KingMerv00
Penultimate Amazing
Seems to me bass ackwards. Wasn't Jefferson a product of Enlightenment thinking?
Positive feedback loop.
Seems to me bass ackwards. Wasn't Jefferson a product of Enlightenment thinking?
One of the changes:
B) evaluate contrast the impact tone of muckrakers and reform leaders such as Upton Sinclair, Susan B. Anthony, Ida B. Wells, andW. E. B. DuBois on American society; and versus the optimism of immigrants including Jean Pierre Godet as told
in Thomas Kinkade’s The Spirit of America
JUSTIFICATION
Diversity of opinion and balanced presentation.
The words of Godet and immigrants like him were, “I love America for
giving so many of us the right to dream a new dream”. Such words
were as lost on the muckrakers as they are on many modern
historians obsessed by oppression.
So the best way to balance an award-winning journalist who documented institutional, unsafe working conditions and whose work directly led to two major laws to ensure the safety of the U.S. food supply is contrast him to a fictional character.
Go Texas!
You missed the true irony here: A fictional character created by an artist* best known for his gauzy, schmaltzy, overly maudlin, landscapes populated by warmly glowing streetlamps, cottage widows and Christian symbols.
I don't see the harm. Sure, we use grade school to socialize our kiddles, but most of this stuff isn't going to come up until they hit a college level history course. As long as the textbooks aren't outright lying, why should it matter to other than historians?
I have confidence in the ability of youth to ignore wholesale any subtlety in the instruction they receive, and most of the blatant stuff as well. If you want to see alternate histories reshaping public opinion, you don't need to look at textbooks, you can tune your radio to any AM talk show.
The idea that students are empty vessels awaiting any misinformation to fill them seems wrong.
But for a large percentage of them, it is true anyways.
High school students are idiots.
I don't see the harm. Sure, we use grade school to socialize our kiddles, but most of this stuff isn't going to come up until they hit a college level history course. As long as the textbooks aren't outright lying, why should it matter to other than historians?
I have confidence in the ability of youth to ignore wholesale any subtlety in the instruction they receive, and most of the blatant stuff as well. If you want to see alternate histories reshaping public opinion, you don't need to look at textbooks, you can tune your radio to any AM talk show.
The idea that students are empty vessels awaiting any misinformation to fill them seems wrong.
Seems like we could save a lot of money here and just get them public domain copies of Grimm's Fairy Tales.
To say that what you learn in high school doesn't affect the average student is dumb.
Hm... I was a kid who hated history in school, and now I love reading about history.
One thing I've learned is that history doesn't happen to other people, what happened yesterday or a hundred years ago still can and does affect the world we live in today.
Learning what happened before helps us understand the world we live in, where we came from, and what we can do to change it, should we feel we need to.
Seems to me bass ackwards. Wasn't Jefferson a product of Enlightenment thinking?
The McCarthy part, however, is just a big, "HUH?!?"
There is a simple test you can do. Ask someone who isn't an historian and isn't college educated about one of the 'historical truths' that matter so much to Texas. I think you will find that not only do they have a cartoonish view of history, but they will have many a fact blatantly wrong. These are the folks who took high school history before the controversy. The place for nuance is in a college history course, not a high school classroom.
It's done the same way in other fields. No one complains about teaching the Bohr atom because it is wrong. No one decrys algebra that doesn't include complex numbers or the notion of infinity. The reason is that for most of us, the basic version is fine. If we go on to further education, we get a better picture.
I do agree that if you want to teach history, you ought to have historians involved and value their opinions. In the same way I would want to have biologists involved in teaching biology. Where I disagree is that this is some grand tragedy with real impact.
As far as high school students being idiots, I'd put it rather differently. They simply don't care whether McCarthy was a valiant crime fighter or a blind fool who abused the power of his office. It's not relevant to them. It's a mistake to think of high school students as blank slates we write on to create some creature of our own liking. The Texas board of education will accomplish nothing with their creative editing.
For Texas to place bltatant falsehoods into textbooks is wrong.
Also, if it's in the textbooks, then teachers have a reference to a falsehood but "ammunition" to call it a fact.
There is a simple test you can do. Ask someone who isn't an historian and isn't college educated about one of the 'historical truths' that matter so much to Texas. I think you will find that not only do they have a cartoonish view of history, but they will have many a fact blatantly wrong. These are the folks who took high school history before the controversy. The place for nuance is in a college history course, not a high school classroom.
Perfect solution fallacy.
Any evidence that Texas teachers are doing this in large numbers?
The perfect solution fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists and/or that a solution should be rejected because some part of the problem would still exist after it were implemented. This is a classic example of black and white thinking, in which a person fails to see the complex interplay between things, and as a result, reduces complex problems to a pair of binary extremes.(from wiki)