The Texas State Board of Education review committee is preparing to vote on a draft of proposed standards for history textbooks. Noting that the draft has nothing about liberals, the Houston Chronicle reported:
The first draft for proposed standards in United States History Studies Since Reconstruction says students should be expected to identify significant conservative advocacy organizations and individuals, such as Newt Gingrich, Phyllis Schlafly and the Moral Majority. [...] Others have proposed adding talk show host Rush Limbaugh and the National Rifle Association.
The 15-member committee, stacked with 10 Republicans, is expected to vote along party lines. Earlier this year, a panel of right-wing experts produced a report urging the committee to remove biographies of George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Stephen F. Austin, César Chávez, and instead add history about the motivational role the Bible and the Christian faith played in the settling of the original colonies.
This message has been edited by frogprince on Aug 21, 2009 2:55 PM
there are manly people living in texas that would prefer their own fantasies in the history books, instead of the truth. and for them, these fantasies seem beneficial.
to me, these efforts are fascist.
In the first place no state board of education should be deciding what is in text books.
In some states like Tex and CA a state board makes a decision and the whole state has to buy the same series of books...........totally ridiculous.
Back in NJ curriculum is written by teachers and then they look to find a book that best matches the curriculum. Of course they have very limited choices because all the big companies pander their choices to be the big companies who want to sell million of books in Tex and CA.
I'd say in this day of schools connected to the internet it is time to do away with the concept of the "text book" especially in higher grades where students should be researching from a wide world of resources not limiting themselves to what some company published to please a group of asses on the TX state board of education.
Rewriting history as in this post? .........absolutely horrendous and don't think it will only affect TX if it is allowed to happen.
1. Stay out of Texas. Don't come to Texas, don't visit Texas, don't twitter Texas, don't even think of Texas. You will be happier, and *we* will be happier.
2. Avoid any contact with the schoolbooks of Texas, or the children who's minds will be poisoned by them, wherever they may wind up. For a pair of "progressive"(*snort*) geniuses such as yourselves, this shouldn't be too difficult.
1. Stay out of Texas. Don't come to Texas, don't visit Texas, don't twitter Texas, don't even think of Texas. You will be happier, and *we* will be happier.
2. Avoid any contact with the schoolbooks of Texas, or the children who's minds will be poisoned by them, wherever they may wind up. For a pair of "progressive"(*snort*) geniuses such as yourselves, this shouldn't be too difficult.
Problem solved. What else?
gus.
how will that affect this bullshit rewriting of history, and the teaching of lies to the children of texas?
gus, the point is to stop this facetious and biased rewriting of history, not to give you pricks the leeway to freely teach this kind of bullshit to your kids.
the point is, how to stop it, not how to facilitate the lies. i CAN understand why you would wish to teach your kids these lies - it makes your neocon indoctrination of them much easier - but that indoctrination, which is replacing education in texas, is what we are mandated to fight.
...for us to visit our kids in Louisiana without driving through Texas, gussie, but you can rest assured that we won't be coming anywhere near you.
"Impossible"? Do you even own a map? It's mostly *pictures* you know. hint: Texas is *not* an island, no over-water travel required. hint: Only the southern border of Texas abuts a foreign country. No passports, or foreign travel required. IOW... If Texas is *all* that bad, go the fuck around! Moron...
how will that affect this bullshit rewriting of history, and the teaching of lies to the children of texas?
It won't, but it will isolate the problem. What business is it of yours, really?
gus.
it becomes all of our business when education is used as indoctrination in this manner. we all have a stake in america, and this is a concerted effort to damage our country, to undermine the history of our country for the benefit of a particular political viewpoint, and even worse, the children of texas are being manipulated, for the benefit of one particular political faction in texas.
...for us to visit our kids in Louisiana without driving through Texas, gussie, but you can rest assured that we won't be coming anywhere near you.
"Impossible"? Do you even own a map? It's mostly *pictures* you know. hint: Texas is *not* an island, no over-water travel required. hint: Only the southern border of Texas abuts a foreign country. No passports, or foreign travel required. IOW... If Texas is *all* that bad, go the fuck around! Moron...
gus.
that entire argument is facetious - the problem is not that we need to 'stay out of texas" - in fact, we have every right to drive through that state, BUT, you seem to be claiming the right to indoctrinate your children, in one political ideology, and that smacks of fascism.
but like i said, i can understsand why you would lie to your children, after allk, they are no more than tools to you, for furthering your own political goals. you obviously do not care nearly as much about your children's their education, as you do their indoctrination.
BUT, you seem to be saying that, in order to avoid the lies you wish to teach your children, i have to avoid driving through texas, and i must stop visiting my friends that live itn texas?
gus, the point is to stop this facetious and biased rewriting of history, not to give you pricks the leeway to freely teach this kind of bullshit to your kids.
the point is, how to stop it, not how to facilitate the lies. i CAN understand why you would wish to teach your kids these lies - it makes your neocon indoctrination of them much easier - but that indoctrination, which is replacing education in texas, is what we are mandated to fight.
No, the point is that you aren't "mandated to fight" diddly shit, except in your own glorified minds. You go to some crackpot "progressive" web site, which may, or may *not* know what the fuck they are talking about, and then mount your white charger, and off you go. The same wankers see "blood in the streets", and off they go to fuck up perfectly good gun laws, and the rights of perfectly law-abiding citizens. See my *first* response, and MYOFB!
it becomes all of our business when education is used as indoctrination in this manner.
LOL!!! It is *my opinion* that the Left has been indoctrinating students at all levels for 40 fucking years! So there you are! You want *proof*? It's all over the place!(see: Ward Churchill) Will you accept that? Hell no! That leaves us at permanent loggerheads then doesn't it? The difference is that *I* don't go charging around fucking with *you*! Imagine that!!!
