globalization."

Okay, there's nothing factually wrong here, I just think it left out a very important detail. It didn't mention the Taliban's and al-Qaedas religious beliefs, which are a very important detail to include because they pretty much control they're behavior. They don't restrict women's activities to stay consistent with "local traditions", as my textbook claims, they do it because of they're radical beliefs!

Here's what I thought was a big signal of bias. It's relating to illegal immigration:

"Hostile citizens in California and other states have voted to deny undocumented immigrants access to most public services, such as schools, day-care centers, and health clinics. The laws have been difficult to enforce and of dubious constitutionality, but their enactment reflects on the unwillingness of many Americans to help out needy immigrants."

I think the bias here is pretty obvious. It calls the citizens who vote not to allow illegals the right to use public services "hostile", for one. It also puts a very negative light on people with those views by essentially calling them unwilling to help out all immigrants, not just illegal ones.

So, after reading through these, do you agree with me that my textbook is biased? These are just some of the examples of bias, by the way, and there are many others. I'm going to look for the textbook for more as I know they're in there and I might post again on this same subject.

I believe your assessment is fair, and I agree with you that the text is biased.

Textbooks would be 3 times as large if all the views had to be stated and included, unless people AGREED how to state things objectively without downplaying one point or another.

That would be great to reach a consensus with a diverse review panel where every viewpoint is represented, but the books might never make their publishing deadlines.

(Here in Texas, we even had a case of our state historical commission "altering" a narrative on a marker to REMOVE a reference to "segregation" of public housing, even though "segregation" was the actual term used, and the public housing was being recognized as a landmark in Civil Rights history, when the Civil Rights Act ended "segregation." Someone on the committee decided to describe the housing in another way, missing the entire point!
Again, due to deadlines it was better not to dispute the change, and just accept the plaque.)

Note: For those like Jillian who may not recognize any bias and think you are being trivial or petty, I will list examples of
changes I would have recommended to the editors:

Instead of "Hostile," they could have said "Opposing." That is more objective, without emotion or judgment attached to the opposition.

Instead of saying "needy" immigrants, they could have said "indigent" immigrants, which is more neutral.

Instead of just stating the laws are of dubious Constitutionality, they could have explained that people on both sides of the conflict over undocumented immigrants are seeking Constitutional protections of their rights they argue are threatened by the other policy.

This is too hard to say in a few words, to cover both sides equally, so the text will inevitably be limited by time and space.

Thanks for your response

Yes, you are correct that it's impractical for a textbook to mention every talking point, but the problem here is there doesn't seem to be really any places in the textbook where it only shares a conservative point of view, that's why I think this book should be replaced next year. How do you feel?

I think that since they can't present every viewpoint and opinion, they should stay out of that area and just present the hard facts. You can figure out for yourself what you want to think and feel about them.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Okay so I've been thinking for a while now that my AP Human Geography textbook is biased or factually incorrect, but I wanted to see if other people agreed. Let me tell you why I think so. By the way, I'm a freshman in a public high school, so if they're distributing politically biased textbooks, they are acting in an unconstitutional manner.

Here's one quote from it:

"Some of today's immigrants to the United States and Canada are poor people pushed from their homes by economic desperation, but most are young, well educated people lured to economically growing countries." A problem. Is the claim that young, well-educated seeking economically growing countries cannot be poor? Seems we have many that fit that description right here.

I don't think this is true. With the millions and millions of uneducated people a year we're receiving from Latin America, I don't see how it can be.

Also, here's a paragraph that attempts to briefly describe the motives of the 9/11 terrorists, linking it to opposition of globalization:

"A much more extreme opposition to globalization led to the attack by al-Qaeda terrorists against the United States on September 11, 2001, with support of the Taliban then in control of Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda selected targets- the World Trade Center and the Pentagon-they considered especially visible symbols of US domination of globalization trends in culture, politics, and economy. Afghanistan's Taliban leaders justified such actions as banning television and restricting women's activities as consistent with local traditions, and such punishments as public floggings and severing of limbs as a necessary counterbalance to strong forces of globalization."

Okay, there's nothing factually wrong here, I just think it left out a very important detail. It didn't mention the Taliban's and al-Qaedas religious beliefs, which are a very important detail to include because they pretty much control they're behavior. They don't restrict women's activities to stay consistent with "local traditions", as my textbook claims, they do it because of they're radical beliefs! (Well there's lots wrong here. Women in general, Muslim or not, had nothing to do with 9/11. The reason perchance that Islam wasn't mentioned where you thought it should be, was because it was obvious. All of the conspirators were Muslims, never a question on that.

