Rewriting History, Conservative Style; The Texas Textbook Massacre

[blackhole123]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/13/texas-textbook-massacre-u_n_498003.html#s73765

 

This scary stuff. Texas puts out a lot of textbooks, so this affects the entire country. The fact that this has already happened and these changes are now a reality is just shocking, and I see little opportunity for recourse.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

There's still a final vote to be had in May after a public comment period. There's still hope.

 

Incidentally, I wonder if I should start organizing a public comment drive for people to vehemently oppose the rules.

[Sisyphus]

So Texas conservatives think Thomas of Aquinas had more intellectual influence on the founding of the United States than Thomas Jefferson, who doesn't even warrant mention? Somehow, I doubt any of those jackasses have read much of either.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I live in Austin for school, and I can walk right down to the Capitol building, so I can go beat them over the head with a biography of Thomas Jefferson.

[iNow]

I live in Austin for school, and I can walk right down to the Capitol building, so I can go beat them over the head with a biography of Thomas Jefferson.

I've tried that myself in the past. Unfortunately, our liberal gun laws make that option a bit more dangerous than it would be in other states.

 

 

 

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/03/12/texas-education-board-cuts-thomas-jefferson-out-of-its-textbooks/

The Texas Board of Education has been meeting this week to revise its social studies curriculum. During the past three days, “the board’s far-right faction wielded their power to shape lessons on the civil rights movement, the U.S. free enterprise system and hundreds of other topics”:

 

• To avoid exposing students to “transvestites, transsexuals and who knows what else,” the Board struck the curriculum’s reference to “sex and gender as social constructs.”
  
  
   
  
  
• The Board removed Thomas Jefferson from the Texas curriculum, “replacing him with religious right icon John Calvin.”
  
  
   
  
  
• The Board refused to require that “students learn that the Constitution prevents the U.S. government from promoting one religion over all others.”
  
  
   
  
  
• The Board struck the word “democratic” from the description of the U.S. government, instead terming it a “constitutional republic.”

 

As the nation’s second-largest textbook market, Texas has enormous leverage over publishers, who often “craft their standard textbooks based on the specs of the biggest buyers.” Indeed, as The Washington Monthly has reported, “when it comes to textbooks, what happens in Texas rarely stays in Texas.”

 

 

 

 

This is what we're dealing with down here, people:

 

http://www.texastribune.org/stories/2010/feb/17/meet-flintstones/

Nearly a third of Texans believe humans and dinosaurs roamed the earth at the same time, and more than half disagree with the theory that humans developed from earlier species of animals, according to the University of Texas/Texas Tribune Poll.

 

The differences in beliefs about evolution and the length of time that living things have existed on earth are reflected in the political and religious preference of our respondents

 

 

[Sisyphus]

"Constitutional republic" is a more accurate description than "democracy." Is that a "conservative" contention? (Those other bullet points are ridiculous, though.)

[ecoli]

"Constitutional republic" is a more accurate description than "democracy." Is that a "conservative" contention? (Those other bullet points are ridiculous, though.)

 

Well, the value of the dollar is declining. Not really a conservative issue, though it's interesting that the religious right is associating itself with Goldbug-ism.

[Sisyphus]

Well, the value of the dollar is declining. Not really a conservative issue, though it's interesting that the religious right is associating itself with Goldbug-ism.

 

Where does it say that? I was referring to the bullet points iNow was quoting.

[D H]

A future test:

1. According to many historians, the three greatest Presidents are
   a. George Washington
   b. Abraham Lincoln
   c. John Adam's successor
    
   Associate the items from the following list with the President responsible for that item.
   1. Louisiana Purchase
   2. First President
   3. Emancipation Proclamation
    
    
   
2. The person who authored the Declaration of Independence was
   a. Not important
   b. Condemned to hell
   c. Expunged
   d. All of the above

[ecoli]

Where does it say that? I was referring to the bullet points iNow was quoting.

 

somewhere in the article. First or second paragraph if I recall.

[jryan]

It's funny.. I don't remember my college philosophy courses having a problem with attributing much of the groundwork for the Age of Enlightenment to Aquinas, and his rejuvenation of the Aristotle logic, and the development through the scholastic pursuit of Christianity through logic ("scholastic" being a word used specifically to describe those who studied logical Christianity.. or "schoolmen" in more casual usage).

