By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - So the Texas Board of Education may rewrite history textbooks... everywhere

Kasz216 on 17 March 2010
Spankey said:
Kasz216 said:
Spankey said:
@Khuutra
Sad as it is, Khuutra, History always has and always will change with the times.

Also, try understand that the history you KNOW and LEARNT - Thomas Jefferson's influence etc. - could also have been manipulated from the true state of affairs to suit the times and conditions when you learned it. I hate the fact that it happens, but there's not much to do about it.

I understand where you come from though, after all I was a history scholar in South Africa before and after the fall of the apartheid atrocities. I'm sure you can imagine the changes to history then!

Revisionist history is bullshit.

(hmm...perhaps Penn and Teller could do a show on it!)

Wasn't the revisonist history after the fall of the apartheid a good thing?

As a history scholar you should know that history is always changing... in actual reality, not just in the minds of men.

of course it was!

History is dynamic

the fact is, history tought in schools changed. The "true" state of affairs is decided by those that write the history books.

what actually happened, or the real influence of a noteworthy individual might never be known outside a very select few or those astute enough to be able to untangle it through serious research of the available historigraphy.

 


My point though, not all revisionist history is bad... a lot of it ends up fixing other parts of revision. A lot of it as you know isn't even political, it's just the people who make textbooks are lazy. I mean hell, plenty of textbooks still teach people though Christopher Columbus was going to fall off the edge of the planet.

Around the Network
Spankey on 17 March 2010
Kasz216 said:
Spankey said:
 

of course it was!

History is dynamic

the fact is, history tought in schools changed. The "true" state of affairs is decided by those that write the history books.

what actually happened, or the real influence of a noteworthy individual might never be known outside a very select few or those astute enough to be able to untangle it through serious research of the available historigraphy.

 

My point though, not all revisionist history is bad... a lot of it ends up fixing other parts of revision. A lot of it as you know isn't even political, it's just the people who make textbooks are lazy. I mean hell, plenty of textbooks still teach people though Christopher Columbus was going to fall off the edge of the planet.

fo sho!

however, I'm not entirely convinced that the textbook writers can always rely on the lazy excuse; as we can see from the OP, the bias slant and the content changes within the textbooks are often dictated to the writers to satisfy the agenda of those who commission the textbooks to be (re)written.

semi off-topic, your mentioning of that Columbus-falling-off-the-edge-of-the-world business reminds me of an old biology textbook I found where it shows (even a scetch!) of a mosquito sucking the blood out of it's victim with it's butt. I shit ye not. sometimes people get things wrong, but sometimes the reason behind the changes to the textbooks have another reason entirely; being it to reflect the new ideals of the regime change (even rep. to democrat I suppose) or whatever.



Proud Sony Rear Admiral

wholikeswood on 17 March 2010

This, combined with whichever state it was that was trying to teach that evolution is only a possible theory and that creationism is a legitimate alternative...

Well, I'm just glad I live in the UK.



Kasz216 on 17 March 2010

True, though often times politics can be good reason for change. For example they want more covereage on the conservative movement of the 80's and 90's. Considering the Bush Presidency and rise of Neo conservatism since 9/11 it makes total sense.

Most of the changes listed actually make sense compaired to recent societal changes since you can't focus on everything in history. It's really just a matter of what the changes fully entail.

Even the Thomas Jefferson one appears to be not that he wasn't an important founding father... but that his writing may not have effected america as much as those others mentioned. Of which i can't really speak, American history ironically is my second weakest region. Behind africa actually.



TheRealMafoo on 17 March 2010
Kasz216 said:
True, though often times politics can be good reason for change. For example they want more covereage on the conservative movement of the 80's and 90's. Considering the Bush Presidency and rise of Neo conservatism since 9/11 it makes total sense.

To that point, if in 100 years, the most stable part of the world becomes the middle east, and everyone can point back to the war Bush created in Iraq as the starting point, what our history books say about Bush is far different then a history book written in 5 years.

So while the actions of people never change, there importants always does.

(btw, I don't think that's going to happen, I just used it as an example)



Around the Network
Samus Aran on 17 March 2010


I study history and not a single book I have to learn is written by Americans.

They tend to avoid those books here because they suck most of the times.

 



Kasz216 on 17 March 2010
Samus Aran said:


I study history and not a single book I have to learn is written by Americans.

They tend to avoid those books here because they suck most of the times.

 


well that's just silly. The US is generally known to have some of the worlds best historians. As for textbooks, i'd think countries would think most would use their own textbooks. All textbooks pretty much suck no matter what country your in. Hence why the good teachers don't even use them and teach off the source matieral.

Garnett on 17 March 2010
Esmoreit said:
Next up: Americans beat up Nazi-Germany single-handedly.

You must not of played Call of duty?

A squad of 4 American guys make an entire Panzer division withdraw (and none of the 4 americans die either)

 

OT- Why rewrite history? Ugh.... I dont know what to say.



*Remember when the world was supposed to end on May 21st, 2011? Well click here to see our short parody video of it [not]ending*

PhoenixKing on 17 March 2010

It would actually be surprising if they pulled it off considering how much media coverage this seems to be getting... at least online. Eh... >_>;



Samus Aran on 17 March 2010
Kasz216 said:
Samus Aran said:


I study history and not a single book I have to learn is written by Americans.

They tend to avoid those books here because they suck most of the times.

 

well that's just silly. The US is generally known to have some of the worlds best historians. As for textbooks, i'd think countries would think most would use their own textbooks. All textbooks pretty much suck no matter what country your in. Hence why the good teachers don't even use them and teach off the source matieral.

That's the reason. US thinks they're best in everything.  Most of my professors write their own books that we have to learn, so it's not really silly.

It's impossible to teach off the source material if you study history unless you speak a lot of languages. They do teach us about historians all around the world though, and a lot of them are Americans.

 

I do have one book written by an American though, it's called "A history of the modern world" by R.R Palmer.