Texas OK's Textbook Changes - What do you think?

[kellycbr]

Here's a link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37271857/ns/us_news-life/?GT1=43001

 

What do you think about this?:bigear:

 

Kelly

[TravelingChris]

Totally fine with it and it doesn't concern me at all since a) my kids are homeschooled b) we don't live in TX.

[Daisy]

we don't live in TX.

 

Though to be honest, TX and CA are the largest buyers of textbooks so most states buy textbooks that have been written & published for those states. Seems fair. The rest of the states can choose from liberal CA or conservative TX. LOL. (I'm joking people so don't get your knickers all in a wad).

 

My only thoughts are this...

 

This debate (what will and will not be included in textbooks and how do we decide what slant to teach) is one of the major reasons we chose to home educate. I'm not limited by what can fit in a 500 page textbook and I'm so thankful for that freedom.

Edited May 22, 2010 by Daisy

[Catherine]

Thank goodness they're encouraging students to rethink that crazy idea of the separation of church and state! And Thomas Jefferson-who needs him! It's about time we found a replacement for this tired excuse for a founding father.

[StartingOver]

I live in Texas. But it doesn't matter to me at all, I don't use their textbooks. LOL

[Guest Dulcimeramy]

I despise textbooks with a blatant liberal bias. Intellectual honesty compels me to despise this very odd bias, as well. Sane middle ground, anyone? Why not?

 

I think that the best possible outcome from this would be for the nation to wake up about the political agendas driving public education and about the absolute rubbish that passes for curriculum. Textbooks are not the best way for children to learn. They need primary source material, biographies, and living books.

 

It does matter. As has been mentioned, as CA and TX go, so goes the nation. Homeschoolers in reporting states may eventually find themselves trying to satisfy new weird guidelines for history. There will probably be a backlash of some kind about these changes, and the whole nation will be dragged through that, too. This is worth watching, for all parents.

 

Maybe more people will homeschool. Why aren't parents trying to take the schools back? Why do they just go along with whatever is offered?

[Daisy]

Why aren't parents trying to take the schools back? Why do they just go along with whatever is offered?

 

:iagree:

 

I'm amazed at how many of my friends just don't think anything is a big deal. They feel awkward talking to the child's teacher so they don't. They never ask questions. They never buck the system. They just hope their child gets a decent education but have no interest in making sure it happens. I don't get it.

 

Here's what I figure. If the parents in a state really care about what is in their child's textbook, they need to speak up and do something about it.

[creekland]

Totally fine with it and it doesn't concern me at all since a) my kids are homeschooled b) we don't live in TX.

 

:iagree:

[smrtmama]

I think it's repulsive. Revisionist history at its very worst and most reprehensible.

[Orthodox6]

I live in Texas. I homeschool my one remaining child. I do care what is promulgated through the schools. The end products of the public schools will be the people running our state. Unless dc go out-of-state for college (which is as remote a possibility as them living on Saturn, at this point), they may end up married to people who went through the Texas public schools. These students will be their neighbours.

 

Boy howdy, do I care !

 

Maybe the only thing I do agree with from this jumble of junk is the refusal to jettison the correct and credible historical time labels of B.C. and A.D.

Edited May 22, 2010 by Orthodox6

[StartingOver]

I live in Texas. I homeschool my one remaining child. I do care what is promulgated through the schools. The end products of the public schools will be the people running our state. Unless dc go out-of-state for college (which is as remote a possibility as them living on Saturn, at this point), they may end up married to people who went through the Texas public schools. These students will be their neighbours.

 

Boy howdy, do I care !

 

Maybe the only thing I do agree with from this jumble of junk is the refusal to jettison the correct and credible historical time labels of B.C. and A.D.

 

I have been at odds with Texas public school curriculum for many years. I am just waiting for the majority to see the light.

[SonshineLearner]

I think... the Gablers would be happy. Being from Texas... I'm happy with it... :)

[happi duck]

I haven't looked at the specific changes because I see this as "business as usual". Textbook publishing is a business and getting on the district approved list is worth a lot of money. Textbooks are changed often.

