Total Posts:48|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Texans Rewrite History Notebooks

Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2010 12:23:41 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Don McLeroy, a small, vigorous man with a shiny pate and bristling mustache, proposed amendment after amendment on social issues to the document that teams of professional educators had drawn up over 12 months, in what would have to be described as a single-handed display of archconservative political strong-arming.

McLeroy moved that Margaret Sanger, the birth-control pioneer, be included because she "and her followers promoted eugenics," that language be inserted about Ronald Reagan's "leadership in restoring national confidence" following Jimmy Carter's presidency and that students be instructed to "describe the causes and key organizations and individuals of the conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s, including Phyllis Schlafly, the Contract With America, the Heritage Foundation, the Moral Majority and the National Rifle Association." The injection of partisan politics into education went so far that at one point another Republican board member burst out in seemingly embarrassed exasperation, "Guys, you're rewriting history now!" Nevertheless, most of McLeroy's proposed amendments passed by a show of hands.

Finally, the board considered an amendment to require students to evaluate the contributions of significant Americans. The names proposed included Thurgood Marshall, Billy Graham, Newt Gingrich, William F. Buckley Jr., Hillary Rodham Clinton and Edward Kennedy. All passed muster except Kennedy, who was voted down.

-- http://www.balloon-juice.com...

Seriously? I know partisan politics is at full steam right now in the US, but can anyone, especially our Texans here, condone this with a straight face?
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2010 12:55:25 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Unfortunately, Sanger really did promote eugenics.

Sanger was a proponent of negative eugenics, a social philosophy which claims that human hereditary traits can be improved through social intervention. Sanger's eugenic policies ran to an exclusionary immigration policy, free access to birth control methods and full family-planning autonomy for the able-minded, and segregation or sterilization for the profoundly retarded. She expressly denounced euthanasia as a eugenics tool.

(...)

In A Plan for Peace (1932), for example, Sanger proposed a congressional department to:

Keep the doors of immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feebleminded, idiots, morons, insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class barred by the immigration laws of 1924.


-- http://en.wikipedia.org...
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2010 7:39:20 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Math is not partisan. Facts are not partisan.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2010 8:40:44 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/13/2010 7:39:20 AM, mongoose wrote:
Math is not partisan. Facts are not partisan.

So, mongoose, you think its perfectly OK to focus children's education on conservative movements, conservative people, and teach only conservative values? Is this your idea of "non-partisan" facts?
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2010 9:50:27 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/13/2010 8:40:44 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 2/13/2010 7:39:20 AM, mongoose wrote:
Math is not partisan. Facts are not partisan.

So, mongoose, you think its perfectly OK to focus children's education on conservative movements, conservative people, and teach only conservative values? Is this your idea of "non-partisan" facts?

It should have more. I don't think they mention that FDR bought votes.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2010 9:56:04 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/13/2010 9:50:27 AM, mongoose wrote:
At 2/13/2010 8:40:44 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 2/13/2010 7:39:20 AM, mongoose wrote:
Math is not partisan. Facts are not partisan.

So, mongoose, you think its perfectly OK to focus children's education on conservative movements, conservative people, and teach only conservative values? Is this your idea of "non-partisan" facts?

It should have more. I don't think they mention that FDR bought votes.

Should it mention the Theory George Bush stole the 2000 election?
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2010 9:57:23 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/13/2010 9:56:04 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 2/13/2010 9:50:27 AM, mongoose wrote:
At 2/13/2010 8:40:44 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 2/13/2010 7:39:20 AM, mongoose wrote:
Math is not partisan. Facts are not partisan.

So, mongoose, you think its perfectly OK to focus children's education on conservative movements, conservative people, and teach only conservative values? Is this your idea of "non-partisan" facts?

It should have more. I don't think they mention that FDR bought votes.

Should it mention the Theory George Bush stole the 2000 election?

And the PROOF that LBJ stole his first senate race.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2010 9:57:55 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/13/2010 9:57:23 AM, mongoose wrote:
At 2/13/2010 9:56:04 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 2/13/2010 9:50:27 AM, mongoose wrote:
At 2/13/2010 8:40:44 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 2/13/2010 7:39:20 AM, mongoose wrote:
Math is not partisan. Facts are not partisan.

