Al Jazeera English: VIDEO: Texas looks to rewrite history

[SealLion]

OK. You tell me what you think of people and or educational departments or the like, rewriting history.
There's many reasons to rewrite history. Some are legit and some may not be as legit as you might be led to believe.
I suppose it's a matter philosophy and personal beliefs on what components you feel ought to be rewritten and for what reasons.

History could be rewritten for the sake of more truthfulness.

To give more and pertinent information that might reveal left out information.

Or it could be for educating younger people to the whims of what adults feel the younger generation ought to be taught because the adults are traditionalists of some kind or another.
Or, and according to the AJE article, it is to remove 'left leaning' bias in education.

check it out:

In the US state of Texas, the board of education is drafting its own version of American history.

The board is changing school textbooks to correct what they say is a "left leaning" bias in education.

But some say the changes have religious and racial overtones

Here's the link:

Al Jazeera English - Americas - Texas looks to rewrite history

enjoy

[slikrapid]

what you think of people and or educational departments or the like, rewriting history.

well, lets just say that much rewriting or outright biased writing (in the first place) was done in the past, naturally, in the manner that was most suitable or tolerable to those in power or to further specific points of view, with a tendency to glorify or at least embellish favorable events/persons/viewpoints

as time goes by certain, more open minded, researchers uncover various hidden facts that provide a different perspective on the matter at hand, yet if the findings are somewhat hard to swallow for the mainstream or if they go against established dogmas, the system tends to marginalize or deny or ridicule those inconvenient results, sometimes even up to the point of attacks on the researchers person/character, physical assault, information or research group/personnel access denial, employment denial and so on - nevertheless, their research continues to live on, until hopefully in a wiser period of history, it will get the proper attention and implementation

actually, i'm pretty sure if some well informed researchers would dissect & demonstrate how far our actual ignorance or rather the level of misinformation goes, that we would probably be left speechless, outraged at the amount of fairy tales or assumptions that we are being fed with, as opposed to pure facts, no matter how painful or sobering they may be

as it happens, even if the facts are correct, there is still a lot of room for speculation or manipulation/interpretation considering the actual reasons/goals or even persons involved in the events in question, then there is political correctness (what might someone say/think/feel if the truth, that usually hurts, is said about them) or smoothing out of controversial elements, or even taking them out of the equation completely, as if they had no relevance and so on

just as a familiar example, imagine what will the future generations read about the current usa government and their role in global events: undoubtedly one would read about their heroic endeavors to combat the threat of world terrorism (failing to mention their complicity in creating it), praising efforts to uphold democratic values (failing to identify how eroded and paper-thin those values in reality are), justifying military involvement in foreign countries and sacrifice of thousands of usa soldiers because they were so selflessly helping other countries (failing to notice the ever-present underlying corporate and strategic interests or subsequent benefits/profits), supporting engagement in humanitarian, environmental and many other areas, and to top it all, is there a better proof of how their actions are internationally accepted as critical/crucial/responsible, a true achievement in itself, than the fact that the leader of this government has received the nobel peace prize for such an outstanding performance

now one can think about how easy it can be to manipulate future generations, that haven't actually witnessed any of the aforementioned events, but have been served a politically approved, distorted, but nice & colorful, well packaged & pleasing version of past time events, with the blessing of mainstream (should i say 'owned') historians that have been well taught by the educational system what to support and what to leave to some other, more 'adventurous'/brave individuals to tackle - having this in mind, one can only guess at what the past was really like, what parts of it have been distorted or even made up to fit the 'proper' image and serve the expected goal/intention of the storyteller (or that of his employer) - it is helpful to have some experience/awareness and intuition in order to realize/sense how some parts of the story just don't seem to fit in, no matter how carefully they have been constructed, and being focused on/exposed stand out just like a glitch in the matrix

it is to remove 'left leaning' bias in education.