[Paula in PA]

I think it's repulsive. Revisionist history at its very worst and most reprehensible.

 

:iagree:

[WiseOwlKnits]

I live in Texas. I don't use their textbooks. But the progeny of these textbooks will be the people my children will work with, will look to for a mate, will find friendship with, and will surround them in their neighborhoods. They will run my state when I'm retired and will be making the decisions for entire generations that follow since this book adoption will last 6-10 years.

 

And since TX and CA (who is not adopting textbooks because of budget shortfalls) decide the slant of textbooks for the nation, students educated with these textbooks will be running your states too....and living next to your kids....and maybe even showing up on the arm of your DC when they come home for college vacation.

 

This is a much bigger decision than people are admitting/realizing at this point.

[Violet Crown]

There's a somewhat less hysterical and conclusory article on it all at The New York Times.

 

What a time to be out of town, missing all the excitement. I love the smell of textbook infighting in the morning. :D

[LNC]

What are the names of the history/ science textbooks and authors they will be switching to? I've read several articles, but I would like to read about the textbooks for myself.

[pqr]

I think it's repulsive. Revisionist history at its very worst and most reprehensible.

 

 

 

Rather than the "I hate it comments," just what are the specific complaints? Not taking a side on this but most answers seem simply canned and the MSNBC article was about as impartial as... well fill in the blank.

[chiguirre]

I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out differently than the board members hope. How many current conservatives tilt this way because of the overreach of liberal bias in the 70s? It wouldn't surprise me if there's a similar backlash in 10-15 years in the other direction because of this type of propagandizing in the textbooks.

[Guest Dulcimeramy]

I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out differently than the board members hope. How many current conservatives tilt this way because of the overreach of liberal bias in the 70s? It wouldn't surprise me if there's a similar backlash in 10-15 years in the other direction because of this type of propagandizing in the textbooks.

 

:iagree:

 

The conservatives tilting this way are really confusing me. These changes are not balancing or justifying, or even conservative. Or am I missing something? I consider myself to be pretty conservative, but I have no beef with Thomas Jefferson. We actually think he is a hero. And I see no need to denigrate the UN to school children; daily headlines take care of that job adequately.

 

These new textbooks do not sound to me as if they contain historical truth from a conservative American perspective. My impression is that they are just agenda-driven, conspiratorial teachings designed to manipulate the loyalties of impressionable children, and just as bad as the ultra-liberal materials.

 

American children deserve so much more.

[emubird]

So, how many kids using these textbooks are actually going to read and remember anything that's in them? That's the real question.

 

I remember there being brouhahas over the textbooks I used when I was in school -- over similar issues. But honestly, the books were SO dull that I never actually read them. Oh, sure, we "read" them in school, but that consisted of going around the room, each student reading a paragraph (very badly -- despite how we were all in the highest "track"). I would figure out which paragraph I was going to have to read, put my finger on it, and then check out until the teacher looked at me.

 

No wonder kids hate history.

[Catherine]

What's so disturbing about science and history textbook manipulation is that those books form the basis for a child's ongoing understanding of those fields of inquiry. Editing out inconvenient facts and ideas amount to revisionist presentation of current and historical thinking about people, events, and theories. I worry about seeing our nation moving in a yet further polarized direction. After reading the thread about the neo-confederates, researching some of those organizations a bit, it's eerily similar to things that happened in Europe in the run up to WW2. Deeply held beliefs of victimization, nationalism, rewriting textbooks all happened in the Third Reich. I hope I'm just being alarmist, but, it frightens me. And what's different about this move in Texas from what happened with the liberal slant to textbooks in the 1970's is that it's clearly been planned, calculated, and political. 1970's textbooks grew out of a general cultural growth in a certain direction that in hindsight turned out to be an overshot. Current day textbook revisionism is far more calculated and that is what I find frightening.

[Chris in PA]

I am a conservative as well. I feel that these changes are biased. Maybe the PS system should stop worrying about pushing an agenda and start teaching students to think critically and develop their own opinions. Just one of many reasons my dc are not in the ps system. It all just makes me sad....

[LibraryLover]

There's a somewhat less hysterical and conclusory article on it all at The New York Times.