I get that you are in AP classes, but my 7th graders on 9/11 in real time, recognized both bin Laden and the Taliban, before the second plane hit the WTC tower.

Here's what I thought was a big signal of bias. It's relating to illegal immigration:

"Hostile citizens in California and other states have voted to deny undocumented immigrants access to most public services, such as schools, day-care centers, and health clinics. The laws have been difficult to enforce and of dubious constitutionality, but their enactment reflects on the unwillingness of many Americans to help out needy immigrants."

I think the bias here is pretty obvious. It calls the citizens who vote not to allow illegals the right to use public services "hostile", for one. It also puts a very negative light on people with those views by essentially calling them unwilling to help out all immigrants, not just illegal ones.

So, after reading through these, do you agree with me that my textbook is biased? These are just some of the examples of bias, by the way, and there are many others. I'm going to look for the textbook for more as I know they're in there and I might post again on this same subject.

On this you are correct. The bias is obvious and kudos to you for recognizing.

Thanks for your response. Regarding, the point about 9/11, it may be obvious, but isn't it important to at least remind people, especially when talking about the motives? Remember, most people in my class were only 3 years old when it happened.

If you are actually sincere in pursuing an objective, factual analysis of your textbook, instructors, and classes overall, consider the fact that there was no ‘bias’ with regard to the religion of the 9/11 conspirators; where their religion was incidental and irrelevant, the myth that Islam alone poses some sort of ‘threat’ to the United States.

America was attacked by criminals, and Islam was as much their victim.

 

[Politicskid]

Okay so I've been thinking for a while now that my AP Human Geography textbook is biased or factually incorrect, but I wanted to see if other people agreed. Let me tell you why I think so. By the way, I'm a freshman in a public high school, so if they're distributing politically biased textbooks, they are acting in an unconstitutional manner.

Here's one quote from it:

"Some of today's immigrants to the United States and Canada are poor people pushed from their homes by economic desperation, but most are young, well educated people lured to economically growing countries."

I don't think this is true. With the millions and millions of uneducated people a year we're receiving from Latin America, I don't see how it can be.

Also, here's a paragraph that attempts to briefly describe the motives of the 9/11 terrorists, linking it to opposition of globalization:

"A much more extreme opposition to globalization led to the attack by al-Qaeda terrorists against the United States on September 11, 2001, with support of the Taliban then in control of Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda selected targets- the World Trade Center and the Pentagon-they considered especially visible symbols of US domination of globalization trends in culture, politics, and economy. Afghanistan's Taliban leaders justified such actions as banning television and restricting women's activities as consistent with local traditions, and such punishments as public floggings and severing of limbs as a necessary counterbalance to strong forces of globalization."

Okay, there's nothing factually wrong here, I just think it left out a very important detail. It didn't mention the Taliban's and al-Qaedas religious beliefs, which are a very important detail to include because they pretty much control they're behavior. They don't restrict women's activities to stay consistent with "local traditions", as my textbook claims, they do it because of they're radical beliefs!

Here's what I thought was a big signal of bias. It's relating to illegal immigration:

"Hostile citizens in California and other states have voted to deny undocumented immigrants access to most public services, such as schools, day-care centers, and health clinics. The laws have been difficult to enforce and of dubious constitutionality, but their enactment reflects on the unwillingness of many Americans to help out needy immigrants."

I think the bias here is pretty obvious. It calls the citizens who vote not to allow illegals the right to use public services "hostile", for one. It also puts a very negative light on people with those views by essentially calling them unwilling to help out all immigrants, not just illegal ones.

So, after reading through these, do you agree with me that my textbook is biased? These are just some of the examples of bias, by the way, and there are many others. I'm going to look for the textbook for more as I know they're in there and I might post again on this same subject.

Hates gays.
Against women's rights.

Hmmm, sounds like right wing Christians.

I think it's you who biased.

Actually, I'm not Baptized and have only been inside a church a handful of times. You can't assume things like that. And what women's right am I advocating for restricting, and when did I say I hate homosexuals?

Now would you like to give actual reasons as to why you don't think my textbook is biased?

 

[del]

Unkotare continues to inaccurately use the term "concentration camp" for where the Japanese-American internees were housed during WWII. If he continually used the term in history class, he would be corrected then start losing points off the grade.

