DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Michael Tee on March 13, 2010, 12:18:18 PM
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html?src=me&ref=general (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html?src=me&ref=general)
THAT is brainwashing. And this time it's REAL.
-
So the Republicans manage to introduce diverse viewpoints into the curriculum, the Democrats cry foul and this is now brainwashing?
What was it before the changes?
-
<<What was it before the changes?>>
History. Sociology.
Not brainwashing.
-
(http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/ca0313d20100310023153.jpg)
-
<<What was it before the changes?>>
History. Sociology.
Not brainwashing.
What is so heinous about including the fact that the GOP was instrumental in passage of the Civil Rights bills of the 60's? Why hide the truth?
-
What is so heinous about including the fact that the GOP was instrumental in passage of the Civil Rights bills of the 60's? Why hide the truth?
And more to point; why are facts considered "brainwashing"?
-
touche'
-
<<What is so heinous about including the fact that the GOP was instrumental in passage of the Civil Rights bills of the 60's? Why hide the truth?>>
BT, you can cherry-pick all you like, but in two and a half months, the Republican-dominated board, split strictly on party lines, has made almost one amendment per page to the curriculum standards.
<<Since January, Republicans on the board have passed more than 100 amendments to the 120-page curriculum standards affecting history, sociology and economics courses from elementary to high school. The standards were proposed by a panel of teachers.>>
I did not argue that every amendment made was "heinous," but obviously there has been some fairly ham-handed editing at work here, all from the GOP perspective. The Civil Rights Act was passed through the strenuous efforts of many Democratic leaders. Yes there was Republican support without which the bill would never have passed, but the initiative and the heavy lifting were primarily Democratic. When the hockey results are broadcast, usually the fans want to hear the final score and who scored the winning goal; the hard-core hockey nuts want to hear more than the essential details, they may want the names of all who scored, all the assists, all the saves and the number of shots on goal, but most newscasts skip the minute details and go for the essentials. High school history isn't taught in minute detail, it's an outline, but the GOP is determined to force itself into every page, no matter how minor the contribution.
And a lot of the changes seem to be more problematic than pointing out the GOP role in the Civil Rights Act. For example, they edited Thomas Jefferson out of the list of thinkers who influenced the American Revolution because they didn't like his thoughts on separation of church and state. That IS brainwashing and it's sinister as well. If you don't think so, you're just hiding your head in the sand.
-
Please provide us this example of how Jefferson was "edited out", and had apparently no influence what-so-ever, on the founding of this country. Your say so only goes so far
And more to the point of Ami's question......how are facts, brainwashing? Examples, again, please
*let's see if Tee decides to take his head out of the microwave to respond to a serious inquiry....or just continue to feign ignorance*
-
Mavis B. Knight, a Democrat from Dallas, introduced an amendment requiring that students study the reasons ?the founding fathers protected religious freedom in America by barring the government from promoting or disfavoring any particular religion above all others.?
And yet you don't have a problem with this? Seems a simple examination of the first amendment would suffice.
-
Times Obsesses Over Texas 'Conservatives' Changing Curriculum, Ignores Far-Left Hispanic Group's Protest
By: Clay Waters
March 11, 2010
Reporter James McKinley Jr. was in Austin to cover a controversy over school curriculum in Texas, with conservatives on the state Board of Education trying to soften the liberal tone of the state's textbooks and include more records of conservative accomplishments. His Thursday story, ?Texas Conservatives Seek Deeper Stamp on Texts," was positively sodden with "conservative" labels, yet he managed to ignore a radical leftist group featured in an accompanying photo.
The article included two photos accompanied by a caption: ?Diana Gomez, center, and Garrett Mize, right, and other University of Texas students rallied against conservatives at a State Board of Education meeting Wednesday in Austin, Tex. The board's chairman, Gail Lowe, left, is one of the conservatives.?
Though McKinley was sufficiently attuned to get the names of Gomez and Mize, he didn't bother to identify the group they were involved with, even thought a close look at the sign Gomez was holding makes it obvious. The sign read: ?I want to see myself represented in textbooks!? In the bottom right corner was the phrase "MEChA." As in the ?Chicano? nationalist movement MEChA, the Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztl?n, translates as the Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan.
?Atzlan? is the name given to a swath of Western states annexed from Mexico during the Mexican-American war that MEChA and other radical groups feel they have a legal claim on, a position that's even too far for another left-wing Latino advocacy group, The National Council of La Raza (?the race?).
McKinley worked at least one ?conservative? label into a majority of the article's 18 paragraphs. There were 13 ?conservative? labels in all, not counting one in quoted material, two in the photo caption and the one in the headline. That's a lot of repetition for a story only 732 words long. A sample:
The board is expected to take a preliminary vote this week on a raft of changes to the state?s social studies curriculum proposed by the seven conservative Republicans on the board. A final vote will come in May.
Conservatives argue that the proposed curriculum, written by a panel of teachers, emphasizes the accomplishments of liberal politicians -- like the New Deal and the Great Society -- and gives less importance to efforts by conservatives like President Ronald Reagan to limit the size of government.
?There is a bias,? said Don McLeroy, a dentist from College Station who heads up the board?s conservative faction. ?I think the left has a real problem seeing their own bias.?
The three-day meeting is the first time the board has met since voters in last week?s Republican primaries voted to oust Dr. McLeroy and another conservative and threw the future makeup of the board up in the air. Two other members -- a conservative Republican and a moderate Democrat -- are not seeking re-election, and it is unclear what the balance of power will be after the general election. At present, the seven hard-core conservatives are often joined by one or more moderate members in votes on curriculum questions.
Dr. McLeroy still has 10 months to serve and he, along with rest of the religious conservatives on the board, have vowed to put their mark on the guidelines for social studies texts.
