Originally Posted By Mr X ***I guess I am not understanding what you mean by original materials. What original materials do you have in mind for various topics?*** Letters, speeches, books (video for more recent events), written by the participants themselves.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Still disagree with me K2M?<< I'm just discussing at this point, trying to understand your point a little better. Of course, I am not arguing that textbooks can't be slanted. Or even that textbooks aren't crazily expensive and couldn't be replaced by some other types of media. But it still comes back around to what sorts of things should be included in history curriculum. (Secondary sources like news articles from the day can be quite slanted indeed. Fox News wasn't the first news organization with an agenda.)
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Letters, speeches, books (video for more recent events), written by the participants themselves.<< Hmmmmm.... Sarah Palin's account of campaign 2008: Original source?
Originally Posted By Mr X Sure it is. She was one of the participants, after all. I'm not talking about her memoirs though, at least not entirely. But speeches? Absolutely. Interviews? Sure. ***Secondary sources like news articles from the day can be quite slanted indeed*** Sure, but at least they aren't slanted towards the agenda OF THE DAY (which is what this whole Texas issue comes down to). I think those are fine as supplementary sources. They offer perspective (for example, what's wrong with reading some news articles about the war effort from the CONFEDERATE side? history can plainly put propaganda in its' place, after all).
Originally Posted By Labuda What interviews did Palin do other than the famous Katie Couric one where we found out that she doesn't read anything?
Originally Posted By Princessjenn5795 "There could be approved online lessons the teachers teach from." Only if every school had computers for every child to use both at school and at home. While this would probably be fine for college students it is not really practical for k-12 public school students. The problem with solely using speeches and letters is that there are so many of them and that not all of them will give a complete overview of a situation. I do agree that they should be a large part of teaching history but textbooks give an overview that includes dates and all of the events. Plus, you have the problem of deciding which letters and speeches and documents to use. There are a lot of them. How do you put together a sample of all of them that will give a complete view of what happened. And once you get back before the 18th century there would be a fairly large gap in available materials. So while you may be teach American history in that matter, even though it would be difficult, World history would be almost impossible. Also, textbooks are grade appropriate. For example, my son is in first grade and started learning about the revolutionary war (on a fairly simplistic level). While it might seem better for kids to learn about the founding of the country through historical documents and speeches, you cannot reasonably expect first graders to read the emancipation proclamation or the declaration of independence.
Originally Posted By Princessjenn5795 "What interviews did Palin do other than the famous Katie Couric one where we found out that she doesn't read anything?" Well, there are the hard hitting, illuminating FOX interviews with Hannity and friends.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Also, textbooks are grade appropriate. For example, my son is in first grade and started learning about the revolutionary war (on a fairly simplistic level). While it might seem better for kids to learn about the founding of the country through historical documents and speeches, you cannot reasonably expect first graders to read the emancipation proclamation or the declaration of independence.<< Excellent point. I think Mr. X's goal here is that history be as complete and unbiased as possible. But I don't think there's a way to cover the subject that is completely bias-free. There are some things that drive me crazy. The current trend is to call the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor a "surprise attack" rather than a "sneak attack." A surprise attack sounds like they showed up with party hats and horns and startled us. A sneak attack does cast judgement on it -- and for a "day which will live in infamy" I think passing judgement on it is okay. History is messy, often subjective, often contentious, seldom are there clear "good guys" and "bad guys". And that's what makes it so interesting and challenging.
Originally Posted By mele It's kind of sad that *history* books can become outdated. I mean, obviously NEW history is being made everyday but shouldn't most history stay the same, year after year?
Originally Posted By Labuda One would think, mele... but then Republitards take over the Texas State BoE and we get the current mess of revisionist history.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros Because nothing that the Demotards put into the California history standards is revisionist. Same problem, different ends of the spectrum.
Originally Posted By Mr X I'd be interested in seeing specifics Ferret. You seem pretty confident there are some. As for Texas, we've seen in clear detail exactly what they're trying to revise. I'd be interested in seeing the opposite end of the spectrum (they don't always balance out, ya know).
Originally Posted By Labuda This is KILLING me that I can't find the link I had a few months back that showed, in detail, what the changes were. This is killing me, as I SO very much want to post it! ARGH!
Originally Posted By Mr X Some highlights... *Sideline Thomas Jefferson *Drop study of Sir Isaac Newton in favor of examining scientific advances through military technology *McCarthyism may have been justified *Slave Trade changed to "Atlantic triangular trade" *Israel-Palestine conflict "driven by Islamic fundamentalism" *economic prosperity requires "minimal government intrusion and taxation" *civil rights movement created "unrealistic expectations of equal outcomes" among minorities <a href="http://www.opposingviews.com/i/texas-school-board-trampling-rights-of-students" target="_blank">http://www.opposingviews.com/i...students</a> So these changes are pretty clear, and certainly their intent jives with the right wing/fundamentalist world outlook quite nicely. Ferret, again I would be very interested to see some of the sorts of distortions the left wing states offer up (I'm certainly not claiming there aren't any, I'd just like to read them...just for the sake of comparison if nothing else).
