Sanitizing American History

[georgephillip]

History is a weapon to use against those who use ignorance to advance their particular social agenda.

For example, compare the lies that led the US into Iraq with those that led America into the War to End All Wars exactly one century ago:

"'War is the health of the state,' the radical writer Randolph Bourne said, in the midst of the First World War.."

"In the United States, not yet in the war, there was worry about the health of the state.

"Socialism was growing.

"The IWW seemed to be everywhere.

"Class conflict was intense.

"In the summer of 1916, during a Preparedness Day parade in San Francisco, a bomb exploded, killing nine people; two local radicals, Tom Mooney and Warren Billings, were arrested and would spend twenty years in prison.

"Shortly after that Senator James Wadsworth of New York suggested compulsory military training for all males to avert the danger that 'these people of ours shall be divided into classes.'

"Rather: 'We must let our young men know that they owe some responsibility to this country.'"

The responsibility to use History as a Weapon against those like Wadsworth.

War is the health of the state

 

[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...

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.

The point is that what she said was, at best, inaccurate, and at worst a lie. One of us here is an idiot, anyway...

yea, you

you're lower war to civil disobedience. That's idiotic at best

How about everything that led up to the Revolutionary War? Do you think the actions of the rebels in Boston during the so-called "Boston Tea Party" were the legal actions of people respecting authority? Or were they acts of civil disobedience?

How about the clash at Lexington, and Concord? You do get that that happened a full 4 months before the Colonies "declared" their independence, right? And, then of course, there was that very declaration. You do get that that very declaration was an illegal act, right? The fact that we got away with it, by forcing the British out, doesn't change the fact that it was an illegal act of treason against the legitimate ruling force. Was it a justified act of treason? Yeah. Probably. but, it was treason, none the less. Do you think that having been justified would have prevented the hanging of every single person who signed that document had the colonists lost?

You're just a complete idiot when it comes to how the United States actually came to be, aren't you?

 

[Czernobog]

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.

So you think that history must be presented in such a way as to demonize the free market system and the concept of individual rights so that collectivist goals might be achieved?

Absolutely not. I think that history should be presented with neutrality. Simply teach what happened - all of it. The good, the bad, and the ugly. Let the facts of History speck for themselves.

It is about teaching facts, which Zinn never bothered with - and let's be honest, it IS what we are talking about.

Except it's not. It is about cherry picking which facts you want to teach from history, in order to create the narrative that you want. That's not "Hisory"; it's indoctrination. There's a difference.

{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…”}

You get that that accusation has been proven entirely false, right?

Moving on...

You seek socialist indoctrination, and are offended that someone stood up and demanded that legitimate history be taught instead.

Edit ---------------------

The board proposals are chilling, something out of the USSR circa 1949.

{
To help students create their own interpretation of U.S. history,
students and teachers should examine changing historical interpretations
over time, such as the different ways that historians have interpreted the
institution of American slavery or evaluated Reconstruction. Historians
have the added challenge of addressing “presentism,” or how contemporary
ideas and perspectives are anachronistically introduced into depictions
and interpretations of historical events. The skill of interpretation becomes
particularly important as students progress from describing what they are
learning about past events to reflecting on assorted historical evidence in terms
of contextual values and cultural bias. }

http://media.collegeboard.com/digitalServices/pdf/ap/ap-us-history-course-and-exam-description.pdf

Forget facts and figures, have students make it up as they go to support political objectives...

This is hilarious. There is nothing in that excerpted lesson suggestion that does what you suggest. In fact, it does the opposite. What it is encouraging the students to do is to look at the different methods used in presenting history in a revisionist fashion, so that they can be better equipped to recognize historical fact from propagandized rhetoric to achieve an agenda.

Keep in mind, these are not your typical double digit students who haven't even grasped the simplistic "George Washington was our first President" type of history class. These are the gifted, brilliant kids in an AP - that stands for Advance Placement - course who have already memorized most of the important highlights offered in the traditional History class, and are more than prepared for this type of critical examination of not only History, but how we tend to present History.

 

[depotoo]

It is an embellished novel about a real Colonel. Tell me how he could possibly know their weights. That is just the beginning. Effeminate? Talking about the definition of manhood? By who's definition? He is weaving a story for his idealogical beliefs.