as for the left & right nonsense, its all an artificial division, in order to group them (people/followers/supporters) together in a easily manageable way, so that their actions can be more uniform and thus predictable/expected, meaning controllable, where individuals get caught up in the web of duty and allegiance towards a certain group, even if their own views may differ significantly from the group (mainstream) ones - this can go up to the point when their learned behavior becomes self-serving, taking priority over the actual problems they are supposed to resolve, unfortunately, as we all witness it, people are still clinging onto those recognizable left & right labels, not realizing how similar their programs/goals/actions actually are once the labels are removed, but admitting that would also mean admitting how there are no real, decent alternatives in politics today, no matter who gets elected the results will be virtually the same

[Nobody]

Texas is full of fucking nutters. In theory this could be good, but I just don't trust Texas to do it right. It's crazy like California, just on the opposite end of the political spectrum.

To be honest I don't have anything against Texas or California. But I do have a problem with people who want to infuse religion in to the school system and government. It's wrong. It's unconstitutional. But Texas has a long history of rebellious saber-rattling. My guess is that this they won't have the voter appeal to make any real traction on this proposal.

[desodorante]

I miss Jericho!

[SealLion]

rewriting or outright biased writing .... was done in the past, naturally, in the manner that was most suitable or tolerable to those in power

and it still continues to this day. Not just with educational curricula, but in all fairness it can even be said with other subjects.

You could include concepts of global warming. Or at the least, false concepts of global warming.
But that's another matter.

With respect to education, you could say, just as you suggest slik that rewriting history involves the political correctness arena.

when rewriting history within that concept, one has to take into consideration how the history of aboriginal people. There area innumerable situations in which minorities have always had some kind of campaign in ensuring how their history is intertwined with the history of, let's say settlement in some area of north america.

as such it makes a perfect example of how publishers can fill textbooks with factual errors.

As such, it raises some doubts about the predisposition of both authors and publishers of textbooks.

As a matter of fact, here's some more news to this topic of rewriting history:

Pay special attention to the emboldened portions as it tells of political correctness agenda as well as a religious agenda with respect to the use of the word 'secular'.

Texas Conservatives Win Curriculum Change

.... the Texas Board of Education ....... approved a social studies curriculum that will put a conservative stamp on history and economics textbooks, stressing the superiority of American capitalism, questioning the Founding Fathers’ commitment to a purely secular government and presenting Republican political philosophies in a more positive light

EDIT: Superiority, conservatism, secularism, political philosophies ...wow, man!!

You could write an entire book on just those 3 words and everything that is spoken of inside that quote.
......way to much to talk about there.
Suffice it to say, I'll just talk of secularism for now.

I think that it's common knowledge that the antonym of secular is religion, yes??

so you see, this debate as you guys mention, does have religious undertones and affiliations with how some people, and not necessarily taking place in Texas but anywhere in the world for that matter, can have issues directly related to the political correctness arena.

check it out some more:

........board members have been locked in an ideological battle between a bloc of conservatives who question Darwin’s theory of evolution and believe the Founding Fathers were guided by Christian principles,.....

One can have what-ever ideological theory they want.
In my opinion, I think that it is very fair to represent both ideological sides in textbooks.
Not just one.

You don't need to include church and state in any textbook, but IMO, I really think that it is fair to have both ideological sides represented in a textbook. One give's the students options.
I honestly don't believe that options should be relegated to being no options at all.

The way I see this attitude in Texas and the educational debate there ( or anywhere for that matter) is like this: It's either my way or the high-way.

That's the attitude I feel is prevalent today with the way this rewriting of history inside education is currently being represented in this article in Texas.

Here's the link to the above article:

Texas Conservatives Win Vote on Textbook Standards - NYTimes.com

Oh, and by-the-way, Nobody. I'd be interested in knowing from you first hand the political spectrum in California. I take it that it is not conservative, yes??
Is there an infusion of religion in some aspect or another within the educational system there??
Is there even an option for students to choose from within their educational curriculum whether it be Dwarinism or something the opposite to that so that they may decide for themselves??