 

This lead to Renaissance Humanism which is the father of the Age of Enlightenment.

 

Jefferson was a student of this history, not an inventor of it, and the fact that he held slaves is a good indication that he was not always a very good student.

[bascule]

It's funny.. I don't remember my college philosophy courses having a problem with attributing much of the groundwork for the Age of Enlightenment to Aquinas, and his rejuvenation of the Aristotle logic, and the development through the scholastic pursuit of Christianity through logic ("scholastic" being a word used specifically to describe those who studied logical Christianity.. or "schoolmen" in more casual usage).

 

This lead to Renaissance Humanism which is the father of the Age of Enlightenment.

 

Jefferson was a student of this history, not an inventor of it, and the fact that he held slaves is a good indication that he was not always a very good student.

 

Aren't you quite the apologist...

 

Thomas Jefferson had far more to do with the founding of the US than Thomas Aquinas, end of story. Thomas Jefferson is a central figure of America's history and deserves to be recognized as such.

 

C'mon jryan, don't you consider yourself a libertarian, or as you would self-identify, a "classical liberal"? Thomas Jefferson is the primordial libertarian. Why are you defending removing him from the history books?

[JohnB]

Interesting how we go from; "the board’s far-right faction", presumably 2 or 3 people to "So Texas conservatives".

 

The problem is not conservatives or liberals on the board. The problem is a small (very small) group pushing their agenda in education.

 

As soon as you say "right wing" whatever you polarise the debate. Any answer you find will be politically motivated.

 

Reform the board by all means, but if you really want to improve education in your nation, do so in a way that prevents any extremist faction from gaining power.

 

I will add that this is not a "new" thing in any way. I have a 20 year old book that speaks of how the curriculum was being modified by extremists even way back then.

[blackhole123]

Interesting how we go from; "the board’s far-right faction", presumably 2 or 3 people to "So Texas conservatives".

 

The problem is not conservatives or liberals on the board. The problem is a small (very small) group pushing their agenda in education.

 

As soon as you say "right wing" whatever you polarise the debate. Any answer you find will be politically motivated.

 

It is debatable how large of a faction the board members represent, but I wouldn't be surprised if a majority of conservatives (and Texas is mostly Repulicans) supported changing the curriculum to teach more about the moral majority and Ronald Reagen as opposed to Thomas Jefferson.

 

This issue arose due to right wing influence; I see no misrepresentation in that statement.

[The Bear's Key]

It is debatable how large of a faction the board members represent, but I wouldn't be surprised if a majority of conservatives (and Texas is mostly Repulicans)

Just in case you don't already know it, Texas has Republicans elected to majority due in part to both the magic of redistricting...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redistricting

Partisan domination of state legislatures and improved technology to design contiguous districts that pack opponents into as few districts as possible have led to district maps which are skewed towards one party. Consequently many states including Texas, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Florida, Georgia and Maryland have succeeded in reducing or effectively eliminating competition for most House seats in those states that it has deadened competition for House seats nationally. Other states including New York, New Jersey, and California have opted to protect incumbents of both parties, again reducing the number of competitive districts.

 

....and to the efforts of Karl Rove (and others).

 

It Started in Texas: Karl Rove’s Political Prosecutions

A key role was played in the TDA investigation by FBI Special Agent Greg Rampton. Rove first met FBI Agent Rampton during the investigation into the “bugging” of Rove’s office back in 1986.

........

Since Democrats held almost every office at that time, they were his targets.

[Sisyphus]

Interesting how we go from; "the board’s far-right faction", presumably 2 or 3 people to "So Texas conservatives".

 

The problem is not conservatives or liberals on the board. The problem is a small (very small) group pushing their agenda in education.

 

As soon as you say "right wing" whatever you polarise the debate. Any answer you find will be politically motivated.

 

Reform the board by all means, but if you really want to improve education in your nation, do so in a way that prevents any extremist faction from gaining power.

 

I will add that this is not a "new" thing in any way. I have a 20 year old book that speaks of how the curriculum was being modified by extremists even way back then.

 

You're right. The problem is not that there are conservatives on the board, and I shouldn't have said it that way. The problem is that the crazy "conservative" faction is apparently not just two or three people, but, somehow, an actual majority. Or at least, they're able to wield the power of a majority.

 

So, how does something like this happen?

[jryan]

Aren't you quite the apologist...