Because Texas is so *bad* in your opinion, dumbass! What? No guts? No sticking to your own principles? Expose yourselves to the horrors of Texas over a little time and gas? You're a real culture warrior aren't you? *snort!*
When I worked for Sears IT systems, I spent weeeks on end in Texas. Now I just fly over it. Too many inbred morons live there and all they can talk about is football, guns, horses and pussy. Hell they didn't even serve liquor in bars back in the 60s and 70s.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We are all equal, but we definitely are not the same"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, the point is that you aren't "mandated to fight" diddly shit, except in your own glorified minds. You go to some crackpot "progressive" web site, which may, or may *not* know what the fuck they are talking about, and then mount your white charger, and off you go. The same wankers see "blood in the streets", and off they go to fuck up perfectly good gun laws, and the rights of perfectly law-abiding citizens. See my *first* response, and MYOFB!
so you are saying that this story is not true, because it was reported on what you deem a "liberal" website? or are you saying that i, as an american, have nothing to say about what is taught to american kids, in texas?
this story has been reported by many differing sources during the past couple of years, and the effort to rewrite history in texas schoolbooks is well known - if you live in texas you have read of it in your papers already, and have been reading about it for quite a few years - this present effort has hit the news because it appears that, after years of effort, texans are now ready to indeed rewrite history, to suit themsleves. it is no accident that the bushes came from your fucked up state.
it is not just a conservative venue
liberals constantly try to minimize the impact of socialism and communism in history by leaving out its repeated failures
when was the last time a modern history class included the repeated failure of socialistic policies in its high school curriculum?
how about comparative study and analysis of socialism/communism/fascism and free market capitalism as a vehicle for freeing the masses from poverty?
where is that history lesson in your local High school?
what about the easily documentable history of the failures of government to provide what it promises in a cost effective way?efficiency?
where is that in history?
what about the history of the great depression re-written by liberals in the press to show FDR as a hero?...when it is easy to document his extension (yes, his programs lengthened the depression) of the great depression by almost a decade because of big government programs that didn't "create" jobs but burdened the taxpaying public with more expensive and wasteful washington bureaucracy?
history includes things we don't like
but they need to be included
slavery was ugly...but it happened and needs to be documented
its impact on the black community was bad in many ways but its positive impacts must also be documented as well [such as the lifting of black Americans from the crushing poverty and ignorance present in the African continent][what is the standard of living and literacy of the average black American vs the average black African today ] (that's history)
some positive some negative
all needs to be documented
the writer is the one who gets to select the facts to be documented....
when another writer finds flaws in the previous writer's work and documents that...the history becomes clearer.
case in point slavery...."Roots A Novel" By Alex Haley a tale woven from genealogical research and written as fiction...but taken by many as historical fact
vs.
letters written by people of the era to each other and preserved in the library of congress that document a different picture for the majority of "slave owners" as less violent and belligerent to their workers (many of whom were just families that lived on the same plot of land which was farmed (in abject poverty ) by both the black and white families that inhabited that plot (owned by the whites)
true , big plantations existed and many violent tactics were used on slaves...but the majority were not that large and the relationships were not as belligerent as many believe by reading cursory "history" books that leave out important facts that expand and enrich the entire story.
history is a process of errors corrected by others and taught as a story unfolding and changing with the body of evidence that becomes more clear as the research advances.
leaving out important details of a story is unethical (when conservative views are given as well as liberal views)
leaving out the poverty and failures of socialism is as unethical as telling a story of capitalism without the monopolies and their negative effects that prompted the laws to prevent their recurrence.
history is not one story
it is an amalgam of stories (from differing perspectives)that have to be read in entirety with understanding of the culture and era in order to form a more accurate picture of the events
This message has been edited by gillis7 on Aug 21, 2009 3:50 PM
that entire argument is facetious - the problem is not that we need to 'stay out of texas" - in fact, we have every right to drive through that state, BUT, you seem to be claiming the right to indoctrinate your children, in one political ideology, and that smacks of fascism.
I don't give a rat's ass what you think I'm claiming, or what you think it smacks of. Can it be any clearer than that? Again, I've already *solved* your problem. See my first response!
so you are saying that this story is not true, because it was reported on what you deem a "liberal" website? or are you saying that i, as an american, have nothing to say about what is taught to american kids, in texas?
this story has been reported by many differing sources during the past couple of years, and the effort to rewrite history in texas schoolbooks is well known - if you live in texas you have read of it in your papers already, and have been reading about it for quite a few years - this present effort has hit the news because it appears that, after years of effort, texans are now ready to indeed rewrite history, to suit themsleves. it is no accident that the bushes came from your fucked up state.
*************
so you are saying that this story is not true, because it was reported on what you deem a "liberal" website?
***************
so if Rush Limbaugh says something that's true , you acknowledge it as true , even though it came from a source you distrust?
"Poetse talks about the dumbing down of America, perhaps he can look at some Boards of Education as to where it started".........Ron gets it.....is he the only one who gets it?
Go back and read what Ron said and then go back and read what I said. What happens in TX does not stay in TX.
I was going to go on about the how the "dumming down " of curriculum happened in my original post and how it is directly linked to school boards like this one in TX.
