History Textbook Controversy Roils Texas

Good for them! :clapping:

One step closer to putting truth back in history.

"'History is written by the victors,' Winston Churchill famously said. In Texas, that may mean removing mention of Ted Kennedy and Cesar Chavez from textbooks in favor of new entries on the National Rifle Association and Phyllis Schlafly.

For much of the past year, the Texas State Board of Education has been considering changes to its social studies curriculum, hearing from community members and debating alterations to the way the state will teach history. "

Link

When you say good for them, what do you mean? Stripping Cesar Chavez out of textbooks in favor of Phyllis Schafly? Dropping Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, who argued Brown v. Board of Education? Apparently promoting neo-Confederate history?

It seems like the Texas Board is more interested in politicizing history than teaching it.

[quote="K-McD, post:1, topic:183843"]
Good for them! :clapping:

One step closer to putting truth back in history.

"'History is written by the victors,' Winston Churchill famously said. In Texas, that may mean removing mention of Ted Kennedy and Cesar Chavez from textbooks in favor of new entries on the National Rifle Association and Phyllis Schlafly.

For much of the past year, the Texas State Board of Education has been considering changes to its social studies curriculum, hearing from community members and debating alterations to the way the state will teach history. "

Link

[/quote]

I am not understanding what is so good about getting rid of Cesar Chavez?:confused:

It sounds like me a severe overreaction to the leftist bent that’s seeped into history in the past few decades. Someone is trying to balance the scales, and grossly overcompensated, and now you’re going to get a history that’s as biased as the old textbooks.

And since when was Phyllis Schlafely or the NRA really THAT important to US history? I’d just be happy if they re-emphasized the Founding Fathers, rather than the current mode of dismissing them as “rich white slaveholding males” .

This I totally agree with. Why would try to throw out everything, when all you have to do is actually try to teach, what really happened. Being conservative does not mean we get rid of what we don’t like. Isn’t that what we don’t like the left for doing?

"When partisan politicians take a wrecking ball to the work of teachers and scholars, you get a document that looks more like a party platform than a social studies curriculum," Kathy Miller, president of the Texas Freedom Network, a group that monitors public education in the state, told the Houston Chronicle.

This quote reminds me of another quote from Animal House. "They can't do that to our pledges. Only we can do that to our pledges."

[quote="st_lucy, post:3, topic:183843"]
I am not understanding what is so good about getting rid of Cesar Chavez?:confused:

[/quote]

Who's Cesar Chavez?

Really?

[quote="Jennifer_G, post:7, topic:183843"]
Who's Cesar Chavez?

[/quote]

Just in case you are not, here.

I never heard of him. I did google him, though.

So we have a Board of Education entertaining the idea of removing such important figures in our nation’s history only to be replaced by Mary Kay Ash and the NRA. And some people wonder why American children are mental midgets in comparison to their European counterparts. :rolleyes:

It wouldn’t be the first time they’ve altered the history textbooks. They still refer to the Civil War as the War for Southern Independence, and refer to Lincoln as a tyrant.

I love this gem:

“These standards are rife with leftist political periods and events: the populists, the progressives, the New Deal and the Great Society,” McLeroy wrote. “Including material about the conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s provides some political balance to the document.”

Uh-duh! I don’t think DNC invented these “periods & events” and slipped them into textbooks to brainwash innocent children.
Maybe I could interest them in some labor history, like how private goons and state militias routinely killed strikers from the 1870s up through the 1920s – or is that too “leftist”?

I’d sure love to see how the teach slavery, the Civil War, Reconstruction, &c.

That’s one reason why he needs to remain in the history books.

I live in the Northeast so I am not sure what is normal in history.

I have seen pictures of Margaret Sanger hanging in the libraries when it is women's history month here.

I have never seen Phyllis Schlafely but I think she should be included in history texts because she lead the charge against the ERA amendment.

Even when my catholic elementary school had history month, Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem were two of the people the students could pick to write about.

Sure. Leftist certainly and, worse yet, smacking of Catholicism, given that some foreign prince calling himself Leo XIII gave his blessing to a labor movement full of Catholics. :eek:

Actually, Leo XIII instituted the Feast of St. Joseph the Worker, which I always felt was more of an anti-socialism day (it falls on May Day) then a celebration of the Catholic worker.

I celebrate the day anyway.

That was very nice of Leo to do that, but my reference was to his great encyclical De Rerum Novarum where he promulgated the right of workers to form trade unions, the right of workers to an adequate period of rest, recreation, safe and hygienic conditions at work, the right to a just wage (sufficient for an entire family) guaranteed by the State, and the right to religious freedom.

Rights closer to the principles of Socialism than to Capitalism, I might say.

Textbook selection in Texas is always a circus; my SIL testified last year when they were looking at science textbooks. He was horrified at what went on; it amazed him that people who knew nothing about science were making decisions.

Texas is a huge market and, along with California, has an enormous impact on what textbooks are used elsewhere.

I just wish they'd stick to the facts, but prejudices and politics always get in the way.

Does it really make much of a difference what textbooks they use? Unfortunately, few of the students likely care about history anyway, no matter how much it appeals to their, um, southern sensibility

The Jesuit high school I attended used the Wilson and Dilulio textbook for government, which I thought was centrist enough; Wilson was a Republican, and Dilulio a Democrat, and most of the history teachers were liberals, so overall I got what I think could be called a reasonably impartial education.

The problem with these Texans is that, rather than answering leftist historians by trying to create a truly middle of the road, impartial curriculum, they just run to the opposite extreme, apparently to make a point. Wouldn't it be best just to stop the pendulum from swinging altogether, and let it settle in the middle?

Of course, whether you think they're right or wrong, everyone must admit that Texans lack subtlety.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.