• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

South Carolina, tear down that flag!

On the topic of The American Pageant and the Texas School board. From what I read this morning (sorry didn't save the links) it appears what is happening is Texas is removing it from the AP History curriculum and replacing it with a book form McGraw-Hill that is customized for individual states based on their standards. Supposedly the Texas version will downplay slavery in all chapters.
 
Meadmaker said:
It shows that they are thinking that there is one monument for them, and one monument for us. (Fill in appropriate values for "us" and "them") and that somehow it's important for there to be parity, and that if one side loses something the other side loses something. That's dumb.
Click to expand...

My reading was that they think it is supposed to be two for them (flag plus obelisk) and one for us (AAHM). They feel that since the flag is being removed the AAHM must also be removed because it was put up as part of the compromise in moving the flag from the dome to the obelisk area.
 
Foolmewunz said:
It wouldn't matter with American Pageant. It comes down forcefully on slavery as THE cause of the Civil War. I'd be curious as to what sort of nit-picking is being done to claim that it's even remotely being apologetic for slavery.
Click to expand...

I googled in news for an article specifically on American Pageant, and found one more article, so now I have seen two news articles that referenced the book. In each of those articles, the same thing was mentioned.

Apparently, in one or more editions of the book, it has a sidebar that quotes from the articles of secession of South Carolina. In that specific sidebar, there is no quote that references slavery. I don't know anything else about it. I don't know how big it is, whether there is any narration in the box, or what is on the main text next to it. Anyone who has read this thread knows that the articles of secession had many, many, references to slavery and they make it clear that slavery is the cause of secession. On the other hand, there are 14 paragraphs before slavery is mentioned. It would be very easy to come up with a sidebar that didn't mention slavery but was still informative.

Maybe the critics of the book haven't actually read it, just skimmed a few pictures and easy to find quotes.

That article also said that until recently, textbook publishers sometimes created special "Southern" editions of history textbooks, which apparently changed history to be more suited to the tastes of that region. I don't know if that included "American Pageant". That's kind of scary. On the other hand, what has happened since is worse, which is that they want to get down to a single edition, so a lot of books have taken to the revisionist Southern version as the standard edition, not wishing to offend Texas.

So who knows what is actually happening? I haven't seen a recent edition of the book, or any other history textbook. My cynicism comes to the fore on such issues, knowing that mountains are made from molehills on a regular basis when discussing these hot button issues.
 
paulhutch said:
On the topic of The American Pageant and the Texas School board. From what I read this morning (sorry didn't save the links) it appears what is happening is Texas is removing it from the AP History curriculum and replacing it with a book form McGraw-Hill that is customized for individual states based on their standards. Supposedly the Texas version will downplay slavery in all chapters.
Click to expand...

Ah, that makes more sense. (I didn't read the mentioned link, but commented based on knowledge of the book.) TAP specifically states that there were other causes of the war but that they all pale compared to slavery. They do this in a chapter that very decisively traces the slavery discussion. It's several chapters before the actual Civil War chapters and it is very clear on the interpretation. Civil War = Caused by Slavery.
 
Meadmaker said:
I don't want to accuse you of being part of some conspiracy to misrepresent the situation. If it seems that I was doing that, I apologize.

Nevertheless, I know that I was misled by your post, and the message of your post was echoed in media articles on the same subject.
Click to expand...


If I misled anyone, it was purely unintentional.
 
Darat said:
Of course they did and they got it wrong anyway, they are called chips.
Click to expand...

I disagree.


Chips are fat, with a slightly different texture to frites, and ideally fried in beef dripping. They *do* taste good with mayonnaise, but salt and vinegar is better.

Battered haddock (even better than cod IMO) should have fat chips with it.

Moules should be served with pommes frites.

Both are good in their place (on the table in front of me) but not at the same time.
 
Well, one can hope that the Texas authorities have made the mistake of not reading The American Pageant very carefully, because as I recall, despite being a bit cutesy and corny at times, it was a pretty decent history.
 
bruto said:
Well, one can hope that the Texas authorities have made the mistake of not reading The American Pageant very carefully, because as I recall, despite being a bit cutesy and corny at times, it was a pretty decent history.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, as Paulhutch mentioned, it's the opposite. They are not trying force The American Pageant on unsuspecting school kids because it's (right wing) politically correct; they're trying to remove it because it's (progressive) politically correct.

So, they've read it but the packed kangaroo court approving Texas school books (there have been threads on that disgusting development) wants it gone because it doesn't wave the flag enough. They want it replaced with more tea-party-appropriate text.
 
jimbob said:
I disagree.


Chips are fat, with a slightly different texture to frites, and ideally fried in beef dripping. They *do* taste good with mayonnaise, but salt and vinegar is better.

