Sanitizing American History

[depotoo]

This district does consider economics, world, us history, geography, religions, philosophy, psychology, sociology, all under the social studies umbrella.

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.

 

[norwegen]

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?

These peoples' contributions to history are significant because they were women?

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

Exactly what do you mean by a "socialist point of view? "Embellishments"?

 

[Stephanie]

Nothing has been sanitized. People like you and Obama just can't say one good thing ABOUT us. You both should just leave this country you hate us so much. Try Iran, North Korea, CUBA

 

[norwegen]

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.

America has had a free market all through its history. Historically, it has prospered because of it.

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

Really? Link? There were several books listed for that course. Omitted in all of them?

You make statements without any kind of backup, and it really looks like you are pulling accusations out of your ass. In order to avoid that, how about some links?

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

America has had a free market all through its history. Historically, it has prospered because of it.

Lord have mercy!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Mister, go back to school. Start at about the third grade level, so you don't miss anything basic.

 

[norwegen]

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.

America has had a free market all through its history. Historically, it has prospered because of it.

Lord have mercy!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Mister, go back to school. Start at about the third grade level, so you don't miss anything basic.

When you advance to the third grade, I'll go back there and we'll talk.

 

[mudwhistle]

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?

Were they crippled or less than capable because they were women?



No, the fact they were women shouldn't even be a consideration. Their contributions are what matters. We don't have to be told that women are women.

 

[Old Rocks]

http://www.amazon.com/Nothing-Like-World-Transcontinental-1863-1869/dp/0743203178&tag=ff0d01-20

Nothing Like It in the World gives the account of an unprecedented feat of engineering, vision, and courage. It is the story of the men who built the transcontinental railroad -- the investors who risked their businesses and money; the enlightened politicians who understood its importance; the engineers and surveyors who risked, and sometimes lost, their lives; and the Irish and Chinese immigrants,

You might start here to understand the role that goverment has had in building this naiton. The free market would have never built that railway on it's own.

 

[Old Rocks]

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?

Were they crippled or less than capable because they were women?



Uh, the fact they were women shouldn't even be a consideration. Their contributions are what matters.

Since women were not allowed to vote in this nation until after WW1, I would have to say that the fact that they were women was a major consideration;

History of Women s Suffrage Scholastic.com

The struggle to achieve equal rights for women is often thought to have begun, in the English-speaking world, with the publication of Mary Wollstonecraft's A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792). During the 19th century, as male suffrage was gradually extended in many countries, women became increasingly active in the quest for their own suffrage. Not until 1893, however, in New Zealand, did women achieve suffrage on the national level. Australia followed in 1902, but American, British, and Canadian women did not win the same rights until the end of World War I.

The United States
The demand for the enfranchisement of American women was first seriously formulated at the Seneca Falls Convention (1848). After the Civil War, agitation by women for the ballot became increasingly vociferous. In 1869, however, a rift developed among feminists over the proposed 15th Amendment, which gave the vote to black men. Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and others refused to endorse the amendment because it did not give women the ballot. Other suffragists, however, including Lucy Stone and Julia Ward Howe, argued that once the black man was enfranchised, women would achieve their goal. As a result of the conflict, two organizations emerged. Stanton and Anthony formed the National Woman Suffrage Association to work for suffrage on the federal level and to press for more extensive institutional changes, such as the granting of property rights to married women. Stone created the American Woman Suffrage Association, which aimed to secure the ballot through state legislation. In 1890 the two groups united under the name National American Woman Suffrage Association (NAWSA). In the same year Wyoming entered the Union, becoming the first state with general women's suffrage (which it had adopted as a territory in 1869).

 

[mudwhistle]

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?

These peoples' contributions to history are significant because they were women?

Apparently to the left. They always like to focus on the first woman or the first black. Never just "the first"

 

[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?

These peoples' contributions to history are significant because they were women?

Other historical figures contributions were significant because they were men?

 

[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?

Were they crippled or less than capable because they were women?



Uh, the fact they were women shouldn't even be a consideration. Their contributions are what matters.

