America's Slide into the Dark Ages Continues...

Turtwig

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/19/texas-education-board-mulls-banning-%E2%80%98pro-islamic%E2%80%99-history-books/

The Texas Board of Education is considering targeting history textbooks that promote a “pro-Islamic, anti-Christian” point of view, The Dallas Morning News reported.

The board, which overhauled the state's history and social studies curriculum in May to reflect conservative values, will examine a resolution next week that would warn publishers not to “push a pro-Islamic, anti-Christian viewpoint” in world history textbooks, the newspaper reported.

Conservative board members requested the resolution after a candidate for a board seat warned them that “Middle Easterners” are buying textbook publishing companies.


Terrence Stutz of The Dallas Morning News reported:

A preliminary draft of the resolution states that "diverse reviewers have repeatedly documented gross pro-Islamic, anti-Christian distortions in social studies texts" across the U.S. and that past social studies textbooks in Texas also have been "tainted" with pro-Islamic, anti-Christian views.

In May, The Texas board’s conservative bloc, overhauled its existing social studies and history curriculum to reflect conservative contributions to U.S. history.

Among the approved amendments, according to the Texas Education Agency: discussions of the "solvency of long term entitlements, such as Social Security and Medicare"; and an examination of why "the Founding Fathers protected religious freedom in America" and guaranteed its free exercise.

Smyth

I could understand if it was Anti-Christian. Fueling hatred against them or whatever.

But an Anti-Christian point of view.

Texas. wtf.

Zillah

I feel like throwing up.

Galvasean

Is Texas real, or is it just some daft place made up for purposes of parody?

Zillah

Galvasean wrote: »

Is Texas real, or is it just some daft place made up for purposes of parody?

Texas was originally founded by Arthur D Warner as a satirical lampooning of what he saw as ludicrous conservativism in the region. Much like the British Royal Family, scientology, Britney Spears and creationism, the joke has gone way over the heads of current advocates.

amacachi

Zillah wrote: »

Texas was originally founded by Arthur D Warner as a satirical lampooning of what he saw as ludicrous conservativism in the region. Much like the British Royal Family, scientology, Britney Spears and creationism, the joke has gone way over the heads of current advocates.

Really? I could've sworn that historically it was pretty liberal and that most were surprised by the fact that it went so conservative a few hundred years after its founding.


Just by the by, am I missing something about this I'm not sure exactly which bit everyone is getting wound up about? Seems like it's just a "resolution" to shut some people up with their bitching.
EDIT: Ah, just read the third last paragraph. :pac:

sensibleken

Like

In 5570 a wrong guy called muhammed was born who then went on to found incorrectness

Pope Urban II started the 1st crusade as he realised he left his wallet in jerusalem and had to give money to a puppy shelter. despite looking in the chest cavities of several muslims and jews it could not be found. the muslims spend the money on american flags, petrol and puppy slingshots.

in 6977 Yusuff Islam became cat stevens.

In Ireland the serpent from the garden of eden re appears on the wanderly wagon and suggets the children start an athiest and agnostic forum when they grow up.

CiaranMT

sensibleken wrote: »

Like

In 5570 a wrong guy called muhammed was born who then went on to found incorrectness

Pope Urban II started the 1st crusade as he realised he left his wallet in jerusalem and had to give money to a puppy shelter. despite looking in the chest cavities of several muslims and jews it could not be found. the muslims spend the money on american flags, petrol and puppy slingshots.

in 6977 Yusuff Islam became cat stevens.

In Ireland the serpent from the garden of eden re appears on the wanderly wagon and suggets the children start an athiest and agnostic forum when they grow up.

Sounds like a Rubberbandits song if they were more concerned with spreading the Gospel :P

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

PeterIanStaker

Someone should start a rumour in Texas that only queers read books. . . . . .'specially tham ther sowshul studdy ones:D

Imagine the confusion.


Besides, the selection board candidate probably thinks "Middle Easterners" are from Missouri.

MagicMarker

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Hmm, we're gonna have a problem so...

