Tennessee Tea Party Demands School Curriculum Not Focus Too Much On The "Minority Experience"

[Baculus]

"The material calls for lawmakers to amend state laws governing school curriculums, and for textbook selection criteria to say that 'No portrayal of minority experience in the history which actually occurred shall obscure the experience or contributions of the Founding Fathers, or the majority of citizens, including those who reached positions of leadership.'

"Fayette County attorney Hal Rounds, the group’s lead spokesman during the news conference, said the group wants to address “'an awful lot of made-up criticism about, for instance, the founders intruding on the Indians or having slaves or being hypocrites in one way or another.'"

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/01/13/tennessee-tea-party-education

We can't have any of that "minority experience" in our history, now can we? We'll soon be hearing about how Jim Crow laws were actually meant to help minorities, until the jerky federal government came along and forced integration, ruining paradise on Earth.

[Predicto]

Ok. I was conflicted on the other thread about busing. Both sides had legitimate concerns and grievances.

I am not conflicted about this one. This one is pure gold. :doh:

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Ok. I was conflicted on the other thread about busing. Both sides had legitimate concerns and grievances.

I am not conflicted about this one. This one is pure gold. :doh:

Same.

Edit...by "same" I mean that I too have no defense for this one. I was on the "I can understand" side in the other thread and I also believed the headline was inflammatory. This one just sounds awful.

[Burgold]

Remember in my other thread that I said, most aren't probably stupid enough to come right out and say it...

I stand corrected.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Remember in my other thread that I said, most aren't probably stupid enough to come right out and say it...

I stand corrected.

So wait...does that make me right in the other thread since we disagreed and, apparently, some do come right out and say it??

:pfft:

[Burgold]

So wait...does that make me right in the other thread since we disagreed and, apparently, some do come right out and say it??

:pfft:

Ummmmm.... maybe?

I guess it could be the exception that marks the fool (them not you)

[Larry]

"The material calls for lawmakers to amend state laws governing school curriculums, and for textbook selection criteria to say that 'No portrayal of minority experience in the history which actually occurred shall obscure the experience or contributions of the Founding Fathers, or the majority of citizens, including those who reached positions of leadership.'

I can agree with this.

I'm taking some online classes right now. One of them is Intro to Psych. (And I'm watching all of you.)

My textbook seems to think that it's vitally important for me to know the name of the first female President of the American Psychological Association, and that she was not granted a PhD by Harvard, because she was a woman. (She took every single class Harvard offered on the subject, but was only allowed to take them as a "guest", not as a student.)

It does not mention who the first President was. Only the first female president.

George Washington Carver, as I understand it, made some serious contributions to society. But I'd have a problem with a textbook who removed mention of Thomas Edison to make room for him.

Yes, it's possible to have too much "minority representation".

"Fayette County attorney Hal Rounds, the group's lead spokesman during the news conference, said the group wants to address 'an awful lot of made-up criticism about, for instance, the founders intruding on the Indians or having slaves or being hypocrites in one way or another.'"

This, on the other hand, tells me that Hal Rounds is a racist loon.

(Although I'd say that, even on that topic, there's an appropriate age for things. I'd say that in elementary school, kids should be taught wnat a hero George Washington was. For the same reason that I think all kids should think that their Daddy is a Hero. Tell them about his slaves in Junior High.)

[aREDSKIN]

"About two dozen tea party activists held a news conference,"

I wouldn't hyperventilate over 24 or less ill-informed people.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Good points Larry...I mentioned this in the Rooney Rule thread (which is somehow still in The Stadium), but I wish we could come up with a way to write some good, comprehensive history text books. It seems like we still have the need for things like Black History Month because those accomplishments are somehow not represented appropriately in the main curriculum. And, if they ARE being given their proper attention, why the need for a month or special lesson which, by definition, keeps the two histories separate?

[Predicto]

"About two dozen tea party activists held a news conference,"

I wouldn't hyperventilate over 24 or less ill-informed people.

Good point.

You can get 24 people to complain about anything.