 

What a time to be out of town, missing all the excitement. I love the smell of textbook infighting in the morning. :D

 

 

LOL That made me laugh. Thanks for the link.

[Nicole M]

There's a somewhat less hysterical and conclusory article on it all at The New York Times.

 

What a time to be out of town, missing all the excitement. I love the smell of textbook infighting in the morning. :D

 

Good article.

 

One thing that concerns me about these changes is the underlying racism, which is already a festering wound in our country.

Edited May 22, 2010 by Nicole M

[Daisy]

I am a conservative as well. I feel that these changes are biased. Maybe the PS system should stop worrying about pushing an agenda and start teaching students to think critically and develop their own opinions. Just one of many reasons my dc are not in the ps system. It all just makes me sad....

 

:iagree: I agree.

 

I'd like to see all the liberal and conservative bias taken out of textbooks but I'm not sure how possible that is. :glare: Seems we ought to be able to get closer to the middle though. I don't like revisionism in either direction.

[Blessedfamily]

I am a conservative as well. I feel that these changes are biased. Maybe the PS system should stop worrying about pushing an agenda and start teaching students to think critically and develop their own opinions. Just one of many reasons my dc are not in the ps system. It all just makes me sad....

 

:iagree:

[Blessedfamily]

:iagree: I agree.

 

I'd like to see all the liberal and conservative bias taken out of textbooks but I'm not sure how possible that is. :glare: Seems we ought to be able to get closer to the middle though. I don't like revisionism in either direction.

 

:iagree: The multi-quote feature isn't working for me, or

I would have agreed with you both at once.

[PiCO]

I'd like to see all the liberal and conservative bias taken out of textbooks but I'm not sure how possible that is. :glare: Seems we ought to be able to get closer to the middle though. I don't like revisionism in either direction.

 

I'd like to see both liberal and conservative bias left in textbooks, along with actual facts. I like to teach my kids both sides of the story.

[PiCO]

There's a somewhat less hysterical and conclusory article on it all at The New York Times.

 

What a time to be out of town, missing all the excitement. I love the smell of textbook infighting in the morning. :D

 

Thanks for this link. Much better article.

 

I agree with about 75% of the changes, such as including Black Panthers as well as Martin Luther King, and the Venona papers. But leave out Thomas Jefferson? Really?

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Thank goodness they're encouraging students to rethink that crazy idea of the separation of church and state! And Thomas Jefferson-who needs him! It's about time we found a replacement for this tired excuse for a founding father.

 

:lol:

[PineFarmMom]

:iagree: I agree.

 

I'd like to see all the liberal and conservative bias taken out of textbooks but I'm not sure how possible that is. :glare: Seems we ought to be able to get closer to the middle though. I don't like revisionism in either direction.

 

:iagree: I would definitely agree with what you said there!! I think what we're dealing with right now, though, is that education has leaned sooooo far to the left for soooo long that this swing to the right is too earth shaking to the lefties and that is causing a lot of backlash. The middle would be a great place to be, but honestly, it's been a very long time since we've been anywhere near there. There has been so much liberal propaganda for a while now.

[Daisy]

I'd like to see both liberal and conservative bias left in textbooks, along with actual facts. I like to teach my kids both sides of the story.

 

Do you know how big that textbook would be? LOL.

 

But that is what I meant in an earlier post about this issue being partly why we homeschool. I can pick a wide range of books that present multiple sides of the same event. I feel it is a huge disservice to students to present a myopic view of history.

[Orthodox6]

What are the names of the history/ science textbooks and authors they will be switching to? I've read several articles, but I would like to read about the textbooks for myself.

 

I don't know in depth how the racket works, just know a little bit. The major textbook publishers rewrite their products to suit the loudest-mouthed buyer (i.e. a state's board of education). This accounts, in part, for "state versions" of textbooks. Therefore, these ideological shifts may, or may not, necessitate a change of publisher. Those who have followed the commotion closely maybe have links to share for specific titles now on the "menu".