Why bother, Poestse isn't even reading what anyone but himself is writing.
gillis, biases will always be there, but what texas is attempting is no less than the total rewriting of american history, eliminating entirely the affects of liberalism, a fundamental foundation of america.
that goes WAY beyond your complaints.
but remember, the biggest problem for texans, is that their children will not be educated under this program, they will be indoctrinated, and the rest of us will know that indoctrination, and we will quite rightly shun texans, as uneducated. that will affect their bottom line.
gillis, biases will always be there, but what texas is attempting is no less than the total rewriting of american history, eliminating entirely the affects of liberalism, a fundamental foundation of america.
that goes WAY beyond your complaints.
but remember, the biggest problem for texans, is that their children will not be educated under this program, they will be indoctrinated, and the rest of us will know that indoctrination, and we will quite rightly shun texans, as uneducated. that will affect their bottom line.
**********************
so when liberals eliminate the negative effects of socialism and liberal policies (of which there are many) from their writings are they as guilty as TEXAS of rewriting history ?
and should the rest of America "rightly shun" them?
This won't even be completed until Spring and it's obviously the first shot in a lengthy negotiation between Left and Right. Here are comments from two Republicans on the Board. Why don't you ever tell the whole story?
...It is hard to believe that a majority of the writing team would approve of such wording, says Republican Terri Leo. It's not even a representative selection of the conservative movement, and it is inappropriate.
"...Another Republican board member, Ken Mercer, says students should be exposed to both sides, and that he would include such liberal groups as the National Education Association, MoveOn.org and Planned Parenthood...."
so you are saying that this story is not true, because it was reported on what you deem a "liberal" website? or are you saying that i, as an american, have nothing to say about what is taught to american kids, in texas?
this story has been reported by many differing sources during the past couple of years, and the effort to rewrite history in texas schoolbooks is well known - if you live in texas you have read of it in your papers already, and have been reading about it for quite a few years - this present effort has hit the news because it appears that, after years of effort, texans are now ready to indeed rewrite history, to suit themsleves. it is no accident that the bushes came from your fucked up state.
Three generations of my family, *all* of them, have been teachers in Texas at one time or another for my *entire* life. And for my *entire* life, textbook committees have done battle with "fundies" over one thing or another. So yes, I would say that 62 represents "quite a few years". Texas, and Texas schoolkids have appeared to have weathered it all with little of consequence, your ignorant opinion of the state notwithstanding.
Then along comes the phrog on a white charger, reads a bat-blog, and suddenly decides it's the hot issue of the day? Pardon my bluntness, but fuck you phrog. I am well aware that in *your* world, the sun rises and sets in the crack of your ass, but golly gee I hate to break the news, hardly anybody else thinks that way. IOW, go pester somebody else. The world is just full of people and issues that don't meet with your self-appointed high expectations.(again: see my *first* response).
Finally, do you want to pin me to a choice? Okay! Which would I prefer? A child who has been wholly indoctrinated into the rigid dogma of the Christian faith? Or a child who thinks it's okay to toss an unwanted baby into the nearest dumpster? Two can play this game, hot-shot. You lead, I'll be happy to follow...
but remember, the biggest problem for texans, is that their children will not be educated under this program, they will be indoctrinated, and the rest of us will know that indoctrination, and we will quite rightly shun texans, as uneducated. that will affect their bottom line.
Which part of my first post went over your head? gheezuz! If you paid half as much attention to *your* "bottom line" as you did everybody else's, you might find a little more to do with yourself than charge around fucking with other people! It's really not that complicated!
wow, isn't that what the conservatives are saying about congress being stuffed with liberals pushing socialism in America?
the effort can go on unhindered.
interesting. are y ou saying that congress is systematically rewriting the textbooks we teach kids from?
your comparisons of what adults do, in congress, to what texans are trying to do to their kids, is not a valid comparison - in one case you have adults talking politics, and in the other case, you have the state writing revisionist history, to teach children..
Does TX self publish its own text books after all this discussion about what should be in them has gone on?
For as long as I can remember, the SBE has contracted the publishing of textbooks out to two or three large in-state publishing houses who more or less specialize in textbooks. That's not to say that they have always strictly limited themselves to that, and I would assume that there have been any number of exceptions. As far as I know, the state itself has never been in the textbook publishing business.
your comparisons of what adults do, in congress, to what texans are trying to do to their kids, is not a valid comparison - in one case you have adults talking politics, and in the other case, you have the state writing revisionist history, to teach children..
********************
Democrats Mislead, Republicans Fail to Lead
Frank Turek
Thursday, August 20, 2009
As more Americans learn that hope and change really means more government and less liberty, support for President Obama is falling dramatically. That should be no surprise. Despite the 2008 election, liberalism is a minority view in the United States. The non-partisan Battleground Poll, taken more than a dozen times since 2002, shows that conservatives consistently outnumber liberals by more than 20 percentage points, most recently 60% to 36%. And Gallup just found that conservatives outnumber liberals in all fifty states (yes, even in Taxachusetts)!
Culture of Corruption by Michelle Malkin FREE
This means that Obama and the liberal wing of the Democrat party are trying to take the country in a direction it does not want to go. Unfortunately, when Republicans are in power, theyre too afraid to take the country in the direction it does want to go. Democrats mislead while Republicans fail to lead.
Todays leading Democrats dont just mislead by going in the wrong direction, they often mislead by failing to tell the truth about that direction (which is the only chance they have of legislating their unpopular and failed ideas). For example:
President Obama says hes not for a single-payer healthcare system, but then video from the presidential campaign and his earlier state senate campaign remind us that he actually is for a single-payer system.
Conflating health care with health insurance, the President says that the millions of uninsured require us to pass health reform NOW! Then we learn that the legislation is not intended to go into effect until 2013. Why all the urgency now if those desperate uninsured must wait for hope and change until after President Obama runs for reelection? Is it because the President knows that most people will hate government healthcare once theyre forced to stand in line for it?