[elkabong82]

Damn it. Living in east TN I sometimes forget the state has a heavy population of extreme loons. facepalm

[zoony]

I agree with Larry's post, entirely

[elkabong82]

Good points Larry...I mentioned this in the Rooney Rule thread (which is somehow still in The Stadium), but I wish we could come up with a way to write some good, comprehensive history text books. It seems like we still have the need for things like Black History Month because those accomplishments are somehow not represented appropriately in the main curriculum. And, if they ARE being given their proper attention, why the need for a month or special lesson which, by definition, keeps the two histories separate?

They were't given proper attention before Black History month was created. But now that they are (not everywhere) in general, do you want to be the one to take the month away? I don't.

By definition Black History month adds more context to history, it doesn't keep it separate.

[DjTj]

Good points Larry...I mentioned this in the Rooney Rule thread (which is somehow still in The Stadium), but I wish we could come up with a way to write some good, comprehensive history text books. It seems like we still have the need for things like Black History Month because those accomplishments are somehow not represented appropriately in the main curriculum. And, if they ARE being given their proper attention, why the need for a month or special lesson which, by definition, keeps the two histories separate?

Black history was separate from white history for the majority of American history. You can't change the past.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

They were't given proper attention before Black History month was created. But now that they are (not everywhere) in general, do you want to be the one to take the month away? I don't.

By definition Black History month adds more context to history, it doesn't keep it separate.

I understand the intent, but eventually shouldn't we just teach History and have it be something that is all-encompassing instead of grouping lessons by the race of the people involved? It would be nice to simply learn about George Washington Carver, Harriett Tubman, etc. in their rightful historic place and not breeze through 200+ years of American history only to stop when someone of color made a contribution. That's just my idealism...do you truly believe that having a month dedicated to black history is ideal forever moving forward?

---------- Post added January-13th-2011 at 03:45 PM ----------

Black history was separate from white history for the majority of American history. You can't change the past.

So, 100 years from now we should learn most of what we know about Obama between 02/01 and 02/28 of each year instead within the context of when he lived and contributed to history?

[thebluefood]

Larry's awesome post

Agreed completely. Let's find some middle ground, people.

Having said that, I think this picture is an appropriate description for the fine men and women behind these demands:

[DjTj]

So, 100 years from now we should learn most of what we know about Obama between 02/01 and 02/28 of each year instead within the context of when he lived and contributed to history?

Obama is half-white, so he will be discussed during both February and the other months of the year.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Obama is half-white, so he will be discussed during both February and the other months of the year.

You win and so does he!

[elkabong82]

I understand the intent, but eventually shouldn't we just teach History and have it be something that is all-encompassing instead of grouping lessons by the race of the people involved? It would be nice to simply learn about George Washington Carver, Harriett Tubman, etc. in their rightful historic place and not breeze through 200+ years of American history only to stop when someone of color made a contribution. That's just my idealism...do you truly believe that having a month dedicated to black history is ideal forever moving forward?

---------- Post added January-13th-2011 at 03:45 PM ----------

So, 100 years from now we should learn most of what we know about Obama between 02/01 and 02/28 of each year instead within the context of when he lived and contributed to history?

I agree, it should be just one all-encompassing history. But it wasn't before, which is why Black History month was created, as an addition. No, the month isn't ideal, the ideal thing is as you say, to have 1 all-encompassing history. But the problem is there are still states who's curriculum doesn't sufficiently include blacks, or other minorities for that matter. I think we'll eventually get to the point where an all-encompassing hisotry is universally taught, but until it happens the month is necessary IMO.

*Plus, you don't "breeze thru 200 years of history only to stop when minorities made a contribution." Actually, each historical figure has to be placed in their time, the historical context has to be established just as with any other figure, in order to understand their motivations, reasoning, desires, and ultimately appreciate their contributions.

[Predicto]

What's funny about this is that the "majority" experience wasn't Thomas Jefferson philosophizing with George Washington about how they were both perfect men creating a perfect country.

