- Joined
- Jul 21, 2005
- Messages
- 51,718
- Reaction score
- 35,496
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
The post you responded to did not claim that anyone was trying to make the curriculum non-factual. It merely said that the curriculum should be factual
When people talk about bias, they are generally referring to a bias that is generally considered to be "bad".
"making america look good" above all else.
Yes, I quoted a school board member using the teaching of slavery as an example of something that doesn't support the goals of this school board.
I also think it's naive to assume that there isn't an easily identifiable political agenda behind this school board's actions.
Sounds exactly like that to me in the overall context of the article and the parts of the proposal I read.
How does it not read like that to you?
You said, and I quote:
Based on the links contained in this thread, and the links you have provided, that statement absolutely false.
Either substanciate that claim, or retract it.
Seriously?
Because she never said that slavery shouldn't be taught in history class... That's kind of a no-brainer.
In that case good luck getting an honest answer...
Not at all... I don't believe that, nor did I ever imply it.
My statement is true.
I have already posted a quote from the school board member who objects to the teaching of slavery
It's leniency, but still punishment for being absent from classes. Schools were in the right to give out that dose of punishment.
Still your opinion.
Can you give us some examples of this apparent leftist socialist agenda in schoolbooks?History is mostly a collection of lies created by the victor.
All history is biased. As Leftwing socialists control most public school and college history textbook publication houses, their Leftist agenda is quite apparent.
In the context of WW2, how is Stalin bad? Do you not think he was instrumental in the Allied defeat of Hitler?In all the history textbooks I've seen over the years, Communists get a free ride. As their agenda is hardly different than Liberals who write the books. Every single history book I've looked at will have a least one dedicated page in the WW2 section on the Holocaust, and nothing on greater number of atrocities done by the Soviets. Hitler bad, Stalin good. Biased? For sure.
Considering the coordinated racist vote ID laws recently be passed by Republican state legislators, clearly Blacks and other ethic groups still suffer under Jim Crow voter laws in many or most red states. I will grant you that this disenfranchisement is a recent event, which illustrates that we should continue to teach the existence of earlier racist behaviour since it can clearly (and has) resurface(d) after being tamped down.Liberals have only a narrow view of what "civil rights" are. For typical, brainwashed American liberals, they believe it is still 1963 and Blacks and other ethnic groups still suffer under Jim Crow Voter Laws and the never ending problem of "racism and discrimination." Factors that will take another 2,000 years to erase, it seems.
Considering that Rand Paul, often mentioned as a 2016 presidential candidate by Republicans, would like to allow 'whites only' restuarants clearly it is still (in the right's mind) 1954 or 1963 at least (IIRC he'd like to see the Civil Rights Act repealed). Considering right wing extemists like Cliven Bundy, supported by right wing media,who thinks that the abolition of slavery was a bad idea it clearly still is 1864.Black liberals, on the other hand, still think it is 1864, and as oppressed slaves, they can only have "justice" when they have taken over all forms of government through revolutionary acts. This is what they are demanding in Ferguson, Mo. And what has already happened in Detroit, and so many other cities across the nation.
I would call it fascism.Would you call that "Black Supremacy" or just "Social Justice?"
No, this is established school practice, backed by law since the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Not an opinion. Big difference.
And it was said in response to the story posted, seemingly implicating that those in the story were suggesting the curriculum SHOULDN'T be factual. If that wasn't the intent there was little reason to say it as it relates to the topic.
Which is exactly my point. People like to ACT like they give a damn about bias, but that's not true...they give a damn about bias that goes against their own biases.
Funny, you put it in quotes but I don't remember that being what was proposed here.
I looked back through every post you've made in this thread and I didn't see it. Care to point me to the specific post because apparently I'm missing it. I see one instance where you make the claim that they said that in a paraphrased sort of way, and a post where you include a link without any information on what said link contains and which the link doesn't function...but that's it. What post did you actually quote the school board member saying that kid shouldn't be taught about slavery in the US, and did it actually include a link to verify your claim?
Thanks for the strawman, now show me where I've suggested there isn't? Absolutely I think there's a political reason behind what this group would choose to be included in history classes. Where we differ likely is I believe peoples political views impact pretty much all instances of history texts or curriculum in various ways. What I suggested was questionable was the outright jump to the notion that what was stated in the OP automatically would lead to it being used to keep from "teaching kids about slavery in the US"
You keep claiming they're right.
That's your opinion. They do not 'have to' apply it.
Seriously?
Because she never said that slavery shouldn't be taught in history class... That's kind of a no-brainer.
You are claiming that the following statement you made was true:
Well now I can say the following as absolute fact, without being accused of flaming, trolling or baiting...
That sir is a lie... A 100% fabricated accusation that has no basis what so ever in fact.
Let us know when you come up with a way to teach slavery in a positive light
Let us know when you come up with a way to teach slavery in a positive light
What exactly are those "liberal fatted calves", and what exactly are the "facts" that replaced them? Since you seem to know, maybe you can share with us.
She said it was taught in a negative light. That's an objection
Let us know when you come up with a way to teach slavery in a positive lightDo you seriously have no idea what the woman was talking about?
If you really don't, then just say so and I will be glad to enlighten you.
With U.B. Philips and gang, you can. Of course, you would be legitimately laughed out of the room quoting the guy with a ton of respect.
Let us know when you come up with a way to teach slavery in a positive light
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?