Turtwig

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I could understand but given this group's track record I think it's more along the lines that they want to promote Christianity and defend their conservative values from outside criticisms. They have already pretty much cast evolution in the fire, by suggesting it is a theory and not a fact and that the alternative views needs to be taught also. They also did the same for climate science.
They have tried to suggestively bias history by making it have more emphasis on the positive values of conservatives. Anyone with the smallest ounce of understanding in history would know that as societies become more liberal they tended to offer better value of living for everyone. All one has to do is draw a line from the progression of civilisation from the beginning to now and you can see that as time elapsed civilisations tended to be become more and more tolerant. Hard to believe today, but Islam, was far more tolerant than Christianity. Of course saying so, could easily be argued as being pro Islam. Don't kid yourself into thinking such subtle rephrasing are genuine attempts for open unbiased education.

Latchy

Galvasean wrote: »

Is Texas real, or is it just some daft place made up for purposes of parody?

Two of it's sons are famous for killing two of the 2oth centurys most loved and popular (to most ) icons , John F Kennedy and John Lennon but that's just an observation more than anything to do with the dark side of American society .

monosharp

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

haha I think we need to establish something right now.

Evolution is a fact (organisms change over generations) and a theory (how do they change over generations).

A theory is actually higher than a fact in science. A theory explains facts.

For example. Gravity is a fact, the theory of relativity explains gravity.

I think Malty was trying to point out that the Texas school board called evolution a 'theory' not a 'fact' by using the common language meaning of theory which is a 'guess'. A scientific theory is not a guess. A scientific theory is as close to 100% fact as science gets.

Einhard

For all that we might laugh at the Texas school board, I'm pretty sure that 90% of the state's schools aren't under the control of a religious institution, discrimination in hiring teachers isn't actively encouraged, and that schools don't play an active role in preparing the kids for the sacraments of one particular faith, to the exclusion of all other children. People in glass houses really shouldn't throw stones...

strobe

Einhard wrote: »

For all that we might laugh at the Texas school board, I'm pretty sure that 90% of the state's schools aren't under the control of a religious institution, discrimination in hiring teachers isn't actively encouraged, and that schools don't play an active role in preparing the kids for the sacraments of one particular faith, to the exclusion of all other children. People in glass houses really shouldn't throw stones...

Well the posters on here smashed all the glass out of our house in relation to the RCC's control of the schools in this country on this forum a long long long time ago. So I'd say were pretty safe to lob a few stones in the direction of Texas.

deman

Zillah wrote: »

I feel like throwing up.

Seriously? Why exactly? Either you are ultra sensitive or way over-dramatic.

Kiokia

This thread really did take a detour. But bringing it back to the original post, I truly wish that instead of this neutral standpoint being taught in school we were exposed to the varying viewpoints, Islam, Christian or Jedi. I think much of the problem with the educational system, both over there and here, is that we don't learn about the 'Other' in schools. And the Other is a concept we learn much later.

sensibleken

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

agreed. but from the above they are quite clearly not doing that. they are introducing a new pro-conservative view point into history books. they are also bringing a loaded opinion on medicare and social security into the mix. this is not a strive for neutrality.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I don't see what irish language text books have to do with it as the Ann and Barry ones were exactly the same. Irish was no worse than english ones.

I dont remember Irish history books being overt Sinn Fein propaganda. which one were you studying?

robindch

sensibleken wrote: »

I dont remember Irish history books being overt Sinn Fein propaganda.

I don't have them anymore, but I do recall the primary school history books that were used in my school in Kerry during the late 1970's going on at excessive length about the mistreatment of the Irish by the English. Now this could have been partially the teacher's doing too -- he was an unstable nationalist -- but it's left a lingering, deep suspicion in my mind concerning the interests and honesty of politically-motivated individuals who dictate the standards within schools.

sensibleken

robindch wrote: »

I don't have them anymore, but I do recall the primary school history books that were used in my school in Kerry during the late 1970's going on at excessive length about the mistreatment of the Irish by the English. Now this could have been partially the teacher's doing too -- he was an unstable nationalist -- but it's left a lingering, deep suspicion in my mind concerning the interests and honesty of politically-motivated individuals who dictate the standards within schools.

well. in fairness. and i dont want to distract from the debate at hand (even though we seemed to have moved on to global warming somehow)
Irish history since 1179 cannot be viewed any other way than through gaelic/anglo relations. it cannot be denied that we came off the worse in that relationship by a long long way.

for the record i abhor sinn fein, militant nationalism of all types but i do love history.

