For a while, some of the rationale behind some homeschooling communities is the fear of liberal biases in textbooks, etc… now, conservatives are exerted their biases into the text books of our school children. If you can be objective about this, one will note that biases on either side are simply wrong, further, if you can remain objective, you will find many of these ‘facts’ being taught very objectionable. You can find the entire story here, but below are some highlights. One of the things we have to realize is that as Texas goes, so does the nation. Find more here as well.
On of the Board members, Mariah Blake, recently wrote an article for Washington Monthly that takes a look at just how the board works.
The way I evaluate history textbooks is first I see how they cover Christianity and Israel. Then I see how they treat Ronald Reagan—he needs to get credit for saving the world from communism and for the good economy over the last twenty years because he lowered taxes.
Also from that article:
The ultraconservatives argued that they were too light on basics like grammar and too heavy on reading comprehension and critical thinking. “This critical-thinking stuff is gobbledygook,” grumbled David Bradley, an insurance salesman with no college degree, who often acts as the faction’s enforcer.
(thanks to Ken for that)
From the New York Times:
Cynthia Dunbar, a lawyer from Richmond who is a strict constitutionalist and thinks the nation was founded on Christian beliefs, managed to cut Thomas Jefferson from a list of figures whose writings inspired revolutions in the late 18th century and 19th century, replacing him with St. Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and William Blackstone. (Jefferson is not well liked among conservatives on the board because he coined the term “separation between church and state.”)
“The Enlightenment was not the only philosophy on which these revolutions were based,” Ms. Dunbar said.
From the HuffPost article:
Teachers in Texas will be required to cover the Judeo-Christian influences of the nation’s Founding Fathers, but not highlight the philosophical rationale for the separation of church and state. Curriculum standards also will describe the U.S. government as a “constitutional republic,” rather than “democratic,” and students will be required to study the decline in value of the U.S. dollar, including the abandonment of the gold standard.
…..
By late Thursday night, three other Democrats seemed to sense their futility and left, leaving Republicans to easily push through amendments heralding “American exceptionalism” and the U.S. free enterprise system, suggesting it thrives best absent excessive government intervention.
…..
Board members argued about the classification of historic periods (still B.C. and A.D., rather than B.C.E. and C.E.); whether students should be required to explain the origins of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and its impact on global politics (they will); and whether former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir should be required learning (she will).
….
In addition to learning the Bill of Rights, the board specified a reference to the Second Amendment right to bear arms in a section about citizenship in a U.S. government class.
……
Numerous attempts to add the names or references to important Hispanics throughout history also were denied, inducing one amendment that would specify that Tejanos died at the Alamo alongside Davy Crockett and Jim Bowie. Another amendment deleted a requirement that sociology students “explain how institutional racism is evident in American society.”
If this comes to West Virginia, we will be homeschooling.
HT:






#1 by Craig Falvo on March 14, 2010 – 5:27 am
The only thing in there I would remotely agree with is calling the US a “constitutional republic” and not a democracy, but even then, we’re not a true constitutional republic as we temper majority rule with minority rights (ie, the Bill of Rights). In other words, we don’t fit neatly into either representative democracy or constitutional republic.
#2 by Polycarp on March 14, 2010 – 12:34 pm
Craig, great minds…. That was the only thing that I told my wife I could partially agree with.
I cannot wait to see how they explain Jefferson’s Democratic Republican party. Oh wait, Thom Jeff didn’t exist.
#3 by Craig on March 14, 2010 – 12:27 am
The only thing in there I would remotely agree with is calling the US a “constitutional republic” and not a democracy, but even then, we’re not a true constitutional republic as we temper majority rule with minority rights (ie, the Bill of Rights). In other words, we don’t fit neatly into either representative democracy or constitutional republic.
#4 by Polycarp on March 14, 2010 – 8:34 am
Craig, great minds…. That was the only thing that I told my wife I could partially agree with.
I cannot wait to see how they explain Jefferson’s Democratic Republican party. Oh wait, Thom Jeff didn’t exist.
#5 by James Pate on March 14, 2010 – 5:40 pm
It’s a matter of which side wants to indoctrinate our kids. When I grew up, I had to put up with a lot of liberal indoctrination from our textbooks: FDR was a Savior, Reagan was a bad President. It would be nice if textbooks could find a way to give kids more than one side. Maybe looking at primary sources would help.
#6 by Polycarp on March 14, 2010 – 6:45 pm
That is my point as well, James. I don’t want biases of either kind in a textbook.
While exploring the causes of the War Between the States, I started comparing books from New Orleans with books from New York and found that both shared biases. I simply do not want this for my children.
State the facts, state both sides, and like them explore on their own.
