Sanitizing American History

[Czernobog]

The three conservative members of the five-person board want to create a curriculum-review committee to make changes in the College Board’s new framework for Advanced Placement United States History classes. The conservatives claim the course structure contains anti-American bias.

The school board proposal has triggered student walkouts and other protests in several Jefferson County high schools. The students object to the review committee's plan to examine texts and course plans to ensure that they “promote citizenship, patriotism, essentials and benefits of the free-market system, respect of authority and respect for individual rights” and do not “encourage civil disorder, social strife or disregard of the law.”

The proposal is the work of Julie Williams, one of the board’s conservative members. On her Facebook page, Williams says the College Board’s new curriculum “rejects the history that has been taught in the country for generations. It has an emphasis on race, gender, class, ethnicity, grievance and American-bashing while simultaneously omitting the most basic structural and philosophical elements considered essential to the understanding of American History for generations. Let me give you some examples of who is omitted: Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Franklin with not even a mention of Martin Luther King, Jr., who was on the forefront of the civil rights movement. It ignores lessons on the Boston Tea Party, Lexington, Jefferson’s First Inaugural Address, Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address…”

Apparently Williams does not consider the Boston Tea Party an instance of “civil disorder.”​

Sanitizing American History

The Irony here, is that my 15-year-old son not only knows that the purpose of studying history is not to "...promote citizenship, patriotism, essentials and benefits of the free-market system, respect of authority and respect for individual rights", while discouraging "...civil disorder, social strife or disregard of the law.”, but that, in fact, one of the most important events in American History - The American Revolution - was just that, an act of civil disorder, and disregard for the law.

How is it that a 15-year-old kid has a better understanding of the purpose of History, and comprehension of actual historical events, than do the adults who are supposed to be responsible for setting the curriculum for our kids? And conservatives claim that the intention of progressives to "indoctrinate" our kids...

 

[Uncensored2008]

So she wants to teach actual facts and that pisses you off? The Zinn propaganda is important to the dismantling of the Republic and the dissolution of civil rights.

I get it, clearly Julie Williams gets it as well.

 

[Czernobog]

So she wants to teach actual facts and that pisses you off? The Zinn propaganda is important to the dismantling of the Republic and the dissolution of civil rights.

I get it, clearly Julie Williams gets it as well.

That's not what they said. "[the] course plans to ensure that they “promote citizenship, patriotism, essentials and benefits of the free-market system, respect of authority and respect for individual rights” and do not “encourage civil disorder, social strife or disregard of the law.” That isn't about teaching "facts"; it is about filtering historical events to fit an agenda. There's a difference.

 

[depotoo]

Research the author of the ap history textbook that had been originally chosen. It will tell you he is a progressive revisionist. I read a couple of chapters and he embellishes as well.

 

[asaratis]

There is no sense in leaving ANYTHING out of the teaching of history. History is merely a record of things that happened.

 

[Czernobog]

Research the author of the ap history textbook that had been originally chosen. It will tell you he is a progressive revisionist.

The author? You see? This is what happens when low information voters base their opinions on propaganda. There isn't a textbook for A.P. History. There are 10 different textbooks meet the curriculum criteria:

• America's History (Henretta et al.)
• American History: A Survey (Brinkley)
• American Passages (Ayers et al.)
• The American Pageant (Bailey et al.)
• The American People (Nash et al.)
• The Enduring Vision (Boyer et al.)
• Give Me Liberty! (Foner)
• Liberty, Equality, Power (Murrin et al.)
• Out of Many (Faragher et al.)
• A People and a Nation (Norton et al.)

Any one of those textbooks are acceptable material. So, yeah, there is no "one author", or "one textbook". Wanna try again?

 

[depotoo]

Simple reporting of recorded history is one thing. To add embellishments, and a socialist point of view is another.

There is no sense in leaving ANYTHING out of the teaching of history. History is merely a record of things that happened.

 

[depotoo]

True, there is more than one. All it takes is researching one to see what is what. And your list does not jive with the list from the district.