So, mongoose, you think its perfectly OK to focus children's education on conservative movements, conservative people, and teach only conservative values? Is this your idea of "non-partisan" facts?

It should have more. I don't think they mention that FDR bought votes.

Should it mention the Theory George Bush stole the 2000 election?

And the PROOF that LBJ stole his first senate race.

Proof requires Proof.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2010 10:04:00 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/13/2010 9:57:55 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 2/13/2010 9:57:23 AM, mongoose wrote:
At 2/13/2010 9:56:04 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 2/13/2010 9:50:27 AM, mongoose wrote:
At 2/13/2010 8:40:44 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 2/13/2010 7:39:20 AM, mongoose wrote:
Math is not partisan. Facts are not partisan.

So, mongoose, you think its perfectly OK to focus children's education on conservative movements, conservative people, and teach only conservative values? Is this your idea of "non-partisan" facts?

It should have more. I don't think they mention that FDR bought votes.

Should it mention the Theory George Bush stole the 2000 election?

And the PROOF that LBJ stole his first senate race.

Proof requires Proof.

"Thus, one writer alleges that Johnson's campaign manager, future Texas governor John B. Connally, was connected with 202 ballots in Precinct 13 in Jim Wells County that had curiously been cast in alphabetical order and all just at the close of polling. (All of the people whose names appeared on the ballots were found to have been dead on election day.) Robert Caro argued in his 1989 book that Johnson had stolen the election in Jim Wells County, and other counties in South Texas, as well as rigging 10,000 ballots in Bexar County alone.[15] A judge, Luis Salas, said in 1977 that he had certified 202 fraudulent ballots for Johnson.[16]"
http://en.wikipedia.org...
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2010 10:10:47 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/13/2010 10:04:00 AM, mongoose wrote:
At 2/13/2010 9:57:55 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 2/13/2010 9:57:23 AM, mongoose wrote:
At 2/13/2010 9:56:04 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 2/13/2010 9:50:27 AM, mongoose wrote:
At 2/13/2010 8:40:44 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 2/13/2010 7:39:20 AM, mongoose wrote:
Math is not partisan. Facts are not partisan.

So, mongoose, you think its perfectly OK to focus children's education on conservative movements, conservative people, and teach only conservative values? Is this your idea of "non-partisan" facts?

It should have more. I don't think they mention that FDR bought votes.

Should it mention the Theory George Bush stole the 2000 election?

And the PROOF that LBJ stole his first senate race.

Proof requires Proof.

"Thus, one writer alleges that Johnson's campaign manager, future Texas governor John B. Connally, was connected with 202 ballots in Precinct 13 in Jim Wells County that had curiously been cast in alphabetical order and all just at the close of polling. (All of the people whose names appeared on the ballots were found to have been dead on election day.) Robert Caro argued in his 1989 book that Johnson had stolen the election in Jim Wells County, and other counties in South Texas, as well as rigging 10,000 ballots in Bexar County alone.[15] A judge, Luis Salas, said in 1977 that he had certified 202 fraudulent ballots for Johnson.[16]"
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2010 11:43:48 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
In all honesty, the issue isn't over facts - facts are facts. The issue is over which facts are being shown, and which facts are being ignored, and for what purpose.

No one sane here, and not even mongoose, has so far denied that the purpose of showing these "facts" is to propagandize, and create bias in favour of conservative movements.

If you want to tell civic students about how LBJ might have stolen his first senate election, then fine. You also tell them about the controversy surrounding both Bush in 2000 and 2004. If you exclude that information, or worse, lie about it, by either presenting something as the *only* fact, or presenting it as a fact at all, there is something wrong.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2010 1:44:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/13/2010 9:49:09 AM, mongeese wrote:
I know what textbook America needs quite badly.

http://www.regnery.com...

haha!

That "history" book is really just Ameriphiling at its worst.