#7 by James Pate on March 14, 2010 – 7:10 pm
When I was in junior high, we played a week long game in which we were in different groups, representing different ideologies during the Civil War. There were the Southern rebels, the abolitions, the believers in popular sovereignty, etc. That was a refreshing break from how the Civil War was usually covered in school: North is right, South is wrong (which I believe, on some level, but I also think we should understand why people believed as they did).
#8 by Polycarp on March 14, 2010 – 7:15 pm
‘Southern rebels”?
You mean, defenders of States Rights, the faith, and all that is holy, right?
No, I believe you are correct. Both sides need to be presented, but it seems that more and more, subjectivity is par for the course.
#9 by James Pate on March 14, 2010 – 9:16 pm
One thing that was ironic in that game, Joel, was that the Southern rebels forged common ground with the abolitionists at one point. The rebels proposed to eliminate the 3/5ths compromise (which probably wouldn’t have been as easy as we made it, since it would require a constitutional amendment to do so). Their goal was to get more votes for the South in the House of Representatives. But the abolitionists accepted the rebels’ proposal because at least it acknowledged African-Americans as full people—even if that was only for purposes of representation.
#10 by Polycarp on March 14, 2010 – 10:56 pm
They weren’t Rebels.
One of the interesting debates around this entire area, for me, is what would have happened had Lincoln lived. I would imagine that if he had lived, their would have been no Reconstruction, which in my opinion, set back race relations for 100 years.
What say ye?
#11 by James Pate on March 15, 2010 – 12:35 am
I’ve vacillated on this. I voted for Ron Paul, who said that federal intervention only antagonized the South and made things worse. But I wonder if the white racists would have played nice on their own, without federal intervention—if they would’ve found some way to live in peace with the African-Americans (assuming Lincoln didn’t send them to Africa, which went through his mind at some points), while acknowledging their dignity. I mean, part of me sees white society in the South as evil, probably because of the movies I’ve watched, or the pictures I’ve seen of people laughing during a lynching. Yet, Southern whites had plenty of decent qualities, and there was a part of them that saw African-Americans as people, since they lived with them for so long.
#12 by Polycarp on March 15, 2010 – 12:51 am
James, the white society in the South was not evil. I could point to the industrial society in the north which supported white slavery, was pro-child labor, etc… The problem with vilification is that it often leaves the story untold. Considering that only a small minority of Southerners supported slavery, and that slavery was dying off, I would be hard pressed to see it along the lines which have been presented.
I note that it was the northern states which would shoot escaped slaves on sight.
Further, it was the north which practiced scorched earth.
I think that had Lincoln lived, Reconstruction would have been truly reconstruction, focusing on elevating the freed slaves while not displacing White society. The states would have bee readmitted to the Union, and the decade of strife which further alienated the South and the North would not have happened. The Klan would not have been formed, and the immediate rebellion against equality which happened at the close of Reconstruction would not have happened as well.
I would have to agree with Ron Paul, and many others, who site Reconstruction as the worse thing which happened to this country.
#13 by James Pate on March 15, 2010 – 12:57 am
I’ve heard more than one person say that slavery would have died off anyway. Why would that have been? Did it have to do with new technology?
#14 by Polycarp on March 15, 2010 – 1:10 am
In today’s terms, slaves – I hate talking like this – would cost about a million bucks to buy. Now, you buy one – I hate talking like this – you have to feed, clothe, and shelter him or her. Further, when a slave reach a stage where he or she could not work, most plantation owners provided a sort of social security, meaning, that without working, a slave was provided with food, shelter, and clothing.
New technology was starting to develop, such as the tractor, which was a great deal cheaper than a slave. Note that New Orleans was the city with the largest free black population and Alabama the state with the largest free black population, more and more former slaves and children of former slaves were finding themselves integrating into society, so much so that blacks started to own slaves.
Plus, I think, that international pressure – given a post-Wilberforce England – was starting to push the Yankee merchants into a pickle meaning that the Southern land owners were being pushed into a pickle as well.
I think that had the war not started, slaver would have died a natural death within a decade, especially given the fact that so many immigrants were coming in which could work and be discarded much more inexpensive than a slave.
#15 by Polycarp on March 15, 2010 – 1:31 am
James, you might try this book if you get a chance. It is by a professor of mine from college.
#16 by Polycarp on March 15, 2010 – 1:31 am
I mean this one
#17 by James Pate on March 15, 2010 – 3:27 am
Thanks for the recommendation! It’s in my public library, so I may very well try it!
#18 by Polycarp on March 15, 2010 – 3:28 am
If for some reason you cannot get it, let me know. I may have a copy to send you
#19 by James Pate on March 14, 2010 – 1:40 pm
It’s a matter of which side wants to indoctrinate our kids. When I grew up, I had to put up with a lot of liberal indoctrination from our textbooks: FDR was a Savior, Reagan was a bad President. It would be nice if textbooks could find a way to give kids more than one side. Maybe looking at primary sources would help.
#20 by Polycarp on March 14, 2010 – 2:45 pm
That is my point as well, James. I don’t want biases of either kind in a textbook.
