A GOP proposal targeting ‘negative’ U.S. history

[jpn]

They're at it again.

​

A proposed bill now advancing in the New Hampshire legislature would ban the advocacy of any “doctrine” or “theory” promoting a “negative” account of U.S. history, including the notion that the United States was “founded on racism.”​

Additionally, the bill describes itself as designed to ensure teachers’ “loyalty,” while prohibiting advocacy of “subversive doctrines.”​

Wow. No teaching any part of our history that would be considered "negative." So, no mention of slavery other than how great it was for blacks. No mention of the separation of church and state. No mention of Dredd Scott. No mention of the Civil War, except that there were great people on both sides. Everyone was noble and true. No mention of the labor movement. No mention of CIA activities in Latin America or Iran. No discussion of using the atom bomb in WWII except how cool it was. Vietnam is only to be taught as a valiant war against Communism, without mentioning Gulf of Tonkin or Mai Lai. Watergate is ignored. Iran Contra is ignored. Paula Jones is ignored. Bush's invasion of Iraq is just patriotic Americans bringing freedom to Iraq, period. Hurricane Katrina is ignored. Benghazi is ignored. Trump is an outstanding American. So is Biden.

Yeah, great. Sounds absolutely riveting. No doubt when they grow up and read a few books our children will be so glad we hadn't taught them anything "negative" about their country. Jesus H Christ.

 

[j brown's body]

Lol. That's all I teach. That's the point. Repair and don't repeat the mistakes of the past. Duh.

 

[BirdinHand]

Behind a paywall.

 

[MaryP]

They're at it again.

​

A proposed bill now advancing in the New Hampshire legislature would ban the advocacy of any “doctrine” or “theory” promoting a “negative” account of U.S. history, including the notion that the United States was “founded on racism.”​

Additionally, the bill describes itself as designed to ensure teachers’ “loyalty,” while prohibiting advocacy of “subversive doctrines.”​

Wow. No teaching any part of our history that would be considered "negative." So, no mention of slavery other than how great it was for blacks. No mention of the separation of church and state. No mention of Dredd Scott. No mention of the Civil War, except that there were great people on both sides. Everyone was noble and true. No mention of the labor movement. No mention of CIA activities in Latin America or Iran. No discussion of using the atom bomb in WWII except how cool it was. Vietnam is only to be taught as a valiant war against Communism, without mentioning Gulf of Tonkin or Mai Lai. Watergate is ignored. Iran Contra is ignored. Paula Jones is ignored. Bush's invasion of Iraq is just patriotic Americans bringing freedom to Iraq, period. Hurricane Katrina is ignored. Benghazi is ignored. Trump is an outstanding American. So is Biden.

Yeah, great. Sounds absolutely riveting. No doubt when they grow up and read a few books our children will be so glad we hadn't taught them anything "negative" about their country. Jesus H Christ.

Sounds familiar. ALEC making the rounds.

 

[HIP56948]

One damn thing is for certain: The school children from New Hampshire, 20 years from now, had better not try out for Jeopardy!
They'll be laughed off the stage.

 

[Somerville]

Behind a paywall.

I did not find a paywall for the bill - click on the words "A proposed bill"

 

[BirdinHand]

I did not find a paywall for the bill - click on the words "A proposed bill"

Thank you - didn’t notice that - I’ll go look it up and see what else I can find.

 

[BirdinHand]

Interesting to see they already have a law disallowing the “advocating of communism” and that this updates it.

I. No teacher shall advocate communism, socialism, or Marxism as a political doctrine or any other doctrine or theory which includes the overthrow by force of the government of the United States or of this state in any public or state approved school or in any state institution.

Current Legislation Search

www.gencourt.state.nh.us

"No teacher shall advocate any doctrine or theory promoting a negative account or representation of the founding and history of the United States of America in New Hampshire public schools which does not include the worldwide context of now outdated and discouraged practices. Such prohibition includes but is not limited to teaching that the United States was founded on racism."

 

[Somerville]

Interesting to see they already have a law disallowing the “advocating of communism” and that this updates it.

I. No teacher shall advocate communism, socialism, or Marxism as a political doctrine or any other doctrine or theory which includes the overthrow by force of the government of the United States or of this state in any public or state approved school or in any state institution.