Since women were not allowed to vote in this nation until after WW1, I would have to say that the fact that they were women was a major consideration;

History of Women s Suffrage Scholastic.com

The struggle to achieve equal rights for women is often thought to have begun, in the English-speaking world, with the publication of Mary Wollstonecraft's A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792). During the 19th century, as male suffrage was gradually extended in many countries, women became increasingly active in the quest for their own suffrage. Not until 1893, however, in New Zealand, did women achieve suffrage on the national level. Australia followed in 1902, but American, British, and Canadian women did not win the same rights until the end of World War I.

The United States
The demand for the enfranchisement of American women was first seriously formulated at the Seneca Falls Convention (1848). After the Civil War, agitation by women for the ballot became increasingly vociferous. In 1869, however, a rift developed among feminists over the proposed 15th Amendment, which gave the vote to black men. Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and others refused to endorse the amendment because it did not give women the ballot. Other suffragists, however, including Lucy Stone and Julia Ward Howe, argued that once the black man was enfranchised, women would achieve their goal. As a result of the conflict, two organizations emerged. Stanton and Anthony formed the National Woman Suffrage Association to work for suffrage on the federal level and to press for more extensive institutional changes, such as the granting of property rights to married women. Stone created the American Woman Suffrage Association, which aimed to secure the ballot through state legislation. In 1890 the two groups united under the name National American Woman Suffrage Association (NAWSA). In the same year Wyoming entered the Union, becoming the first state with general women's suffrage (which it had adopted as a territory in 1869).

I don't think they want to hear about that....and about how women were essential to the Abolitionist Movement and to the Labor Movement and to the Progressive Movement.

 

[norwegen]

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?

These peoples' contributions to history are significant because they were women?

Apparently to the left. They always like to focus on the first woman or the first black. Never just "the first"

Just imagine the outrage if our history books were written something like this:

Being a white male, Abraham Lincoln was able to implement manumission.

George Washington was a general because he was a man.

Men made America's independence possible.

 

[norwegen]

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?

These peoples' contributions to history are significant because they were women?

Other historical figures contributions were significant because they were men?

People make significant contributions because they do significant things.

 

[Ravi]

So the right wants to censor history and promote obedience to the state.

This is just over the top hilarious.

 

[mudwhistle]

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?

Were they crippled or less than capable because they were women?



Uh, the fact they were women shouldn't even be a consideration. Their contributions are what matters.

Since women were not allowed to vote in this nation until after WW1, I would have to say that the fact that they were women was a major consideration;

History of Women s Suffrage Scholastic.com

The struggle to achieve equal rights for women is often thought to have begun, in the English-speaking world, with the publication of Mary Wollstonecraft's A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792). During the 19th century, as male suffrage was gradually extended in many countries, women became increasingly active in the quest for their own suffrage. Not until 1893, however, in New Zealand, did women achieve suffrage on the national level. Australia followed in 1902, but American, British, and Canadian women did not win the same rights until the end of World War I.

The United States
The demand for the enfranchisement of American women was first seriously formulated at the Seneca Falls Convention (1848). After the Civil War, agitation by women for the ballot became increasingly vociferous. In 1869, however, a rift developed among feminists over the proposed 15th Amendment, which gave the vote to black men. Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and others refused to endorse the amendment because it did not give women the ballot. Other suffragists, however, including Lucy Stone and Julia Ward Howe, argued that once the black man was enfranchised, women would achieve their goal. As a result of the conflict, two organizations emerged. Stanton and Anthony formed the National Woman Suffrage Association to work for suffrage on the federal level and to press for more extensive institutional changes, such as the granting of property rights to married women. Stone created the American Woman Suffrage Association, which aimed to secure the ballot through state legislation. In 1890 the two groups united under the name National American Woman Suffrage Association (NAWSA). In the same year Wyoming entered the Union, becoming the first state with general women's suffrage (which it had adopted as a territory in 1869).

I don't think they want to hear about that....and about how women were essential to the Abolitionist Movement and to the Labor Movement and to the Progressive Movement.

Abolitionist movement aside, labor and progressivism is a cancer on our society.

 

[mudwhistle]

Harriet Tubman was important, the fact that she was a black woman isn't as important as Abolition itself. I noticed that the left loves to tie Temperance and Abolition together. Total bs.

 

[mudwhistle]

So the right wants to censor history and promote obedience to the state.

This is just over the top hilarious.

Nope. The left wants to change or recreate history.