While exploring the causes of the War Between the States, I started comparing books from New Orleans with books from New York and found that both shared biases. I simply do not want this for my children.
State the facts, state both sides, and like them explore on their own.
#21 by James Pate on March 14, 2010 – 3:10 pm
When I was in junior high, we played a week long game in which we were in different groups, representing different ideologies during the Civil War. There were the Southern rebels, the abolitions, the believers in popular sovereignty, etc. That was a refreshing break from how the Civil War was usually covered in school: North is right, South is wrong (which I believe, on some level, but I also think we should understand why people believed as they did).
#22 by Polycarp on March 14, 2010 – 3:15 pm
‘Southern rebels”?
You mean, defenders of States Rights, the faith, and all that is holy, right?
No, I believe you are correct. Both sides need to be presented, but it seems that more and more, subjectivity is par for the course.
#23 by James Pate on March 14, 2010 – 5:16 pm
One thing that was ironic in that game, Joel, was that the Southern rebels forged common ground with the abolitionists at one point. The rebels proposed to eliminate the 3/5ths compromise (which probably wouldn’t have been as easy as we made it, since it would require a constitutional amendment to do so). Their goal was to get more votes for the South in the House of Representatives. But the abolitionists accepted the rebels’ proposal because at least it acknowledged African-Americans as full people—even if that was only for purposes of representation.
#24 by Polycarp on March 14, 2010 – 6:56 pm
They weren’t Rebels.
One of the interesting debates around this entire area, for me, is what would have happened had Lincoln lived. I would imagine that if he had lived, their would have been no Reconstruction, which in my opinion, set back race relations for 100 years.
What say ye?
#25 by James Pate on March 14, 2010 – 8:35 pm
I’ve vacillated on this. I voted for Ron Paul, who said that federal intervention only antagonized the South and made things worse. But I wonder if the white racists would have played nice on their own, without federal intervention—if they would’ve found some way to live in peace with the African-Americans (assuming Lincoln didn’t send them to Africa, which went through his mind at some points), while acknowledging their dignity. I mean, part of me sees white society in the South as evil, probably because of the movies I’ve watched, or the pictures I’ve seen of people laughing during a lynching. Yet, Southern whites had plenty of decent qualities, and there was a part of them that saw African-Americans as people, since they lived with them for so long.
#26 by Polycarp on March 14, 2010 – 8:51 pm
James, the white society in the South was not evil. I could point to the industrial society in the north which supported white slavery, was pro-child labor, etc… The problem with vilification is that it often leaves the story untold. Considering that only a small minority of Southerners supported slavery, and that slavery was dying off, I would be hard pressed to see it along the lines which have been presented.
I note that it was the northern states which would shoot escaped slaves on sight.
Further, it was the north which practiced scorched earth.
I think that had Lincoln lived, Reconstruction would have been truly reconstruction, focusing on elevating the freed slaves while not displacing White society. The states would have bee readmitted to the Union, and the decade of strife which further alienated the South and the North would not have happened. The Klan would not have been formed, and the immediate rebellion against equality which happened at the close of Reconstruction would not have happened as well.
I would have to agree with Ron Paul, and many others, who site Reconstruction as the worse thing which happened to this country.
#27 by James Pate on March 14, 2010 – 8:57 pm
I’ve heard more than one person say that slavery would have died off anyway. Why would that have been? Did it have to do with new technology?
#28 by Polycarp on March 14, 2010 – 9:10 pm
In today’s terms, slaves – I hate talking like this – would cost about a million bucks to buy. Now, you buy one – I hate talking like this – you have to feed, clothe, and shelter him or her. Further, when a slave reach a stage where he or she could not work, most plantation owners provided a sort of social security, meaning, that without working, a slave was provided with food, shelter, and clothing.
New technology was starting to develop, such as the tractor, which was a great deal cheaper than a slave. Note that New Orleans was the city with the largest free black population and Alabama the state with the largest free black population, more and more former slaves and children of former slaves were finding themselves integrating into society, so much so that blacks started to own slaves.
Plus, I think, that international pressure – given a post-Wilberforce England – was starting to push the Yankee merchants into a pickle meaning that the Southern land owners were being pushed into a pickle as well.
I think that had the war not started, slaver would have died a natural death within a decade, especially given the fact that so many immigrants were coming in which could work and be discarded much more inexpensive than a slave.
#29 by Polycarp on March 14, 2010 – 9:31 pm
James, you might try this book if you get a chance. It is by a professor of mine from college.
#30 by Polycarp on March 14, 2010 – 9:31 pm
I mean this one
#31 by James Pate on March 14, 2010 – 11:27 pm
Thanks for the recommendation! It’s in my public library, so I may very well try it!
#32 by Polycarp on March 14, 2010 – 11:28 pm
If for some reason you cannot get it, let me know. I may have a copy to send you