[lovemyboys]

I don't know in depth how the racket works, just know a little bit. The major textbook publishers rewrite their products to suit the loudest-mouthed buyer (i.e. a state's board of education). This accounts, in part, for "state versions" of textbooks. Therefore, these ideological shifts may, or may not, necessitate a change of publisher. Those who have followed the commotion closely maybe have links to share for specific titles now on the "menu".

 

It is a racket, isn't it?

 

While the Texas board is working for the students in their own state, they can't deny that the product of their efforts effects children across the US. The textbooks are mass-market and many are cobbled together from each other, from what I've read, so the final product is more homogenous than one might expect.

 

One observation -- For whatever reasons, Texans have elected more conservative members to their board. I would imagine that those members did the job that they felt they were elected to do. As is so often stated, elections have consequences. Some folks just don't seem too happy with that reality in this instance.

[TXMomof4]

What's so disturbing about science and history textbook manipulation is that those books form the basis for a child's ongoing understanding of those fields of inquiry. Editing out inconvenient facts and ideas amount to revisionist presentation of current and historical thinking about people, events, and theories. I worry about seeing our nation moving in a yet further polarized direction. After reading the thread about the neo-confederates, researching some of those organizations a bit, it's eerily similar to things that happened in Europe in the run up to WW2. Deeply held beliefs of victimization, nationalism, rewriting textbooks all happened in the Third Reich. I hope I'm just being alarmist, but, it frightens me. And what's different about this move in Texas from what happened with the liberal slant to textbooks in the 1970's is that it's clearly been planned, calculated, and political. 1970's textbooks grew out of a general cultural growth in a certain direction that in hindsight turned out to be an overshot. Current day textbook revisionism is far more calculated and that is what I find frightening.

 

You don't think there is damage done when the truth is misrepresented in a liberal direction because it's cultural growth, but in a conservative direction it equals the Third Reich? :confused:

[elizabeth]

You don't think there is damage done when the truth is misrepresented in a liberal direction because it's cultural growth, but in a conservative direction it equals the Third Reich? :confused:

 

Thank God I am able to hs. That is all. :auto:

[LibraryLover]

.

Edited May 23, 2010 by LibraryLover

[angela in ohio]

In the field of sociology, another conservative member, Barbara Cargill, won passage of an amendment requiring the teaching of “the importance of personal responsibility for life choices†in a section on teenage suicide, dating violence, sexuality, drug use and eating disorders.

 

Gosh, that sounds terrible. She must be such a horrible person! :001_huh:

 

I find it interesting that the NY Times article repeatedly states that these conservatives aren't historians, but doesn't mention the qualifications of the liberal BOE memebers, current and past. When they chose to put a liberal bias in the textbooks when they had control in the past, was that based on their qualifications as historians?

 

We want the parents to have a say in what schools teach? This is it. A majority of parents elected conservatives. They represent the parents' voice, and they are writing the standards. Parents who disagree can discuss it at home, just as we would have to do if we sent our dc to school here, where the standards are written by liberals.

[junepep]

And since TX and CA (who is not adopting textbooks because of budget shortfalls) decide the slant of textbooks for the nation, students educated with these textbooks will be running your states too....and living next to your kids....and maybe even showing up on the arm of your DC when they come home for college vacation.

 

This is a much bigger decision than people are admitting/realizing at this point.

 

What's so disturbing about science and history textbook manipulation is that those books form the basis for a child's ongoing understanding of those fields of inquiry. Editing out inconvenient facts and ideas amount to revisionist presentation of current and historical thinking about people, events, and theories. I worry about seeing our nation moving in a yet further polarized direction.

 

 

I think what we're dealing with right now, though, is that education has leaned sooooo far to the left for soooo long that this swing to the right is too earth shaking to the lefties and that is causing a lot of backlash.

 

I have a history textbook c1945 (that was used to teach my MIL history in PA) and it is really quite biased so the idea of "returning to the time when texts weren't biased" is patently absurd. Here's quotes (ones which are spoken of in a different tone today, not necessarily wrong, but tone is everything in text):

"We have seen how the Spaniards came to our land seeking gold. How English people, hoping for freedom, settled on the Atlantic Coast. How the French came, stayed a while, and then left. [sic] From a few people living in log cabins, we have grown to become a great nation. A nation that kneels to no one."

