It’s important to note that the question did not define the phrase "politically correct." The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines it as “conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated,” and it has come to be understood by many as prohibiting critical comments about politically sensitive topics and groups....Of course, everyone actually wants a certain type or amount of political correctness in schoolbooks. They just tend to think of the term "political correctness" when they picture their political opponents inserting ideology that they think doesn't belong. Conservatives want the Founding Fathers to be presented in a favorable light, and they may want to soft-pedal the downside of industrialization and to stress individualism, optimism, and opportunity.
Conservative voters are nearly twice as likely as liberals to think most textbooks put more emphasis on political correctness than on accuracy. Military veterans are more skeptical of those textbooks than those who have not been in uniform....
Anybody putting together a schoolbook has to think about inspiring children and building ideals and character. I'm saying that even though I lean strongly in the direction of straightforward, factual information, and I think that it's a serious moral wrong to use compulsory education to indoctrinate children.
Posts
265 comments:
1 – 200 of 265 Newer› Newest»Why are there still textbooks?
They just need.a couple of posters that say "White = Evil" and "Christian = Evil" and "American = Evil" and get it over with.
They don't need no education, what they need is thought control.
I see nothin wrong with a nation teaching children a positive view of the nation and its history.
PC does have a definition accepted pretty widely, and it is represented in my first post.
Richard Feynman has a couple of interesting chapters on the textbook industry in his "Surely you are joking, Mr. Feynman!" relating tales from his time on the California textbook selection commission.
And textbooks are written, or rather manufactured, to appeal to the education establishment and the schoolboards, never mind the children. It's an industry.
Political correctness as practiced by the proglodyte Left has an opposite, which Orwell called Thoughtcrime.
It's hard for me to imagine being free without being a Thoughtcriminal.
I probably should have written "accepted by" rather than "appeal to."
Richard Feynman has a couple of interesting chapters on the textbook industry in his "Surely you are joking, Mr. Feynman!" relating tales from his time on the California textbook selection commission.
And textbooks are written, or rather manufactured, to appeal to the education establishment and the schoolboards, never mind the children. It's an industry.
Howard Zinn.
When I was a kid in school, I didn't hate history class, but it did bore me.
Now, as an adult, I devour historical texts by the cart load.
As Henry says, why still use textbooks, except at the grade school level?
High schoolers (who can read at grade level) are perfectly capable of reading Herodotus. Or, for the American Civil War, Shaara's Killer Angels or McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom.
You folks with teenagers out there: am I way too optimistic in thinking this is possible?
The sad part is that it's only 59% who realize this.
Whatever became of the Texas stranglehold on the textbook business?
I would think as members of the NEA, WEAC, etc. public school teacher are overwhelmingly liberal and would not teach anything other than lefty orthodoxy regardless of textbook content.
Discussion of creationism in a science class is political correctness. Most conservatives support that.
History takes a point of view on heroes and villains.
I remember my surprise at viewing the WWII Museum exhibits at Cains, France after a day seeing the Normandy Beaches and Pointe Du Hoc.
It turned out that the Americans were the bad guys who were using and the British and the French because we were controlled by Jews.
Many school textbooks get away with similar point of view slash and burn tactics.
Presenting our Founding Fathers in a positive light is a debatable subject?
Bullshit.
Kids should be indoctrinated in the wisdom of our Founding Fathers.
It's a no brainer.
14 Wacky "Facts" Kids Will Learn in Louisiana's Voucher Schools.
garage' usual change the subject tactic.
Just wait til we get the full view of the horror that is "Common Core." Hope you're lucky enough to live in a state that has opted out of the Obama/Ayers edukashun kamp monstrosity.
You had fair warning - if anyone had paid attention to what Obama did with the Chicago Anneberg Challenge money - encouraging celebration of Juneteenth over improving algebra scores - they would have seen this coming, because it's Annenberg on steroids, the dumbing down of America. Everybody equally uninformed.
And it's Mother Jones, and the usual tactic of accusing white Christians of being KKK.
Loathsome brain dead shit, garage. Worthy of you.
We can depend on you for absolute brain dead garbage.
garage, you're a white bastard.
How often to you do to your KKK meetings?
Really Ann?
Of course, everyone actually wants a certain type or amount of political correctness in schoolbooks.
They do? Everyone? Don't you say below that you don't?
They just tend to think of the term "political correctness" when they picture their political opponents inserting ideology that they think doesn't belong.
Examining ideology is not in itself a problem. Presenting one ideology as the only norm is a problem. I can't for the life of me think of any conservative views that are presented in this manner, but the education world is rife with liberal examples.
Conservatives want the Founding Fathers to be presented in a favorable light, and they may want to soft-pedal the downside of industrialization and to stress individualism, optimism, and opportunity.
Presenting the Founding Fathers favorably is now an example of Politcaly Correct thought? Thats a stretch. I've also never heard any conservatives try to 'soft-pedal the downside of industrialization'. About the only point I might agree on is if textbooks stressed individualism, optimism and opportunity. But, are there any examples of this 'Political Correct' view being pushed as opposed to those that push collectivism, victimology and class/race/economic resentment.
Anybody putting together a schoolbook has to think about inspiring children and building ideals and character.
Thats a laugh, they 'have' to do no such thing but rather what they 'have' to do is put together a product that government employees will accept in order to secure the contract, or you go out of business.
I'm saying that even though I lean strongly in the direction of straightforward, factual information, and I think that it's a serious moral wrong to use compulsory education to indoctrinate children.
I agree with you here, but the vast majority of the public education establishment does not think this way. They very much think it is morally right to indoctrinate children.
They're just figuring this out NOW?
It's been going on a good (or bad) 40 years.
Young children should be indoctrinated.
That's the responsibility of adults.
When they're 16 years old or older, that can change.
"And it's Mother Jones, and the usual tactic of accusing white Christians of being KKK."
Hilarious. If you don't want to be accused of being pro-KKK, you shouldn't praise the KKK's use of the CROSS.
I'm Catholic. The original target of the KKK was Catholic.
Another fucking idiot.
It is the purpose of school.
And writing for the textbook industry is like writing for Time Books: "It is not necessary to know what you are writing about; it is only necessary to know how to write!"
Kchiker,
You're another white bastard trying to escape the evil eye by pointing the finger at other white guys, right?
Piece of shit.
"white bastard"
I'm not sure why criticizing a defense of the KKK would single out anyone's race.
Kchiker's comments in this thread achieve th kind of point density one normally only sees wile looking at such celestial phenmomena as Cygnus X-1.
I haven't defended the KKK, you lying piece of shit.
You're a lowlife fuck. Subhuman garbage.
I'm not sure how a defense of the KKK is relevant to this thread.
It's what this thread is all about.
What they call PC is the precise vicious attack this scumbag is employing.
He's undoubtedly a racist piece of shit himself. White guy trying to deflect the evil eye off himself.
"I haven't defended the KKK, you lying piece of shit.
You're a lowlife fuck. Subhuman garbage."
The ARTICLE (in mother jones) you criticized references a textbook where the KKK is defended on the basis of using the cross. I'm criticizing that defense. Not speaking about you.
Bill Ayers helped write 1 of the history books in usage, didn't he?
Guilty as sin, free as a bird, let's kill 7 million to jumpstart the revolution!
Discussion of creationism in a science class is political correctness. Most conservatives support that.
Scientific question for you, Kchiker: Can you provide a statistical cite for that assertion? Admittedly, I don't know the conservatives that camp out in your head, but the vast majority of the actual, real-life ones I do know don't support it.
Mother Jones is not a reliable reference for anything.
It routinely employs the tactics you are using.
PC is an attempt to drive white middle class and lower class men out of the political picture.
Mother Jones is one of the worst.
