Textbooks Presenting Altered State Of History?

[Winchester]

Textbooks are rarely impressive, anyway.

I hate articles that lead me by the hand to the author's preconceived notions. That one reads like a politician's appeal for money.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' date='01 July 2010 - 12:34 PM' timestamp='1278002046' post='2136605']
i thought this thread was gonna be about the recent texas rewrites of amnerican history in the school curriculum, which are imo a good bit more blatant.
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/05/21/texas-cooks-the-textbooks.html
[/quote]
I actually agree with most of the changes in the Texas textbooks, which I certainly believe are an improvement over the pc drivel which has been passed as "history" by public school textbooks over the past several decades.
The Left is panicking over a threat to their long-standing monopoly on educational indoctrination.

That Newsweek op-ed piece is itself hardly an example of unbiased writing. It's long on vitriol and mockery, and short on substance.


As my (Catholic) college history professor said, it's impossible to write history without some kind of bias. For it to be meaningful, history must have some point-of-view, otherwise its just a random list of events. The issue is whether the history is honest and accurate.

I'd recommend Thomas Woods' [url="http://www.amazon.com/Questions-About-American-History-Supposed/dp/0307346692/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1278003507&sr=1-1"][i]33 Questions about American History You're Not Supposed to Ask[/i][/url] and [url="http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Guide-American-History/dp/0895260476/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1278003340&sr=1-3"][i]The Politically-Incorrect Guide to American History[/i][/url] to counter some common myths.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Socrates' date='01 July 2010 - 12:06 PM' timestamp='1278000395' post='2136591']
Wow, Lil' Red gets "-2" just for posting this article.

Evidently, the Phatmass PC Police are on the prowl . . .
[/quote]


Who says it's about Political Correctness? I'd have given it a negative one also, were I allowed to vote.


I would do so because the article is a shallow partisan shot and not a serious discription of actual bias in a textbook. You are not alone in claiming that people contesting this article are doing so for the sake of political correctness or some latent love of Marxism, yet neither you nor any of those who join you in these accusiations has been willing to defend the articles actual historical claims.

I am perfectly willing to engage in a discussion of pure history regarding what brought about the fall of the USSR or the end of the Cold War, again, two distinct events, yet nobody championing the article's cause seems similarly willing. I wonder why that is.

[Winchester]

Voting is entertainment.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Winchester' date='01 July 2010 - 01:17 PM' timestamp='1278004633' post='2136627']
Voting is entertainment.
[/quote]


Liar.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Winchester' date='01 July 2010 - 12:44 PM' timestamp='1278002654' post='2136612']
Textbooks are rarely impressive, anyway.

I hate articles that lead me by the hand to the author's preconceived notions. That one reads like a politician's appeal for money.
[/quote]
Which article?

[Winchester]

The one above my post.

[Socrates]

Someone's been on the warpath with the "-1"s on here . . .


Russian spies on Phatmass?

[MIKolbe]

I think Serbians....

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' date='01 July 2010 - 09:34 AM' timestamp='1278002046' post='2136605']
i thought this thread was gonna be about the recent texas rewrites of amnerican history in the school curriculum, which are imo a good bit more blatant.
[url="http://www.newsweek.com/2010/05/21/texas-cooks-the-textbooks.html"]http://www.newsweek....-textbooks.html[/url]
[/quote]

i am actually quite surprised that this post of mine got a negative.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/17/AR2010031700560.html explains the issues with it a little more clearly. i am pretty sure that this is a larger rewrite than the one referenced in the original post, but golly gee its being done up more conservative, what a surprise that noone here cares.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' date='02 July 2010 - 02:50 PM' timestamp='1278100256' post='2137013']
i am actually quite surprised that this post of mine got a negative.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/17/AR2010031700560.html explains the issues with it a little more clearly. i am pretty sure that this is a larger rewrite than the one referenced in the original post, but golly gee its being done up more conservative, what a surprise that noone here cares.
[/quote]

[img]http://cdn.nahright.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/umad.jpg[/img]

[Socrates]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' date='02 July 2010 - 03:50 PM' timestamp='1278100256' post='2137013']
i am actually quite surprised that this post of mine got a negative.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/17/AR2010031700560.html explains the issues with it a little more clearly. i am pretty sure that this is a larger rewrite than the one referenced in the original post, but golly gee its being done up more conservative, what a surprise that noone here cares.
[/quote]
What's wrong with conservative?

The people attacking the textbook revisions seem more driven by ideology than those proposing the changes. Public school textbooks in the past have often been rather heavily skewed to the left, and most of the changes just balance some of the initial bias.

I have yet to see anything directly quoted from the proposed textbooks that is factually inaccurate or otherwise problematic. The [i]Washington Post[/i] article contained almost no direct quotes from the text, but just people complaining about it. I really didn't see what the big deal was with the quotes in the [i]Newsweek[/i] rant. The author had to rail on extensively to "explain" to the reader how awful they were.

In any case, the whole think looks to me like much ado about nothing.


No, I didn't give you the "-1," even though I thought the linked article was stupid. Someone's just getting ridiculous in here.

Edited July 2, 2010 by Socrates

[Archaeology cat]

Too bad they can't just use primary source sourcebooks for textbooks. Of course, interpretation would still happen. Everyone has biases, especially when it comes to history.