The majority experience was plowing a field, building a wall, raising your kids, trying to get by.

The Tea Parties want history to be taught like it was back in the 1940s. With mythological and infalliable Founding Fathers (who happened to be white) who created a perfect society fit for Real Americans (people who are exactly like the Tea Partiers). Teaching anything else interferes with the narrative and diminishes American Exceptionalism, don'tcha know.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I agree, it should be just one all-encompassing history. But it wasn't before, which is why Black History month was created, as an addition. No, the month isn't ideal, the ideal thing is as you say, to have 1 all-encompassing history. But the problem is there are still states who's curriculum doesn't sufficiently include blacks, or other minorities for that matter. I think we'll eventually get to the point where an all-encompassing hisotry is universally taught, but until it happens the month is necessary IMO.

*Plus, you don't "breeze thru 200 years of history only to stop when minorities made a contribution." Actually, each historical figure has to be placed in their time, the historical context has to be established just as with any other figure, in order to understand their motivations, reasoning, desires, and ultimately appreciate their contributions.

I think we agree. I'm 15 years removed from any public school, so I don't remember how the lessons were taught nor can I speak for the current state of teaching history. If there are still states/counties that don't address it properly, then we're obviously not ready to move on.

[Larry]

The Tea Parties want history to be taught like it was back in the 1940s. With mythological and infalliable Founding Fathers (who happened to be white) who created a perfect society fit for Real Americans (people who are exactly like the Tea Partiers). Teaching anything else interferes with the narrative and diminishes American Exceptionalism, don'tcha know.

You forgot about teaching them that the Founders were Christians, and that's why they wanted the federal government to promote Christianity.

[elkabong82]

I think we agree. I'm 15 years removed from any public school, so I don't remember how the lessons were taught nor can I speak for the current state of teaching history. If there are still states/counties that don't address it properly, then we're obviously not ready to move on.

Yes, we do agree. I'm currently pursuing my masters in history, so I've seen from the college experience what an all-encompassing history text is. But I went to VA public schools for HS, and that history only included minorities contributions during February. One big problem is th the HS system teaches basic historical knowledge, who were the men and later women driving these events, historical battles and events and their details. Because much of that history occurred in a time where white men were an oppressive majority, white men were almost exclusively the ones in power, hence they bore the most immediate impact on the basic historical events. In other words, the make up of American society in the past excluded minorities, so an understanding of its events on a basic/broad level is going to exclude minorities.

So IMO, HS history needs to be more comprehensive instead of just repeating what you learned in elemntary and junior high school about early America, revolution, civil war, and then adding the world wars.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Yes, we do agree. I'm currently pursuing my masters in history, so I've seen from the college experience what an all-encompassing history text is. But I went to VA public schools for HS, and that history only included minorities contributions during February. One big problem is th the HS system teaches basic historical knowledge, who were the men and later women driving these events, historical battles and events and their details. Because much of that history occurred in a time where white men were an oppressive majority, white men were almost exclusively the ones in power, hence they bore the most immediate impact on the basic historical events. In other words, the make up of American society in the past excluded minorities, so an understanding of its events on a basic/broad level is going to exclude minorities.

So IMO, HS history needs to be more comprehensive instead of just repeating what you learned in elemntary and junior high school about early America, revolution, civil war, and then adding the world wars.

Great post...that makes perfect sense.

As an aside, I envy you. I wanted to pursue history since I was a kid, but I caved and went business. Good for you...do you plan to teach?

[Burgold]

So IMO, HS history needs to be more comprehensive instead of just repeating what you learned in elemntary and junior high school about early America, revolution, civil war, and then adding the world wars.

It's also a practical problem. They try to cover ancient Egypt in two weeks. Hard to get into a lot of nuances about 100's of years in two weeks. You get the barest sketch of an outline. Same thing with American History. If you two or three weeks to go over the colonization of America and the American Revolution, it's hard to tackle every issue. So, you stick to the broadest strokes. Is it more important to talk about General Washington and his military strategy or the fact that he was a citizen farmer who owned slaves?