PDA

View Full Version : Texas Approves Curriculum Revised by Conservatives



Carol
03-12-2010, 10:36 PM
link (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4304525)


matt819 Donating Member (1000+ posts)
Texas Approves Curriculum Revised by ConservativesOh the horror. :eek::eek:

Source: New York Times

<snip>
After three days of turbulent meetings, the Texas Board of Education on Friday voted to approve a social studies curriculum that will put a conservative stamp on history and economics textbooks, stressing the role of Christianity in American history and presenting Republican political philosophies in a more positive light.

The vote was 11 to 4, with 10 Republicans and one Democrat voting for the curriculum, and four Democrats voting against.

The board, whose members are elected, has influence beyond Texas because the state is one of the largest purchasers of textbooks. In the digital age, however, that influence has been diminished as technological advances have made it possible for publishers to tailor books to individual states.
<snip>

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.htm...


America continues its astounding slide to the bottom. These students, and others forced to use these revised textbooks, will find themselves out of luck when it comes to applying to anything other than RW and/or Christian fundamentalist institutions. Conservative economics. Conservative history. I just can't wait to see how they pull this off. And you can be pretty damn sure that these contracts for writing and publishing will go to friends and relatives. What a crock.

Picture one of these students going for a college interview at a top school and tries to explain how the earth is 6,000 years old. Evolution is nonsense because it's only a theory.

One of the arguments that has been used in the past regarding outsourcing mfg jobs is that this is okay because the design and engineering is done in the US because we have the best and brightest. Not any more.

LeftinOH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Fri Mar-12-10 03:45 PM
Response to Original message
3. Fair enough: Conservatives were willing to tear the country apart to hang on to

slavery; Conservatives opposed social security; Conservatives opposed civil rights; Conservaties opposed Womens's Suffrage; Conservatives oppose birth control, etc. etc... Students *should* learn that conservatives always stand in the way of progress in this country -and they usually manage to find some religious pretext for doing so. Of course, this perspective about conservatives is probably not what the kids in Texas are going to get.

SharonAnn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Fri Mar-12-10 04:53 PM
Response to Reply #3
17. Today's conservatives are like those who supported the monarchy during the Revolution.

Edited on Fri Mar-12-10 04:54 PM by SharonAnn
Really.

Here are a few more samples.

In the movie "It's a Wonderful Life", Jimmy Stewart is the liberal Democrat and Mr. Potter is the conservative Republican.

In the American Revolution, the revolutionists were the liberal Democrats and the British and American monarchists were the conservative Republicans.

In the New Testament, Jesus was the liberal Democrat and the money-changers in the temple were the conservative Republicans.

In the New Testament, Jesus was the liberal Democrat and the Romans and the Sanhedrin who put him to death were the conservative Republicans

SoapBox (147 posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Fri Mar-12-10 05:57 PM
Response to Original message
21. One possible solution?

...other states will simply say that a high school diploma issued by Texas is
unacceptable or inadequate.

If Texans want to enroll in another state's colleges, they will need additional
classes in history, civics, and social studies.

If Texans with a high school degree are applying for state jobs (out of Texas), they go to the
back of the line (those with diplomas from acceptable states go first) until they can
show that they had the supplemental classes in history, civics, and social studies.

A Texas issued high school diploma will be as worthless as a 3 dollar bill.

alp227 (1000+ posts)

23. I posted about the board's propositions on Education board earlier.

Edited on Fri Mar-12-10 07:21 PM by alp227
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

In that thread, I referenced this NYT article "Texas Conservatives Seek Deeper Stamp on Texts". I also tried refuting their points.

Now for a little rant,

Yes, Christianity did play an important role in American history, but not as much as fundamentalists think it did. Heck, the Treaty of Tripoli (1796) says in Article 11: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." (emphasis mine).

The Board played the clever game of deceive & evade: It straight-up crossed out Thomas Jefferson. Of course, Jefferson's the one who wrote about that "wall of separation". You can't teach that to those innocent Texas schoolchildren, can't you?

And when those children try to apply to college, the parents will wonder why Harvard won't accept those kids. Again, more evading the question: "Them libruhl godless anti-American Ahvy uhlitists be oppressin' my good ol' keed." And when those kids are still living with mommy and daddy because they can't find a job in the real world, the parents will point out liberals, immigrants, and foreigners and holler: "They took our jobs!" I'm sorry, Texas Board, you brought all the oppression on yourself by disguising stupidity as academia.

Here's another interesting amendment:



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 teen suicide, dating violence, sexuality, drug use and eating disorders.

“The topic of sociology tends to blame society for everything,” Ms. Cargill said.


Hmm, I think this edges a bit close to "blaming the victim".Taking personal responsibility for ones own choices is "blaming the victim"? That's one reason our society is is such trouble. To liberals everyone is a 'victim', except for conservatives and Christians.

NJCardFan
03-12-2010, 11:54 PM
Is this the most uneducated person on the face of the earth?



LeftinOH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Fri Mar-12-10 03:45 PM
Response to Original message
3. Fair enough: Conservatives were willing to tear the country apart to hang on to

slavery; Conservatives opposed social security; Conservatives opposed civil rights; Conservaties opposed Womens's Suffrage; Conservatives oppose birth control, etc. etc... Students *should* learn that conservatives always stand in the way of progress in this country -and they usually manage to find some religious pretext for doing so. Of course, this perspective about conservatives is probably not what the kids in Texas are going to get.
Conservatives were willing to tear apart the country to hold onto slavery? Um, for starters, a GOP led government tried like hell to preserve the union. It was the southern Democrats who wanted to uphold slavery. I guess this might be why blacks were Republicans for the better part of a century because it was the GOP and conservatives who wanted to preserve slavery. :rolleyes:

And conservatives oppose social security? Well, that's true. Could it be that this boondoggle is about 2 retirees from being completely bankrupt? Gee, can't imagine why one would be opposed to SS.