Nancy Pelosi tells us that the mob (formerly called the American people) is misinformed. Despite chapter and verse citations by this misinformed mobwhom unlike their representatives have actually read the healthcare billPelosi and Obama tell us theres nothing in the bill that will encourage rationing or euthanasia. Now, the U.S. Senate tells us that end of life counseling provisions are being removed because they could be misinterpreted or implemented incorrectly (like for rationing and euthanasia?).
The President repeatedly says that you can keep your private insurance and doctor if you want to. But at a recent town hall meeting he couldnt explain to a college student how private insurance companies would not be put out of business by a public option. Moreover, an independent analysis by the Lewin Group shows that in the first year of implementation, more than 88 million Americans would lose their private insurance without their consent due to employers switching to the public option. Again, the Presidents rhetoric is misleading.
The President also has said that he wants to reduce the number of abortions. Then we learn from members of that same misinformed mob that elastic language in the healthcare bill (such as essential benefits) will allow abortion to be paid for with your tax dollars. Democrats deny that the bill covers abortion, but they have defeated every amendment aimed at clarifying that abortion is not an essential benefit. Misleading, eh? Oh, and theres no end of life counseling necessary for such an essential benefit. If someone wants an abortionwhich is anything but healthcare for the mother and especially the babythe taxpayers will be forced to pay for it. So much for the promise to reduce abortions.
In concert with the vast majority of Americans who recognize the importance of natural marriage to civilization, the President says he does not support same-sex marriage. But now we learn that his administration quietly seeks to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act which is the only firewall preventing one state, like Massachusetts, from imposing same-sex marriage on every other state. Why the misleading double-speak, Mr. President? I guess misleading can be a lot easier than telling the truth.
Such examples of misleading are normally all thats necessary to get a complacent public on board, especially when an adoring media ignore or repeat the lies of the administration. Thankfully, the issue of healthcare has shaken a majority of Americans out of their comfort-induced complacency. Thats because most people only pay attention when something becomes personal. And theres nothing more personal than life and death being decided by faceless bureaucrats.
(By the way, if you think socialized medicine is bad in the U.K. and Canada, imagine how much worse it would be without the U.S. capitalist system providing a good deal of innovation. Socialist systems are parasites on our capitalist system. We lead the world in research, drug development, and medical breakthroughs. Who is going to do it if we don't? If we kill the profit motive that has made our system the best in the world, we'll kill the golden goose of innovation that improves healthcare all over the world.)
As much as the current administration has misled, Republicans failed to lead when they had the chance. Many of them ran on smaller government, moral values, and fiscal responsibility. But when they got into power they governed much like Democrats. They said they were going to change Washington, but Washington changed them.
Mark Levin in his great book Liberty and Tyranny puts it well. Calling liberals statists, Levin writes, Republican administrationswith the exception of a brief eight-year respite under Ronald Reaganmore or less remain on the glide path set by Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal. ... Republicans seem clueless on how to slow, contain, and reverse the Statists agenda. They seem to fear returning to first principles, lest they be rejected by the electorate, and so prefer to tinker ineffectively and timidly on the edges. As such, are they not abandoning what they claim to support?
Yes, many Republicans have abandoned what they claim to supportthe very conservative principles that when properly articulated would not only get them elected, but save the country from the harmful statist policies now being imposed. A sizable majority in this nation wants conservative solutions including a tort-reformed free-market healthcare system, fiscal responsibility, restrictions on abortion, and the protection of natural marriage, which is the bedrock of civilization.
But since too many Republicans have failed to lead, the leaders and heroes of the conservative movement are now private citizens. They realize that the stakes are too high to allow the Obama administration to mislead this country into further statism. It remains to be seen if enough Republican politicians will follow their inspiring lead beyond just defense to offense.
Texas education resources are excellent. They have great programs, their TAKS scores are going up, they have great universitites and they have placed scientists, educators, and leaders all over the country. Look at the Texas's hi-tech drive and their success. It's based on education.
Texans have supported education since the first gringos started showing up and they have a long, respectable education history.
That being said, Texas high school drop outs are high. Perhaps the highest in the nation. However, we can chalk that up to uncontrolled borders and transient kids going through the system as a result.
*****
To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay, right or justice.
-- Magna Carta
Does TX self publish its own text books after all this discussion about what should be in them has gone on?
like gus said, three large publishing houses, all in texas, publish the vast majority of books unse in texas schools, , and they publish all of the books used in texas elementary education.
and they write those books directly from outlines generated by this committee we are discussing now. so the system is closed - the books are not even peer-reviewed by independent scholars, for accuracy, like they are in the civilized world..
From you answer I can tell that you do not know one single thing about how text book selection has been done in the state of TX for at least the last twenty years.
comparatively speaking considering that they do NOT write their textbooks from a particular point of view, to indoctrinate their children, YES - orleaneans are much more civilized than most texans in that regard.
Oh, I don't worry about that, there are tons of real "dicks" on this board. You know who you are. Besides, I never talk about penises, I just enjoy them. LOL!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We are all equal, but we definitely are not the same"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From you answer I can tell that you do not know one single thing about how text book selection has been done in the state of TX for at least the last twenty years.
Chortle
Whatever melts your butter is perfectly okay with me.
Because Texas is so *bad* in your opinion, dumbass!
I can hold my nose long enough to get through Texas to Houston...which is only tolerable because some friends of mine live there....friends who were transferred to Texas from Louisiana (as many in the Houston area have been). They live on a nicely hidden back street in one of the suburbs where we can ignore the fact that we are surrounded by moronic native Texans.
Because Texas is so *bad* in your opinion, dumbass!
I can hold my nose long enough to get through Texas to Houston...which is only tolerable because some friends of mine live there....friends who were transferred to Texas from Louisiana (as many in the Houston area have been). They live on a nicely hidden back street in one of the suburbs where we can ignore the fact that we are surrounded by moronic native Texans.