Loathsome brain dead shit, garage. Worthy of you..
Why are you so pissed off at me when you should be pissed off at those textbooks being taught to children?
garage, go back to your goofball propaganda rag.
Maybe you should focus on physics, math and engineering. Gravity is a cruel judge, and it doesn't care about skin color.
You know, one thing I admire about blacks is that they stick together and support each other. For that matter, so do hispanics and Asians.
White guys are the most odious backstabbing bastards.
Don't know what in the fuck makes them behave this way. Sometimes, I think it's the awful influence of their women.
Kchiker says "Discussion of creationism in a science class is political correctness." AGREED.
Then, "Most conservatives support that." WRONG. Please cite a reputable poll where that result appears.
I don't believe it.
No conservatives I know believe it.
Even serious creationists wouldn't believe it because IF government drone union members tried to "teach creationism" they wouldn't get the story correct anyway.
"Scientific question for you, Kchiker: Can you provide a statistical cite for that assertion? Admittedly, I don't know the conservatives that camp out in your head, but the vast majority of the actual, real-life ones I do know don't support it."
I found 3 in 10 seconds. Granted its going to be higher with self described social conservatives than conservatives at large.
When I was a kid in school, I didn't hate history class, but it did bore me.
Now, as an adult, I devour historical texts by the cart load.
The one thing our public schools have perfected is making any subject boring and wretched.
Seeing Red said...
Bill Ayers helped write 1 of the history books in usage, didn't he?
He's a "distinguished educator", as well as being "just a guy in the neighborhood".
Just ask the Columbia University School of Education.
Shouting Thomas said...
I'm Catholic. The original target of the KKK was Catholic.
Not by Bedford Forrest, but, in its second incarnation, Robert Simmons included Jews, Catholics, and immigrants - which suited Woody Wilson just fine.
My mother (we're Catholic, too) remembered the running gag at the time was that KKK stood for "Kikes, Katholics, and Koloreds".
Kchiker said...
Discussion of creationism in a science class is political correctness. Most conservatives support that.
Bologna.
Political Correctness does not mean teaching things that are highly controversial, but rather the exact opposite. Burying controversial subjects with a veneer of acceptable thought is the goal of PC.
Attempting to teach creationism in science class is the exact opposite of PC. It is extremely controversial, and like other commenters have asked, where is this done now? Please show your work.
Political correctness couple with multi-cultural diversity inculcation and indoctrination has been going on now for decades and we can see it's effects on our successive generations in the populace and in government policy. Anyone who disagrees with it is in opposition to the state and it's official policies. Therefore that makes you a threat. In effect political correctness and multi-culturalism makes the citizenry into an enemy of the state.
If garage mahal did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.
Just for comic relief.
"I don't believe it.
No conservatives I know believe it. "
I hope you're right. Gallup and Rasmussen ask this question all the time. Granted, their polling prowess was recently found to be lacking.
garage mahal said...
Loathsome brain dead shit, garage. Worthy of you..
Why are you so pissed off at me when you should be pissed off at those textbooks being taught to children?
Because you have clearly been the target audience of these very textbooks and their odious information. We see you for what you are. A liar. And a willing one.
OK Kchiker, asserting it is true three times without offering any proof is all the evidence I need to reject your propaganda. Just another lying leftist...
McGehee: "Proglodyte Left". That's a new one to me. Thanks. I like it.
It's what this thread is all about.
In the sense you mean, yes. My observation was more literal, given that there were no attempts made in comments here to defend the KKK.
kchiker brought an external context into the thread without citing it directly. He is not only malicious but inept.
They could put in some instruction in rhetoric.
Temporizing the essence, for instance, namely explaining what something is by how it started.
Show how this is a mistake. There is an essence, and it's not the beginning. They can agree or not.
"Proglodyte Left". That's a new one to me.
They had to abandon "liberal" because they were exposed as illiberal. Now they claim the "progressive" label despite championing a reversion to feudalism adapted to modern times.
Yes, public education is an industry that serves Parents and Teachers. That's why there's a PTA and it does not stand for "pupil and taxpayer association."
Being single and childfree, I resent having to support Amerikan mis-education to the tune of thousands of tax dollars per year, but since I am compelled to do so, I want to make sure that our textbooks and schools are kept as miserable as possible, so as to drive parents to home-school or put their kids in private education.
Both my 4th grader and the 7th grader are in the midst of global warming/overpopulation indoctrination right now; yes we're in Texas, but it's public school. The TX 7th grade science textbook goes on and on about recent population increases and human's devastating effects on pwecious wittle mother earth. Additionally, the 7th grader's history teacher has signs all over her classroom: his favorite says "In 1493 Columbus stole all he could see." But as he said himself, after being forced to write "personal reflections" on Obama's 1st inagural speech (in TX History class): "I may want to go to Harvard someday. Let me learn how to deal with these people now." And since every university has these nuts, he's right, and we might as well teach him to think critically and learn on his own while he's a youngun'.
"OK Kchiker, asserting it is true three times without offering any proof is all the evidence I need to reject your propaganda. Just another lying leftist..."
Is your google broken? Fine. Ill spoon feed you.
http://www.people-press.org/2005/08/30/religion-a-strength-and-weakness-for-both-parties/
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/06/02/gallup-poll-46-of-americans-believe-in-creationism-over-science-republicans-even-more-so/
http://www.gallup.com/poll/27847/majority-republicans-doubt-theory-evolution.aspx
Tari, if someday either of your kids is admonished to "Question Authority" and responds, "Who the (bleep) are you, telling me what to do?" -- give him a fist bump from me.
I would ask Manboobs Mahal whether he found his college textbooks to be indoctrinating but . .
I am so ashamed we white Eurpoeans took the land from the Indians. But I do wonder who the Indians took it from? Or had the Indians been here forever?
Another ugly FAIL from Kchiker:
Is your google broken? Fine. Ill spoon feed you.
NONE of the Gallup questions asked about teaching creationism nor did the analysis go into that very specific assertion you made earlier. The other links were so boring I admit I didn't read all the text in the last one. But what a waste of time just to again prove you're just another lying leftist!
Kchiker said...
"OK Kchiker, asserting it is true three times without offering any proof is all the evidence I need to reject your propaganda. Just another lying leftist..."
Is your google broken? Fine. Ill spoon feed you.
http://www.people-press.org/2005/08/30/religion-a-strength-and-weakness-for-both-parties/
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/06/02/gallup-poll-46-of-americans-believe-in-creationism-over-science-republicans-even-more-so/
http://www.gallup.com/poll/27847/majority-republicans-doubt-theory-evolution.aspx
Nice examples of opinion polling, now please show your work for your claim that creationism is being taught in schools.
Also if you can, please defend the notion that creationism is the 'Politically Correct' view. I contend that anti-creationism is the 'Politically Correct' view. As such, creationism is not taught in schools as the prevaling doctrine which must not be questioned.
Whether or not private individuals believe in creationism is irrevelvant to what is considered 'correct'.
Kchiker said...
Discussion of creationism in a science class is political correctness. Most conservatives support that.
Not likely. Most conservatives don't want a public school to present anything of a religious nature--outside, perhaps, of Bible as literature. There are small pockets of people who make large noises about it, but it isn't the considered opinion of most Christians and/or conservatives. Hyperbole is the usual tactic of the uninformed.
Garage please stop using the sock puppet alias Kchiker, or at least change up your methods. Sheesh.
Kchiker said...
Is your google broken? Fine. Ill spoon feed you.
Hilarious.
Um, when do you post links to the silly shit liberals believe?
You big truth teller you.
garage mahal said...
14 Wacky "Facts" Kids Will Learn in Louisiana's Voucher Schools.
He's graduated from linking to bullshite at Counterpunch to stuff at Mother Jones.