Battered haddock (even better than cod IMO) should have fat chips with it.

Moules should be served with pommes frites.

Both are good in their place (on the table in front of me) but not at the same time.
Click to expand...
I'm only going to say this once. Cook your potatoes any way you like but no mayonnaise. Use ketchup like a civilized person. It's okay to mix a little mayonnaise with the ketchup but not mayo plain. That's just gross.

This message brought to you by an American. A citizens from the greatest nation on Earth. You are welcome and I'm glad I could be of help.
 
RandFan said:
I'm only going to say this once. Cook your potatoes any way you like but no mayonnaise. Use ketchup like a civilized person. It's okay to mix a little mayonnaise with the ketchup but not mayo plain. That's just gross.

This message brought to you by an American. A citizens from the greatest nation on Earth. You are welcome and I'm glad I could be of help.
Click to expand...

Except no substitutes, and remember to ask for them by name! :thumbsup:



;)
 
Foolmewunz said:
Unfortunately, as Paulhutch mentioned, it's the opposite. They are not trying force The American Pageant on unsuspecting school kids because it's (right wing) politically correct; they're trying to remove it because it's (progressive) politically correct.

So, they've read it but the packed kangaroo court approving Texas school books (there have been threads on that disgusting development) wants it gone because it doesn't wave the flag enough. They want it replaced with more tea-party-appropriate text.
Click to expand...
Apologies for the confusion. I am not sure whether I read Meadmaker's post wrong or whether he also had it backwards. I thought they were standardizing on TAP, not the other way around.
 
bruto said:
Apologies for the confusion. I am not sure whether I read Meadmaker's post wrong or whether he also had it backwards. I thought they were standardizing on TAP, not the other way around.
Click to expand...

The articles I read criticized TAP for being insufficiently anti-slavery, which made no sense to me. Both articles specifically mentioned the text box that quoted the South Carolina articles of secession, but didn't mention slavery.


After a bit more googling yesterday, it seems the fiercest critics of TAP are from the right wing. They are particularly upset about the copy of the Constitution included in TAP. It appears that there are some notes embedded in the text, set off with square brackets, to help explain some of the stickier passages. In particular, it seems that you can find the following:

"The right to keep and bear arms [i.e. for military purposes] shall not be infringed."

That one seems to have a bunch of people in a tizzy.
 
Meadmaker said:
The articles I read criticized TAP for being insufficiently anti-slavery, which made no sense to me. Both articles specifically mentioned the text box that quoted the South Carolina articles of secession, but didn't mention slavery.


After a bit more googling yesterday, it seems the fiercest critics of TAP are from the right wing. They are particularly upset about the copy of the Constitution included in TAP. It appears that there are some notes embedded in the text, set off with square brackets, to help explain some of the stickier passages. In particular, it seems that you can find the following:

"The right to keep and bear arms [i.e. for military purposes] shall not be infringed."

That one seems to have a bunch of people in a tizzy.
Click to expand...

The book is available on line. I think if you read a few chapters, especially the early one on the culture of slavery, and you know who's on the textbook board in Texas, you'll see why they're against it. There has been criticism of the book from the left, but it's independent of the row in Texas and Oklahoma, which is all about trying to undercut what they see as a tendency to teach progressive history in Advanced Placement, which is a college credit course, and which tells them that the college board is just simply not Murkin enough.
 
paulhutch said:
On the topic of The American Pageant and the Texas School board. From what I read this morning (sorry didn't save the links) it appears what is happening is Texas is removing it from the AP History curriculum and replacing it with a book form McGraw-Hill that is customized for individual states based on their standards. Supposedly the Texas version will downplay slavery in all chapters.
Click to expand...

Which makes it junk history.

I try to avoid Texas Bashing since so much of it is based on pure snobbery, but idiocies like this make it very,very,hard.
 
Checkmite said:
Because the Confederate battle flag has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with race, a surveillance camera caught two white men planting a number of the flags on the lawns of Ebenezer Baptist Church and the adjacent King Center in Atlanta last night. Ebenezer is the church of which the Martins Luther King (senior and junior) were pastors.
Click to expand...
I liked one of the Pastor's remarks in the NPR story, that the placement of these flags in this place was all about hate and not heritage.
 
Checkmite said:
Because the Confederate battle flag has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with race, a surveillance camera caught two white men planting a number of the flags on the lawns of Ebenezer Baptist Church and the adjacent King Center in Atlanta last night. Ebenezer is the church of which the Martins Luther King (senior and junior) were pastors.
Click to expand...

It will be interesting to see what political " organizations there peckerwoods are members of.
Though I think hitting them with a Hate Speech charge would be overkill. What they did is covered well enough under the laws against Vandalism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom