Guardian: Texas schools board rewrites US history with lessons promoting God and guns

[ABQCOWBOY]

Nothing is impossible in Texas. Some would like to teach biology without evolution.

No, I can't go that far. After all, I am a Texan.

[Corcaigh]

Why do text books talk about global warming as if it's settled science?

Because the expert science advisers who provide content to the curriculum say so. This may prove to be incorrect, but science has a habit of correcting itself.

Do you think the science curriculum should be defined by scientists and educators, or by lobbying and campaigning by lawyers and politicians of any type?

[Larry]

IMO, this is the sad reality of what happens when you get reaction, based on provocation. The pendulum swings. I find it hard to imagine that anybody could have forgotten the big dust up over what the left wanted to include and exclude in text books earlier this year.

Find it.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Find it.

You find it, it was only back in March.

[Kilmer17]

Because the expert science advisers who provide content to the curriculum say so. This may prove to be incorrect, but science has a habit of correcting itself.

Do you think the science curriculum should be defined by scientists and educators, or by lobbying and campaigning by lawyers and politicians of any type?

Im saying the "expert scientists" chosen will always agree with the predetermined position held by the person making those decisions.

[NavyDave]

For years we've allowed the nutbag left wing to rewrite our history in our scholastic books. .

You make it sound like the decades of teaching elementary kids about deviant lifestyles, middle and high schoolers informed that drug use is ok, that the boxes of free condoms being empty is a sign of effective sex education instead of the schools pushing reckless behavior should be avoided, is a bad thing.

And what is so wrong about altering history books to say that the USA is an evil place especially white christian people or every demographic needing a hyphen American class to give them affirmation instead of assimilate?

Our chil'ren need to be taught that its a Sin and racist to expect people to pull their own weight and not sit on their rump because obviously our forefathers wanted us to evolve into Slackers feeding at the teat of government like the losers in socialist nations.

[mbws]

You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons. -The Waco Kid

[Corcaigh]

Im saying the "expert scientists" chosen will always agree with the predetermined position held by the person making those decisions.

There's a simple way to fix this. Have the content developed with the oversight of the tenured faculty from leading universities, not some crackpot hired by the current board to accommodate their biases.

[Larry]

Troll? Youre a peach sometimes Larry.

Why do we study Jefferson but skip over John Adams when discussing Church and State matters?

It's your question. Find me something which says that this is happening. Then find me the people who actively caused this change, as part of their political agenda.

Why do text books talk about global warming as if it's settled science?

1) Again. Show me the same two things.

2) And, it is settled science. 92% of climate scientists agree. In fact, the only field of science where a majority doesn't agree that man is causing global climate change, are petroleum geologists. And 47% of them agree.

Why do textbooks tell kids that Lincoln freed the slaves and paint him as nothing but a heroic figure? And ignore the bad things he did and said?

This is your idea of a vast liberal conspiracy to alter history and brainwash children for the purpose of furthering the nefarious liberal agenda? The fact that a Republican is shown in a positive light?

It typical liberal fashion, you folks want it your way and only your way all the time and when someone does exactly what you've been doing for years, just in a right wing bias, you fly off the handle like it's the end of the world.

In typical troll fashion, you invent a fictional figure, claim that that fictional figure is horrible evil and disgusting, and then claim that because that fictional figure did such mean despicable things, therefore you're in favor of doing the same things, as long as it's your side doing it.

That's your entire argument.

A bunch of crusaders are publicly and openly altering children's textbooks for the purpose of political indoctrination.

And up you rush to defend these actions, by:

Inventing somebody who, you claim, did what these people are actually doing.

Claiming that, when this fictional person did it, it was wrong and evil.

Arguing that, therefore, when people

on your side

do

the same thing

, it's good and moral.

[Kilmer17]

There's a simple way to fix this. Have the content developed with the oversight of the tenured faculty from leading universities, not some crackpot hired by the current board to accommodate their biases.

While a fine idea in theory, the next debate will be about which faculty should be chosen and from which universities.

If I propose the science teach from Liberty or Oral Roberts will that be okay?

My point is that biases exist. Denying them only makes the matter worse.

[Prosperity]

Kilmer in this thread:

"like, there's no right or wrong dude, it's all relative, man"

[88Comrade2000]

Simple Solution. Swap Puerto Rico for Texas. Texas can become an independent nation again. We can then make Puerto Rico our new 50th state.