Funston knew that this was his last chance. He had attracted far too much attention; his colorful comments had played into the hands of critics of the war, and his headline-grabbing exploits had irritated the regular officers. Time and again he had been told to keep his mouth shut, but every corpuscle in his blood impelled him to the heart of the action and then obliged him to talk about what he had done or seen. The truth of the matter was that Funston had always wanted to be a hero, someone whose martial prowess and courage could determine the outcome of a war: David bringing down Goliath and routing the Philistines; Achilles wading into the Trojans and breaking the siege; Napoleon working his will upon all Europe. His was the dream of boys who play soldier: charging ahead of the others in the teeth of enemy fire; seizing the ramparts and dispatching the enemy; sustaining dreadful (but not disfiguring) wounds; being publicly feted by a grateful nation; and receiving, in private, the adoring ministrations of a beautiful girl. Most men, on easing into manhood, redefine heroism in more prosaic terms: providing for a family despite being laid off; preserving scruples or friendships when to do so is unpopular; walking calmly, at the close of life, toward the abyss. Funston wanted none of this. He craved pristine glory of the classical kind, a glory that the industrial world had nearly blasted into oblivion. He wanted not just to win battles but to reclaim a type of heroism that had already become old-fashioned.

Funston had undertaken such a quest out of fear that he did not measure up. Partly this was because his father had set so daunting a standard. Edward (“Foghorn”) Funston stood six feet two, weighed two hundred pounds, and had a deep, bellowing voice and sharp, scathing tongue. During the Civil War he worked his way through the ranks to become an artillery officer. Afterward he set up a homestead in Kansas, became prominent in Republican circles, and was repeatedly elected to Congress. Nearly always he plunged into whatever fray he could find. At sixty-nine he gave a fiery speech on a street corner and nearly came to blows with a law officer who tried to arrest him for disturbing the peace. Foghorn Funston was an exemplar of late-nineteenth-century manhood.
........
this is an example of one of the author's writings regarding a Colonel in the Phillipine-US war of 1899.

First, you have evidence is an inaccurate account of this Colonel?

Second you keep talking about "the book", and "the author", as if there is only a single textbook that meets the curriculum's criteria, when in fact there are a plethora of books that do so. Are you suggesting that every single one of these textbooks, from every one of these authors, relates the exact same story?

 

[depotoo]

neutrality? Far from it. If you find the author of what I posted as qualifying as neutral, which you found no problem with, then you need to go restudy what neutrality actually means.

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.

So you think that history must be presented in such a way as to demonize the free market system and the concept of individual rights so that collectivist goals might be achieved?

Absolutely not. I think that history should be presented with neutrality. Simply teach what happened - all of it. The good, the bad, and the ugly. Let the facts of History speck for themselves.

It is about teaching facts, which Zinn never bothered with - and let's be honest, it IS what we are talking about.

Except it's not. It is about cherry picking which facts you want to teach from history, in order to create the narrative that you want. That's not "Hisory"; it's indoctrination. There's a difference.

{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…”}

You get that that accusation has been proven entirely false, right?

Moving on...

You seek socialist indoctrination, and are offended that someone stood up and demanded that legitimate history be taught instead.

Edit ---------------------

The board proposals are chilling, something out of the USSR circa 1949.

{
To help students create their own interpretation of U.S. history,
students and teachers should examine changing historical interpretations
over time, such as the different ways that historians have interpreted the
institution of American slavery or evaluated Reconstruction. Historians
have the added challenge of addressing “presentism,” or how contemporary
ideas and perspectives are anachronistically introduced into depictions
and interpretations of historical events. The skill of interpretation becomes
particularly important as students progress from describing what they are
learning about past events to reflecting on assorted historical evidence in terms
of contextual values and cultural bias. }

http://media.collegeboard.com/digitalServices/pdf/ap/ap-us-history-course-and-exam-description.pdf

Forget facts and figures, have students make it up as they go to support political objectives...

This is hilarious. There is nothing in that excerpted lesson suggestion that does what you suggest. In fact, it does the opposite. What it is encouraging the students to do is to look at the different methods used in presenting history in a revisionist fashion, so that they can be better equipped to recognize historical fact from propagandized rhetoric to achieve an agenda.

Keep in mind, these are not your typical double digit students who haven't even grasped the simplistic "George Washington was our first President" type of history class. These are the gifted, brilliant kids in an AP - that stands for Advance Placement - course who have already memorized most of the important highlights offered in the traditional History class, and are more than prepared for this type of critical examination of not only History, but how we tend to present History.

 

[depotoo]

Thank you, thank you, thank you!!!

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?

The technique is to omit historic fact, and replace it with fictions of how a child in an Indian tribe felt as the evil white man came and slaughtered his mother in front of his eyes. That there is no historical account is irrelevant, the impression given of the social injustice is what students need to learn.

Who George Washington was, or Thomas Jefferson is omitted so that a fabricated story of a young black man looking for work in the city, only to be abused by a white industrialist who forces him to work 20 hours a day in a sweatshop, until he is tragically pulled into a machine and loses his arm. At which time evil whitey throws him into the street to starve.

Fact is discarded in favor myths that promote the correct impressions for the social, cultural, and political goals.

 

[depotoo]

Many that are home schooled actually work together with others that are home schooled and if not sharing teaching time together in a group, will also plan for cultural, etc. field trips together as so they do have social interaction.