I guess when your education topped out at High School, this is what you do.
What Tari described is exactly what is happening in our pathetic public schools. Mother Jones should be happy.
Kchiker said...
Discussion of creationism in a science class is political correctness. Most conservatives support that.
And of course the big truth teller provided no link saying "conservatives" want to teach creationism in class.
The constant shaming of those who voice improper thoughts is taking a major toll.
Unfortunately, the news media and the colleges and universities, which are supposed to be protection against this, are among the worst offenders.
Kchiker said...
Is your google broken? Fine. Ill spoon feed you.
Hey stupid shit, none of those links talk about teaching anything in class.
You first asserted:
Kchiker said...
Discussion of creationism in a science class is political correctness. Most conservatives support that.
You were asked to provide evidence of that claim.
You provided none.
Want to guess what that makes you?
My AP United States History teacher made us also read parts of A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn with approving commentary. Of course we 16 year olds thought we now knew the REALLY REAL story of the US specifically and Western civilization generally--that the whole paradigm of the world is of Oppressor/Oppressed. It took me a solid decade hence to see through that particular pile of nonsense.
"Nice examples of opinion polling, now please show your work for your claim that creationism is being taught in schools"
Even Rick Perry said it was happening in Texas. I think he was trying to brag.
Even its mere discussion in a science class should be viewed as political correctness. Evidence supporting or opposing a scientific theory should be studied in science class. Creationism is not a scientific theory and cannot be validated using scientific means.
I am so ashamed we white Eurpoeans took the land from the Indians. But I do wonder who the Indians took it from? Or had the Indians been here forever?
From what I read, the American Indian crossed over from the Bering Straight when there was a land bridge. The land which is the US was uninhabited.
When it comes to the American Indian, I guess it just sucks to he a stone age civilization in the 17th century when the Europeans landed. The hi tech civilization wins every time. Europe was largely tribal up to the fall of Rome and tribes eventually consolidated through conquest into the nation states we have today and few weep over the bloodshed that created those countries.
Kchiker said...
Discussion of creationism in a science class is political correctness. Most conservatives support that.
Oh bullshit. Most conservatives are not creationists. However conservatives have become the most reliable supporters of the right to express unpopular (even incorrect) opinions.
As a matter of science, creationism in its most literal forms is clearly wrong. But some people believe it, and others, like me, concede that the universe is so mysterious that God (or a god) may have had a hand in its creation.
When you argue that these ideas should be suppressed, essentially you are saying that the students lack the capacity to sort out the issue in their own minds. You would rather tell them what to think than let them think for themselves.
Both my 4th grader and the 7th grader are in the midst of global warming/overpopulation indoctrination right now;
When my son was in middle school he and his class had to watch "An Inconvenient Truth" truth for propoganda class, oops, science class and then write a paper. I helped him look up all the lies and mistatements in the movie and told him to let me know if his teacher gave him a hard time.
She knew better and he got an A.
Kchiker said... Discussion of creationism in a science class is political correctness. Most conservatives support that.
Does that mean I have to turn in my atheist card?
High schoolers (who can read at grade level) are perfectly capable of reading Herodotus. Or, for the American Civil War, Shaara's Killer Angels or McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom.
You folks with teenagers out there: am I way too optimistic in thinking this is possible?
I don't have any teenagers, but I know that this is not too optimistic. This is how many homeschoolers do it.
Kchiker: Discussion of creationism in a science class is political correctness. Most conservatives support that.
Discussions of homosexuality being a perversion, or unwed motherhood being immoral, or AGW being a scam, or the importance of keeping English as a unifying national language, would also be "conservative political correctness". And creationism is as likely to be found being discussed in public school classrooms and textbooks as they are.
It's evil to indoctrinate children? Does that include teaching them love of country? Is it better to raise generations of cruel neutrals? That would make Barry, whose response to the question of whether he believed in American exceptionalism was "I believe in American exceptionalism just as I suspect Brits believe in English exceptionalism or Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism," that would make him your ideal end product. Normal people on the other hand feel the lack of love in a fellow American painful in the extreme. Such retrogrades they are.
Garage, you shouldn't act like you scored some kind of major gotcha with your link there. Most of the MoJo commentary accompanying the various quotes clearly misrepresents the quoted material, either deliberately or because Deanna Pan has the reading comprehension skills of a brick. The whole thing is silly hackery. I'd be embarrassed to be waving that around as though it deserves any respect.
"I see nothin wrong with a nation teaching children a positive view of the nation and its history."
Children should be taught a dispassionately accurate history of their own and other nations, insofar as this is possible. Where there are significant and contentious differences of historical opinion and judgment as to the facts or import of any given historical event or moment, these differences should all be presented as frankly as possible for appraisal by the students.
To consciously teach a "positive" history is to edit and slant and distort reality.
The primary criterion for teaching history should be, and put in practice, what Fox News promises in its ad slogan: "We report; you decide."
Thanks Colonel. "it sucks to be a stone age Indian...". That is a great way to put it.
So if you sort through the actual question Should creationism be taught in schools? and sift through the million results you find ONE prominent conservative (Rick Santorum) who says it should. You also find NO opinion polls cited that ask the question.
Hard to say how Kchiker was able to know what so many conservatives think without anyone asking some!
"Does that mean I have to turn in my atheist card?"
Course not. Wait, they issue cards?
It's not an accident that the Republican Party platforms of ten states endorse creationism.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/16462/americans-weigh-evolution-vs-creationism-schools.aspx
Once more, Kchiker, "the Republican Party platforms of ten states endorse creationism" is not at all like the bald assertion that we want it taught in school.
You're a stinking leftist liar.
Nice work Kchiker, now you've illustrated that 76% of ALL AMERICANS have "no problem" with the theory being introduced in schools. Where's that survey that shows "most conservatives WANT it taught in school"?
Dork.
AJ Lynch: I am so ashamed we white Eurpoeans took the land from the Indians. But I do wonder who the Indians took it from? Or had the Indians been here forever?
Not forever, but they sprang from the earth. (Believing in creation myths is only stupid when white people do it.)
Never went around conquering and enslaving other tribes and "stealing their land" either, nope, no sirree bob. No warrior culture, no celebration of conquest in myth and legend nope not never.
I totally believe all that honest Injun. The only thing that's still puzzling my puzzler is why recently arrived non-European types aren't classed as "receivers of stolen goods", which they ought to be by the above logic, rather than being run through the ronco-matic victim-combobulator. Or did they all just come for the big ceremonial Return Party, in which they'll hand over all their stuff to the rightful owners and leave, after whitey is finally disposed of?
"I am so ashamed we white Eurpoeans took the land from the Indians. But I do wonder who the Indians took it from? Or had the Indians been here forever?"
Perhaps the indigenous Americans were descended from peoples who migrated here over land when the American continental landmass was connected to other landmasses of the world...before tectonic shifting split them apart.
Or perhaps they were descended from invading peoples who conquered and slaughtered a previous indigenous population.
War and the conquest and killing of other peoples in pursuit of land and resources is as old as humankind. We are not uniquely evil in this regard. However, we know enough about reality to be dishonest if we do not face the grotesque reality of our destruction of the indigenous peoples and societies that existed here before the coming of the Europeans. That is to say, we should present it as what it was: murder and conquest in the service of acquiring land and resources. To present it (as we have) as the heroic and virtuous fight of the "good," (European settlers defending against savage hordes) against the "bad," (the aforementioned "savage hordes") is to perpetuate a self-serving lie.
"Once more, Kchiker, "the Republican Party platforms of ten states endorse creationism" is not at all like the bald assertion that we want it taught in school. "
The platforms advocate that it either be taught, or that local school boards have the authority to require it. It was discussed in my biology class at a public school.