Current Legislation Search

www.gencourt.state.nh.us

The problem then falls in the understanding of the word "advocate". For some, merely mentioning those ideologies would be labeled 'advocating'. Certainly a balanced discussion of the subjects would include all of the crimes carried out by regimes using the various labels but should also include the reasoning, the justifications that some used in promoting the ideologies. Balanced teaching does not mean advocating but some people refuse to accept it.

 

[jpn]

What else won't kids learn about?

• Interring US citizens with Asian heritage in WWII
• Gay rights movement
• Any mention of Native Americans who weren't thrilled to have white people take their land
• US stealing Panama away from Columbia so we could build our canal there
• US massacres in the Philippines during the Spanish America war

 

[jpn]

The problem then falls in the understanding of the word "advocate".

...aaaand you've just lost every parent who voted for Trump.

 

[Grim17]

They definitely need to be more specific before passing this bill. It leaves much open to interpretation, meaning that the party in power at any given time can interpret the bill for political purposes... and that ain't good. I'm talking about part #2, not part #1 which I think has been clearly written.

After reading through a few reports on this, it would appear the intention of the bill is not to suppress history, but assure that both sides are represented to students, and to make sure things are presented in context according to the norms during the time historical events took place. The following are quotes from the bill’s primary sponsor, Rep. Alicia Lekas"

“Too often I’m running into too many students who don’t know anything about real history and stuff like that, because teachers spend too much time indoctrinating students about political things, which I don’t think teachers should be doing,”​

​

“Slavery was a terrible thing, but a lot of people don’t know slavery happened all over the world; that’s the setting you need to be teaching” ​

​

“If you’re going to teach about the founding of the country, you need to teach it in its proper setting so you know what was happening in the rest of the world, so you have a better idea of why people did the way they did.”​

I personally don't have a problem with the intent of the bill, I just think it's too vague and could easily be politicized by politicians who happen to be in power.

One more thing, keep in mind that the Washington Post story is not only an oped, but a pretty damned biased one at that... So take how they are framing this story with a grain of salt.

 

[Phys251]

They're at it again.

​

A proposed bill now advancing in the New Hampshire legislature would ban the advocacy of any “doctrine” or “theory” promoting a “negative” account of U.S. history, including the notion that the United States was “founded on racism.”​

Additionally, the bill describes itself as designed to ensure teachers’ “loyalty,” while prohibiting advocacy of “subversive doctrines.”​

Wow. No teaching any part of our history that would be considered "negative." So, no mention of slavery other than how great it was for blacks. No mention of the separation of church and state. No mention of Dredd Scott. No mention of the Civil War, except that there were great people on both sides. Everyone was noble and true. No mention of the labor movement. No mention of CIA activities in Latin America or Iran. No discussion of using the atom bomb in WWII except how cool it was. Vietnam is only to be taught as a valiant war against Communism, without mentioning Gulf of Tonkin or Mai Lai. Watergate is ignored. Iran Contra is ignored. Paula Jones is ignored. Bush's invasion of Iraq is just patriotic Americans bringing freedom to Iraq, period. Hurricane Katrina is ignored. Benghazi is ignored. Trump is an outstanding American. So is Biden.

Yeah, great. Sounds absolutely riveting. No doubt when they grow up and read a few books our children will be so glad we hadn't taught them anything "negative" about their country. Jesus H Christ.

Righties claim to be all about freedom, but in reality they're all about censorship.

 

[Helix]

When you need a law to prevent teaching kids about history, that says a lot about the history that you're trying to cover up.

 

[reflechissez]

They definitely need to be more specific before passing this bill. It leaves much open to interpretation, meaning that the party in power at any given time can interpret the bill for political purposes... and that ain't good. I'm talking about part #2, not part #1 which I think has been clearly written.

