| c03n3nj0 said: Well that absolutely retarded. Alt hough I disagree with almost everything they're doing, the Jefferson thing is something that you can't let go no matter how you're looking at it from. Even if history is someone's point of view, how can you completely ignore one of the most important founding fathers? That's so Texas. ^_^ |
We already ignore a number of important founding fathers...
Khuutra said:
So are you just trying to downplay the evils of revisionist history by pointing out that it's been done before (though serious historians do their best to revise historical accounts rather than events or personages themselves) or are you going so far as to suggest that revisionist history is the natural and proper course? Or, God help me, are you suggesting that we had a better and more complete rendition of history decades/centuries ago than we do now? |
He does have a point. History that's being revised in the history books, is already revised history.
Basically half truths are being replaced by half truths.
| famousringo said: Shocking that the policies of one state could effectively become the policy of the whole nation. So what happens if, say, New York or California decides push their own competing revisionist textbook standards? Seems to me that this could drive the red state/blue state wedge even deeper. |
What would happen would be, history books would get bigger and generally tell 2 or 3 sides to every story instead of 1.
The results would only be positive.
This calls for a revision of the Texas episode of Family Guy methinks.
Oh and Public school rules! Private school is an abomination.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1gWECYYOSo
Please Watch/Share this video so it gets shown in Hollywood.
Honestly, the majority of history I learned in my schools were copied from handouts... from actual source history. Any teacher who's actually using textbooks anyway is probably a poor teacher.
That's true with ANY textbook... well outside of Math.
Textbooks are inherently inaccurate and a good 70% of what's in them aren't a good basis of learning.
| famousringo said: Shocking that the policies of one state could effectively become the policy of the whole nation. So what happens if, say, New York or California decides push their own competing revisionist textbook standards? Seems to me that this could drive the red state/blue state wedge even deeper. |
Texas is one of the only states that tell the school systems whats books they will use. So say, in Cali, 10 school systems could use 10 different history books. In Texas, they all will use one.
This means if you want to sell books in Texas (where the money is), you need to make a great history book (even if the content is slanted). When a major publishing house makes a top rate book, other states will be forced to buy that boo. Because while it has a few things in it that's less then perfect, it's still the best one around.
| Kasz216 said: It's not like Texas is the most conservative state.
If you want to see somehting that scares the crap out of republicans... it's the states based on politcal party affiliation.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/114016/state-states-political-party-affiliation.aspx
Republicans live and die off of independents. |
....Louisiana leans Democrat?
All right
That's bullshit
TheRealMafoo said:
Texas is one of the only states that tell the school systems whats books they will use. So say, in Cali, 10 school systems could use 10 different history books. In Texas, they all will use one. This means if you want to sell books in Texas (where the money is), you need to make a great history book (even if the content is slanted). When a major publishing house makes a top rate book, other states will be forced to buy that boo. Because while it has a few things in it that's less then perfect, it's still the best one around. |
Hm, so Texas has effectively seized influence over textbook content which no other large state has bothered to exercise. And that might change if some other large state gets irate that Jefferson has been sidelined... or it might not.
It's funny how these things come about.
@ Kasz216
I applaud your optimism, but since many of the standards being presented in Texas are negative rather than positive, isn't presenting both sides impossible? I mean, it specifically calls for removing Nader and Perot, so they can't just talk more about the main parties, they have to slice out third party cadidates to satisfy Texas.
"The worst part about these reviews is they are [subjective]--and their scores often depend on how drunk you got the media at a Street Fighter event." — Mona Hamilton, Capcom Senior VP of Marketing
*Image indefinitely borrowed from BrainBoxLtd without his consent.
Khuutra said:
....Louisiana leans Democrat? All right That's bullshit |
You are calling billshit on gallup?
Oh, and while unrelated, here is a cool fun fact:
Durring the Bush/Kerry election, if all the Republicans who voted, had voted for Bush, and all the Democrats who voted, had voted for Kerry, Kerry would have won.
Let that sink in for a minute. Yes. Democrats put Bush in office the second time, because of the shear number of democrats that voted for the republican candidate.
Khuutra said:
....Louisiana leans Democrat? All right That's bullshit |
Louisana has around 75,000 registered republicans and 150,000 registered democrats. There are twice as many democrats as there are republicans in Lousiana.
The only reason democrats lose elections is they do a VERY poor job at playing to their base and usually go wide left.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