A place where large numbers of political prisoners or members of persecuted minorities are imprisoned, esp. in Nazi Germany and occupied...
More info » Dictionary.com

How is an "Internment Camp" different from a Concentration Camp? Stars and stripes in stead of Swastikas?

there's a decided lack of ovens in one

but, please, continue

 

[Samson]

Unkotare continues to inaccurately use the term "concentration camp" for where the Japanese-American internees were housed during WWII. If he continually used the term in history class, he would be corrected then start losing points off the grade.

A place where large numbers of political prisoners or members of persecuted minorities are imprisoned, esp. in Nazi Germany and occupied...
More info » Dictionary.com

How is an "Internment Camp" different from a Concentration Camp? Stars and stripes in stead of Swastikas?

there's a decided lack of ovens in one

but, please, continue

The Japanese do not appreciate fresh bread.

 

[Ernie S.]

You are lucky, Meathead, that when you screw up, as we all do, you have the best in Jill and Del to take care of you when you are being silly.

I have no idea what the hell that means.

In my short time here, I have found the three of you, among others, to be the most ill-informed and dogmatic bunch of intellectual midgets I've seen in some time. I am sure there are others, but for whatever reason, I have been indelibly unimpressed by the three of you on this thread.

Nothing personal, but I do not suffer fools gladly.

I wouldn't call any of them mental midgets. They all are fairly intelligent, if somewhat misguided, individuals.
I may disagree with del's and Jillian's politics, but insulting their intelligence because of their dedication to their beliefs is unfair.
Jake, on the other hand, has no solid beliefs other than the fact that having a solid belief system is evil. I call him a "radical moderate".
Yes I'm aware that that is an oxymoron, but then, it seems to fit.

 

[Unkotare]

Here's why I say it's unconstitutional. This is a publicly funded school, which most parents have no choice but to send their children to. Government shouldn't be allowed to endorse a certain political viewpoint, as they can't endorse a religious viewpoint (separation of church and state) Religion and politics are often related, so thus schools aren't constitutionally permitted to endorse certain political positions.

Yeah, no. You might want to put that one away until you've thought it through a little more.

 

[rdean]

Okay so I've been thinking for a while now that my AP Human Geography textbook is biased or factually incorrect, but I wanted to see if other people agreed. Let me tell you why I think so. By the way, I'm a freshman in a public high school, so if they're distributing politically biased textbooks, they are acting in an unconstitutional manner.

Here's one quote from it:

"Some of today's immigrants to the United States and Canada are poor people pushed from their homes by economic desperation, but most are young, well educated people lured to economically growing countries."

I don't think this is true. With the millions and millions of uneducated people a year we're receiving from Latin America, I don't see how it can be.

Also, here's a paragraph that attempts to briefly describe the motives of the 9/11 terrorists, linking it to opposition of globalization:

"A much more extreme opposition to globalization led to the attack by al-Qaeda terrorists against the United States on September 11, 2001, with support of the Taliban then in control of Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda selected targets- the World Trade Center and the Pentagon-they considered especially visible symbols of US domination of globalization trends in culture, politics, and economy. Afghanistan's Taliban leaders justified such actions as banning television and restricting women's activities as consistent with local traditions, and such punishments as public floggings and severing of limbs as a necessary counterbalance to strong forces of globalization."

Okay, there's nothing factually wrong here, I just think it left out a very important detail. It didn't mention the Taliban's and al-Qaedas religious beliefs, which are a very important detail to include because they pretty much control they're behavior. They don't restrict women's activities to stay consistent with "local traditions", as my textbook claims, they do it because of they're radical beliefs!

Here's what I thought was a big signal of bias. It's relating to illegal immigration:

"Hostile citizens in California and other states have voted to deny undocumented immigrants access to most public services, such as schools, day-care centers, and health clinics. The laws have been difficult to enforce and of dubious constitutionality, but their enactment reflects on the unwillingness of many Americans to help out needy immigrants."

I think the bias here is pretty obvious. It calls the citizens who vote not to allow illegals the right to use public services "hostile", for one. It also puts a very negative light on people with those views by essentially calling them unwilling to help out all immigrants, not just illegal ones.

So, after reading through these, do you agree with me that my textbook is biased? These are just some of the examples of bias, by the way, and there are many others. I'm going to look for the textbook for more as I know they're in there and I might post again on this same subject.

Hates gays.
Against women's rights.

Hmmm, sounds like right wing Christians.

I think it's you who biased.

There was no indication in what he wrote that he hates gays or is against women's rights, only an indication that he is capable of independent thought.
It's a shame that contemporary Liberal indoctrination seeks to discourage that.