Today's liberals not only want all of our dirty laundry aired, but they oppose any teachings of the positive things America has created.

I've never been for home schooling, as I believe there is a severe lack of socialization for most kids who are home schooled. More and more though, I think it's the only way kids will ever see anything positive about our history.

 

[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.

The point is that what she said was, at best, inaccurate, and at worst a lie. One of us here is an idiot, anyway...

yea, you

you're lower war to civil disobedience. That's idiotic at best

How about everything that led up to the Revolutionary War? Do you think the actions of the rebels in Boston during the so-called "Boston Tea Party" were the legal actions of people respecting authority? Or were they acts of civil disobedience?

How about the clash at Lexington, and Concord? You do get that that happened a full 4 months before the Colonies "declared" their independence, right? And, then of course, there was that very declaration. You do get that that very declaration was an illegal act, right? The fact that we got away with it, by forcing the British out, doesn't change the fact that it was an illegal act of treason against the legitimate ruling force. Was it a justified act of treason? Yeah. Probably. but, it was treason, none the less. Do you think that having been justified would have prevented the hanging of every single person who signed that document had the colonists lost?

You're just a complete idiot when it comes to how the United States actually came to be, aren't you?

I see by your post that you are nothing but a leftist tool, and nothing more.

 

[Youch]

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...

So teaching historical facts offends you and confuses your 15yo?

Shacking off the reigns of oppression is now considered civil disorder? Based on what? It is what became next is what is considered a civil society, not what came before.

No irony, just dysfunction.

FAR too many people are too emotionally hung up on the notion of conservatism to be able to rationally think about the most basic things.

 

[Truman123]

That a Republican would call his or hers the 'Party of Lincoln' either shows a willful disregard for history, or ignorance.

And I'm not sure which is worse.

 

[ogibillm]

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...

So teaching historical facts offends you and confuses your 15yo?

Shacking off the reigns of oppression is now considered civil disorder? Based on what? It is what became next is what is considered a civil society, not what came before.

No irony, just dysfunction.

FAR too many people are too emotionally hung up on the notion of conservatism to be able to rationally think about the most basic things.

again, too ironic. the only people, the only real people, pushing that an ideology be taught in history class are the "conservatives" on the school board.

 

[Stephanie]

That a Republican would call his or hers the 'Party of Lincoln' either shows a willful disregard for history, or ignorance.

And I'm not sure which is worse.

what the hell does mean? good grief you talk in snippets of nothing

 

[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...

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.

The point is that what she said was, at best, inaccurate, and at worst a lie. One of us here is an idiot, anyway...

yea, you

you're lower war to civil disobedience. That's idiotic at best

How about everything that led up to the Revolutionary War? Do you think the actions of the rebels in Boston during the so-called "Boston Tea Party" were the legal actions of people respecting authority? Or were they acts of civil disobedience?

How about the clash at Lexington, and Concord? You do get that that happened a full 4 months before the Colonies "declared" their independence, right? And, then of course, there was that very declaration. You do get that that very declaration was an illegal act, right? The fact that we got away with it, by forcing the British out, doesn't change the fact that it was an illegal act of treason against the legitimate ruling force. Was it a justified act of treason? Yeah. Probably. but, it was treason, none the less. Do you think that having been justified would have prevented the hanging of every single person who signed that document had the colonists lost?

You're just a complete idiot when it comes to how the United States actually came to be, aren't you?

I see by your post that you are nothing but a leftist tool, and nothing more.

Well, one of us is a tool, but it isn't the one who recognized the American Revolution for what it was...

 

[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...

So teaching historical facts offends you and confuses your 15yo?

So, you are confused about what facts are, too, huh. The only people confused are the ones who keep calling "promoting 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.” teaching History, and "teaching facts". That is not a description of teaching facts. It is the description of indoctrinating an agenda. But, I understand the confusion. After all, you have already been indoctrinated, and follow the program.

Shacking off the reigns of oppression is now considered civil disorder? Based on what? It is what became next is what is considered a civil society, not what came before.

Uh, yes. Yes it is. Civil Disorder is encouraging group acts of violence and disruption against the established public law. Guess who the established public law was during the 18th Century. I'll give you a hint - he wore a crown, and sat on a throne in England. You seem, like everyone else on the Right, to be suffering under the delusion that, just because we won, that it wasn't what it was. I'll ask you the same question I asked the other person who asked a similarly stupid question: do you think that being justified in their acts of treason would have kept so much as one signer of the Declaration of Independence from being hung, had we lost?

No irony, just dysfunction.

FAR too many people are too emotionally hung up on the notion of conservatism to be able to rationally think about the most basic things.

That is the first thing you have said that I agree with. You are so hung up on promoting the agenda of modern conservatism, that you have lost sight of the basic purpose of history.

 

[asaratis]

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...

So teaching historical facts offends you and confuses your 15yo?