That's called "situational ethics", stupid. You moonbats live by it. Go look it up, tough-guy, *chortle*.
Why bother, Poestse isn't even reading what anyone but himself is writing.
Yes, I do read what others write. I read about the social promotion that everyone denies. I read about the errors in school texbooks, I read about the easy courses that people take for college graduation.
I read about College history that spends two days on World War ll and a monthy on Martin Luther King's Civil Rights marches. I read about Science teachers who give tests that
will not allow your opinion to differ from theirs. IOf you are going to pass the class, you give their answers even if you know more than the teacher.
But no one pays attention to what i write because you claim it is nothing but opinion. And opinion means nothing to liberals unless it is their own.
BTW Sandy, having the teachers select the text books is a greatt idea. However, they went through college and learned what the teacher wanted them to learn. Does not mean they learned the truth, does it?
The country is being dumbed down or we would not give Brazil 10 billion to drill for oil wehile sending the school children home with misinformation of how fossil fuel is destroying the planet.
Think about that and see if the children are learning.
I read about College [sic] history that spends two days on World War ll and a monthy [sic]on Martin Luther King's Civil Rights [sic] marches.
WHERE did you "read" that, potsy. I took college level American History in 1995, and we didn't spend but ONE day on the civil rights marches of MLK. We spent SEVERAL days on WWII, though.
The problem wiht Gus's suggestion of us going around Texas is that what if we have business in Texas. It is kind of hard to do business with someone you are avoiding because of their particular way of teaching their children.
WHERE did you "read" that, potsy. I took college level American History in 1995, and we didn't spend but ONE day on the civil rights marches of MLK. We spent SEVERAL days on WWII, though.
Different teachers have different priorities.
And what do you think Ward Churchill is teaching in his classes?
...my question, potsy. TYPICAL of you....and yet you so "expect" everyone else to answer YOUR questions.
I don't have any idea what Churchill teaches.....or even IF he teaches anymore (he was fired, or is your memory too far gone to even remember that?)....and neither do you.
This message has been edited by pphhrogg on Aug 21, 2009 11:00 PM
PROVE that. You constantly tell us liberals that we "don't provide proof" for what we have to say, and yet here YOU are refusing to offer ANY actual proof.
The 15-member committee, stacked with 10 Republicans, is expected to vote along party lines. Earlier this year, a panel of right-wing experts produced a report urging the committee to remove biographies of George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Stephen F. Austin, César Chávez, and instead add history about the motivational role the Bible and the Christian faith played in the settling of the original colonies.
I have this picture in my mind of this 15 member committee (well... 10 of them) all sitting around with fingers planted firmly in their ears chanting la la la la la la la la every time one of the 5 Democrats attempts to talk about George Washington and I can only imagine the chanting gets very loud when the name of the first black POTUS is mentioned. LA LA LA LA LA LA
The problem wiht Gus's suggestion of us going around Texas is that what if we have business in Texas. It is kind of hard to do business with someone you are avoiding because of their particular way of teaching their children.
You have a simple choice. Quit doing business with them, or accept the way Phrog thinks "they are teaching their children". Or you can ignore Phrog's bullshit, which eliminates your dilemma before you even have one.
"...all sitting around with fingers planted firmly in their ears chanting la la la la la la la la every time one of the 5 Democrats attempts to talk about George Washington..."
You didn't read any of the background on this, did you?
*****
To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay, right or justice.
-- Magna Carta
Considering that the subject is United States History Studies Since Reconstruction, it is understandable that the biographies of Washington, Lincoln and Austin would not be included.
Considering that the subject is United States History Studies Since Reconstruction, it is understandable that the biographies of Washington, Lincoln and Austin would not be included.
******************
What an absolute dumbshit answer. Perhaps Washington, but you think you can write a reasonable history of Reconstruction without referencing Abraham Lincoln or Stephen Austin?
What kind of an asshole do you have to draw that sort of an answer out of?
OMG! I just finished reading some of the comments at the link provided. LOL What a hoot!
I need to post a couple of my favs.
#1.) I pity the fools in Texas. And their childrens, who isn't gonna be learnin much.
#2.) Having attended public schools in Texas from the first through eighth grades, I can tell you that I got the impression that the South lost the Civil War on a technicality. When I took American History in an Indiana public school, I was floored. Most people in the class were quite familiar with a host of battles the South lost miserably; so when I took American History at the University of Texas, I was prepared for it.
Having attended public schools in Texas from the first through eighth grades, I can tell you that I got the impression that the South lost the Civil War on a technicality. When I took American History in an Indiana public school, I was floored. Most people in the class were quite familiar with a host of battles the South lost miserably; so when I took American History at the University of Texas, I was prepared for it.
-----------
That person's reply speaks volumes. And, it causes me to ask, because I do not know: Is similar Civil War history taught in other southern states; i.e., battles lost on "technicalities"?
Indiana public schools begin drilling down on the Civil War in their elementary schools, so I can see how this responder was 'left behind' in his/her history education, having to be shocked and awed in high school history classes in Hoosierland.
Good thing the person was "prepared" for American History at UT after learning in Indiana, but....maybe he/she should have remained in Indiana and attended IU, instead? LOL.
That person's reply speaks volumes. And, it causes me to ask, because I do not know: Is similar Civil War history taught in other southern states; i.e., battles lost on "technicalities"?
I can't speak for actual "southern" states. Texas, for the most part, doesn't really consider itself one, being more of a "western" state. The culture does contain it's share of Confederate sentiment,(see: "War of Nothern Agression") but I've seen no evidence of it's influence on school curriculum. It's mostly light-hearted bar room blather.