[Kilmer17]

Kilmer in this thread:

"like, there's no right or wrong dude, it's all relative, man"

Not at all. Im saying they're both wrongs.

[Larry]

No, I can't go that far. After all, I am a Texan.

And, therefore, haven't evolved? :halo:

[Prosperity]

Not at all. Im saying they're both wrongs.

so it's equally wrong to cite expert scientists who say global warming is happening as well as "expert scientists" who say it's all inconclusive?

better just leave it out then... wouldn't want to appear biased

[Larry]

You find it, it was only back in March.

It's your claim. Back it up.

[Corcaigh]

While a fine idea in theory, the next debate will be about which faculty should be chosen and from which universities.

If I propose the science teach from Liberty or Oral Roberts will that be okay?

If you believe that the top universities in the state are indistinguishable from private religious fourth rate colleges then you do have a problem with objectivity.

My point is that biases exist. Denying them only makes the matter worse.

Sure biases exist. They are severe in the case of politicians and lawyers. But if you're suggesting that reasonable consensus can't be reached on who the leading public universities in the state are whose faculty heads could serve as appropriate advisors, then you're either nuts or a troll.

[Kilmer17]

It's your question. Find me something which says that this is happening. Then find me the people who actively caused this change, as part of their political agenda.

1) Again. Show me the same two things.

2) And, it is settled science. 92% of climate scientists agree. In fact, the only field of science where a majority doesn't agree that man is causing global climate change, are petroleum geologists. And 47% of them agree.

This is your idea of a vast liberal conspiracy to alter history and brainwash children for the purpose of furthering the nefarious liberal agenda? The fact that a Republican is shown in a positive light?

In typical troll fashion, you invent a fictional figure, claim that that fictional figure is horrible evil and disgusting, and then claim that because that fictional figure did such mean despicable things, therefore you're in favor of doing the same things, as long as it's your side doing it.

That's your entire argument.

A bunch of crusaders are publicly and openly altering children's textbooks for the purpose of political indoctrination.

And up you rush to defend these actions, by:

Inventing somebody who, you claim, did what these people are actually doing.

Claiming that, when this fictional person did it, it was wrong and evil.

Arguing that, therefore, when people

on your side

do

the same thing

, it's good and moral.

Larry, in YOUR typical fashion, you either ar too stupid to comprehend the argument, or realize your position is weak so you attempt to claim my argument is something it is not.

I'll leave you to call me a troll and feign outrage over Texas deciding to focus on parts of history that arent being focused on currently.

Here's something interesting I found on Huffington.

Some of the things that the left wing is "outraged" about-

----"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."

“I reject the notion by the left of a constitutional separation of church and state,” said David Bradley, a conservative from Beaumont who works in real estate. “I have $1,000 for the charity of your choice if you can find it in the Constitution.”

Crazy isnt it? They wont be teaching kids that the Constitution calls for a Seperation of Church and State. Of course, the current books had to invent it in the first place, but lets ignore that bias.

----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.

Why should we teach our kids accurate information?

-----"Other changes seem aimed at tamping down criticism of the right. Conservatives passed one amendment, for instance, requiring that the history of McCarthyism include 'how the later release of the Venona papers confirmed suspicions of communist infiltration in U.S. government.' The Venona papers were transcripts of some 3,000 communications between the Soviet Union and its agents in the United States."

Again, silly right wingers for wanting to teach accurate information. We were much better when we just called right wing people evil.

------"Board members also rejected requiring history teachers and textbooks to provide coverage on the late U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy and new Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, while the late President Ronald Reagan was elevated to more prominent coverage."

Yes, how dare they elevate Reagan instead of a Senator and the newest SCOTUS justice. Those two clearly are more important in the history of the US.

Can anyone show my a current history book that talks about how Jefferson raped his slaves?

[ABQCOWBOY]

I think that if we were all intellectually honest about this, we can certainly say that both sides change history to further agenda.

For example, Conservatives are often unwilling to portray Classic American Figures in a negative light where it concerns things like Slavery etc. Conservative often understate the importance of other ethnic groups, for example Latinos, in American History. These things happen all the time.

The Liberals refuse to acknowledge the very large, very important role that Religion had on American History and the formation of Government, with regards to religion. This is no big secret.