Don't worry, when someone feels textbooks should teach children to hate other people's religion, therefore other people, there is plently more hate to feast upon than just from that one group. Hate never stops with one group. It's a cancer that spreads. To want to teach it proves there are already infected.

 

[Politicskid]

Did your teacher produce the video?
Do you know what a curriculum is and how it is made for your school?
Do you think "being green" is unpatriotic?

I think questioning your text books, and expanding your education beyond just what is taught is great. However you seem awfully convinced that you can't bring your questions to your class, and open a dialog with your teacher. That is where my confusion lies. If you have questions, or find inconsistencies in your text books, why do you assume your teacher would be unwilling to listsen?

No my teacher didn't produce the video. Basically, it was a persuasive clip that advocated for "green" energy use, but not the practical kind. You know, solar and wind, and heavily implied that we could run our day to day live off of just these sources, which is not the case.

And no, of course I don't think being green is unpatriotic! I simply think that it is a huge overstatement to say that it's the most patriotic thing you can do for your country. That virtually implies that being green should be your highest priority, which is very debatable.

I don't know, I might tell my teacher when the school year gets closer to the end. I just don't want to appear like I'm overreacting. Also, I know he has no control over what textbooks we use. He actually is a very good teacher, probably my favorite. Don't get me wrong. In fact, he got the school bored to allow my school to offer and him to teach the only freshman AP classes in Oregon! As it stands, I just don't want to waste his time.

I can't see that asking questions and seeking a deeper understanding of what you're told could possibly be a waste of his time. In fact, seems to me that that's his JOB.

By the way, it's "school BOARD", however unintentionally accurate your slip might have been

Woops. I'm on my iPod touch and iOS does this stupid autocorrect thing. I'm sure the school boards meeting are pretty boring, though.

Like I said, I'll probably go to him towards the end of the year. Thanks for the encouragement.

 

[Unkotare]

The Japanese do not appreciate fresh bread.

If you were looking for something stupid to say, you found it.

 

[Ernie S.]

obvious troll is obvious

*only 14 and defending the pursuit of happiness*

Troll?

What, you don't like my slogan?

Trolls: Don't feed them.

 

[Politicskid]

On this you are correct. The bias is obvious and kudos to you for recognizing.

Thanks for your response. Regarding, the point about 9/11, it may be obvious, but isn't it important to at least remind people, especially when talking about the motives? Remember, most people in my class were only 3 years old when it happened.

If you are actually sincere in pursuing an objective, factual analysis of your textbook, instructors, and classes overall, consider the fact that there was no ‘bias’ with regard to the religion of the 9/11 conspirators; where their religion was incidental and irrelevant, the myth that Islam alone poses some sort of ‘threat’ to the United States.

America was attacked by criminals, and Islam was as much their victim.

I don't think regular Islam does, of course not. So you think that the terrorists just attacked America because they didn't like how our ideas were taking over their society, not because they conflicted with their religious beliefs?

 

[Samson]

Thanks for your response. Regarding, the point about 9/11, it may be obvious, but isn't it important to at least remind people, especially when talking about the motives? Remember, most people in my class were only 3 years old when it happened.

If you are actually sincere in pursuing an objective, factual analysis of your textbook, instructors, and classes overall, consider the fact that there was no ‘bias’ with regard to the religion of the 9/11 conspirators; where their religion was incidental and irrelevant, the myth that Islam alone poses some sort of ‘threat’ to the United States.

America was attacked by criminals, and Islam was as much their victim.

I don't think regular Islam does, of course not. So you think that the terrorists just attacked America because they didn't like how our ideas were taking over their society, not because they conflicted with their religious beliefs?

Terrorists attacked the US in hopes the US would retaliate in kind against Saudi Arabia (where the terrorists were from).

Had nothing to do with preventing the spread of western culture or religion.

 

[Meathead]

Thanks for your response. Regarding, the point about 9/11, it may be obvious, but isn't it important to at least remind people, especially when talking about the motives? Remember, most people in my class were only 3 years old when it happened.

If you are actually sincere in pursuing an objective, factual analysis of your textbook, instructors, and classes overall, consider the fact that there was no ‘bias’ with regard to the religion of the 9/11 conspirators; where their religion was incidental and irrelevant, the myth that Islam alone poses some sort of ‘threat’ to the United States.

America was attacked by criminals, and Islam was as much their victim.

I don't think regular Islam does, of course not. So you think that the terrorists just attacked America because they didn't like how our ideas were taking over their society, not because they conflicted with their religious beliefs?

The current trend is to say that America deserved it because of their foreign policy.
This would be especially so among those who blame Bush and Reagan for everything.