This whole issue is pretty dumb, by way of over-exageration, and the crusading busy-body who started this thread in the first place. I was taught from a very early age, that if teachers and textbooks are the sum total of one's "education", then one is indeed doomed to being somewhat of a dullard. Phrog and his moonbats see children in the same way they see adults. Brainless automatons at the mercy of whatever crap evil Fundies, or Limbaughs wish to pour into their skulls. Never considered, of course, is why Phrog and his moonbats consider *themselves* as wholly exempt from such a peril. And what they *won't* admit, is the reason for this. They, after all, consider themselves as enlightened, and wholly superior human beings compared to the rest of us. This allows them to presume the self-appointed mantle of "hall monitor", empowered to then prick around and intrude on the lives of millions of total strangers as a function of their "mandate", awarded to them by no one other than themselves. Such arrogant agression may well have been a kernel in the kettle of the complex stew that birthed the Civil War. God knows it's still irritating enough in it's modern form.
Good thing the person was "prepared" for American History at UT after learning in Indiana, but....maybe he/she should have remained in Indiana and attended IU, instead? LOL.
I concur, IU would have been a much wiser choice. LOL
This message has been edited by cjgrill on Aug 22, 2009 1:27 PM
The same war is known by different names arpounf the countr4y.
1. Civil War
2. The Warof Secession
3. The War of Northern Agression.
4. The War for States Rights
5. The War to preserve the Union.
Obviously with so many names, there are various ways of theaching.
Abraham Lincoln is noted in history as one of the greates presidents, but there is a different opinion among those who thought the war was fou States rights.
Recall when Russia invaded Georgia, they pointerd to Lincon's invasion of the South to preserve the Union;therefore when they invaded Georgia-- the US could not object because the US had invaded Georgia in another century.
Recall when Russia invaded Georgia, they pointerd to Lincon's invasion of the South to preserve the Union;therefore when they invaded Georgia-- the US could not object because the US had invaded Georgia in another century.
WARNING
Before you read poetse stuff alway's move your computer away from the wall so that your head banging doesn't cause damage.
This message has been edited by grand_sandee on Aug 22, 2009 2:38 PM
I've learned that the people you care most about in life are taken from you too soon and
all the less important ones just never go away.
And the real pains in the ass are permanent.
Went over your head, didn't it, Sandy? See if the US can invade the South "To preserve the Union" Russia can invade Georgia to preserve the Sovoiet Union.
And if you are in Georgia, you would expect to have the right to operate as a state. States Rights.
But could it have been a Civil War? Of course not because the South was not trying to overthrow the government in Washington.
Recall when Russia invaded Georgia, they pointerd to Lincon's invasion of the South to preserve the Union;therefore when they invaded Georgia-- the US could not
object because the US had invaded Georgia in another century.
I can understand why you want to beat your head against the wall. It's overload. You cannot comprehend more that one thing at a time. Must be it. But which point of view is correct? don't want to be bothered w3ith having to think, do you?
See if the US can invade the South "To preserve the Union" Russia can invade Georgia to preserve the Sovoiet [sic] Union.
1.) The SOUTH started the Civil War.
Fort Sumter in Charleston, South Carolina, Fort Pickens and Fort Taylor were the remaining Union-held forts in the Confederacy, and Lincoln was determined to hold Fort Sumter. Under orders from Confederate President Jefferson Davis, troops controlled by the Confederate government under P. G. T. Beauregard bombarded the fort with artillery on April 12, forcing the fort's capitulation.Northerners rallied behind Lincoln's call for all of the states to send troops to recapture the forts and to preserve the Union.
"Reminiscences Of The Civil War", (Chapter I)
By John B. Gordon, Maj. Gen. CSA
There is no book in existence, I believe, in which the ordinary reader can find an analysis of the issues between the two sections, which fairly represents both the North and the South. Although it would require volumes to contain the great arguments, I shall attempt here to give a brief summary of the causes of our sectional controversy, and it will be my purpose to state the cases of the two sections so impartially that just-minded people on both sides will admit the statement to be judicially fair.
The causes of the war will be found at the foundation of our political fabric, in our complex organism, in the fundamental law, in the Constitution itself, in the conflicting constructions which it invited, and in the institution of slavery which it recognized and was intended to protect. If asked what was the real issue involved in our unparalleled conflict, the average American citizen will reply, "The negro"; and it is fair to say that had there been no slavery there would have been no war. But there would have been no slavery if the South's protests could have availed when it was first introduced; and now that it is gone, although its sudden and violent abolition entailed upon the South directly and incidentally a series of woes which no pen can describe, yet it is true that in no section would its reestablishment be more strongly and universally resisted. The South steadfastly maintains that responsibility for the presence of this political Pandora's box in this Western world cannot be laid at her door. When the Constitution was adopted and the Union formed, slavery existed in practically all the States; and it is claimed by the Southern people that its disappearance from the Northern and its development in the Southern States is due to climatic conditions and industrial exigencies rather than to the existence or absence of great moral ideas.
Slavery was undoubtedly the immediate fomenting cause of the woeful American conflict. It was the great political factor around which the passions of the sections had long been gathered--the tallest pine in the political forest around whose top the fiercest lightnings were to blaze and whose trunk was destined to be shivered in the earthquake shocks of war. But slavery was far from being the sole cause of the prolonged conflict. Neither its destruction on the one hand, nor its defence on the other, was the energizing force that held the contending armies to four years of bloody work. I apprehend that if all living Union soldiers were summoned to the witness stand, every one of them would testify that it was the preservation of the American Union and not the destruction of Southern slavery that induced him to volunteer at the call of his country. As for the South, it is enough to say that perhaps eighty per cent. of her armies were neither slave-holders, nor had the remotest interest in the institution. No other proof, however, is needed than the undeniable fact that at any period of the war from its beginning to near its close the South could have saved slavery by simply laying down its arms and returning to the Union.