 

There's also "Germany, led by a little madman, Adolf Hitler, had set Europe on fire with war."; "While Coolidlge was president, he tried to spend Uncle Sam's money wisely."; "President Roosevelt thought that he could cure Uncle Sam of his depression blues. 'What the old gentleman needs,' said Franklin, 'is some of my New Deal Medicine.' But after a number of doses the patient did not seem to be any better".

 

"Hate Starts a War. Someone killed Ferdinand [sic]. His death was as good an excuse as any other for the European nations to start something. For the European nations were filled with hate and jealousy of eachother. [sic] Kaiser William of Germany declared war upon every nation in sight."

 

The 1/3 page on women getting the right to vote is titled "The Women have the Last Word". There is also "Spain makes trouble for Cuba and for us" "A territory is not so grown up as a state"

 

And er, one of my favorites: "Big Chief Sitting Bull Goes on the Warpath [sic] Sitting Bull was a big chief in the Sioux family. He spent his spare time sitting around hatching up new ways to bother the "pale-faces". ... balanced?? really?? o.O

 

Oh, and the section on Unions (usually considered a "liberal" topic) was actually FAR more pro-union than anything that I'd seen growing up or now.

 

The "liberal bent" of the 1970s that so many people complain about was an attempt to bring some of the overlooked, sometimes inconvenient, facts into education. WHY is it termed a "liberal" thing to mention the fact that the US had internment camps or that Washington and Jefferson were slaveholders, or that the US hasn't actually "won" every conflict??? This all just seems well... a little strange.

 

So it just as it positively boggles my mind that the 10 members of that school board (who are not historians nor have they studied history) are prepared to say that the man who wrote the declaration of independence was not a major contributor to our Independence because he coined the phrase that has been used since then "separation of church and state". It's bad enough that Franklin has been marginalized over the years but to trade Jefferson for Blackstone is beyond absurd. Blackstone's common law views were those used here in the states, but... how does his influence in the judiciary system trump Jefferson's influence??? REALLY???? :banghead:

 

My social studies text from the late 70s seems outdated, but structurally sound (I got to keep it because they were replacing the books in the mid-80s when I was in school). There will always be some questionable material in textbooks, but if I had to teach from one of the ones in my house I'd much rather use my social studies text than the (also) blatantly biased and occasionally racist text that my MIL grew up with.

[Orthodox6]

In the field of sociology, another conservative member, Barbara Cargill, won passage of an amendment requiring the teaching of “the importance of personal responsibility for life choices†in a section on teenage suicide, dating violence, sexuality, drug use and eating disorders.

 

Gosh, that sounds terrible. She must be such a horrible person! :001_huh:

 

 

 

Your post confuses me. Do you oppose the open endorsement of "personal responsibility for life choices" exercised in these extremely important areas of life ? Or, does Barbara Cargill have some odd meaning for the phrase ?

 

Thanks !

[Melissa in FL]

Could you pleas post some textbook examples of the "lefties" bias? I've seen plenty of agreement with your view, but have seen zero examples of liberal bias given for history textbooks.

 

Sure. I posted this on another thread on the same topic so I'm just going to copy/paste it here.

 

I watched an interview on TV with a dad that explained one of the problems with the current history books is they teach it wrong, including the words of the Declaration of Independence. The words in the history book (for 5th graders called "History Alive! America's Past") was having kids memorize the Declaration as saying "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all people are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." The Publishers had made THE DECLARATION PC! That would get me ticked off too. It's one of our most important documents and they decided to change the words!

 

Being Politically correct and changing the words to our Declaration to me is a very Liberal thing to do. Not to say that all liberals would agree with changing original documents to be more PC, just saying some liberal educators do. This is one of the things that led TX parents to vote in a more conservative group to change their history books. I see this as a lot of correcting a bias rather than moving it to the right. I grew up in what I now recognize as a very liberal leaning education when it came to history. A lot of history I learned as a child was very different than what I've learned as an adult (going to original documents).