I have seen you post similar books all over the place. Seriously, mongeese... Put down the apologetically partisan history texts down and pick up some with a little bit more scholarly reliability.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2010 2:01:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/13/2010 1:44:00 PM, JBlake wrote:
At 2/13/2010 9:49:09 AM, mongeese wrote:
I know what textbook America needs quite badly.

http://www.regnery.com...

haha!

That "history" book is really just Ameriphiling at its worst.

I have seen you post similar books all over the place. Seriously, mongeese... Put down the apologetically partisan history texts down and pick up some with a little bit more scholarly reliability.

That author has a BA from Harvard and a PhD in History from Columbia and two books on the New York Times Bestsellers List. The name of the book just gives the book a bad reputation.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2010 2:06:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/13/2010 2:01:15 PM, Nags wrote:
That author has a BA from Harvard and a PhD in History from Columbia and two books on the New York Times Bestsellers List. The name of the book just gives the book a bad reputation.

The schools from which he graduated are not really relevant to the reliability of his scholarship. Nor does the fact that his books are widely purchased. It is not the name of the book that has caused it to have a bad reputation among readers and historians alike - it is the substance of the material.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2010 2:08:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/13/2010 2:06:01 PM, JBlake wrote:
The schools from which he graduated are not really relevant to the reliability of his scholarship. Nor does the fact that his books are widely purchased. It is not the name of the book that has caused it to have a bad reputation among readers and historians alike - it is the substance of the material.

No, it's really not. Thomas Woods is the Howard Zinn of the right. I'm sure you have no problem with the works of Zinn, or the reliability thereof. Higher Education is widely permeated with leftist historians, so of course they have been critical of the substance. History is partisan, no matter what anyone says. Woods is just giving his take on history.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2010 2:15:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
No, I am not particularly impressed with Howard Zinn either - and for similar reasons.

And no, historians are not inherently partisan in their work. Historians are trained and expected to keep their own ideology out of their scholarship. Most of them are successful at it as well. I wonder how many history books you have read to com up with this conclusion that historians are advancing a leftist agenda (or are even inadvertently biased in their work). Could it be that you are taking the word of people like Dr. Woods?

Dr. Woods does not even pretend like he is not partisan. He celebrates the fact.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2010 2:20:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/13/2010 2:15:04 PM, JBlake wrote:
Dr. Woods does not even pretend like he is not partisan. He celebrates the fact.

That's what I like about him. Most historians just give their take on history all while saying they are being objective. The point of the book is to counter said historians. You can't really attack the book, you can only attack the opinions. Opinions can't be wrong though.

Some books celebrate Lincoln. This book does not.

Some books celebrate FDR and the New Deal. This book does not.

The opinions are backed up with facts, just like almost all other history books.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2010 2:52:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/13/2010 2:20:10 PM, Nags wrote:
That's what I like about him. Most historians just give their take on history all while saying they are being objective. The point of the book is to counter said historians. You can't really attack the book, you can only attack the opinions. Opinions can't be wrong though.

So, the point of this book is to counter non-partisan historians with partisan ones?....

Don't get me wrong, I have no doubts that the guy who wrote the book doesn't have some facts backing up his claims. I also have no doubt that there is also probably a lot of conjecture.

Like for instance, where they say "Why "providing for the general welfare" doesn't mean that the federal government gets to spend money on whatever it wants" - that is clearly an opinion, based on just one of many interpretations. I also bet that if we actually saw the passages relating to that, it would be denouncing all other opinions as wrong. That, I feel, has no place in what should be a textbook that should present as many opinions as it can, instead of universally denouncing all except your own.

Now, compare that statement "Was the war fought to free slaves? How the Civil War was more about other issues than about slavery" - that is actually acceptable, because it is a long-standing idea and deserves its place in a textbook like this.

There really is a world of difference between those two statements/passages. There is also differences between statements like, "How the liberalism of the 1960s discouraged all the right things and encouraged all the wrong ones," and "World War II: did it lift America out of the Depression?" One is an outright libellous opinion, the other is a legitimate question.

Which one do you, Nags, think has a proper place in educational textbooks?
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2010 3:01:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/13/2010 2:52:01 PM, Volkov wrote:
Which one do you, Nags, think has a proper place in educational textbooks?