Sorry...8 of them do. Not 10.
Today is George Washington's birthday. Should American schoolchildren be taught to look at him as a man of admirable character and therefore a figure to be emulated and even - oh, the scandal - loved?...or as a slave owner? We all know the answer of the advanced cruel neutrals. Who, in this case, truly are cruel to children, educating them to be lost!
"Today is George Washington's birthday. Should American schoolchildren be taught to look at him as a man of admirable character"
Teach the facts. Let the admiration come...or not. I'd rather schools teach how to think than teach what to think.
Cookie, from his exalted position of total safety, would have the Puritans say to the Indians, "Here, here is my throat, slit it."
It's not an accident that the Republican Party platforms of ten states endorse creationism.
So what? The Democrat Party chooses to wrap itself in the flag of AGW which has as much truth in it as the world being created in seven days. The only difference is the AGW zealots are hell bent on turning the country into a third world nation to achieve their version of salvation.
Children should be taught a dispassionately accurate history of their own and other nations, insofar as this is possible. Where there are significant and contentious differences of historical opinion and judgment as to the facts or import of any given historical event or moment, these differences should all be presented as frankly as possible for appraisal by the students.
I'm going to have to agree with Mr. Cook, here. I'll need at least one addendum, however: This is not the way it is being taught now (to my children, anyway). While I do not like how the current crop of administrators have devised the curriculum to represent the current, fashionable left wing world view, nor would I want an unquestioning presentation of a view of history that comports with my ideological values.
I want my kids to know history. I want them to analyze it and think about it with reference to their values (which will come, I hope at least in part from my wife and I) and make their judgments.
But again, this is not how it is being done today.
Cookie said:
"However, we know enough about reality to be dishonest if we do not face the grotesque reality of our destruction of the indigenous peoples and societies that existed here before the coming of the Europeans. That is to say, we should present it as what it was: murder and conquest in the service of acquiring land and resources...."
All I know is those explorers like Columbus had big balls [do the schools teach that to our kids?]. And if you saw the movie Apocalypto, the poor indigenous Indians could have taught the white invaders a thing or two about barbarism and ethnic slaughter.
I teach History in the State of California.
My textbook spends more time discussing how World War II effected women and minorities on he homefront than it does the holocaust.
"So what? The Democrat Party chooses to wrap itself in the flag of AGW which has as much truth in it as the world being created in seven days."
We don't agree on the all the issues but it sounds like our teaching approach might be similar. Present the theory and evaluate the evidence for/against.
To present it (as we have) as the heroic and virtuous fight of the "good," (European settlers defending against savage hordes) against the "bad," (the aforementioned "savage hordes") is to perpetuate a self-serving lie.
I'm not sure what school you went to but that certainly isn't the way it was presented when I was in school. Quite to the contrary in fact.
To present it (as we have) as the heroic and virtuous fight of the "good," (European settlers defending against savage hordes) against the "bad," (the aforementioned "savage hordes") is to perpetuate a self-serving lie.
Perhaps.
But it is just as bad to teach that the evil greedy White man came and stole the land from noble savages living in peace and harmony with the environment and each other.
It was simply a case of civilization replacing barbarism.
My textbook spends more time discussing how World War II effected women and minorities on he homefront than it does the holocaust.
And in the grand picture of the war, the Holocaust was a sidebar event.
Imperial Japan murdered millions in China, Korea and Indochina and that barely gets an honorable mention in textbooks.
Even Rick Perry said it was happening in Texas. I think he was trying to brag.
Your evidence is where?
Even its mere discussion in a science class should be viewed as political correctness. Evidence supporting or opposing a scientific theory should be studied in science class. Creationism is not a scientific theory and cannot be validated using scientific means.
And once again, this is not what 'Political Correctness' means.
po·lit·i·cal cor·rect·ness
Noun
The avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult certain groups of people.
"Today is George Washington's birthday. Should American schoolchildren be taught to look at him as a man of admirable character and therefore a figure to be emulated and even - oh, the scandal - loved?...or as a slave owner? We all know the answer of the advanced cruel neutrals. Who, in this case, truly are cruel to children, educating them to be lost!"
Children should be taught to view George Washington as he was, as a human with virtues and faults. Why must we worship heroes? Why can't we recognize that all humans are flawed, even those who we might admire for their worthy accomplishments?
Such teaching can lead to valuable discussions, such as: can a "good" person really be "good" if he or she also has "bad" qualities, or behaves badly in certain parts of his life? Can a "bad" person be considered more fully human if we recognize his virtues and admirable achievements despite his perhaps more predominant "bad" acts or traits? What does it mean to be "good" or "bad?" What are the wars and conflicts within and between societies really about? And so on.
I know such complexities and shades of gray are anathema to those of primitive emotional or mental development, but they are the reality of the world and we do not do our children or ourselves any favors by perpetuating simplistic fables of faultless "heroes" in conflict with purely evil "villains", (especially as the "heroes" in such teaching tend to be on "our" side and the "villains" on the "other" side).
(This is not to say there are never instances of historical evil: Adolph Hitler and the Nazi war machine were surely such. But, even there, there were reasons for the rise of Hitler and Naziism and for Hitler and his cause being embraced by the German people, and these historical realities should be taught to giver greater context for what otherwise seems purely insane and ahistorical behavior. It is valid to point out that "everyone has his reasons," even when it is also valid to point out, where true, that "these reasons were abhorrent.")
Robert Cook said...
To present it (as we have) as the heroic and virtuous fight of the "good," (European settlers defending against savage hordes) against the "bad," (the aforementioned "savage hordes") is to perpetuate a self-serving lie.
I think you might be deluding yourself. While I don't doubt that there were times in the past where the settlement/conquest of the Europeans in North America was presented very positively, it certainly wasn't presented as "heroic" or "virtuous" when I was in elementary school in the 1980s.
Kchiker said...
"Once more, Kchiker, "the Republican Party platforms of ten states endorse creationism" is not at all like the bald assertion that we want it taught in school. "
The platforms advocate that it either be taught, or that local school boards have the authority to require it.
So which is it, do they advocate that it be taught, or do they advocate the right of local school boards to determine their own criteria.
These are not the same things. If you would provide an actual citation to your proposed 'evidence', then we could all evaluate it objectively.
But I see that you continue to fail to do so.
It is very much a conservative position that decisions are best left at the local level as much as possible, this being the most optimal way for people to run their own lives.
Federalism - it's a principle.
AJ Lynch: I am so ashamed we white Eurpoeans took the land from the Indians. But I do wonder who the Indians took it from? Or had the Indians been here forever?
Virtually all tribes waged internecine wars against each other on a regular basis. Territories changed hands every hundred years or so.
The tribes that met the puritans had been displaced a few months before the Pilgrims landed. The natives first instinct was to employ the pilgrims and their guns to get their lands back.
Far from being the wise stewards the natives were pretty much the same assholes as the europeans. Only without the firepower.
"It was simply a case of civilization replacing barbarism."
How do you know that the indigenous Americans were barbarians, or their society "barbaric?" Why do you assume technological superiority makes a people more "civilized?"
What criteria do you use to make this appraisal?
Or is that really all you mean: it was a case of technological superiority consuming the technologically inferior?
Or we could read 1491 by Charles C. Mann.
"Cookie, from his exalted position of total safety, would have the Puritans say to the Indians, 'Here, here is my throat, slit it.'"
Assuming for argument's sake your simplistic rendering were purely accurate, the Puritans could have said--to themselves--"Oh, there are other people here before us. Perhaps we should look elsewhere for haven, or go back where we came from."
"The avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult certain groups of people."
Many people don't want their world view marginalized and they work hard to influence classroom/textbook expression.