 

Also, people keep saying that they are leaving out Thomas Jefferson from the history program. This isn't totally true. He will still be in US history and will be studied as one of our leading founders. He's only been left out of World history and by leaving him out they have found space to replace him with four other people who had importance in world history. I think this is good. When we study US history we really look closely at our founders and how they interacted with Europe. I would rather spend the time in World history introducing children to some other important figures that they will not learn about anywhere else.

 

Hope this example will help you understand why some feel that we need to correct the history books.

Melissa

[Catherine]

I didn't argue that no damage was done. What I said worries me is that there has been a clear effort to lard the board with politically-motivated people whose plan was to do exactly what they did. I don't think (maybe I'm wrong) that there was such a clearly-articulated plan to change the content of textbooks in the 1970's. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

 

I realize that there's no middle ground when it comes to history and science teaching. Does anyone who frequents this board imagine that that is the case?

[angela in ohio]

The "liberal bent" of the 1970s that so many people complain about was an attempt to bring some of the overlooked, sometimes inconvenient, facts into education. WHY is it termed a "liberal" thing to mention the fact that the US had internment camps or that Washington and Jefferson were slaveholders, or that the US hasn't actually "won" every conflict??? This all just seems well... a little strange.

 

It's liberal to mention Jefferson as a slaveholder; it's conservative to mention the Black Panthers. Eveyrone is all about trying to leave things OUT of books. I think this is how you end up with boring books, and students retaining nothing. I agree with a PP: put it all in there, discuss it, teach the students ciritical thingking skills, and let them figure it out!

 

I keep hoping that as we swing back and forth, with each group pulling on one side, we will end up settling in the middle. Unfortunately, the solution is usually to take out anything controversial, and we end up with boring books that say nothing.

[angela in ohio]

Your post confuses me. Do you oppose the open endorsement of "personal responsibility for life choices" exercised in these extremely important areas of life ? Or, does Barbara Cargill have some odd meaning for the phrase ?

 

Thanks !

 

Sorry, there really need to be a sarcasm smiley. :D

 

I was wondering how her requirement, which the article is giving as an example of one of the awful changes, is really so awful.

[junepep]

It's liberal to mention Jefferson as a slaveholder; it's conservative to mention the Black Panthers. Everyone is all about trying to leave things OUT of books. I think this is how you end up with boring books, and students retaining nothing. I agree with a PP: put it all in there, discuss it, teach the students ciritical thingking skills, and let them figure it out!

 

I keep hoping that as we swing back and forth, with each group pulling on one side, we will end up settling in the middle. Unfortunately, the solution is usually to take out anything controversial, and we end up with boring books that say nothing.

 

See, I don't have any problem with adding back General Lee, or talking about Mrs. Schlafly, Malcolm X, or even Reaganomics (but how you teach Reaganomics is partly opinion dependent as well ;)). I can even understand saying free-market instead of capitalism, even though I haven't seen the phrase capitalist pigs used outside of history books (er.. besides this guy's quotes).

 

But I do have problems with the "unintended consequences" of affirmative action (opinion) and Title IX (again opinion) as well as the plan to show that McCarthy was right - as if the ends (which were unsuccessful) justified the means. Just because McCarthy was right and there were spies (and I don't know of any rational person who wouldn't have at least admitted the possibilities of spies in our government) DOESN'T mean that he wasn't paranoid and that McCarthyism itself wasn't anti-American.

 

I'd also like to see a reasoned discussion of Socialism VS Communism added into our educational system, but that won't happen either ;) :lol:

 

I agree that history should be interesting and engaging. Instead it's made into an ideological battleground for people with big opinions (ideas) but little willingness to actually think outside of their own POV.

 

I can't wait to do history with my girls! We're going to have so much fun because the text that would cover alternate viewpoints might be too long for PS, but by golly, I'm already lining them up :D

Edited May 22, 2010 by junepep
Spelling -- again :/

[junepep]

Sorry, there really need to be a sarcasm smiley. :D

 

I was wondering how her requirement, which the article is giving as an example of one of the awful changes, is really so awful.

 

So, ultimately "dating violence" and "eating disorders" are because of bad life choices??