The book isn't mean to be a book for educational institutions, so you're smug rhetorical question is irrelevant.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2010 3:07:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/13/2010 3:01:26 PM, Nags wrote:
The book isn't mean to be a book for educational institutions, so you're smug rhetorical question is irrelevant.

It wasn't rhetorical, I actually want to know.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2010 3:43:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/13/2010 3:07:23 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 2/13/2010 3:01:26 PM, Nags wrote:
The book isn't mean to be a book for educational institutions, so you're smug rhetorical question is irrelevant.

It wasn't rhetorical, I actually want to know.

Doubtful.

But obviously the question is better than the out-right opinionated statement. However, if the question is an opinionated answer, then the out-right opinionated statement becomes better than the question for the simple fact that telling something out-right is better than operating under the false guise of objectivity.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2010 3:56:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/13/2010 3:43:36 PM, Nags wrote:
Doubtful.

You shouldn't doubt me, I have no reason to lie.

But obviously the question is better than the out-right opinionated statement. However, if the question is an opinionated answer, then the out-right opinionated statement becomes better than the question for the simple fact that telling something out-right is better than operating under the false guise of objectivity.

Fair enough. So how do we tell the objective from the subjective in cases like this? How do we know whether something is a legitimate question, or simply loaded?
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2010 3:56:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/13/2010 2:52:01 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 2/13/2010 2:20:10 PM, Nags wrote:
That's what I like about him. Most historians just give their take on history all while saying they are being objective. The point of the book is to counter said historians. You can't really attack the book, you can only attack the opinions. Opinions can't be wrong though.

So, the point of this book is to counter non-partisan historians with partisan ones?....

Don't get me wrong, I have no doubts that the guy who wrote the book doesn't have some facts backing up his claims. I also have no doubt that there is also probably a lot of conjecture.

Like for instance, where they say "Why "providing for the general welfare" doesn't mean that the federal government gets to spend money on whatever it wants" - that is clearly an opinion, based on just one of many interpretations. I also bet that if we actually saw the passages relating to that, it would be denouncing all other opinions as wrong. That, I feel, has no place in what should be a textbook that should present as many opinions as it can, instead of universally denouncing all except your own.

Now, compare that statement "Was the war fought to free slaves? How the Civil War was more about other issues than about slavery" - that is actually acceptable, because it is a long-standing idea and deserves its place in a textbook like this.

There really is a world of difference between those two statements/passages. There is also differences between statements like, "How the liberalism of the 1960s discouraged all the right things and encouraged all the wrong ones," and "World War II: did it lift America out of the Depression?" One is an outright libellous opinion, the other is a legitimate question.

Which one do you, Nags, think has a proper place in educational textbooks?

The facts he uses to back up his claims are the words of the people debating what to add to the Constitution and such. It is very clear that the federal government is not supposed to be allowed to build highways.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2010 4:02:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/13/2010 3:56:56 PM, mongoose wrote:
The facts he uses to back up his claims are the words of the people debating what to add to the Constitution and such. It is very clear that the federal government is not supposed to be allowed to build highways.

... No, it isn't. That's one interpretation, and even then you still have questions about state empowerment and whether the constitution is "living" or not.

Anyways, I'm not getting into a constitutional debate with a Texan secessionist. The point is that the statement was clearly loaded.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2010 4:03:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/13/2010 3:56:56 PM, mongoose wrote:
The facts he uses to back up his claims are the words of the people debating what to add to the Constitution and such. It is very clear that the federal government is not supposed to be allowed to build highways.

That is anything but clear. Would you be so kind as to point me to the clause that prohibits it?

What about the Interstate Commerce Clause? What about the Necessary and Proper Clause?
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2010 4:05:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/13/2010 3:56:51 PM, Volkov wrote:
Fair enough. So how do we tell the objective from the subjective in cases like this? How do we know whether something is a legitimate question, or simply loaded?

Well, obviously an analysis of the specific content would be necessary. You're going to have to give a specific example for me to answer this properly.