For instance, one guideline requires publishers to include a section on ?the conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s, including Phyllis Schlafly, the Contract with America, the Heritage Foundation, the Moral Majority and the National Rifle Association.?
The Texas-based McKinley has a habit of loading his stories with labels identifying conservative Texas Republicans as "far right" "archconservatives."
It's not what they report near as much as what they don't report (http://www.mrc.org/timeswatch/articles/2010/20100311114911.aspx)
-
<<And yet you don't have a problem with this? [a proposed requirement that students study the reasons the founding fathers protected religious freedom in America by barring the government from promoting or disfavoring any particular religion above all others?]
Of course not. If there's no examination of the reasons, the First looks like nothing more than hostility to religion by a bunch of fucking atheists. The reasons - - the European wars of religion, the struggle of the English and Dutch to free themselves from Papal domination, etc. - - are not only the key to the amendment itself and its overarching importance, but an invaluable warning of where the country would be heading without it.
<<Seems a simple examination of the first amendment would suffice. >>
Yeah the religious right would just love that. They'd have a free ride to convincing the increasingly dumbed-down U.S. public that the First is just some mean-spirited crap of no real use to anyone and should be routinely disregarded.
-
Could I become an "archconservative"?
What are the requirements and who is certifying them?
I would like to try and make it in that league.
-
<<Could I become an "archconservative"?>>
Sure, they all became what they are. There's no such thing as a born archconservative.
<<What are the requirements and who is certifying them?>>
An endless capacity to believe any kind of BS if it comes wrapped in an American flag or runs directly contrary to science and reason. Who certifies them? Might as well ask who certifies radical leftists or liberal elitists. Keep reading.
<<I would like to try and make it in that league.>>
Sorry, plane. You gotta be anointed. But the irony is that only a liberal pundit can anoint you. No archconservative will ever call himself that, or anyone else who believes as he does.
-
<<Could I become an "archconservative"?>>
Sure, they all became what they are. There's no such thing as a born archconservative.
<<What are the requirements and who is certifying them?>>
An endless capacity to believe any kind of BS if it comes wrapped in an American flag or runs directly contrary to science and reason. Who certifies them? Might as well ask who certifies radical leftists or liberal elitists. Keep reading.
<<I would like to try and make it in that league.>>
Sorry, plane. You gotta be anointed. But the irony is that only a liberal pundit can anoint you. No archconservative will ever call himself that, or anyone else who believes as he does.
Aw comon ....
I will call you arch if you will call me arch.
Then we can be Archies us both.
-
I'd have a lot of trouble anointing you as an arch-conservative, plane, they're drier types who live in a more rarified atmosphere, a little less connected to the real world, and let's face it, you were a sailor. Can't be helped now, but you just ruined it for yourself if you want to be anointed an arch-conservative. How about redneck? I'd have no problem at all anointing you as a redneck, but the thing is, rednecks don't need to be anointed. They just are. And there's millions of them.
Sorry, plane, you'll just have to find a more corruptible liberal. From what I hear on this board, there's millions of them too.
-
Yeah the religious right would just love that. They'd have a free ride to convincing the increasingly dumbed-down U.S. public that the First is just some mean-spirited crap of no real use to anyone and should be routinely disregarded.
Then you wouldn't have a problem with listing the colonies and states that did establish religion, or perhaps an examination of the Danbury Letters in context, or mentioning to students that the US govt under Jefferson funded missionaries or that one of the first official acts of congress was establishing the position of chaplain for both houses. .
or would that be considered brainwashing?
-
<<Then you wouldn't have a problem with listing the colonies and states that did establish religion>>
The only one I know for sure that did was Virginia, as a colony. Once they were states, I didn't think they COULD establish a religion. That's a good question, but I'm not sure where you're going with it.
<< . . . or perhaps an examination of the Danbury Letters in context>>
I confess, the first time I ever heard of the Danbury Letters was in your post here, and I thank you for that, so I Googled them and found the final one - - which seemed to be a pretty firm but diplomatic rejection of the state getting into the religion business. I don't think I have the time to examine the entire correspondence in context, at least not before I retire, but why don't you tell me what you think they signify?
<< . . . or mentioning to students that the US govt under Jefferson funded missionaries or that one of the first official acts of congress was establishing the position of chaplain for both houses.>>
The old "Two steps forward, one step back," eh? Sure it's surprising, I'm not sure if the chaplains were always Protestant ministers, because I know Washington made sure that a Catholic priest and a rabbi were in attendance as well as the ubiquitous Prods at his inauguration. Don't know if he wanted to cover all bases, or was just an early believer in diversity.
Is all that brainwashing or just throwing in some little-known historical fact? I'm very suspicious of the "historical fact" approach, simply because almost all of it seems to favour the conservatives in one way or another. So without necessarily questioning whether the new additions are factual or not, and assuming they are, it's still likely that these are indoctinational facts which favour conservative views. It's a fact, for example, that the UNCAT, which the U.S. signed and ratified, prohibits torture, defines torture, and imposes an obligation on all signing states to prosecute those who have tortured, but if this fact isn't already in the Texas history textbooks, I'd be extremely surprised if the GOP hacks who are so zealously adding more facts to their textbooks would want these particular facts added. As we all know, there are facts and there are facts. So maybe the way to ensure that fact and not propaganda is put in the textbooks is to have the content selected by independent scholars nominated in equal numbers by the two political parties. What you see now is a GOP-dominated commission forcing its "facts" onto the textbooks that children of both political parties are going to be using.
-
So, you have a problem with facts that are contrary to your made up mind of events. Then again, that's never been in doubt
-
I'm very suspicious of the "historical fact" approach, simply because almost all of it seems to favour the conservatives in one way or another.
Yes , facts have a well known conservative bias.
-
d'oh ;)