Research the author of the ap history textbook that had been originally chosen. It will tell you he is a progressive revisionist.

The author? You see? This is what happens when low information voters base their opinions on propaganda. There isn't a textbook for A.P. History. There are 10 different textbooks meet the curriculum criteria:

• America's History (Henretta et al.)
• American History: A Survey (Brinkley)
• American Passages (Ayers et al.)
• The American Pageant (Bailey et al.)
• The American People (Nash et al.)
• The Enduring Vision (Boyer et al.)
• Give Me Liberty! (Foner)
• Liberty, Equality, Power (Murrin et al.)
• Out of Many (Faragher et al.)
• A People and a Nation (Norton et al.)

Any one of those textbooks are acceptable material. So, yeah, there is no "one author", or "one textbook". Wanna try again?

 

[norwegen]

Teaching Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Franklin, Martin Luther King, Jr., the Boston Tea Party, Lexington, Jefferson’s First Inaugural Address, Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, etc. has always inspired patriotism and citizenship in the past.

If these kinds of things aren't being taught now because they might generate civil unrest, then history has been revised.

 

[depotoo]

When they speak of atrocities by the US without including atrocities to us, that is revisionist. When they speak of our history without including the US perspective, that is revisionist.

 

[Czernobog]

Simple reporting of recorded history is one thing. To add embellishments, and a socialist point of view is another.

There is no sense in leaving ANYTHING out of the teaching of history. History is merely a record of things that happened.

Wait. I'm confused. The complaint of the woman in the article from the OP was that the course is allegedly ommiting important historical facts. Now you're saying that the problem is that it is adding extraneuos information? That's an entirely different charge. do you have some evidence to support that claim?

 

[Czernobog]

When they speak of atrocities by the US without including atrocities to us, that is revisionist. When they speak of our history without including the US perspective, that is revisionist.

Again, you have actual evidence of that?

 

[mudwhistle]

Gender...........?

WTF????
Explain the importance of gender in our history. Aside from women's suffrage what's the point?

 

[depotoo]

Yes, they are omitting the US perspective, as well as embellishing. Did I read the entire book I looked at? No. Could there be complete omission of events as well? I wouldn't be surprised, with all I did find.

Let me know where your list came from.

Simple reporting of recorded history is one thing. To add embellishments, and a socialist point of view is another.

There is no sense in leaving ANYTHING out of the teaching of history. History is merely a record of things that happened.

Wait. I'm confused. The complaint of the woman in the article from the OP was that the course is allegedly ommiting important historical facts. Now you're saying that the problem is that it is adding extraneuos information? That's an entirely different charge. do you have some evidence to support that claim?

 

[Czernobog]

Yes, they are omitting the US perspective, as well as embellishing. Did I read the entire book I looked at? No. Could there be complete omission of events as well? I wouldn't be surprised, with all I did find.

Let me know where your list came from.

Simple reporting of recorded history is one thing. To add embellishments, and a socialist point of view is another.

There is no sense in leaving ANYTHING out of the teaching of history. History is merely a record of things that happened.

Wait. I'm confused. The complaint of the woman in the article from the OP was that the course is allegedly ommiting important historical facts. Now you're saying that the problem is that it is adding extraneuos information? That's an entirely different charge. do you have some evidence to support that claim?

And did you look at any of the other nine books, to see if, perhaps, different perspectives were being offered? Hell, did you even look at the book to which you are referring, or did you just read an alleged "excerpt" from one of the many propaganda sites devoted to smearing the program?

 

[depotoo]

Yes, they are omitting the US perspective, as well as embellishing. Did I read the entire book I looked at? No. Could there be complete omission of events as well? I wouldn't be surprised, with all I did find.

Let me know where your list came from.

Simple reporting of recorded history is one thing. To add embellishments, and a socialist point of view is another.

There is no sense in leaving ANYTHING out of the teaching of history. History is merely a record of things that happened.

Wait. I'm confused. The complaint of the woman in the article from the OP was that the course is allegedly ommiting important historical facts. Now you're saying that the problem is that it is adding extraneuos information? That's an entirely different charge. do you have some evidence to support that claim?

