| Khuutra said: I'm not citing source on this, you can get the whole sordid thing by googling "Thomas Jefferson Texas" and hoo boy will you get some fun out of that. Now before I begin, I owuld like to say this: folks who ain't from the US, you cannot posisbly understand the enormity of the proposed changes to the history curricula which would be effected by these decisions. You can talk about how it seems silly, but your perspective in this sense is lacking. I can't begin to make you understand through use of witticism or simile. Proposed changes include but are nont limited to: - A greater emphasis on “the conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s.” Now I ain't mad. I'm going to try to put this into perspective for you, though. Even if you ignore everything else on this list - a couple of which make the bile rise in my throat, threatening to spill out and melt the teeth in my head in a torrent of rage and hatred - they're talking about THOMAS JEFFERSON, who as some of you may remember is pretty much the single most important writer in American history, if not its most important thinker. You know who they're suggesting as someone more important to the formation of the United States as we understand it? Thomas Aquinas! That I don't I'm foaming at the mouth God someone help me Okay, listen. I'm fine with holding that some people pre-1700's are important dudes in the formation of the United States, and I'm also fine with thinking that Jefferson's expressed Deism's runs counter to one's own idea of the Christian founddation of the United States. Fine. Whatever. That neither explains nor justifies revisionist history which pretends that one of the most important thinkers in the history of the continent didn't have the kind of influence that he did! "Oh Khuutra, you are overreacting. Can't you make a mean-spirited Texas joke and move on, like all the other liberals?" NO. First off, it's not that easy to pigeonhole people and calling me a "liberal" is needlessly reductive, you self-absorbed imaginary malcontent! Secondly, this isn't just about Texas. Any given textbook to be distributed in Texas has to go in front of that board of education for approval! These standards are set about once a decade, and publishers serving Texas have to meet them. Why does that matter? Texas's import in the scope of the nation's textbooks is enormous. It may end up setting trends throughout the entire country. Up to 80% of the country's school districts may end up with these same textbooks! Actually, I lied. Here are some links. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1253 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/texas-removes-thomas-jefferson-from-teaching-standard/19397481 Here, find more for yourself! I have to make this topic. It merits discussion and is highly relevant to anyone from the United States. I'm also tempted to flee this topic, but dammit Wouldn't be right |
Let me go through this topic by topic.
1) A greater emphasis on “the conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s.”
This is actually probably a good thing. Politically speaking it pretty much was the biggest change in the last 30 years. It all depends how it's covered, it's really very interesting to see how NeoConservationism was born... believe it or not... People like Reagan and Bush up until the 80's and 90's were DEMOCRATS.
2) A reduced scope for Latino history and culture.
It depends what there are gains in. American schools do tend to spend more time on Latino history and culture then corresponding Chinese and African culture. We could stand to do with less south American and possibly European history for more "other" history
3) Changes in specific terminology. (capitalism to free market, imperialism to expansionism, etc.)
Depends on the rest of the terms. Those... actually seem like improvements, since capitlism itself is a bit of a misnomer.
4) A more positive portrayal of Cold War anticommunism.
It depends how "postive" current history books do seem a bit negative where it seems like the cold war was waged for absolutely no reason... when back then everybody across the country was practicing bomb drills... and everyone thought they were one step away from total destruction. How it's taught now doesn't really convey that.
5) Language that qualifies the legacy of 1960s liberalism.
Qualfiers are always good. Though what they really should be focusing on, was that this was the start of the neoconservative wave that hit and the 80's and 90's... since this is when some of the first neoconservative democrats left for the republicans... few people realize this, but we're really voting for the two different democratic parties of the 1960's-1970's.
6) Thomas Jefferson no longer included among writers influencing the nation’s intellectual origins.
Stupid, and I don't see how it could be because he was a deist. George Washington and Ben Frankling were also Deists. Besides, dieists in general just mostly assumed it was still the christian god, just they thought a lot of the scriptures about him were distorted or made up. You may as well could call them all Christian deists.
7) Excision of recent third-party presidential candidates Ralph Nader (from the left) and Ross Perot (from the centrist Reform Party)
Almost as stupid as Jefferson... I'm guessing third party voting must be up.
8) A recommendation to include country and western music among the nation’s important cultural movements. (The popular black genre of hip-hop is being dropped from the same list.)
Eh, honestly, i'm not a big fan of teaching music as important cultural movements in general. Now their part in important cultural movements... that's something to talk about. Like Rap during various movements to recreate a black culture... and countries recent influence after 9/11.