 

Thomas Jefferson had far more to do with the founding of the US than Thomas Aquinas, end of story. Thomas Jefferson is a central figure of America's history and deserves to be recognized as such.

 

C'mon jryan, don't you consider yourself a libertarian, or as you would self-identify, a "classical liberal"? Thomas Jefferson is the primordial libertarian. Why are you defending removing him from the history books?

 

They aren't talking about the founding of the U.S., Bascule. They are talking about the two men's contributions to the Age of Enlightenment.

 

And no, Jefferson isn't a "primordial libertarian", that philosophical branch started in the Renaissance with Humanism as it decoupled human morality from theology and introduced the idea of immutable liberties. Jefferson came on the scene a full 100 years after the start of the Age of Enlightenment... hardly a primordial figure there.

Edited March 16, 2010 by jryan

[Sisyphus]

Jefferson is at least an Enlightenment thinker, and was one of the primary thinkers in interpretting Enlightenment ideas for the practical goal of founding a country. Like Madison, Franklin, Hamilton, Adams. Thomas of Aquinas was hundreds of years prior to anything that could be called the Enlightenment, and was very much an ancient philosopher in outlook. (He would have to be, since his primary goal was reconciling Aristotleanism with medieval Christianity.) The American revolution was born out of the philosophical revolution of modernist philosophers. I suppose you could say that medieval theologians were a precursor in that they were studying philosophy beforehand, but what Enlightenment thinkers had in common was a break with such traditions.

[jryan]

Jefferson is at least an Enlightenment thinker, and was one of the primary thinkers in interpretting Enlightenment ideas for the practical goal of founding a country. Like Madison, Franklin, Hamilton, Adams. Thomas of Aquinas was hundreds of years prior to anything that could be called the Enlightenment, and was very much an ancient philosopher in outlook. (He would have to be, since his primary goal was reconciling Aristotleanism with medieval Christianity.) The American revolution was born out of the philosophical revolution of modernist philosophers. I suppose you could say that medieval theologians were a precursor in that they were studying philosophy beforehand, but what Enlightenment thinkers had in common was a break with such traditions.

 

But go back and read the article that people are huffing and puffing about. It makes no charge that Jefferson is being removed from the importance of the founding of the United States, simply from the Age of Enlightenment Ideas that lead to revolutions from 1750 to today, which were well established before his contributions.

 

Aquinas is important for many reasons, both in his own philosophy, and in the simple fact that Aquinas rescued Aristotle's philosophy from the dark ages dust bin and gave it new purpose. Aquinas is one of the primary reasons that Aristotle plays an important role in Western philosophy.

 

Also, I notice that HuffPo doesn't seem to care enough about the issue to spell out who the "and others" refers to in the blog post. I would guess that nobody would object if those "others" were John Locke (the real father of Liberalism/Libertarianism), Thomas Paine, and others who truly laid the groundwork for the American revolution decades before Jefferson was even born.

 

Why all the fuss about Thomas Aquinas? Is it simply because he is a religious figure as well as a philosopher? Is this a "separation of church and state" issue for people?

[iNow]

Why all the fuss about Thomas Aquinas? Is it simply because he is a religious figure as well as a philosopher? Is this a "separation of church and state" issue for people?

No. The issue is that this change is being driven to try to shoe-horn one ideological view of history into all future children's minds. It is trying to manipulate and contort what is and what is not presented to children to more closely align with their religious and ideological beliefs.

 

If they were trying to make these changes to offer a more realistic and accurate view of history to children, then there would be no problem. However, that is not what is happening here. They are trying to engage in revisionist history so it more closely reinforces their personal worldviews and belief systems. This is nothing new with the ideological Texas State Board of Education who seems to care very little about educating children... They seem to care more about indoctrinating them.

 

For more on this history, this is a great site: http://ncse.com/

[jryan]

No. The issue is that this change is being driven to try to shoe-horn one ideological view of history into all future children's minds. It is trying to manipulate and contort what is and what is not presented to children to more closely align with their religious and ideological beliefs.

 

If they were trying to make these changes to offer a more realistic and accurate view of history to children, then there would be no problem. However, that is not what is happening here. They are trying to engage in revisionist history so it more closely reinforces their personal worldviews and belief systems. This is nothing new with the ideological Texas State Board of Education who seems to care very little about educating children... They seem to care more about indoctrinating them.