Shacking off the reigns of oppression is now considered civil disorder? Based on what? It is what became next is what is considered a civil society, not what came before.

No irony, just dysfunction.

FAR too many people are too emotionally hung up on the notion of conservatism to be able to rationally think about the most basic things.

again, too ironic. the only people, the only real people, pushing that an ideology be taught in history class are the "conservatives" on the school board.

Wrong again! It is those that want to distort history by omission of selected parts rather than teaching ALL of history that are pushing their ideology. These people are not limited to conservatives. More likely, the crowd is heavy on the liberal side.

I am a conservative hawk. I do not believe in teaching creationism that includes a 6000 year old earth and a 6 day creation of the universe. In American history, I believe in teaching about ALL of the happenings, including slavery, displacement of native Americans, segregation, racism, the Constitution and the extremely wise wording of it....along with ALL other happenings that shaped this great country.

The same should apply to world history.

When it comes to natural history, I believe in teaching evolution...because there is ample archeological evidence to show that that's the way it happened.

 

[rdean]

The GOP is good at rewriting history.

 

[ogibillm]

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...

So teaching historical facts offends you and confuses your 15yo?

Shacking off the reigns of oppression is now considered civil disorder? Based on what? It is what became next is what is considered a civil society, not what came before.

No irony, just dysfunction.

FAR too many people are too emotionally hung up on the notion of conservatism to be able to rationally think about the most basic things.

again, too ironic. the only people, the only real people, pushing that an ideology be taught in history class are the "conservatives" on the school board.

Wrong again! It is those that want to distort history by omission of selected parts rather than teaching ALL of history that are pushing their ideology. These people are not limited to conservatives. More likely, the crowd is heavy on the liberal side.

I am a conservative hawk. I do not believe in teaching creationism that includes a 6000 year old earth and a 6 day creation of the universe. In American history, I believe in teaching about ALL of the happenings, including slavery, displacement of native Americans, segregation, racism, the Constitution and the extremely wise wording of it....along with ALL other happenings that shaped this great country.

The same should apply to world history.

When it comes to natural history, I believe in teaching evolution...because there is ample archeological evidence to show that that's the way it happened.

that's great.
but in this case, the school board wants to inject ideology into. the say as much. you can't pretend otherwise.

 

[depotoo]

No they don't. The textbooks being used have inserted idealogy.

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...

So teaching historical facts offends you and confuses your 15yo?

Shacking off the reigns of oppression is now considered civil disorder? Based on what? It is what became next is what is considered a civil society, not what came before.

No irony, just dysfunction.

FAR too many people are too emotionally hung up on the notion of conservatism to be able to rationally think about the most basic things.

again, too ironic. the only people, the only real people, pushing that an ideology be taught in history class are the "conservatives" on the school board.

Wrong again! It is those that want to distort history by omission of selected parts rather than teaching ALL of history that are pushing their ideology. These people are not limited to conservatives. More likely, the crowd is heavy on the liberal side.

I am a conservative hawk. I do not believe in teaching creationism that includes a 6000 year old earth and a 6 day creation of the universe. In American history, I believe in teaching about ALL of the happenings, including slavery, displacement of native Americans, segregation, racism, the Constitution and the extremely wise wording of it....along with ALL other happenings that shaped this great country.

The same should apply to world history.

When it comes to natural history, I believe in teaching evolution...because there is ample archeological evidence to show that that's the way it happened.

that's great.
but in this case, the school board wants to inject ideology into. the say as much. you can't pretend otherwise.

 

[asaratis]

The GOP is good at rewriting history.

Do you have anything other than your biased opinion to support this?

 

[asaratis]

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...

So teaching historical facts offends you and confuses your 15yo?

Shacking off the reigns of oppression is now considered civil disorder? Based on what? It is what became next is what is considered a civil society, not what came before.

No irony, just dysfunction.

FAR too many people are too emotionally hung up on the notion of conservatism to be able to rationally think about the most basic things.

again, too ironic. the only people, the only real people, pushing that an ideology be taught in history class are the "conservatives" on the school board.

Wrong again! It is those that want to distort history by omission of selected parts rather than teaching ALL of history that are pushing their ideology. These people are not limited to conservatives. More likely, the crowd is heavy on the liberal side.

I am a conservative hawk. I do not believe in teaching creationism that includes a 6000 year old earth and a 6 day creation of the universe. In American history, I believe in teaching about ALL of the happenings, including slavery, displacement of native Americans, segregation, racism, the Constitution and the extremely wise wording of it....along with ALL other happenings that shaped this great country.

The same should apply to world history.

When it comes to natural history, I believe in teaching evolution...because there is ample archeological evidence to show that that's the way it happened.

that's great.
but in this case, the school board wants to inject ideology into. the say as much. you can't pretend otherwise.

Show me some proof of that.