Sanitizing American History

[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?

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.

Being as polite as I can, perhaps I failed in properly communicating. Our founding fathers, the framers of our nation, the freedom fighters of the late 18th century, were attempting to shake off oppression, and at the risk of their own lives, of course. But they lived not in a civil society, instead an oppressive one. What they created in the wake of their revolution was a civil society.

You can mince words and pretend differences all you want if argument is your desire.

It is interesting that you claim that there is a "purpose" to history. As if science has an agenda. Facts are what they are.

Since you know me not at all, defining my intentions makes you seem emotional. I do promote conservatism. What other rational thing is there to promote? Let's debate.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Since the 1930's, the National Labor Relations Board has allowed, employers to grant union recognition once a majority of workers sign cards saying they want to to join a union. The Republican party wants to end that. But, they aren't anti-union. They consistantly support policies that make it harder for unions to exist, to gain new members, to enter into new fields to protect workers in those fields, or to even keep the memberships that they have, but Republicans are not anti-union.

Listen to yourself. Card Check opens voters up to mob intimidation and so people can't really vote their conscience.Being pro human rights and pro liberty doesn't imply that one is out to destroy free association, that's what liberals do to achieve their orgasms.

Being pro-union shouldn't mean having to sell your principles. What is so wrong with secret ballots?

 

[Czernobog]

Since the 1930's, the National Labor Relations Board has allowed, employers to grant union recognition once a majority of workers sign cards saying they want to to join a union. The Republican party wants to end that. But, they aren't anti-union. They consistantly support policies that make it harder for unions to exist, to gain new members, to enter into new fields to protect workers in those fields, or to even keep the memberships that they have, but Republicans are not anti-union.

Listen to yourself. Card Check opens voters up to mob intimidation and so people can't really vote their conscience.Being pro human rights and pro liberty doesn't imply that one is out to destroy free association, that's what liberals do to achieve their orgasms.

Being pro-union shouldn't mean having to sell your principles. What is so wrong with secret ballots?

What ob intimidation? You mean the intimidation of companies like Wal-mart, who makes it abundantly clear that even talking to union reps could have an unpleasant effect on one's employment with the company? You mean that kind of intimidation. Because trust me, that is much more common than union reps trying to strong-arm employees. Unions don't need to. People scramble to sign up. That's kinda why the Modern Republicans wanna get rid of the Card Check.

 

[Rikurzhen]

What ob intimidation?

Why do you think political elections are run on the principle of secret ballot?

 

[Czernobog]

What is described in your quoted paragraph is not a new ideology. It is the basis upon which this country was founded.

It doesn't matter whether it is new, or old. The purpose of a History class is not to promote an ideology, period. It is to teach history. One's ideology should be informed by history, not by someone's agenda using cherry-picked historical events to create a narrative.

Then to teach HISTORY, you don't LEAVE OUT ANYTHING! That's what Julie Williams is objecting to. Teach it all. It is the AP that's trying to insert a new ideology in American History.

No, their not. You act like everyone else; like these students need to be taught about Washington, and Jefferson. Guess what? These are advanced placement students. They are well past Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln. Those are the most basic, elementary building blocks of history. The whole point of AP courses is to treat the students in them what they are - well advanced from those basic clocks.

 

[rdean]

The GOP is good at rewriting history.

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

I live through Reagan's presidency. The man appeared to have Alzheimers. Republicans have completely rewritten his entire life. It was called "The Reagan Legacy Project".

About the Ronald Reagan Legacy Project

How Republicans created the myth of Ronald Reagan - Salon.com

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/22/books/review/22SHESOLL.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

This is one of the best descriptions I have ever read about Ronald Reagan:

Reagan's intellectual rehabilitation can go only so far. It's true that he displays none of the ostentatious anti-intellectualism so prevalent in his party, from Spiro Agnew to George W. Bush. Yet he shows no great passion for ideas, either, beyond their utility. There is no sense of struggle in his writings, no careful weighing of views, no perceptible self-doubt -- none of the typical markers of a searching mind. Reagan does not ruminate so much as proselytize.

 

[rdean]

One thing Republicans on the USMB say is "show me proof". Even when there exists video, audio and quotes from reputable people. They will believe Fox and the Heritage Foundation but not believe video. In fact, some will say, "I refuse to watch it". And still they say "Show me proof". And how often do they show proof? I'm talking real proof. Not altered video from Breitbart.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Except "Right to work" isn't about liberty.

That is exactly what it is about.

The notion that any person can be forced to join a union in order to sell his time and talents to a willing buyer is repugnant. Your demand that in order for one man to sell his labor and intellect to another who produces goods and services, that he must bow and beg permission from a third party who produces nothing, is the very definition of infringment of liberty.

It is a misnamed legislative agenda that should be called "right to hire", designed to make it easier for employers to hire, fire, and take advantage of employees without "union interference". That isn't a pro-union position;it's pro-corporatist, and anti-union.

As I said, you demand that men bow and kiss the rings of Union bosses for the privilege of accepting a job willingly offered by another.

Do you view people as the rightful property of unions? Owned like so much livestock?

Tell me, if the union is beneficial to the worker, will not the worker WANT to join the union? That you must use coercion says that the union is not the benefit that the left portrays.

So, now supporting unions equals supporting organized crime? LMFAO! And this guy claims that Republicans aren't "anti-union".