We must, therefore, look beyond the institution of slavery for the fundamental issues which dominated and inspired all classes of the contending sections. It is not difficult to find them. The "Old Man Eloquent," William E. Gladstone, who was perhaps England's foremost statesman of the century, believed that the Government formed by our fathers was the noblest political fabric ever devised by the brain of man. This undoubtedly is true; and yet before these inspired builders were dead, controversy arose as to the nature and powers of their free constitutional government. Indeed, in the very convention that framed the Constitution the clashing theories and bristling arguments of 1787 presaged the glistening bayonets of 1861. In the cabinet of the first President, the contests between Hamilton and Jefferson, representatives of conflicting constitutional constructions, were so persistent and fierce as to disturb the harmony of executive councils and tax the patience of Washington. The disciples of each of these political prophets numbered in their respective ranks the greatest statesmen and purest patriots. The followers of each continuously battled for these conflicting theories with a power and earnestness worthy of the founders of the Republic. Generation after generation, in Congress, on the hustings, and through the press, these irreconcilable doctrines were urged by constitutional expounders, until their arguments became ingrained into the very fibre of the brain and conscience of the sections. The long war of words between the leaders waxed at last into a war of guns between their followers.
During the entire life of the Republic the respective rights and powers of the States and general government had furnished a question for endless controversy. In process of time this controversy assumed a somewhat sectional phase. The dominating thought of the North and of the South may be summarized in a few sentences.
The South maintained with the depth of religious conviction that the Union formed under the Constitution was a Union of consent and not of force; that the original States were not the creatures but the creators of the Union; that these States had gained their independence, their freedom, and their sovereignty from the mother country, and had not surrendered these on entering the Union; that by the express terms of the Constitution all rights and powers not delegated were reserved to the States; and the South challenged the North to find one trace of authority in that Constitution for invading and coercing a sovereign State.
The North, on the other hand, maintained with the utmost confidence in the correctness of her position that the Union formed under the Constitution was intended to be perpetual; that sovereignty was a unit and could not be divided; that whether or not there was any express power granted in the Constitution for invading a State, the right of self-preservation was inherent in all governments; that the life of the Union was essential to the life of liberty; or, in the words of Webster, "liberty and union are one and inseparable."
To the charge of the North that secession was rebellion and treason, the South replied that the epithets of rebel and traitor did not deter her from the assertion of her independence, since these same epithets had been familiar to the ears of Washington and Hancock and Adams and Light Horse Harry Lee. In vindication of her right to secede, she appealed to the essential doctrine, "the right to govern rests on the consent of the governed," and to the right of independent action as among those reserved by the States. The South appealed to the acts and opinions of the Fathers and to the report of the Hartford Convention of New England States asserting the power of each State to decide as to the remedy for infraction of its rights; to the petitions presented and positions assumed by ex-President John Quincy Adams; to the contemporaneous declaration of the 8th of January assemblage in Ohio indicating that 200,000 Democrats in that State alone were ready to stand guard on the banks of the border river and resist invasion of Southern territory; and to the repeated declarations of Horace Greeley and the admission of President Lincoln himself that there was difficulty on the question of force, since ours ought to be a fraternal Government.
In answer to all these points, the North also cited the acts and opinions of the same Fathers, and urged that the purpose of those Fathers was to make a more perfect Union and a stronger government. The North offset the opinions of Greeley and others by the emphatic declaration of Stephen A. Douglas, the foremost of Western Democrats, and by the official opinion as to the power of the Government to collect revenues and enforce laws, given to President Buchanan by Jere Black, the able Democratic Attorney-General.
Thus the opposing arguments drawn from current opinions and from the actions and opinions of the Fathers were piled mountain high on both sides. Thus the mighty athletes of debate wrestled in the political arena, each profoundly convinced of the righteousness of his position; hurling at each other their ponderous arguments, which reverberated like angry thunderbolts through legislative halls, until the whole political atmosphere resounded with the tumult. Long before a single gun was fired public sentiment North and South had been lashed into a foaming sea of passion; and every timber in the framework of the Government was bending and ready to break from "the heaving ground-swell of the tremendous agitation." Gradually and naturally in this furnace of sectional debate, sectional ballots were crystallized into sectional bullets; and both sides came at last to the position formerly held by the great Troup of Georgia: "The argument is exhausted; we stand to our guns."
I submit that this brief and incomplete summary is sufficient to satisfy those who live after us that these great leaders of conflicting thought, and their followers who continued the debate in battle and blood, while in some sense partisans, were in a far juster sense patriots.
The opinions of Lee and Grant, from each of whom I briefly quote, will illustrate in a measure the convictions of their armies. Every Confederate appreciates the magnanimity exhibited by General Grant at Appomattox; and it has been my pleasure for nearly forty years to speak in public and private of his great qualities. In his personal memoirs, General Grant has left on record his estimate of the Southern cause. This estimate represents a strong phase of Northern sentiment, but it is a sentiment which it is extremely difficult for a Southern man to comprehend. In speaking of his feelings as "sad and depressed," as he rode to meet General Lee and receive the surrender of the Southern armies at Appomattox, General Grant says: "I felt like anything rather than rejoicing at the downfall of a foe who had fought so long and valiantly, and who had suffered so much for a cause, though that cause was, I believe, one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse." He adds: "I do not question, however, the sincerity of the great mass of those who were opposed to us."