It happens on all sides of the spectrum.
Creation myths from the various world religions can be taught as part of a comparative world religions class.
"So which is it, do they advocate that it be taught, or do they advocate the right of local school boards to determine their own criteria."
It's a 6-2 split. Six the former, two the latter.
Robert Cook said...
Children should be taught to view George Washington as he was, as a human with virtues and faults. Why must we worship heroes? Why can't we recognize that all humans are flawed, even those who we might admire for their worthy accomplishments?
How much time do we have for education? There are so many important figures in history that have done great and good works, Washington being one of them. If you have to devote as much time to flaws in historical figures as you do to virtues, you lost 50% of the time you have available.
Do we also have to teach virtues of evil historical figures as well to balance out? History is not a tit-for-tat.
Such teaching can lead to valuable discussions, such as: can a "good" person really be "good" if he or she also has "bad" qualities, or behaves badly in certain parts of his life? Can a "bad" person be considered more fully human if we recognize his virtues and admirable achievements despite his perhaps more predominant "bad" acts or traits? What does it mean to be "good" or "bad?" What are the wars and conflicts within and between societies really about? And so on.
Save it for philosophy class if the student is so inclined. Pissing on good historical characters just because you don't want them to be hero's is a lousy way of educating students. Same thing with puffing up bad historical characters to make them more 'human'.
I know such complexities and shades of gray are anathema to those of primitive emotional or mental development, but they are the reality of the world and we do not do our children or ourselves any favors by perpetuating simplistic fables of faultless "heroes" in conflict with purely evil "villains", (especially as the "heroes" in such teaching tend to be on "our" side and the "villains" on the "other" side).
You do not do them any favors either by making truly great people/events the subject of navel gazing remorse for perceived flaws.
(This is not to say there are never instances of historical evil: Adolph Hitler and the Nazi war machine were surely such.
Why don't we talk about how Hitler loved to paint, wouldn't this make him more human, and thus question such outdated notions of good and evil?
But, even there, there were reasons for the rise of Hitler and Naziism and for Hitler and his cause being embraced by the German people, and these historical realities should be taught to giver greater context for what otherwise seems purely insane and ahistorical behavior. It is valid to point out that "everyone has his reasons," even when it is also valid to point out, where true, that "these reasons were abhorrent.")
And while we are at it, why don't we teach the 'how' or the tactics used by the Nazi party to seize power, there would be quite a few interesting parallels to those tactics that are being employed in the modern world.
Kchiker said...
Many people don't want their world view marginalized and they work hard to influence classroom/textbook expression.
It happens on all sides of the spectrum.
Using your example of creationism, who is being marginalized?
Kchiker said...
"So which is it, do they advocate that it be taught, or do they advocate the right of local school boards to determine their own criteria."
It's a 6-2 split. Six the former, two the latter.
Cite? Any day now? Bueller? Bueller?
Brew Master, I guess you're one of those I mentioned who finds the idea of teaching the complexity of real life and history anathema.
This just in; History written by the victors.
From time immemorial, the history of humankind has been one of violent confrontation between clans at risk. Not until somewhere between the Treaty of Westphalia (primacy of the sovereign) and the Treaty of Versailles (global imprimatur of same) was there a notion that there was a unique and codifiable moral wrong to be redressed.
Just so happens that the Euros wrote the code and drew the lines on an increasingly crowded map of the Earth.
Robert Cook said...
Brew Master, I guess you're one of those I mentioned who finds the idea of teaching the complexity of real life and history anathema.
Yeah, because I certainly come across as an ignorant dolt. Save your taunts for someone who will care, address my points or piss off.
Is it necessary to teach about minor flaws in great historical figures in order to provide an excellent education in history?
Conversely, is it necessary to teach about minor virtues in evil historical figures in order to provide an excellent education in history?
The answer to both questions is 'no'. Excellent history is not taught as a cult of personality.
There has been a big push in the last ten years to get creationism or Intelligent Design taught in schools. Many resent the teaching of evolution and want the curriculum to include their viewpoint amongst the possibilities. Jindal signed into law the LSEA which was seen as an attempt towards a more inclusive scientific conversation.
"Cite? Any day now? Bueller? Bueller?"
I have faith in your research skills.
One of the first things a child asks Google is, "how do I make a hyperlink?" and it shows them like that * snap * and thereafter they spare everybody they talk to the trouble of copy/pasting their long-ass addresses all over the place. It's a courtesy that children learn first. So much for Google skillz.
Pissing on good historical characters just because you don't want them to be hero's is a lousy way of educating students
Have we gone out of our way to deny that it was the Soviet Union with their 27 million dead that routed the Nazis, because of our hatred toward Stalin? I'd say so. Conversely, the completely boneheaded and reckless Truman sure seems to get off easy as well. It was a coup d'état at the Democratic convention in 1944 that foisted Truman to VP when it should have been Henry Wallace. Democratic voters preferred Wallce to Truman 65%-2%. Dropping those A bombs was a BFD and not really looked at critically enough in my opinion.
I have an IQ of 140, 2 college degrees and I am not religious. Evolution is a horse shit theory.
Robert Cook: Children should be taught a dispassionately accurate history of their own and other nations, insofar as this is possible. Where there are significant and contentious differences of historical opinion and judgment as to the facts or import of any given historical event or moment, these differences should all be presented as frankly as possible for appraisal by the students.
To consciously teach a "positive" history is to edit and slant and distort reality.
Oh bullshit. This entirely misapprehends brain development, the psychology of children, and intellectual attainment in general. You're confusing children with older high-schoolers or college students. And if those children have the misfortune of being subjected to your loopy notions of pedagogy, they'll be too brain-rotted to move up to a dispassionate, deeper study of history.
Children aren't adults. History is complex, and events and their contexts are always open to interpretation. You don't teach Calculus to kids who haven't learned their times-tables yet. Detachment, a critical view, is something that is developed as you grow to adulthood, and through adulthood. It's not something that can be produced in grade school children by making sure that receive perfectly-balanced (impossible) "just the facts" (it's never "just the facts"), and "inclusive and sensitive" (belabored bullshit, and boring as holy fucking hell) textbooks.
Oh my god, if you give 3rd graders a children's book about Columubus or Washington that present them as a great men and heroes they'll just never be able to think about the history of the New World in deeper terms! Their brains are ruined for life!
Even if those early stories are what suck kids in and get them passionate about learning in the first place. The important thing is, to bore them to death with PC-pabulum, and make sure they know that their culture is evil and they're personally guilty of Original Suckitude. (The white boys, anyway.)
If you tell children in elementary school that the Founding Fathers were great men, without, like, making sure right then and there between recess and arithmetic that they're total deep scholars of the history of slavery in America, then...
Uh, the Founders were great men. You have to start somewhere, and that's a good place to start. Because a culture that teaches its children to be ashamed of their culture from an early age, rather than to take pride in its accomplishments, is sick.
Kchiker said...
"Cite? Any day now? Bueller? Bueller?"
I have faith in your research skills.
I don't have faith in yours. Everything I have looked up on the subject shows me that creationism is not taught in schools as the prevailing topic, or the 'politically correct' view. My research shows me the exact opposite, that creationism is the exact opposite of 'politically correct'.
The three opinion polls that you cite have not proven to me otherwise.
"I have an IQ of 140, 2 college degrees and I am not religious. Evolution is a horse shit theory."
Heh. This just shows to go (sic) that 2 college degrees and an estimated high IQ doesn't prove one is smart.
"Children aren't adults. History is complex, and events and their contexts are always open to interpretation."
Then they shouldn't be taught history until they're capable of learning the complex reality rather than a simplified, sanitized, self-serving simulacrum of it.