 

An eating disorder is a psychological condition akin to other dependence disorders (check the DSM-IV for more info). Dating violence (ie rape presumably) has little to do with sex and a lot to do with forcing another person so that the perpetrator of that violence can feel powerful. I believe that it's a personal choice to rape someone. But I completely disagree that some people choose to be raped.

 

Personal responsibility IS vital, but sometimes it's helpful to understand that some things require treatment. And two of the five on that list are not choices for at least one person involved...

[PiCO]

Dating violence (ie rape presumably) has little to do with sex and a lot to do with forcing another person so that the perpetrator of that violence can feel powerful. I believe that it's a personal choice to rape someone. But I completely disagree that some people choose to be raped.

 

I agree that date rape is horrible and inexcusable, BUT I knew a number of girls in college who were "date raped" that could have made a different personal choice to change the outcome of their evening. Some advice these women might give to others:

 

Don't get drunk and throw yourself at any man who walks by at a party.

Don't dress like a slut and flirt like a slut if you don't want to act like a slut.

Don't go alone with a man into a bedroom at a party, especially if you're been making out with him for the last hour.

[Orthodox6]

Eye-staring-and-rolling excerpts from this article:

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Education/2010/0519/Texas-textbook-war-Slavery-or-Atlantic-triangular-trade

 

EXCERPT: The slave trade would be renamed the “Atlantic triangular trade,” American “imperialism” changed to “expansionism,” and all references to “capitalism” have been replaced with “free enterprise.”

 

EXCERPT: Professor VanFossen, for instance, was bothered by a new requirement that students analyze the decline in value of the US dollar and abandonment of the gold standard, without input from economists, and by amendments that would try to cast a more positive spin on Sen. Joe McCarthy’s communist witch hunt.

 

Somebody named Phyllis Schaffly -- a woman I vaguely have heard of, but know nothing about, so she surely can't be all that crucial to a history textbook, suddenly is a "major figure" for required study. :confused: . . . My understanding of the "Moral Majority" was that it was a politico-religious movement among a subset of Protestants, and exerted no influence on the majority of U.S. Christians, other than to annoy people by the claim to be representative of Christian thought. Did they even exist apart from the presidential years of Mr. Reagan ? (Protestant politics is not, of course, a specialty of mine, so I have knowledge gaps.)

 

There was local newspaper flack about the proposal to remove Christmas from the list of major world religion holidays, basic knowledge of which was to be required of students. (Proposal was shot down.)

 

I should like to see the textbooks I read in PS and examine them to discover what distortions were fed to Texas students during my school years ! I'm sure this has been a dissertation topic for sociology and education graduate students. . .

Edited May 22, 2010 by Orthodox6

[junepep]

I agree that date rape is horrible and inexcusable, BUT I knew a number of girls in college who were "date raped" that could have made a different personal choice to change the outcome of their evening. Some advice these women might give to others:

 

Don't get drunk and throw yourself at any man who walks by at a party.

Don't dress like a slut and flirt like a slut if you don't want to act like a slut.

Don't go alone with a man into a bedroom at a party, especially if you're been making out with him for the last hour.

 

But none of that behavior regardless of how I personally view it is justification for a man or boy not accepting the word No and then physically restraining and/or beating their partner into submission. Rape isn't oh, I decided later that sucked. Rape is the use of physical force to abuse someone sexually. Guys are not lust-driven brainless morons. Ya know???

 

 

 

Somebody named Phyllis Schaffly -- a woman I vaguely have heard of, but know nothing about, so she surely can't be all that crucial to a history textbook, suddenly is a "major figure" for required study. :confused:

 

What this you or were you quoting still? If you didn't know and wanted to -- She just about singlehandedly disrupted the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment with her grassroots campaign against it. The ERA was pretty big news back in the 70s, but it seems like a lot of people who grew up in the 80s and 90s really don't know anything about it (or about it at all). It's the type of recent history that we'll be figuring out whether or not to add to the text books for years to come, it's imho a good candidate for inclusion since there's still a dearth of great information in history about powerful women (regardless of whether we agree with their objectives).

Edited May 22, 2010 by junepep
added the other quote b/c it wasn't letting me multi-quote