After reading through a few reports on this, it would appear the intention of the bill is not to suppress history, but assure that both sides are represented to students, and to make sure things are presented in context according to the norms during the time historical events took place. The following are quotes from the bill’s primary sponsor, Rep. Alicia Lekas"

“Too often I’m running into too many students who don’t know anything about real history and stuff like that, because teachers spend too much time indoctrinating students about political things, which I don’t think teachers should be doing,”​

​

“Slavery was a terrible thing, but a lot of people don’t know slavery happened all over the world; that’s the setting you need to be teaching” ​

​

“If you’re going to teach about the founding of the country, you need to teach it in its proper setting so you know what was happening in the rest of the world, so you have a better idea of why people did the way they did.”​

I personally don't have a problem with the intent of the bill, I just think it's too vague and could easily be politicized by politicians who happen to be in power.

One more thing, keep in mind that the Washington Post story is not only an oped, but a pretty damned biased one at that... So take how they are framing this story with a grain of salt.

Holy shit! I don't want that woman deciding what people should be learning.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Has anybody actually bothered to read the bill? It is available to read, so people can make up their own minds.

1 Teachers' Loyalty; Prohibition Added. Amend RSA 191:1 to read as follows:

191:1 Advocacy of Subversive Doctrines Prohibited.

I. No teacher shall advocate communism, socialism, or Marxism as a political doctrine or any other doctrine or theory which includes the overthrow by force of the government of the United States or of this state in any public or state approved school or in any state institution.

II. No teacher shall advocate any doctrine or theory promoting a negative account or representation of the founding and history of the United States of America in New Hampshire public schools which does not include the worldwide context of now outdated and discouraged practices. Such prohibition includes but is not limited to teaching that the United States was founded on racism.

III. A violation of this section shall be considered a violation of the New Hampshire code of ethics and code of conduct for educational professionals and shall justify disciplinary sanctions.

2 Effective Date. This act shall take effect 60 days after its passage.

Current Legislation Search

www.gencourt.state.nh.us

I see nothing objectionable in that at all. However, the claims being made in here by people who have apparently never even bothered to read the actual bill itself I do find objectionable.

Stop being sheep, and bleating at whatever direction others tell you to. Take the time to actually look at the original information. Especially in a case like this where it is very easy to find.

 

[Grim17]

Holy shit! I don't want that woman deciding what people should be learning.

You mean you don't want anyone to prevent teachers from indoctrinating children and teaching them to hate America.

 

[reflechissez]

You mean you don't want anyone to prevent teachers from indoctrinating children and teaching them to hate America.

Nah. I meant what I said.

 

[Linc]

You mean you don't want anyone to prevent teachers from indoctrinating children and teaching them to hate America.

Nazified BOIL — Blatant Outrageous Ignorant Lie

 

[Linc]

They definitely need to be more specific before passing this bill. It leaves much open to interpretation, meaning that the party in power at any given time can interpret the bill for political purposes... and that ain't good. I'm talking about part #2, not part #1 which I think has been clearly written.

After reading through a few reports on this, it would appear the intention of the bill is not to suppress history, but assure that both sides are represented to students, and to make sure things are presented in context according to the norms during the time historical events took place. The following are quotes from the bill’s primary sponsor, Rep. Alicia Lekas"

“Too often I’m running into too many students who don’t know anything about real history and stuff like that, because teachers spend too much time indoctrinating students about political things, which I don’t think teachers should be doing,”​

​

“Slavery was a terrible thing, but a lot of people don’t know slavery happened all over the world; that’s the setting you need to be teaching” ​

​

“If you’re going to teach about the founding of the country, you need to teach it in its proper setting so you know what was happening in the rest of the world, so you have a better idea of why people did the way they did.”​

I personally don't have a problem with the intent of the bill, I just think it's too vague and could easily be politicized by politicians who happen to be in power.

One more thing, keep in mind that the Washington Post story is not only an oped, but a pretty damned biased one at that... So take how they are framing this story with a grain of salt.

Today’s Nazified Libertaryan GOPutins support teaching the history of the Confederate States.

 

[Somerville]

Today’s Nazified Libertaryan GOPutins support teaching the history of the Confederate States.

"teaching the history of the Confederate States" should not be a problem - as long as it is legitimate history and not the Klan's version of the Good Ol' Days.

 

[Captain Adverse]

They're at it again.