Of course, we don't want to teach children reality, we want to teach them a "go team!" sort of cheerleading version of history so they can be better indoctrinated to be loyal servants of the regime.
This is true everywhere.
"Oh my god, if you give 3rd graders a children's book about Columubus or Washington that present them as a great men and heroes they'll just never be able to think about the history of the New World in deeper terms! Their brains are ruined for life!"
Most of us never get any follow up reports on these men or their lives or times. The 3rd grade version is what most of us live with for life.
"Uh, the Founders were great men. You have to start somewhere, and that's a good place to start."
A better place to start would be: "The Founders were men."
My textbook spends more time discussing how World War II effected women and minorities on he homefront than it does the holocaust.
I hope you teach off-book as much as possible.
Seeing Red said...
Or we could read 1491 by Charles C. Mann.
Good read.
How many tens of thousands of acres of southern Illinois botomland was ruined by the mound builders.
"The 3rd grade version is what most of us live with for life."
That explains a lot about you, R.C.
"I am so ashamed we white Eurpoeans took the land from the Indians. But I do wonder who the Indians took it from? Or had the Indians been here forever?"
From what I read, the American Indian crossed over from the Bering Straight when there was a land bridge. The land which is the US was uninhabited.
Not so. The earlier doctrinaire on that topic has been revised.
Link. Clovis people.
Google Kennewick Man The presence of a Caucasoid as opposed to Amerindian or asian type precedes the Bering Strait scenario. NOTE: Caucasoid does not mean white people. Australian aborigines have been classified "by some" as Caucasoid as have been the Hairy Ainu of Japan.
The archeology of the new world, particularly South America lends credence to an earlier 30K or earlier population that is not what we classify as "Indian". There is some evidence of caucasoid types of inhabitants in pre pre historical times.
Our current population of American Indians did not arrive to find an empty land.
. . .A better place to start would be: "The Founders were men."
Sounds like a riveting lesson plan. Good luck with that
Robert Cook said...
Most of us never get any follow up reports on these men or their lives or times. The 3rd grade version is what most of us live with for life.
I don't believe the "3rd grade version" that is currently widely taught in American public schools presents the various founding fathers in as positive a light as you seem to believe it does.
Look, I understand that teaching a kind of American mythology with characters that are 2 dimensional heroes or villains certainly would have its flaws, I just don't believe that is what's going on at this time.
Most of us never get any follow up reports on these men or their lives or times. The 3rd grade version is what most of us live with for life
Aha!! This explains Democrats.
:-D
Discussion of creationism in a science class is political correctness.
The main impact of conservative religious political correctness in schools isn't that. Creationism isn't widely taught in any public school system. The main impact is to keep teaching of the theory of evolution *out* of textbooks.
There really isn't a high school biology book in America that does an adequate job of covering the theory -- which is downright silly when you consider that the practically the whole of modern biology is based on that theory.
The reason is simple: Texas. Texas is a huge market, and Texas doesn't want to hear about your godless scientific theories. It isn't economically feasible to print a "Texas" and "non-Texas" version of biology textbooks, so the "Texas" version is the one that gets printed.
New York and California have a similar effect on subjects that are anathema to left-wingers.
Most of us never get any follow up reports on [Columubus or Washington] or their lives or times. The 3rd grade version is what most of us live with for life.
What a load of crap.
A better place to start would be: "The Founders were men."
As usual, you get it wrong. The fuonders were great men. Many were rich men who could have easily enjoyed a comfortable life, but chose to risk their lives and fight for freedom and independence. Charles
Carroll of Carrollton was one of the richest man in America at the time. Without his financial support, the Revolution would have floundered.
How many of the rich guys would do this today? Bloomberg? Soros? Buffett? Obama? Biden? None of these guys are interested in risking their lives, only getting richer and more powerful at our expense.
Robert Cook said...
I have an IQ of 140, 2 college degrees and I am not religious. Evolution is a horse shit theory.
Heh. This just shows to go (sic) that 2 college degrees and an estimated high IQ doesn't prove one is smart.
Nor does employment at the Daily Worker.
Somebody tell Cook that intelligent people still refer to evolution as theory, rather than fact, for a reason.
Dust Bunny Queen said...
The archeology of the new world, particularly South America lends credence to an earlier 30K or earlier population that is not what we classify as "Indian". There is some evidence of caucasoid types of inhabitants in pre pre historical times.
Our current population of American Indians did not arrive to find an empty land.
Maybe they killed off the real Native Americans.
Stick that in your PC and smoke it.
PS Also tends to bear out Heyerdahl.
PPS Love the avatar. You in 2nd grade?
Rusty/DBQ:
You do know I was trying to be snarky by wondering if the Indians had been here forever?
Dadvocate wrote:
"A better place to start would be: "The Founders were men."
I would add "with big balls".
Cookie - is there anyone you admire or look up to?
But I do wonder who the Indians took it from? Or had the Indians been here forever?
Something to bear in mind is that "the Indians" were no more a uniform and united group than "the white man" was. Less so, really.
Look at the history of Europe or Asia over thousands of years. See all those waves of migration, invasions, wars, etc? Hell, England itself was conquered by foreign cultures at least a half-dozen times that we know about. The exact same thing was happening every other place humans went, the Americas very much included.
After fifteen thousand years of continuous migration and warfare, the answer to the question "who had the Indians taken it from" was basically "other Indians".
Most of us never get follow-ups?
What is this, a business?
Oh, I'm an adult and I'm the victim because I don't read the books available.
That sounds like someone shoud create an app for adulthood.
I have an IQ of 140, 2 college degrees and I am not religious. Evolution is a horse shit theory.
In the course of your college career, did you encounter a concept known as "the argument from authority fallacy"? :)
"po·lit·i·cal cor·rect·ness
Noun
The avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult certain groups of people."
When did that become the definition? The term was invented by the Left in the 1980s, or, at least, that's when I first heard it. I was an undergraduate on the student newspaper, and our Editor, a good Lefty like most students, laughed at country music fans going to Kathy Mattea concerts, since "she is PC." I asked what the term meant. "Politically correct," I was told. Politically correct, meant that she had the "correct" views on issues, as defined by the campus Left. It did not mean what the dictionary now says it means.
Perhaps when the totalitarian implications of this idea came out, around the time D'Souza's "Illiberal Education" cam out in 1991 (?), the exposure started to hurt the Left, so the meaning was changed, and now the dictionary accepts the new meaning, and people think that the dictionary definition is the correct one. After all, it's in the dictionary . . .
Oh, I'm an adult and I'm the victim because I don't read the books available.
Cook's claim is a bit more ridiculous than that.
In order to be an adult who has never encountered the argument that Columbus was a bad man, you have to (a) be at least fifty and (b) be a hermit.
Columbus' sins have been taught in public schools since the 70s and get discussed in newspapers, in magazines, and on television whenever Columbus Day rolls around. You really can't possibly have missed hearing about them unless you live in a cave or something.
PPS Love the avatar. You in 2nd grade?
5 years old.
Wasn't I sweet? What happened..in before Freder et al.....lol.
I would add "with big balls".
Yes. They started out by telling the most powerful country in the world to kiss their asses.
How do you know that the indigenous Americans were barbarians, or their society "barbaric?" Why do you assume technological superiority makes a people more "civilized?"
What criteria do you use to make this appraisal?
Their lives were nasty, brutish and short. They were engaged in constant warfare with each other. None of them had yet to invent the wheel, and most had no written language.
Robert Cook: That is to say, we should present it as what it was: murder and conquest in the service of acquiring land and resources. To present it (as we have) as the heroic and virtuous fight of the "good," (European settlers defending against savage hordes) against the "bad," (the aforementioned "savage hordes") is to perpetuate a self-serving lie.