You are dismissed.

No, supporting coercion does.

BTW, I am not a Republican.

 

[Uncensored2008]

What ob intimidation?

Having their arms and legs broken, having their homes and cars vandalizes, families threatened. Organized crime, as you know, and support.

You mean the intimidation of companies like Wal-mart, who makes it abundantly clear that even talking to union reps could have an unpleasant effect on one's employment with the company? You mean that kind of intimidation. Because trust me, that is much more common than union reps trying to strong-arm employees. Unions don't need to. People scramble to sign up. That's kinda why the Modern Republicans wanna get rid of the Card Check.

Unions are legitimate, the ability of free people to organize for collective bargaining withing a business or industry. A welders union with certification exams to ensure competent craftsmen offers great value and can name their price.

But you don't promote unions, you promote organized crime. You lust for the wealth of Walmart and seek to rape and pillage the organization to boost faltering pension funds. You are a looter.

 

[Czernobog]

Do you view people as the rightful property of unions? Owned like so much livestock?

You know, the irony of that question is hilarious - it is classic Carl Rove turnaround. "Take the accusations of your opponents, and use it against them". The spin is nice, but not worthy of serious response.

BTW, I am not a Republican.

No one claimed you were a Republican. However, you did claim that Republicans were not anti-union, and when they consistently promote legislation that is designed to make it harder for unions to exist, that statement simply does not reflect reality.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You know, the irony of that question is hilarious - it is classic Carl Rove turnaround. "Take the accusations of your opponents, and use it against them". The spin is nice, but not worthy of serious response.

This thread is about the left coopting history and distorting it to promote the socialist/authoritarian agenda of the democratic party.

Your above malapropism is a perfect example of this in action. You try and smear Rove with a technique from Alinsky as detailed in Hillary's Bible "Rules for Radicals." If the left can pervert history to this extent, you will soon be teaching children that Reagan perpetrated the holocaust.

No one claimed you were a Republican. However, you did claim that Republicans were not anti-union, and when they consistently promote legislation that is designed to make it harder for unions to exist, that statement simply does not reflect reality.

As I've shown, this isn't about unions. You don't support unions, you support organized crime. You promote a monopoly that imposes itself by force. not the free association of workers to organize.

It's you who is anti-union.

 

[georgephillip]

One current example of sanitizing US History:

Do you think our government will mention the fact that more Vietnam vets have committed suicide than were killed during the war?

 

[Iceweasel]

One current example of sanitizing US History:
Do you think our government will mention the fact that more Vietnam vets have committed suicide than were killed during the war?

Source?

 

[georgephillip]

One current example of sanitizing US History:
Do you think our government will mention the fact that more Vietnam vets have committed suicide than were killed during the war?

Source?

Here's the first I could find:
Over 100 000 US Vietnam Vet Suicides To Date
I'll try to find official government sources within the next 24 hours.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Suicide Rate Among Vets and Active Duty Military Jumps - Now 22 A Day - Forbes

22 veterans commit suicide every day.

Suicide Statistics SuicideWall.com

Stat above of 100,000 seems to be splitting the difference cited in the above link of between 20,000 and 200,000.

 

[georgephillip]

Suicide Rate Among Vets and Active Duty Military Jumps - Now 22 A Day - Forbes

22 veterans commit suicide every day.

Suicide Statistics SuicideWall.com

Stat above of 100,000 seems to be splitting the difference cited in the above link of between 20,000 and 200,000.

So, it's accurate to say more Vietnam vets have died by their own hands than those who died in combat?

 

[Iceweasel]

One current example of sanitizing US History:
Do you think our government will mention the fact that more Vietnam vets have committed suicide than were killed during the war?

Source?

Here's the first I could find:
Over 100 000 US Vietnam Vet Suicides To Date
I'll try to find official government sources within the next 24 hours.

Nice try but it isn't sourced. It may be true but is that a disproportionate amount of suicides compared to the rest of the population? It doesn't get into that so we have no real figures, only conjecture.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Suicide Rate Among Vets and Active Duty Military Jumps - Now 22 A Day - Forbes

22 veterans commit suicide every day.

Suicide Statistics SuicideWall.com

Stat above of 100,000 seems to be splitting the difference cited in the above link of between 20,000 and 200,000.

So, it's accurate to say more Vietnam vets have died by their own hands than those who died in combat?

Assuming the estimate is correct and more than died in battle, yes.

 

[georgephillip]

Suicide Rate Among Vets and Active Duty Military Jumps - Now 22 A Day - Forbes

22 veterans commit suicide every day.

Suicide Statistics SuicideWall.com

Stat above of 100,000 seems to be splitting the difference cited in the above link of between 20,000 and 200,000.

So, it's accurate to say more Vietnam vets have died by their own hands than those who died in combat?

Assuming the estimate is correct and more than died in battle, yes.

Something tells me that information won't be included in the current celebration of the Vietnam War's "Fact Sheet."
"The Commemoration’s intent with our fact sheets is to provide the American public with historically accurate materials to help Americans better understand and appreciate the service of our Vietnam War veterans and the history of the Vietnam War."
Fact Sheets Fact Sheets Vietnam War Commemoration

 

[Delta4Embassy]

We glorify and romanticize war because it's big business and what we want more of. Not surprising then we don't talk about in equal amounts the aftermath of them cause then we might have less of them, and make less money.