​

A proposed bill now advancing in the New Hampshire legislature would ban the advocacy of any “doctrine” or “theory” promoting a “negative” account of U.S. history, including the notion that the United States was “founded on racism.”​

Additionally, the bill describes itself as designed to ensure teachers’ “loyalty,” while prohibiting advocacy of “subversive doctrines.”​

Wow. No teaching any part of our history that would be considered "negative." So, no mention of slavery other than how great it was for blacks. No mention of the separation of church and state. No mention of Dredd Scott. No mention of the Civil War, except that there were great people on both sides. Everyone was noble and true. No mention of the labor movement. No mention of CIA activities in Latin America or Iran. No discussion of using the atom bomb in WWII except how cool it was. Vietnam is only to be taught as a valiant war against Communism, without mentioning Gulf of Tonkin or Mai Lai. Watergate is ignored. Iran Contra is ignored. Paula Jones is ignored. Bush's invasion of Iraq is just patriotic Americans bringing freedom to Iraq, period. Hurricane Katrina is ignored. Benghazi is ignored. Trump is an outstanding American. So is Biden.

Yeah, great. Sounds absolutely riveting. No doubt when they grow up and read a few books our children will be so glad we hadn't taught them anything "negative" about their country. Jesus H Christ.

Since the USA was not "founded on racism" I don't have any problem with a bill prohibiting public schools funded with taxpayer dollars from teaching it.

It is one thing to teach "history" pointing out issues of slavery, Jim Crow laws, westward expansion's effects on Native tribes, etc.. Quite another to teach it was all based on "racism."

That's like saying the Ottoman Empire's expansion was based on "racism," or the African slave trading kingdoms of Songhai, Malawi, and Ashanti were based on "racism;" or the Aztec Empire was based on racism, or the Swedish Empire of Gustavus Adolphus was based on racism, just to name a few.

 

[ttwtt78640]

They definitely need to be more specific before passing this bill. It leaves much open to interpretation, meaning that the party in power at any given time can interpret the bill for political purposes... and that ain't good. I'm talking about part #2, not part #1 which I think has been clearly written.

After reading through a few reports on this, it would appear the intention of the bill is not to suppress history, but assure that both sides are represented to students, and to make sure things are presented in context according to the norms during the time historical events took place. The following are quotes from the bill’s primary sponsor, Rep. Alicia Lekas"

“Too often I’m running into too many students who don’t know anything about real history and stuff like that, because teachers spend too much time indoctrinating students about political things, which I don’t think teachers should be doing,”​

​

“Slavery was a terrible thing, but a lot of people don’t know slavery happened all over the world; that’s the setting you need to be teaching” ​

​

“If you’re going to teach about the founding of the country, you need to teach it in its proper setting so you know what was happening in the rest of the world, so you have a better idea of why people did the way they did.”​

I personally don't have a problem with the intent of the bill, I just think it's too vague and could easily be politicized by politicians who happen to be in power.

One more thing, keep in mind that the Washington Post story is not only an oped, but a pretty damned biased one at that... So take how they are framing this story with a grain of salt.

Many seem to be saying that (bolded above) about federal immigration law.

 

[Somerville]

Since the USA was not "founded on racism" I don't have any problem with a bill prohibiting public schools funded with taxpayer dollars from teaching it.

It is one thing to teach "history" pointing out issues of slavery, Jim Crow laws, westward expansions effects on Native tribes, etc.. Quite another to teach it was all based on "racism."

That's like saying the Ottoman Empire's expansion was based on "racism," or the African slave trading kingdoms of Songhai, Malawi, and Ashanti were based on "racism;" or the Aztec Empire was based on racism, just to name a few.

You really need to study history because your examples are jokes. The Ottoman Empire's expansion was not based on racism as you and others define the issue but as with Hitler's invasion of the nations surrounding Germany, the reasoning was 1] an increase in national power but also 2] 'protecting' those of Turkish heritage from the inferiors who were in charge in Armenia, Syria, parts of Greece and other nations.

The African slave traders also viewed the people they grabbed as inferiors, they had the same colour skin but that didn't make them equal to the traders. Same with the Aztecs but in their case it was also based on religion - a religion that was just a bit blood-oriented.

 

[j brown's body]

You mean you don't want anyone to prevent teachers from indoctrinating children and teaching them to hate America.

If you believe this, you don't have much faith in children.