Students should not be seen as needing direction in all facets of life.
Life is about choices, yes??
that's how I feel over this issue.

[Nobody]

The way I see this attitude in Texas and the educational debate there ( or anywhere for that matter) is like this: It's either my way or the high-way.

I actually wrote about this attitude quite a bit in my previous post before I edited it out, it felt off topic at the time. But I agree. It's a very self-centered, holier-than-thou, tunnel-vision attitude that aims to force kids in to a homogeneous cookie-cutter set of ideals.

All I can think of are the people who don't share the same political or religious views who live in that state. It's like conservatives are unable, or unwilling to put themselves in the shoes of someone who doesn't believe the same religious tenants they do. I really want to ask these hard-line republicans, "Would you support the incorporation of Islamic doctrines in to the public school systems of the Middle East?". My hope is that this would give them some semblance of perspective on the situation at hand, but based on my experience with those type of folks, I'd wager that they'd respond something to the effect of "I know the truth, and Muhammed is not the truth. So no, I wouldn't support that."

As the article implies, this impassioned debate isn't really anything new for the makers of these textbooks. Personally I don't see what's so hard about writing the textbooks in a way that remains as politically neutral as possible, and presents both sides of the argument on hotly contested issues such as abortion, gay-rights, and such. If the book finds it necessary to explain religion, explain as many of the common world religions as you can with equal page-space.

To me, a political organization using their influence to place (let's be honest...) propaganda in the textbooks of children in the hopes that their starry-eyed "greatest nation on earth" opinion of America and political views rub off on the next generation screams of all-sorts of infamy. Your political affiliation shouldn't be akin to your lineage. A political party is something you choose to join, not something your born in to. But kids do rebel. Perhaps presenting such a one-sided view to kids in our modern age (where information is so freely available) will only make them yearn for more variety. One can only hope.

But on the other hand, Republicans could argue that our public and state colleges indoctrinate young adults with Democratic ideals since the majority of our university professors are overwhelmingly liberal. Check out the film Indoctrinate U if you want a little more on that stance from a conservative perspective. The big difference here is that by the time you get to college, you have the choice to take classes from a liberal professor. You have the choice to attend a historically conservative or religious university whose professors largely share the viewpoints you have. Kids in public school aren't afforded that privilege, especially from their textbooks which are presented as fact.

Oh, and by-the-way, Nobody. I'd be interested in knowing from you first hand the political spectrum in California. I take it that it is not conservative, yes??
Is there an infusion of religion in some aspect or another within the educational system there??
Is there even an option for students to choose from within their educational curriculum whether it be Dwarinism or something the opposite to that so that they may decide for themselves??

Yup. You've got the right idea. California is very, very liberal. But they don't espouse any particular religious tenant. Rather than having religious material infused in their textbooks, it's taboo to have it included or even mention it in class. Religion is essentially villainized. In California, even bringing up religion in a school has a high likelihood of costing you your job, and may jeopardize the future of your teaching career in that state.

SealLion, you asked if students are able to choose their educational curriculum, and largely the answer is no. The state of American public education is really pretty bad, and most school districts are forced to use textbooks that are quite old before replacing them--let alone accommodating for different political/religious views. Students do have the option of going to a private schools, but those are typically quite expensive. And, from what I've seen, the choice to go to a religious or non-religious private school is largely the choice of the parent, not of the child--so I'm not sure it would matter, even if it cost nothing to attend.

California has a long history of vigorously protecting racial, political, and societal equality to the point that it has become a haven to some of the most extreme and violent groups our country has known in modern history. The Black Panthers, Hell's Angels, Bloods/Crips, The Chinese Triad, The Mexican Mafia, Earth Liberation Front (though seeing pictures of guys in ski masks with puppies is hilarious). California has a very laissez-faire attitude when it comes to groups that would be classified as "domestic terrorists" and largely untolerated in most other American states. Upholding equality has become a mantra of California to a degree that it's citizens become somewhat ruthless in the methods they'll use to obtain it, and maintaining this perceived level of equality in their state government has stymied what otherwise would have been weeded out by common sense.