And Conservatives opposed civil rights? Uh huh. Even though it was the GOP who's voted helped hammer the bill through. And which party was it who filibustered the bill?

My God every time I start thinking that people can't be this brain dead people like this come along and dispel all of that.

swirling_vortex
03-13-2010, 09:49 AM
I didn't know that supporting the idea of limited government was considered right-wing fundamentalism. Of course, these are the same useless idiots that think FDR's second bill of rights is somehow better than the first bill of rights.

noonwitch
03-15-2010, 10:03 AM
I'm a liberal and all, but I'm not going to judge a textbook I haven't read for myself, just because conservatives had a major hand in the editing process.


I'd have to see what was added, what was left out, before I could make a judgement.

movie buff
03-15-2010, 10:42 AM
Is this the most uneducated person on the face of the earth?



Conservatives were willing to tear apart the country to hold onto slavery? Um, for starters, a GOP led government tried like hell to preserve the union. It was the southern Democrats who wanted to uphold slavery. I guess this might be why blacks were Republicans for the better part of a century because it was the GOP and conservatives who wanted to preserve slavery. :rolleyes:

And conservatives oppose social security? Well, that's true. Could it be that this boondoggle is about 2 retirees from being completely bankrupt? Gee, can't imagine why one would be opposed to SS.

And Conservatives opposed civil rights? Uh huh. Even though it was the GOP who's voted helped hammer the bill through. And which party was it who filibustered the bill?

My God every time I start thinking that people can't be this brain dead people like this come along and dispel all of that.
You beat me to it!
I was going to also point out that civil rights legislation was filibustered by two Dems: Klan leader Robert Byrd (WHom many Senate Democrats refer to as "The conscience of the Senate," and who may have distanced himself from the Klan to keep from being embarassed by them, but his conversations indicate he still holds many of the old racist views he held back then), and Albert Gore, Sr. (Aka the father of the pompous, hypocritical, money- grubbing sack of whale blubber that DUmmies hold up as a champion of the environment and social justice).

"And when those children try to apply to college, the parents will wonder why Harvard won't accept those kids. Again, more evading the question: "Them libruhl godless anti-American Ahvy uhlitists be oppressin' my good ol' keed." "
And the DUmmies honestly wonder why they, along with most of the far left, are regarded as bigoted, arrogant, smug, self- righteous elitists by the rest of the country.

"In the movie "It's a Wonderful Life", Jimmy Stewart is the liberal Democrat and Mr. Potter is the conservative Republican.

In the American Revolution, the revolutionists were the liberal Democrats and the British and American monarchists were the conservative Republicans.

In the New Testament, Jesus was the liberal Democrat and the money-changers in the temple were the conservative Republicans.

In the New Testament, Jesus was the liberal Democrat and the Romans and the Sanhedrin who put him to death were the conservative Republicans."

Teh stupid is strong with this one.
In 'It's a Wonderful Life,' Potter was just a greedy jerk who didn't espouse any political leanings. As for George Bailey, if the movie was real and the DUmmies were around back then, they would have mocked Bailey as a dumb small- town redneck (And undoubtedly made fun of his voice for that reason), condemned him as a warmonger for his various efforts aiding in the war on the homefront (They probably would have called him a "Chickenhawk" because he himself didn't serve), berated Mary for having so many children rather than choosing to simply abort all of them, and would have had nothing but contempt for that horrible, Fascist brother of his, Harry, for (In the perspective of their dope- addled minds) murdering that noble Japanese pilot who was standing up for social justice.
In the American Revolution, the revolutionists wanted a small, centralized government, much like modern conservative Republicans do. The British and the American Loyalists back then never met a tax on Americans they didn't support, much like modern liberal Democrats do.
Nothing Jesus said would show Him to be a liberal Democrat or conservative Republican. The moneychangers in the temple were people who were basically desecrating what was holy for personal gain, much like today's liberal Democrats who pervert the Gospel for their own ends. As for who put Him to death, that was the work of both the conservative Pharisees and the liberal Sadducees.

FlaGator
03-15-2010, 10:55 AM
Libs really enjoy their revisionist history. If it was something that history has shown to be good then it was the liberals who did it. If it was something bad then the conservatives are at fault. They like to cite Jesus as a liberal (he was neither liberal or conservative because he exhibited elements of both) but they kind of ignore that he described marriage as being between a man and a woman and that all sex outside of marriage was prohibited. Those are pretty old-school conservative values that Jesus ordained.

JackKetch
03-15-2010, 10:15 PM
<snip> They like to cite Jesus as a liberal (he was neither liberal or conservative because he exhibited elements of both) but they kind of ignore that he described marriage as being between a man and a woman and that all sex outside of marriage was prohibited. Those are pretty old-school conservative values that Jesus ordained.

i agree that Jesus was neither liberal nor conservative but where did Jesus say that marriage was between a man and a woman or that all sex outside marriage was prohibited?

not that i disagree with those positions, i just don't know where Jesus said those things. in reading various translations of the New Testament, the only thing that i've found that Jesus talks about in relation to marriage is divorce.

if you can cite the scriptural references for the other statements, i'd appreciate it.

CueSi
03-16-2010, 01:53 AM
I'm a liberal and all, but I'm not going to judge a textbook I haven't read for myself, just because conservatives had a major hand in the editing process.


I'd have to see what was added, what was left out, before I could make a judgement.

I'll bring the coffee for sit and wait time. :D

~QC