Who's lying, Cookie? Hey, I remember those "Pilgrims and Indians happily celebrating the First Thanksgiving together" kindergarten story-books, too. I see you're still traumatized by having discovered that wasn't the whole story, aren't you?
Sheesh, stop projecting your own retarded infantilized decades-long freak-out over the tragedy and ambiguity of history onto the rest of us.
Today on Rush:
This was actual sensitivity training at the USDA.
BETANCES: (shouting) Together we can make an extension of each other's quest to make America stronger, healthier, and freer to work for all of us. Say, "Thank you, black -- black folks!"
CROWD: Thank you, black folks!
BETANCES: I want you to say, "America was founded by outsiders." Say that!
CROWD: America was founded by outsiders!
BETANCE: "Who are today's insiders."
CROWD: Who are today's insiders.
Tari -
"7th grader(s) are in the midst of global warming/overpopulation indoctrination right now; yes we're in Texas, but it's public school. The TX 7th grade science textbook goes on and on about recent population increases and human's devastating effects on pwecious wittle mother earth."
Contrary to some evangelicals and Muslims outlook that Jesus or Allah through "miracles of the divine or at least miraccle high tech", make overpopulation and CO2 now being out of an equilibrium condition mere trifles...
They are not.
Most major conflicts in recent years are driven by overpopulated lands seeking to take water, resources, and arable lands from others. You can even go make to WWII and the German need for Lebenstraum and the Japs demanding access to cropland and overseas resources their overpopulated lands lacked.
ME war, revolutions, and terrorism stem from too many people chasing too few resources, dwindling water stocks, land that can deliver sustainable crops.
No accident that the Rwanda war happened in the most overpopulated African land,
Or the chaos of Haiti - from 11 million people on land that can self-sustain maybe 2.5 million.
The CO2 is another matter...while I don't believe in Doom! around the corner, we have lost equilibrium and new, large developing nations will burn all the fossil fuel they can lay hands on, buy or conquer and get.
But the limiting factor before hydrocarbon depletion or CO2 becomes a real danger is water. It is already in shortage in lands with the worst overpopulation...and many lands are looking at 15-25 years before the "mined water" in thousand year old deposits is sucked up and used.
And the West has reached, or is close to politically reaching a call that they are maxed out on refugees, can take no more..even if that means fast breeding Saudis, Haitians, Somalis and Pakis "might die".
No matter how much the Left and Christian do-gooders scream it will be "our duty" to take in hundreds of millions of desperate people from ecologically collapsing overpopulated lands...
I love the mitochondrial DNA studies to track ancestor groups. That certainly shows that man did not evolve.
But the ancient earth and hundreds of millions of different species of life on the ancient earth could be from an evolution...maybe...just there is no evidence of it.
Teaching intelligent design is a scientific approach. Just because William Jennings Bryan was a jerk politician doesn't prove anything about The Darwinian Hypothesis. That guesswork needs more proof than,"...we have to pretend we believe it or religions will come back."
Speaking of hagiographical history, Martin Luther King is not explored in any depth. King was a brave man, but he was also a plagiarist, philanderer, and a communist. But it's not polite to discuss this.
Once again I see that DBQ has beaten me to the punch re: Kennewick Man. Those reading the link will also note the PC reaction of the native tribes who hope to bury the skeletal remains forever on inviolate Indian lands out of the reach of the prying eyes of science least scientific analysis dispute their claims to "ownership" of the continent via claims to have been here first. To paraphrase Col Nathan R Jessup: "You people of color can't stand the truth!"
Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of wah, wah, wah, I'm an adult and no one forced me to sit down and read about George Washington or FITB.
Don't worry, Cookie, you'll be able to program your robot read you to sleep after said robot's wiped your fanny.
Robert Cook: A better place to start would be: "The Founders were men."
See Schoolmarm Cook set those young minds on fire!
"The Founder were bipeds."
"The Founders were mammals."
"The Founders were vertebrates."
Burn, baby, burn!
Part of what makes George Washington so appealing is the Great Leaders of the World who came after him.
Napoleon, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, and Mao.
Washington had substantial flaws, but life is graded on a curve. These other guys were monsters.
On further thought, maybe the government will program our robots for us as we can go to sleep listening to "Dreams of My Father" or other approved works.
In keeping with collegiality, no subversive thoughts from dead white slaveowners.
Robert Cook: (This is not to say there are never instances of historical evil: Lenin and Stalin and the Communist tyrannies were surely such. But, even there, there were reasons for the rise of Stalin and Communism and for Stalin and his cause being embraced by the Western intelligentsia, and these historical realities should be taught to giver greater context for what otherwise seems purely insane and ahistorical behavior. It is valid to point out that "everyone has his reasons," even when it is also valid to point out, where true, that "these reasons were abhorrent.")
Nuanced it up a bit for you, Cookie. When you can't ever come up with anything but Hitler this and Hitler that as an example of clear human evil and inarguably abhorrent political loyalties, it starts to look like a case of "primitive emotional or mental development".
Robert Cook said...
"Cookie, from his exalted position of total safety, would have the Puritans say to the Indians, 'Here, here is my throat, slit it.'"
Assuming for argument's sake your simplistic rendering were purely accurate, the Puritans could have said--to themselves--"Oh, there are other people here before us. Perhaps we should look elsewhere for haven, or go back where we came from."
Why should they/ The indians didn't.
The place the pilgrims landed was marginal land even by the natives standard. There was so little there it was just a place to pass through on the way to somewhere else. The natives they did meet were refugees from their own territory. having been pushed out by a stronger tribe. They looked at the pilgrims as allies in the future battle to regain their territory.
The culture of many/most native american tribes was based on warfare. Bravery in warfare. Bravery as a captive.
Warfare for territory for mates, for slaves, for horses. Endless warfare.
"King was a brave man, but he was also a plagiarist, philanderer, and a communist."
How do you know he was a communist, and if he was, why is this necessarily a bad thing?
As for his philandering and plagiarism, this is true, and yet, despite these faults in his behavior he is one of the greater figures of the last half century.
This was actual sensitivity training at the USDA.
The thing that made that video particularly hilarious, to me, was that whoever came up with the "pilgrims=illegal immigrants" metaphor forgot that for the past forty years or so we've been taught that what the pilgrims did to the Indians was *bad*.
The "illegal immigrants aren't so bad, they're just this generation's version of the Pilgrims" metaphor might have worked in, say, the 1950s. But after decades of hearing about how the White Devil committed genocide, the implication of the metaphor is "er... so we should take up arms to keep the illegals out of the country, then?"
How do you know he was a communist, and if he was, why is this necessarily a bad thing?
Because communism is the most evil ideology in human history, for starters.
In their defense, though, most of its American adherents were simply too ignorant to recognize that fact.
traditionalguy said...
Teaching intelligent design is a scientific approach.
Intelligent design is a non-testable and non-refutable hypothosis. Unless it can be tested for failure, and those tests repeated by others it is not scientific.
You can even go make to WWII and the German need for Lebenstraum
"Need".
Heh.
Cook,
I'm not saying King was an agent of the Soviet Union or that he was a bad guy. But his outlook and philosophy was communism.
But communism is purely stupid, and when even partially successful, purely abhorrent (see Soviet Union and China).
King was a smart man, but not that smart. That's why he had to crib a good chunk of his Phd thesis. If he had learned more, he would have realized his utopian ideals were doomed to failure and misery. It was enough to demand and achieve equal treatment for blacks. But he had a grander vision.
King was certainly a brave man, but he was also pretty phony.
Rusty said...
There was so little there it was just a place to pass through on the way to somewhere else.
They ran out of beer and stopped to make more!
Love those guys.