They elected Arnold Schwarzenegger to represent their state as Governor, that alone is somewhat laughable. The thing is that Arnold (AKA "The Governator") bills himself as a Republican, and he still got elected in a state that is democratic to it's core. The reason being that California is so liberal that even the "republicans" they produce would be labeled as democrats anywhere else in the nation. For example, Arnold supported Obama's financial stimulus bill. When this bill was passed, not a single republican voted for it. Zero. None.

California mirrors Texas in that it has a history of throwing it's weight around and pushing political limits. They were the first to legalize medicinal marijuana, despite marijuana still being illegal under federal law. So in other words, if you get "caught" using medical marijuana, the state won't charge you, but the federal government still could. Don't get me wrong, I like me some ganja as much as the next guy... but it's created a huge gray area in the law and a power vacuum as state and federal agencies aren't inclined to work together anymore. Marijuana dispensaries in California now outnumber the total number of Starbucks and McDonalds combined in the state. And none of those dispensaries are operating legally or regulated. It's completely out of control.

With all that said, please realize that I'm painting an image of California with pretty broad brush strokes. Not everyone in California is the way I described, just as not everyone in Texas is a "fucking nutter" as I described. And even though Arnold was a pretty laughable choice for Governor in the beginning, he proved to be a pretty savvy politician in the end.

[slikrapid]

that will put a conservative stamp on history and economics textbooks, stressing the superiority of American capitalism, questioning the Founding Fathers’ commitment to a purely secular government and presenting Republican political philosophies in a more positive light

the question is why would any of these 3 mentioned subjects be a topic of an economy or history textbook in the first place, they are supposed to use facts & general terminology, without aligning (or supporting or criticizing) towards any subject or particular movement/party, giving an objective overview, refraining from subjectivity or bias as much as possible

the fact that (american) capitalism is so widespread throughout the world has nothing to do with superiority (similarly, if a product has acquired a large market share, it doesn't necessarily mean its superior to any other less represented competitive product)

imo no government is purely secular as those who are a part of the government aren't secular on the personal level, which means that they incorporate their religious views into their work (knowingly or subconsciously)

for obvious examples you can take the EU constitution debates where a significant part was in favor of including a statement like 'EU was based on the christian values...' or take the usa anthem with obvious statements: 'And this be our motto: 'In God is our trust.'' or the presidential oath addendum: 'So help me God'

........board members have been locked in an ideological battle between a bloc of conservatives who question Darwin’s theory of evolution and believe the Founding Fathers were guided by Christian principles,.....
One can have what-ever ideological theory they want.
In my opinion, I think that it is very fair to represent both ideological sides in textbooks.
Not just one.

You don't need to include church and state in any textbook, but IMO, I really think that it is fair to have both ideological sides represented in a textbook. One give's the students options.
I honestly don't believe that options should be relegated to being no options at all.

it gets complicated quickly, as for every current theory on some subject there are dozens, if not more, competing theories, and any one of them may prove correct in the future, so some balance is needed in presenting things without going into exclusiveness/bias or on the other side into confusion or too much details, but if they want to be fair, in addition to the current mainstream views, they should include some notice about the other ones

as for the 'founding fathers' (what happened to the mothers? ), the majority of them were supposedly (free)masons, which brings a serious doubt in the christian values

also, there is no real duality here, you could talk about a secular and religious side, but the question is who has the authority to represent the religious part

also, one could argue how freedom of choice between a set of already predefined choices is not really freedom at all, but thats another story

Students should not be seen as needing direction in all facets of life.
Life is about choices, yes??

