Quote:
Originally Posted by Buster
They're teaching some legitimate history that is being whitewashed from most textbooks, I see no issue with it.
Lately, the education system has been pushing the studies of minority cultures, liberalism and completely ignoring anything that the teachers' unions and very liberal teachers do not agree with, both at the high school and secondary levels. They're going to get their liberal points of view in college, on the news, in the media, Hollywood...EVERYWHERE. I've seen textbooks that have a ton on Clinton, but ignore Reagan. They are both relevant and the events that occurred in the 1980s should not be ignored, just as other historical events should not be embellished. I've heard of schools spending more time on George Washington Carver than George Washington. They are attempting to "balance" and "create diversity" when historical facts don't necessarily support an equal relevance. It's not a hateful or bad thing that certain groups or types of people had more importance in the scope of history, it's just how things happened. History should be taught AS IT HAPPENED, no excuses. To artificially place important on certain events and individuals to try to create a racial or idealistic balance for political correctness' sake is to ruin history and teach it improperly. History is to be taught, not adjusted to fit and promote your views or belief system.
Why not teach both sides? It doesn't look like they're eliminating all liberal ideas, they'll be teaching them side-by-side.
Dropping "rap education" can only help the kids. Also, promoting assimilation to the culture rather than the rest of us learning new languages to accommodate immigrants is something that is long overdue.
There is no denying there are unintended consequences from Affirmative Action, welfare, Social Security and other Government Social Programs that have gone off-track due to corruption and waste, or have simply grown too much or outlived their usefulness.
General Stonewall Jackson, aside from his and the Confederacy's stance on slavery WAS one of the greatest military leaders of our history despite being on the perceived "wrong side" of the issue. Just because he was leading the side that we do not agree with in today's society does not mean he was an ineffective General or leader. Also, what is wrong with teaching BOTH Davis' and Lincoln's words and views?
I have to admit that Jefferson DOES need to be included in the teaching of history though. Of course, he is often incorrectly cited along with the nonexistent "Separation of Church and State" that does not actually exist in the founding documents, so perhaps that is part of their reasoning.
If anything, this new curriculum is impressive for being balanced in an education system dominated by those who want to teach only one side...their side.
|
Here in lies part of the problem. People were so quick to attach the south with slavery. The south did not leave the Union because it wanted slavery and the Union didn't. It left the Union cause Gov. was going to tax the southern states more for their exports vs. the northern states. Davis said it wasn't fair and decided to cecede. Other states followed suit. It was about half way through the war that slavery became the issue. Because the north knew that if they created animosity between the slaves and slave owners the south would have a harder time winning the war.
Also Lincoln didn't free all slaves. He only freed the slaves of the south. Again in order to make it more difficult for the south to win. Northern states kept slavery in effect for several years after.
I honestly could care less about hispanic history. If it has something relevant for us like the Alamo then fine but other wise what do I care about South America? Take a class in college if your interested.