The words above quoted, showing General Grant's opinion of the Southern cause, are italicized by me and not by him. My object in emphasizing them is to invite special attention to their marked contrast with the opinions of General Robert E. Lee as to that same Southern cause. This peerless Confederate soldier and representative American, than whom no age or country ever produced a loftier spirit or more clear-sighted, conscientious Christian gentleman, in referring, two days before the surrender, to the apparent hopelessness of our cause, used these immortal words: "We had, I was satisfied, sacred principles to maintain and rights to defend for which we were in duty bound to do our best, even if we perished in the endeavor."
There were those, a few years ago, who were especially devoted to the somewhat stereotyped phrase that in our Civil War one side (meaning the North) "was wholly and eternally right," while the other side (meaning the South) "was wholly and eternally wrong." I might cite those on the Southern side of the great controversy, equally sincere and fully as able, who would have been glad to persuade posterity that the North was "wholly and eternally wrong"; that her people waged war upon sister States who sought peacefully to set up a homogeneous government, and meditated no wrong or warfare upon the remaining sister States. These Southern leaders steadfastly maintained that the Southern people, in the exercise of the freedom and sovereign rights purchased by Revolutionary blood, were asserting a second independence according to the teachings and example of their fathers.
But what good is to come to the country from partisan utterances on either side? My own well-considered and long-entertained opinion, my settled and profound conviction, the correctness of which the future will vindicate, is this: that the one thing which is "wholly and eternally wrong" is the effort of so-called statesmen to inject one-sided and jaundiced sentiments into the youth of the country in either section. Such sentiments are neither consistent with the truth of history, nor conducive to the future welfare and unity of the Republic. The assumption on either side of all the righteousness and all the truth would produce a belittling arrogance, and an offensive intolerance of the opposing section; or, if either section could be persuaded that it was "wholly and eternally wrong," it would inevitably destroy the self-respect and manhood of its people. A far broader, more truthful, and statesmanlike view was presented by the Hon. A. E. Stevenson, of Illinois, then Vice-President of the United States, in his opening remarks as presiding officer at the dedication of the National Park at Chickamauga. In perfect accord with the sentiment of the occasion and the spirit which led to the establishment of this park as a bond of national brotherhood, Mr. Stevenson said: "Here, in the dread tribunal of last resort, valor contended against valor. Here brave men struggled and died for the right as God gave them to see the right."
Mr. Stevenson was right -- " wholly and eternally right." Truth, justice, and patriotism unite in proclaiming that both sides fought and suffered for liberty as bequeathed by the Fathers--the one for liberty in the union of the States, the other for liberty in the independence of the States.
While the object of these papers is to record my personal reminiscences and to perpetuate incidents illustrative of the character of the American soldier, whether he fought on the one side or the other, I am also moved to write by what I conceive to be a still higher aim; and that is to point out, if I can, the common ground on which all may stand; where justification of one section does not require or imply condemnation of the other--the broad, high, sunlit middle ground where fact meets fact, argument confronts argument, and truth is balanced against truth.
The South maintained with the depth of religious conviction that the Union formed under the Constitution was a Union of consent and not of force; that the original States were not the creatures but the creators of the Union; that these States had gained their independence, their freedom, and their sovereignty from the mother country, and had not surrendered these on entering the Union; that by the express terms of the Constitution all rights and powers not delegated were reserved to the States; and the South challenged the North to find one trace of authority in that Constitution for invading and coercing a sovereign State.
The North, on the other hand, maintained with the utmost confidence in the correctness of her position that the Union formed under the Constitution was intended to be perpetual; that sovereignty was a unit and could not be divided; that whether or not there was any express power granted in the Constitution for invading a State, the right of self-preservation was inherent in all governments; that the life of the Union was essential to the life of liberty; or, in the words of Webster, "liberty and union are one and inseparable."
To the charge of the North that secession was rebellion and treason, the South replied that the epithets of rebel and traitor did not deter her from the assertion of her independence, since these same epithets had been familiar to the ears of Washington and Hancock and Adams and Light Horse Harry Lee. In vindication of her right to secede, she appealed to the essential doctrine, "the right to govern rests on the consent of the governed," and to the right of independent action as among those reserved by the States. The South appealed to the acts and opinions of the Fathers and to the report of the Hartford Convention of New England States asserting the power of each State to decide as to the remedy for infraction of its rights; to the petitions presented and positions assumed by ex-President John Quincy Adams; to the contemporaneous declaration of the 8th of January assemblage in Ohio indicating that 200,000 Democrats in that State alone were ready to stand guard on the banks of the border river and resist invasion of Southern territory; and to the repeated declarations of Horace Greeley and the admission of President Lincoln himself that there was difficulty on the question of force, since ours ought to be a fraternal Government.
Long before a single gun was fired public sentiment North and South had been lashed into a foaming sea of passion; and every timber in the framework of the Government was bending and ready to break from "the heaving ground-swell of the tremendous agitation." Gradually and naturally in this furnace of sectional debate, sectional ballots were crystallized into sectional bullets; and both sides came at last to the position formerly held by the great Troup of Georgia: "The argument is exhausted; we stand to our guns."
It should be obvious to the most casual observer that the
Civil War-or whatever you choose to call it--proves that historians are people with prejudices who seek to make sense of their modern-day lives by looking at their past.
"We are the new generation and don't have anything to do with the past. Our constitution is for today and the world of the founders was different from our world."
But freedom has always been defined as the individual's freedom. It all depends how =how much or how little you want him/her to have.
there are manly people living in texas that would prefer their own fantasies in the history books, instead of the truth. and for them, these fantasies seem beneficial. to me, these efforts are fascist.
Well for YOUR sake Bul....thank God you don't have to live there...
~~life isn't about how to survive the storm but how to dance in the rain~~
![[linked image]](http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a313/Mawahka/00024468.gif)