well, they need some basic guidance (parents, schools) in order to be able to function as a part of the current societies, but they should have the freedom to form/express their own opinions or views (but this should be encouraged, not repressed) and to live by them if they choose so, naturally, within or in peaceful cooperation with the current system

I don't see what's so hard about writing the textbooks in a way that remains as politically neutral as possible, and presents both sides of the argument on hotly contested issues such as abortion, gay-rights, and such. If the book finds it necessary to explain religion, explain as many of the common world religions as you can with equal page-space.

simply because many of those same writers (and/or their employers, editors,...) have already biased views (or expectations/goals) which they include (for different reasons) in their written material - in order to achieve a decent level of neutrality they should take into consideration criticism from other interested parties, and again, its not 'two' sides, its multiple sides

also, considering religion, would they choose their own (or already established ones) views when explaining unfamiliar religions or those from the official religious representatives (for each one that is mentioned)

"greatest nation on earth" opinion of America rub off on the next generation

i would say that if one is an american, he/she should be proud of it, or to put it more generally, one should be proud of what they are or do, if it is true to their person/nature/view/character

usa has had (did and still does) a lot of wrongdoings (governments, officials, corporations) but it wouldn't go far as a country without patriotic feelings from its citizens, which can be said to some extent for any country, so its misguided when some people say they are 'ashamed to be americans', what they meant was probably 'ashamed of the current american government'

[SealLion]

as for the 'founding fathers' (what happened to the mothers? ), the majority of them were supposedly (free)masons, which brings a serious doubt in the christian values

very true. As apparently, Freemasonry stipulates that:

Regular Freemasonry requires that its candidates believe in a Supreme Being, but the interpretation of the term is subject to the conscience of the candidate. This means that Freemasonry accepts men from a wide range of faiths, including (but not limited to) Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Sikhism, Hinduism, etc

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemasonry#Membership_and_religion

also, there is no real duality here, you could talk about a secular and religious side, but the question is who has the authority to represent the religious part

this is an interesting statement but I have to ask the same question in reverse so to speak:
" who then has the authority to represent the secular part"??

also, one could argue how freedom of choice between a set of already predefined choices is not really freedom at all, but thats another story

ya, no.
That is not freedom at all.
That's basically giving a person an option between this or that.
There are no other options available.

and you know,...the way I see it here from my own perspective is that these 'traditionalists' are basically having it this waY: It's my way or the highway type of attitude that is being represented by such traditionalists.

also, considering religion, would they choose their own (or already established ones) views when explaining unfamiliar religions or those from the official religious representatives (for each one that is mentioned)

well, considering the perspective that was represented in the video and article, I would tend to think, and I think that you'd probably agree that it would be the perspective of the most prevelent faith.

However, I think that you could also attribute this to other places around the world. Not just Christianity, but I believe this is as equally fair to say that it also applies to other non-western or non-Christian faiths when other faiths are explained in educational textbook material, yes??

[slikrapid]

very true. As apparently, Freemasonry stipulates that:
[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemasonry#Membership_and_religion"]

some claim that the freemasons (or more accurately, their higher levels) have some kind of a luciferian religion, whereas the lower levels enjoy a rigid/secretive fraternity kind of relationship...be as it may, they seem to always be around when large-scale events happen, a highly suspicious tendency, not to mention how their organization is a recruitment pool for other secret societies or organizations

" who then has the authority to represent the secular part"??

well, simply the democratically elected majority

and you know,...the way I see it here from my own perspective is that these 'traditionalists' are basically having it this waY: It's my way or the highway type of attitude that is being represented by such traditionalists.

and the liberals would say: 'you can take whatever way you want'...and would think to themselves: 'but you're still gonna do it my way', so its all the same game, officially different goals or methods but they are eventually all hunting the same prize: power, control & money

this is as equally fair to say that it also applies to other non-western or non-Christian faiths when other faiths are explained in educational textbook material

agreed, it most likely is