 
  |
 |
Changing History || March 17, 2010
In the past day or two I've come across some interesting news posts on yahoo, and I just thought that I'd share that with you all. This article really surprised me. Not so much that it's something they're doing, but that they're admitting to it. I've thought for some time now that this was probably the case, but I didn't expect them to come right out and say that they are. When reading through this article, you can see that basically they are admitting to changing the history that's being taught in their textbooks. The thing about it being in Texas, in this article it talks about how 80% of the nation's textbooks come from Texas. So, if they change their history textbooks, then that means a lot of the nation will be teaching from the same ones. Something I found interesting is that they're admitting to it here, but what are they not admitting to changing in the classes? Schools will tell you a lot of things that you really have to ponder and consider. A lot of times people will think that an education can change your opinion about God and the Bible. Things that, if you're not really strong and grounded in your faith will make you stop and consider re-thinking that. Yet, right here they're admitting that they're changing a lot of stuff, how do we know what all they're changing, how much of it is accurate, and how much is "flavored" with what they want us to believe? Here's the article: U.S. history textbooks could soon be flavored heavily with Texas conservatism The nation’s public school curriculum may be in for a Texas-sized overhaul, if the Lone Star state’s influential recommendations for changes to social studies, economics and history textbooks are fully ratified later this spring. Last Friday, in a 10-to-5 vote split right down party lines, the Texas State Board of Education approved some controversial right-leaning alterations to what most students in the state—and by extension, in much of the rest of the country—will be studying as received historical and social-scientific wisdom. After a public comment period, the board will vote on final recommendations in May. Don McElroy, who leads the board’s powerful seven-member social conservative bloc, explained that the measure is a way of "adding balance" in the classroom, since "academia is skewed too far to the left." And the board's critics have labeled the move an attempt by political "extremists" to "promote their ideology." The revised standards have far-reaching implications because Texas is a huge market leader in the school-textbook industry. The enormous print run for Texas textbooks leaves most districts in other states adopting the same course materials, so that the Texas School Board effectively spells out requirements for 80 percent of the nation’s textbook market. That means, for instance, that schools in left-leaning states like Oregon and Vermont could soon be teaching from textbooks that are short on references to Ted Kennedy but long on references to conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly. Here are some of the other signal shifts that the Texas Board endorsed last Friday: - A greater emphasis on “the conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s.” This means not only increased favorable mentions of Schlafly, the founder of the antifeminist Eagle Forum, but also more discussion of the Moral Majority, the Heritage Foundation, the National Rifle Association and Newt Gingrich's Contract With America. - A reduced scope for Latino history and culture. A proposal to expand such material in recognition of Texas’ rapidly growing Hispanic population was defeated in last week’s meetings—provoking one board member, Mary Helen Berlanga, to storm out in protest. "They can just pretend this is a white America and Hispanics don’t exist," she said of her conservative colleagues on the board. "They are rewriting history, not only of Texas but of the United States and the world." - Changes in specific terminology. Terms that the board’s conservative majority felt were ideologically loaded are being retired. Hence, “imperialism” as a characterization of America’s modern rise to world power is giving way to “expansionism,” and “capitalism” is being dropped in economic material, in favor of the more positive expression “free market.” (The new recommendations stress the need for favorable depictions of America’s economic superiority across the board.) - A more positive portrayal of Cold War anticommunism. Disgraced anticommunist crusader Joseph McCarthy, the Wisconsin senator censured by the Senate for his aggressive targeting of individual citizens and their civil liberties on the basis of their purported ties to the Communist Party, comes in for partial rehabilitation. The board recommends that textbooks refer to documents published since McCarthy’s death and the fall of the Soviet bloc that appear to show expansive Soviet designs to undermine the U.S. government. - Language that qualifies the legacy of 1960s liberalism. Great Society programs such as Title IX—which provides for equal gender access to educational resources—and affirmative action, intended to remedy historic workplace discrimination against African-Americans, are said to have created adverse “unintended consequences” in the curriculum’s preferred language. - Thomas Jefferson no longer included among writers influencing the nation’s intellectual origins. Jefferson, a deist who helped pioneer the legal theory of the separation of church and state, is not a model founder in the board’s judgment. Among the intellectual forerunners to be highlighted in Jefferson’s place: medieval Catholic philosopher St. Thomas Aquinas, Puritan theologian John Calvin and conservative British law scholar William Blackstone. Heavy emphasis is also to be placed on the founding fathers having been guided by strict Christian beliefs. - Excision of recent third-party presidential candidates Ralph Nader (from the left) and Ross Perot (from the centrist Reform Party). Meanwhile, the recommendations include an entry listing Confederate General Stonewall Jackson as a role model for effective leadership, and a statement from Confederate President Jefferson Davis accompanying a speech by U.S. President Abraham Lincoln. - A recommendation to include country and western music among the nation’s important cultural movements. The popular black genre of hip-hop is being dropped from the same list. None of these proposals has met with final ratification from the board—that vote will come in May, after a prolonged period of public comment on the recommendations. Still, the conservatives clearly feel like the bulk of their work is done; after the 120-page draft was finalized last Friday, Republican board member Terri Leo declared that it was "world class" and "exceptional." —Brett Michael Dykes is a national affairs writer for Yahoo! News So, basically they're going to portray the events that occurred around this time in a more favorable light, and influence the way a particular time period is viewed. The part about Thomas Jefferson really surprised me. "Thomas Jefferson no longer included among writers influencing the nation’s intellectual origins." Hmm, that's interesting. They will include St. Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and William Blackstone, but not Thomas Jefferson. Another one that I found particularly interesting was, "Excision of recent third-party presidential candidates Ralph Nader and Ross Perot". Those are just two examples that they specifically mentioned. I don't know if that means they're not including the rest as well, but I guess that would make sense. I've always thought that the presidential race was already too narrow, the portrayal from the media. There's all these people running, and only two are really given much time and consideration. So, here we are in the textbooks that same thing, only the main two are being talked about in any given election. A recommendation to include country and western music among the nation’s important cultural movements, however, hip hop is being dropped from that same list. That's another thing I find interesting. Granted, country music has had a big cultural impact, but so has hip hop, so why is it not being included. It's not the music I tend to listen to myself, but it has had it's impact as well, so I'm surprised that they're not going to refer to that on these teachings. But yeah, basically just little things here and there, but enough to show that there's been an influence here, a change, enough to influence the way that students may view the world around them. Again, I find it interesting because this is just what they're admitting to. How much of what they've already been teaching has already been "flavored", as they like to put it. Again, it also goes back to what they try to teach you in schools about the Bible and about God. When such topics come up, it's not common for them to be viewed in a very favorable light. This is just something to think about. How much of what they're saying is inaccurate? How much of it is intentionally altered? |