Originally Posted By Dabob2 *Slave Trade changed to "Atlantic triangular trade" That one actually sounds like something you'd see in the Onion, as. a parody of revisionist history in textbooks. But no, it's real.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 <<*Slave Trade changed to "Atlantic triangular trade" *civil rights movement created "unrealistic expectations of equal outcomes" among minorities>> How could anyone not see these two things as obvious attempts to bolster racism? "Unrealistic expectations of equality" - REALLY? What the hell does that even mean? Am I now to understand that "All men AREN'T created equal"? How do these people get away with this crap? Are the majority of the citizens of Texas really that ignorant?
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>*Slave Trade changed to "Atlantic triangular trade"<< It's been taught this way for years. It gives them an opportunity to explain the economics behind why we thought slavery was a good idea. We took people from Africa. We then sold goods to Europe. Europe paid for the goods in weapons, which were then given to tribal leaders in Africa, who collected more people to get sent to the Americas. Yah, it's a goofy sounding name, but it actually give a much more complex picture of what was actually going on at the time. The US on its own had no need for slaves. We could have survived just fine without the 'free' labor from slaves. It's only when an international economic factor is taken into account that slavery becomes a more viable economic solution. Part of the problem that comes from a lot of US history classes is that it only teaches US history that directly relates to the US. By showing the triangular trade, it shows what some of our foreign relations were like at the time. We were a valuable colony to England because we could create goods that they wanted at a lower price. We used people from Africa because they were available to be taken, like it or not. A lot of that availability came from a minority of tribes that had superior weapons, which were given to them by the Europeans round up more people. >>*economic prosperity requires "minimal government intrusion and taxation"<< Isn't that what Adam Smith proposed in The Theory of Moral Sentiments with the invisible hand concept in 1759? Wasn't that one of the driving ideas behind the American Revolution and the economic setup that we founded the country on? I know that things are different today, but it's still an important concept to teach. I'm a little busy right now, but I'll see if I can find some of the California standards and have them up tonight.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***It gives them an opportunity to explain the economics behind why we thought slavery was a good idea. We took people from Africa. We then sold goods to Europe. Europe paid for the goods in weapons, which were then given to tribal leaders in Africa, who collected more people to get sent to the Americas. Yah, it's a goofy sounding name, but it actually give a much more complex picture of what was actually going on at the time. The US on its own had no need for slaves. We could have survived just fine without the 'free' labor from slaves. It's only when an international economic factor is taken into account that slavery becomes a more viable economic solution*** How does any of this change if you call a spade a spade and refer to it like it was, a slave trading operation? Just softening up the title has nothing to do with how in depth the subject is taught, right? I don't buy it. I agree with plpeters. Particularly as this goes hand in hand with that other outright slam on the civil rights movement. ***it's still an important concept to teach*** Arguable. And certainly not by itself. Don't forget, some of America's greatest prosperity came on the heels of the FDR new deal, which enlarged government AND raised taxes and was enormously successful. Claiming something as simplistic as "economic prosperity requires minimal government intrusion and taxation" is not teaching, it's simply sputtering a right wing talking point.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros Since it's past the end of the semester, it looks like the class webpage has expired, so I can't find direct quotes from the California standards. From what I remember, there were several times that talked about asking students what it would feel like to be a certain person (colonial woman, British soldier, slave on ship, etc). While this is a way of teaching that I'm sure many teachers would use on their own, the inclusion in the standards made it very touchy-feely. I know that one of the main complaints about history is that it's cold and unrelateable to kids, but it just seemed a little over the top. Another thing that seemed like it could cause problems with accurately representing history is that it should be presented in a way so that none of the students feel ashamed of their past. Yah, I guess I want kids to feel good about themselves, but how to you talk about slavery, without talking about the hardships that they were put through by their owners? How to do you teach wars without showing that something was so bad that it justified killing thousands of people? How can you talk about the immigrants in the late 1800's from China and eastern Europe, without including the pro-nationalist sentiments that barred them from many facets of everyday life? US history is a bloody, violent, and scandalous mess. In an average classroom, you will probably have a student who has common ancestors with just about all of the major figues in US history. No, we should leave out the push for women's sufferage. But without including the inequalities before that time, the expansion of their rights is totally meaningless. By making sure little Billy and Suzy feel good about themselves during history class, they lose out on a greater understanding of how our country came to be. The California standards seem to focus too much on the events that happened, without really discussing the changes that occurred, because they might offend somebody. History is a very complicated thing. Talk to different historians, and you'll get a different explination of what happened in the past. By including as many different perspectives and events as possible, it will give a fairly neutral overall viewpoint on what happened. Some things are certain, slavery and World War II happened. Individual details within that may be up for grabs. While some individuals, books, and states lean in certain directions, by mixing all the ideas together, we can get a pretty accurate view on what actually happened. There are things in the Texas standards that I don't agree with how they're being presented. There are also problems with the California standards that need to be changed. However, without the extremes, it's next to impossible to come up with a factual middle ground.