I have seen before, that if one hates sinn fein/violence/nationalism that one downplays the historical 'justifications' that they use. Some see any reference to Irish people being mistreated as 'sinn fein' propaganda, when really it is just history.

(by the way, thats not directed at you robin)

I say this because I see a parallel with this story. what is a pro-islamic, anti-christian bias? It seems to suggest these two are at odds, not suprising given Americas attitude to Islam. It looks like because they are introducing a pro-conservative viewpoint that they are viewing any positive representation (or reporting) of islamic history as defacto anti christian/conservative

robindch

sensibleken wrote: »

Irish history since 1179 cannot be viewed any other way than through gaelic/anglo relations. it cannot be denied that we came off the worse in that relationship by a long long way.

No, I'm not denying that at all

What I perhaps should have added is that I recall that the books and our teacher dwelt exclusively on the bad side -- bad landlords, the famine, emigration, coffin ships, death, poverty and so on. I don't ever recall hearing that lots of Irish people, or people who grew up in Ireland, did things like joining the English army, travelled the world, became serious, high-level administrators within the British Empire -- Roger Casement's truly remarkable involvement in the Congo being a case in point -- built railways, engaged in commerce, fought in the first world war etc, etc, etc.

I'd love to grab a copy of my primary school history book again and see if my memory is correct on this, but as I said, I certainly don't recall it discussing anything more than Myles Na Gopaleen's rain and potatoes.

sensibleken

robindch wrote: »

No, I'm not denying that at all

What I perhaps should have added is that I recall that the books and our teacher dwelt exclusively on the bad side -- bad landlords, the famine, emigration, coffin ships, death, poverty and so on. I don't ever recall hearing that lots of Irish people, or people who grew up in Ireland, did things like joining the English army, travelled the world, became serious, high-level administrators within the British Empire -- Roger Casement's truly remarkable involvement in the Congo being a case in point -- built railways, engaged in commerce, fought in the first world war etc, etc, etc.

I'd love to grab a copy of my primary school history book again and see if my memory is correct on this, but as I said, I certainly don't recall it discussing anything more than Myles Na Gopaleen's rain and potatoes.

True, and some would see Irishmens involvement in the British affairs in Africa as very negetive as it could be argued that it contributed to the invasion and killing of native poppulations. however the not reporting them would be seen as a cover up of irishmens involvement in that kind of malarky

alternatively there is much positive to say about irish history from the monastic art and education, to brehon law, elected leaders over premogentiture etc.

but in a politically charged enviroment, such as Ireland in the 1970s historical fact and political opinion overlap and can lead to a picking and choosing.

the same can be said of America today. there is a highly political aspect to talking about Islam in America, escalated recently with the new york mosque and koran burning issues. in this context the article suggests that a political spin is being put on the subject in favour of a conservative, pro christian outlook

Stercus Accidit

I love the way the US insists on using the phrase 'textbook' so as to differenciate them from say, a picture book.

Its a bit redundant isn't it. I used to call them 'books' when I was a lad.

stevejazzx

robindch wrote: »

No, I'm not denying that at all

What I perhaps should have added is that I recall that the books and our teacher dwelt exclusively on the bad side -- bad landlords, the famine, emigration, coffin ships, death, poverty and so on. I don't ever recall hearing that lots of Irish people, or people who grew up in Ireland, did things like joining the English army, travelled the world, became serious, high-level administrators within the British Empire -- Roger Casement's truly remarkable involvement in the Congo being a case in point -- built railways, engaged in commerce, fought in the first world war etc, etc, etc.

I'd love to grab a copy of my primary school history book again and see if my memory is correct on this, but as I said, I certainly don't recall it discussing anything more than Myles Na Gopaleen's rain and potatoes.

Hmmm...I find that a little odd Robin; it's like you're asking "Where's the positive spin on the English thing?
I mean if the situation affected the vast majority of people in a particular way and only a samll minority in another way then finding fault with history books for not including both seems unnecessarily harsh? I mean I'm sure some black people did well during slavery....

robindch

stevejazzx wrote: »

Hmmm...I find that a little odd Robin; it's like you're asking "Where's the positive spin on the English thing?