And did you look at any of the other nine books, to see if, perhaps, different perspectives were being offered? Hell, did you even look at the book to which you are referring, or did you just read an alleged "excerpt" from onr of the many propaganda cites devoted to smearing the program?

I looked up some of the other authors, and researched their published papers, and interviews. I read legitimate chapters from one of the books.

By the way where did you get your list, since it doesn't jive? From one of those sites trying to smear the legitimate concerns, by progressives?

 

[depotoo]

By the way, I have actually only read the Denver post, one article about, and then proceeded to the districts website, found the ap list, found the authors, and books, and researched their actual works, one textbook and their interviews. Never have visited a site pro or con. You receive disinformation that way, dear, such as your list.

 

[Ravi]

So she wants to teach actual facts and that pisses you off? The Zinn propaganda is important to the dismantling of the Republic and the dissolution of civil rights.

I get it, clearly Julie Williams gets it as well.

That's not what they said. "[the] course plans to ensure that they “promote citizenship, patriotism, essentials and benefits of the free-market system, respect of authority and respect for individual rights” and do not “encourage civil disorder, social strife or disregard of the law.” That isn't about teaching "facts"; it is about filtering historical events to fit an agenda. There's a difference.

The benefits of the free market system? That's economics, not history.

This is PC at its worst.

 

[Two Thumbs]

The three conservative members of the five-person board want to create a curriculum-review committee to make changes in the College Board’s new framework for Advanced Placement United States History classes. The conservatives claim the course structure contains anti-American bias.

The school board proposal has triggered student walkouts and other protests in several Jefferson County high schools. The students object to the review committee's plan to examine texts and course plans to ensure that they “promote citizenship, patriotism, essentials and benefits of the free-market system, respect of authority and respect for individual rights” and do not “encourage civil disorder, social strife or disregard of the law.”

The proposal is the work of Julie Williams, one of the board’s conservative members. On her Facebook page, Williams says the College Board’s new curriculum “rejects the history that has been taught in the country for generations. It has an emphasis on race, gender, class, ethnicity, grievance and American-bashing while simultaneously omitting the most basic structural and philosophical elements considered essential to the understanding of American History for generations. Let me give you some examples of who is omitted: Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Franklin with not even a mention of Martin Luther King, Jr., who was on the forefront of the civil rights movement. It ignores lessons on the Boston Tea Party, Lexington, Jefferson’s First Inaugural Address, Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address…”

Apparently Williams does not consider the Boston Tea Party an instance of “civil disorder.”​

Sanitizing American History

The Irony here, is that my 15-year-old son not only knows that the purpose of studying history is not to "...promote citizenship, patriotism, essentials and benefits of the free-market system, respect of authority and respect for individual rights", while discouraging "...civil disorder, social strife or disregard of the law.”, but that, in fact, one of the most important events in American History - The American Revolution - was just that, an act of civil disorder, and disregard for the law.

How is it that a 15-year-old kid has a better understanding of the purpose of History, and comprehension of actual historical events, than do the adults who are supposed to be responsible for setting the curriculum for our kids? And conservatives claim that the intention of progressives to "indoctrinate" our kids...

You clearly are an idiot and are harping on one tiny point.

Let me give you some examples of who is omitted: Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Franklin with not even a mention of Martin Luther King, Jr., who was on the forefront of the civil rights movement. It ignores lessons on the Boston Tea Party, Lexington, Jefferson’s First Inaugural Address, Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address…”


That is skipped? These very important people and events are skipped. Our kids are getting short shafted and taght to hate America.

but you're cool with that cuz you found a loop hole in what she said.

 

[bodecea]

Gender...........?

WTF????
Explain the importance of gender in our history. Aside from women's suffrage what's the point?

So....Abigail Adams and her contributions are unimportant? So Sagagewea's contributions are unimportant? So Andrew Jackson's wife is unimportant when studying his character in the WH? So all those pioneer women who had to sometimes make it on their own are unimportant?