Washington had substantial flaws,
As do we all. There's a difference between perfection and greatness that the likes of Cookie want us to ignore at their convience. It's like the Michael J. Fox quote, "I am careful not to confuse excellence with perfection. Excellence I can reach for;
perfection is God's business."
Cookie and his ilk want to pretend Washington, et al weren't great because they didn't create Heaven on Earth although Obama is creating Hell on Earth.
Garage is simply the bearer of "bad news" for pro-voucher school right-wing 'thuglicans.
Don't hate the messenger says garage limphal.
Robert Cook said...
How do you know he was a communist, and if he was, why is this necessarily a bad thing?
Communism has lead to the deaths of at least tens of millions and probably hundreds of millions. It is unquestionably the most destructive ideology in the history of mankind.
Angelyne, I have no quarrel with your alternative examples to mine of historical evil.
Teaching intelligent design is a scientific approach.
Really? Tell us about how you scientifically test for "designed" versus "not designed". :)
Because communism is the most evil ideology in human history, for starters
Our largest trading partner are communists. Can't be too evil?
*2nd largest trading partner.
I love the mitochondrial DNA studies to track ancestor groups. That certainly shows that man did not evolve.
Er... t-guy, if evolution wasn't factually true, it wouldn't be possible to track human migration by looking at mitochondrial DNA. :)
Pretty impressive own goal there, dude.
Have we gone out of our way to deny that it was the Soviet Union with their 27 million dead that routed the Nazis
And when the Russians went to Germany there was a whole lot of raping and murdering and pillaging along the way. (not even getting into Stalin’s brutality to his own people). I don’t think there has been any denial that the USSR was part of allied powers though it would be nice if they got into more detail.
But that’s the thing about high school, I don’t think they got into great detail about most things. For the most part they draw broad concepts: WWII = pearl harbor + holocaust + Normandy + Winning! And that’s if your school even gets that far; when I was in high school we never made it to the end of the textbook. I think you should be assigned books in history class, just like English, because it’s far more interesting to get really into one subject instead of just getting the jist.
even there, there were reasons for the rise of Hitler and Naziism
I certainly think it would be nice if they went into how the rampant inflation post WWI in Germany was a really, really bad idea. That would sort of require the teacher to know a little economics though.
As for George Washington – I think I got a better sense of the man by visiting Mt Vernon than I ever did in school. Happy Birthday George!
Rusty said...
The culture of many/most native american tribes was based on warfare. Bravery in warfare. Bravery as a captive.
Warfare for territory for mates, for slaves, for horses. Endless warfare.
This can be applied to pretty much any hunter-gatherer society that has ever existed. They should append 'raider' or 'looter' to the designation.
Hunter-Gatherer-Looter/Raider (can also pretty much add Rapist as well).
But, by golly we don't want to mess with the image of the Noble Savage as good, and land stealing murdering White man as the inventor of all evil. After all, White Men are fallen from grace, creator of all destruction, bringer of pestilence, the rapist of mother earth and her peaceful stone age denizens who had lived in blissful Disneyesque harmony and peace.
Why is so damn difficult for liberals to admit the USSR was a totally evil regime? It's like pulling fucking teeth, they're so damn invested in Communism.
Not that the Germans weren't brutal to the Russians as well, because they certainly were. The entire Russian front business was just awful, as is much of history actually.
In Stalin v. Hitler, there is no good guy.
Our largest trading partner are communists. Can't be too evil?
Why not?
Our largest trading partner are communists. Can't be too evil?
SQUIRREL!
Our largest trading partner are communists. Can't be too evil?
Are you serious?
China, communism and Mao,
From Wikipedia: "His policies caused the deaths of tens of millions of people during his 27-year reign, more than any other Twentieth Century leader, however supporters point out that in spite of this, life expectancy improved during his reign" And, Hitler built the autobahns.
Yeah, current China is better than Mao's China, but better than the worst isn't very good. Don't kid yourself.
Yeah life expectancy rose in China for those who survived Mao's massacres.
Count me among those believing textbook writers care more for political correctness than for accuracy. I recall a dinner conversation with a middle-school daughter about the Declaration of Independence. When I referred to the opening words, she responded that "those people" were all slaveholders so none of that matters. I was greatly distressed.
That said, when I was in high school many years before, I saw textbooks as being slanted to favor the establishment. Writing a textbook, I am sure, presents a fiendishly difficult needle to thread. I'd be happier if I believed textbook writers were generally aware the needle existed.
"Communism has lead to the deaths of at least tens of millions and probably hundreds of millions. It is unquestionably the most destructive ideology in the history of mankind."
I'd blame the psychopathic power mongers (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc.) more than the ideology they used as their justification.
I haven't read Marx but I doubt you will find prescriptions in his writings for the mass murder of human beings, just as, assuming Martin Luther King were a communist, I doubt very much he would have proposed or supported the imprisonment or murder of millions of human beings.
Champions of communism are just like champions of capitalism in that they believe the tenets of economic organization they propose will improve the lives of human beings and result in a better society for all.
Reality is always more complicated and difficult than theory.
Have we gone out of our way to deny that it was the Soviet Union with their 27 million dead that routed the Nazis
Setting aside the fact that the Soviet Union murdered far more people than the Nazis did, we *also* tend to forget that the Soviets started out the war on essentially the same side as the Nazis. That's why American Communists were ordered to stop criticizing Nazi Germany and start insisting that America stay out of the war.
Would Germany have been able to invade the USSR if the USSR hadn't devoted so much effort to delaying America's entry into the war? Or if they hadn't jointly conquered all the territory separating them *from* Germany? Or if the Soviets hadn't already murdered most of their own competent officers and industrialists? Hm. :)
You can argue that without communism, capitalism in America wouldn't even survive. Well, if you listen to conservatives argue anyhow.
I'd blame the psychopathic power mongers (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc.) more than the ideology they used as their justification.
There's a reason psychopathic power mnnges like communism. Think about it, if you're able.
Setting aside the fact that the Soviet Union murdered far more people than the Nazis did,
Not in WWII they didn't.
Setting aside the fact that the Soviet Union murdered far more people than the Nazis did, we *also* tend to forget that the Soviets started out the war on essentially the same side as the Nazis.
Yeah, I was listening to a podcast talking about how Stalin, despite being paranoid about just about everybody, believed for the longest time everything Hitler told him. There was also some fascinating stuff about the differences of opinion between the German generals and how Hitler superstitious need to do things differently than napoleon led to leaving the germans in russia without winter uniforms.
I haven't read Marx but I doubt you will find prescriptions in his writings for the mass murder of human beings
You won't find prescriptions for the widespread death of children in the writings of anti-vaccine advocates. And yet that's what you always get when their policies are followed.
Communism is utterly contrary to human nature. When you impose a system that is utterly contrary to human nature onto a large group of humans, you get violence and death as surely as night follows day.
The strength of capitalism has always been it will work with any group of humans who are motivated by self-interest, i.e. basically all of them. The weakness of communism has always been that it requires a nation of Jesuses in order to function properly.
And actually even then it can't function properly, because of the information problem -- but that's another post. :)
I haven't read Marx but I doubt you will find prescriptions in his writings for the mass murder of human beings
You won't find prescriptions for the widespread death of children in the writings of anti-vaccine advocates. And yet that's what you always get when their policies are followed.
Communism is utterly contrary to human nature. When you impose a system that is utterly contrary to human nature onto a large group of humans, you get violence and death as surely as night follows day.
The strength of capitalism has always been it will work with any group of humans who are motivated by self-interest, i.e. basically all of them. The weakness of communism has always been that it requires a nation of Jesuses in order to function properly.
And actually even then it can't function properly, because of the information problem -- but that's another post. :)
Not in WWII they didn't.
*By* WW2, the Soviets had already murdered more people than the Germans did *in* WW2.
Post a Comment