My high school textbook seems politically biased and factually incorrect.

[Unkotare]

Terrorists attacked the US in hopes the US would retaliate in kind against Saudi Arabia .

No they didn't.

 

[Samson]

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.

The "current trend?" Where? The Taliban?

 

[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.

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.

Well, as I said, it's certainly unethical. However, you shouldn't allow yourself to fall into the trap of sloppy thinking that afflicts so many people in the US today, and assume that because something is wrong to do, that means the US Constitution prohibits it.

The US Constitution actually says nothing about schools, nor does it say anything about government espousing a political viewpoint. Furthermore, I have to say that "religion and politics are often related, so no political positions" is a major leap in logic, and just doesn't make it.

 

[Ernie S.]

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?

Point taken.
But denying freedom and confiscating the property of a hundred thousand citizens based on skin color seems very KKK'ish, doesn't it?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

One fact you need to be aware of is that there are a lot of people like Clayton here, who would rather see the collapse of our nation and way of life rather than abandon the politically-correct pretense that Western culture hasn't been at war with radical Isam for centuries.

 

[there4eyeM]

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.

Of course it is incorrect. School at your age is mostly trying to prepare you approximately for the position society thinks you will fill. All the truth is much too long and complex, even if they had the truth and wanted to teach it to you, which they do not.
One must inform oneself independently and objectively, and that is very difficult. It requires earnest and vigorous intellectual honesty. It is much too much trouble for most people. Accepting the 'received wisdom' is safer and easier. Ultimately, you may be happier with it. Otherwise, you will be an outsider and may become cynical, bitter and detached.

Be careful.

 

[Ernie S.]

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.

Do you EVER speak to the subject? Your rhetoric gets shot down and rather than a response, we get more rhetoric.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

I wasn't aware that the definition of "concentration camp" included anything about ovens, but please, continue. I'm alway fascinated to hear how the English-challenged among us have decided to rewrite the dictionary THIS week.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

I'll tell you what, kid. If you really want to learn something meaningful, useful, and possibly life-saving about history and the world, you should undertake a thorough study and research of Islam's hisory and its teachings, and not just default to the nicey-nice, PC dreck spewed out by damned near everyone.

I would also suggest that you develop a complete immunity to the words "bigot" and "racist". They are terrible things to actually BE, but the words are weapons used by the ignorant to keep everyone around them ignorant and too afraid to change it. Find the truth, learn the truth, embrace the truth, and never, ever give a damn if someone's going to call you names because of it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ethnocentric, sure. KKK'ish: you mean blow torches, torture, barbed wire, lynchings, that KKK'ish?

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

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

Point taken.
But denying freedom and confiscating the property of a hundred thousand citizens based on skin color seems very KKK'ish, doesn't it?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Use a dictionary, for starters to continue your "fascination" with the challenges of English.

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

I wasn't aware that the definition of "concentration camp" included anything about ovens, but please, continue. I'm alway fascinated to hear how the English-challenged among us have decided to rewrite the dictionary THIS week.

 

[Unkotare]

Use a dictionary, for starters to continue your "fascination" with the challenges of English.

there's a decided lack of ovens in one

but, please, continue

I wasn't aware that the definition of "concentration camp" included anything about ovens, but please, continue. I'm alway fascinated to hear how the English-challenged among us have decided to rewrite the dictionary THIS week.

She is accurate in her use of English and you are not (again).

 

[Meathead]

Use a dictionary, for starters to continue your "fascination" with the challenges of English.

there's a decided lack of ovens in one

but, please, continue

I wasn't aware that the definition of "concentration camp" included anything about ovens, but please, continue. I'm alway fascinated to hear how the English-challenged among us have decided to rewrite the dictionary THIS week.

I am not sure someone who is as "simple-minded" as you are should have any say in anything.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Neither of you are very good with it, Unk.

Use a dictionary, for starters to continue your "fascination" with the challenges of English.

I wasn't aware that the definition of "concentration camp" included anything about ovens, but please, continue. I'm alway fascinated to hear how the English-challenged among us have decided to rewrite the dictionary THIS week.

She is accurate in her use of English and you are not (again).

 

[JakeStarkey]

Look at the word sillies come out of the walls!

 

[Unkotare]

Neither of you are very good with it, Unk.

You, of course, have no idea what you are talking about. This is really not the subject for you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yup, you really don't get it.

Once again, tell us how American internment camps are like German concentration camps.

 

[Annie]

I think maybe I'll try that. Probably towards the end of the school year, when I don't have to worry about it affecting my grades in any way (not that I should ever). Also, I said "liberal" just because they seem to teach in a biased manner themselves. They'd showed us a video called "Green: The new red, white, and blue. And it said this, and I quote: Being green is the most patriotic thing a person can do".

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.

Most of my professors were 'liberal' it's the nature of the beast in universities. However, high school teachers are a different breed in many cases. The best way to get a 'feel' if they'll harm your grade by an opposing point of view in an essay or debate is to talk to them 'outside' of class time. Professors often like a contrarian point of view, even if in discussion you sway the audience. It leads to better reviews for the teacher.

 

[Unkotare]

Yup, you really don't get it.

Once again, tell us how American internment camps are like German concentration camps.

I didn't mention Nazi concentration camps. I mentioned FDR's concentration camps. Try to pay attention, idiot.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You continue to use the inappropriate terminology, and you continue to be obstructionist and wrong.