It's unfortunate.

BTW, here is a link from the NYTimes that kind of illustrates the differences.

The proposed to make certain changes and the Right blocks proposed changes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html

[Kilmer17]

so it's equally wrong to cite expert scientists who say global warming is happening as well as "expert scientists" who say it's all inconclusive?

better just leave it out then... wouldn't want to appear biased

Or how about providing both sides of it?

[Destino]

Why do we study Jefferson but skip over John Adams when discussing Church and State matters?

What a stupid question. If you feel that others should be included in the subject matter, then your solution is obvious: INCLUDE THEM. What you're attempting to distract from, and in doing so defend, in this thread is INTENTIONAL AND PLANNED BIAS. You counter this outrageous BS by arguing that the left has done this when everyone, even you, realize that there has never been such an organized and intentional agenda. At best you can argue that the people in those fields might have a personal bias but certainly nothing you can compare to this joke I see going on in Texas.

Why do text books talk about global warming as if it's settled science?

WTF is settled science? Theory, which ever is the most widely held, is studied in science classes and has been as long as their have been science classes. Pick up a science book from 1950 and compare it to one from today, you'll notice differences. Why exactly do you think science should be political? Is it because your political stance has determined that global warming is inconvenient?

Amongst scientists is global warming the majority held opinion? yes or no? Keep your politics to yourself because in a science class conservative opinions are as helpful as they were in Galileo's time.

Why do textbooks tell kids that Lincoln freed the slaves and paint him as nothing but a heroic figure? And ignore the bad things he did and said?

For one, he did free the slaves. Two are you a confederate supporter? My question is why aren't we taught confederates were traitors that went to war primarily to secure the institution of slavery. Why do we pretend those ****s were patriots concerned with ambiguous states rights.

Lincoln love him or hate him won the war and preserved the union. Without him there is no US. Yeah the guy broke all sorts of rules to accomplish that... but looking at any period of US history when isn't that the way we do things?

There are literally MILLIONS of choices that are made regarding what to put in a 300 page text book.

Yes there are and these people are making them exclusively with politics in mind and you support that.

[ABQCOWBOY]

And, therefore, haven't evolved? :halo:

Sure Larry. Whatever you say.

[Prosperity]

Or how about providing both sides of it?

yes, let's provide all sides of every issue ever, or do you want your particular biases decide which issues deserve every side explained. And let's not try to distinguish what's more right or wrong, because that's just 'biased"

[Kilmer17]

If you believe that the top universities in the state are indistinguishable from private religious fourth rate colleges then you do have a problem with objectivity.

Wow. The irony. You have no problem calling excellent private schools "4th rate colleges" and then say I have a problem with objectivity?

Sure biases exist. They are severe in the case of politicians and lawyers. But if you're suggesting that reasonable consensus can't be reached on who the leading public universities in the state are whose faculty heads could serve as appropriate advisors, then you're either nuts or a troll.

Im honest about who gets to make the final decisions. I think people are nuts and trolls who continue to believe that the left wing doesnt act in the exact same fashion as the right on a myriad of issues.

[AdamB]

Noboa's a leftist who thinks "social justice" should be one of the primary tenets in education.

There's nothing wrong with that opinion but how is allowing that train of thought be prevalant any better than other opinions?

I do not disagree with your assessment of him, though I would add that he is also very rational and reasonable when it comes to opposing view points. I disagreed with him often, which led to spirited conversations in class (and some really bored classmates), yet more often than not we would sit after class and find that there was a middle ground between our views. In contrast, other teachers I have had that were strongly leaning to the left (and one that leaned heavily to the right) would never accept an opposing viewpoint as acceptable no matter how well you supported your argument, whereas Dr. Noboa encouraged people express their views as long as they at least attempted to support their stands.

I also freely admit that when it comes to Dr. Noboa I am bias - he was one of the few instructors I had which seemed genuinely interested in what students had to say, and despite having opposing view points on many issues he has repeatedly encouraged me to continue my education to the doctorate level.

Personally, I would not want to see the TEKS based solely within the realm of Dr. Noboa's world views anymore than I want to see the TEKS based within the worldview of individuals who subscribe to the Pat Roberston and similar views of history. It is impossible to remove bias from the study of history, but it would be nice to at least see an attempt at balance.