 

For more on this history, this is a great site: http://ncse.com/

 

And I am pointing out that Aquinas WAS important to the Enlightenment ideas that contributed to revolutions from 1750 to present. Both in his making Aristotle relevant again, and in starting the scholastic movement which lead to Renaissance Humanism and the Age of Enlightenment starting in 1650 and sprouting all over Europe.

 

Mentioning that fact is not revisionist history, but previous exclusion of those facts could indeed have been.

 

Feel free to argue a contrary view to the one being asserted, and explain why that is more correct then the proposed inclusion of Aquinas, or that reducing Jefferson and elevating Aquinas "and others" is inappropriate.

[jackson33]

I suppose there might be some link between Aquinas and the Magna Carta, both around the same period, but I fail to see the link with England, after the early 16th Century, when England broke from the Catholic Church....

 

 

The Magna Carta

The Founding Fathers found the Magna Carta an inspiring source. In 1215, a group of English nobles, demanded certain rights and forced the King to sign the Magna Carta or the Great Charter. 500 hundred years later the American colonists were to use this example to demand their rights from the British King.

 

These rights included: The right of jury trial, protection of private property, limits on taxation, and some religious freedoms.

Note that these rights were intended to be enjoyed by the rich; it didn't apply to the people. These rights above became a part of our Bill Of Rights and apply to all. [/Quote]

 

As for Jefferson, a Virginian and the one State, without STRONG participation, no agreements would have been possible, through out the formation of the US.

 

blackhole; All the fuss IMO is somewhat overblown. First the Educational board making SUGGESTIONS are not binding and one look at the boards make up is hardly reflective of either Texas or the Nation. Then, any Teacher can portray most any event, even unmentioned in a text to portray an event the way he/she want it seen.

 

Democrats on the board — all of them black or Hispanic — complained the new standards dilute minority contributions to Texas and U.S. history.[/Quote]

 

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6910429.html

 

And there were NO Historians.....Publishers may try, even mention suggestions but I seriously doubt it will change the message or the way teachers present that message. Keep in mind everyone today is concerned with passing Federal Test, which can be biased (IMO are not today).

[D H]

Just in case you don't already know it, Texas has Republicans elected to majority due in part to both the magic of redistricting...

You failed to mention that the previous gerrymandering in Texas on the part of Texas Democrats was arguably worse than the new-and-improved Republican gerrymandering. The Democrats managed to hang on to majorities in the Texas legislature and in the Texas Congressional delegation for a solid decade after the Democrats started consistently losing statewide elections. It took a long time before our elected officials truly reflected the will of the people.

 

The "new-and-improved" gerrymandering is just the same old stuff but served up by the other side. The district into which I now find myself gerrymandered into has some narrow connectors that are a few hundred feet wide! If Texas reverts to voting Democratic, it will once again take quite a while to make our elected officials reflect the will of the people.

 

Kinda sucks.

[ecoli]

Feel free to argue a contrary view to the one being asserted, and explain why that is more correct then the proposed inclusion of Aquinas, or that reducing Jefferson and elevating Aquinas "and others" is inappropriate.

 

Because the class is presumably American history... Not European philosoph or christian ethics.

 

Is Aquinas even taught in European high schools to any significant degree? I somehow doubt it.

[JohnB]

Just quick point on the Magna Carta and revisionism.

 

The rights granted by that great document were not at the behest of the Nobles. They were put there by the much maligned King John. (of Robin Hood fame)

 

The legal system of the time was that even a peasant could appeal the "Lord's Justice" to the King. This is why the King and his "court" travelled around. It was a legal court and the King had to find in accord with Roman Law. This is where the concept of "Low" and "High" justice came from.

 

The nobles were against this system and wanted the power to use and abuse their peasants as they saw fit without Royal intervention. It's much easier to find in favour of your friends if their opponent doesn't have recourse to the King's court.

 

This led to the civil war which was pretty much a draw. The agreement at Runnymeade, while it limited the power of the King in certain areas (a win for the nobles) also enshrined certain principles and rights for the people. (a win for King John)

 

Most of the basic principles and even some of the actual conditions still apply in modern nations.

 

(38) In future no official shall place a man on trial upon his own unsupported statement, without producing credible witnesses to the truth of it.

 

This section alone is why rules of evidence evolved and is why police officers normally travel in pairs.

 

The full text is here.

 

It is an amazing document and well worth the read.