I'm not looking for positive spin for the sake of it, but simply saying that that I had a teacher who was a nationalist (he had pictures of some relative(s?) from the civil war hung up over the blackboard) who banged on endlessly about the evils of the English, and that my memory of the history book backed him up in this. I've no idea -- I still have no idea -- (for example) whether it was 10%, 25%, 50% or 99.9% of the population who lived under the appalling conditions that were presented as universal, what percentage of landlords were bastards of the highest order (they were all portrayed as bastards) and so on. But I did know from family history, from stories from old people who had lived through the period, or people who had grown with people who had, that the English were not at all the assholes that the teacher (and, afair the history books) said they were.

From that, it was clear that the history being taught was one-sided and seemed to have been created to serve the political requirements of the time (dirty protests, brits out of the north etc, etc), rather than the more honest and impartial standards that they should have been aiming for.

Some balance, or at least an overall perspective, would have gone a long way.

robindch

robindch wrote: »

I still have no idea -- (for example) whether it was 10%, 25%, 50% or 99.9% of the population who lived under the appalling conditions that were presented as universal, what percentage of landlords were bastards of the highest order (they were all portrayed as bastards) and so on.

Next week, there's a lecture being given by a US historian in the National Library which might help answer this question:

NLI at 1900h:

http://www.nli.ie/en/list/current-events.aspx?article=d33916e7-1927-47c1-a07d-e8c576d23a6a

goose2005

sensibleken wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It can also be viewed in terms of class relations, technological history, agricultural history, interactions with the wider world, women's history,literary and artistic history, etc. rather than the rant about Poynings Law and Robert Emmet I remember.

Moreover, who's "we"? Can you trace your ancestry back 1000 years to all Irish people? Probably you have Welsh, Cambro-Norman, Flemish, Scots, English, Spanish, French ancestry if you go back far enough. And it's 1169 you're thinking of.

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Probably something like using CE, or mentioning the Islamic golden age.

goose2005

robindch wrote: »

I'm not looking for positive spin for the sake of it, but simply saying that that I had a teacher who was a nationalist (he had pictures of some relative(s?) from the civil war hung up over the blackboard) who banged on endlessly about the evils of the English, and that my memory of the history book backed him up in this. I've no idea -- I still have no idea -- (for example) whether it was 10%, 25%, 50% or 99.9% of the population who lived under the appalling conditions that were presented as universal, what percentage of landlords were bastards of the highest order (they were all portrayed as bastards) and so on. But I did know from family history, from stories from old people who had lived through the period, or people who had grown with people who had, that the English were not at all the assholes that the teacher (and, afair the history books) said they were.

From that, it was clear that the history being taught was one-sided and seemed to have been created to serve the political requirements of the time (dirty protests, brits out of the north etc, etc), rather than the more honest and impartial standards that they should have been aiming for.

Some balance, or at least an overall perspective, would have gone a long way.

Nor did it mention that a Shropshire peasant wasn't necessarily any better off than a Tipperary one. Nor did any the narrative of the famine mention what the slightly better off Irish who survived did to survive - i'm sure my ancestors had to do awful things. It was the cotter class and the itinerant which overwhelmingly died

sensibleken

goose2005 wrote: »

It can also be viewed in terms of class relations, technological history, agricultural history, interactions with the wider world, women's history,literary and artistic history, etc. rather than the rant about Poynings Law and Robert Emmet I remember.

Moreover, who's "we"? Can you trace your ancestry back 1000 years to all Irish people? Probably you have Welsh, Cambro-Norman, Flemish, Scots, English, Spanish, French ancestry if you go back far enough. And it's 1169 you're thinking of.



.

actually no its 1171 i was thinking of. but thanks for trying to be patronising.

but to your point: we were talking about history as taught in school books, which tends to be told along societal and political lines, which if your teaching Irish history cant exactly ignore anlo irish relations. I dont know what rant youre on about so i'll ignore that bit

thanks for the enlightening speculation on my history. Im actually 1/64th american! not that it bares even the slightest relevance.