Textbooks Presenting Altered State Of History?

[Socrates]

[quote name='Winchester' date='01 July 2010 - 12:44 PM' timestamp='1278002654' post='2136612']
Textbooks are rarely impressive, anyway.

I hate articles that lead me by the hand to the author's preconceived notions. That one reads like a politician's appeal for money.
[/quote]
Which article?

[Winchester]

The one above my post.

[Socrates]

Someone's been on the warpath with the "-1"s on here . . .


Russian spies on Phatmass?

[MIKolbe]

I think Serbians....

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' date='01 July 2010 - 09:34 AM' timestamp='1278002046' post='2136605']
i thought this thread was gonna be about the recent texas rewrites of amnerican history in the school curriculum, which are imo a good bit more blatant.
[url="http://www.newsweek.com/2010/05/21/texas-cooks-the-textbooks.html"]http://www.newsweek....-textbooks.html[/url]
[/quote]

i am actually quite surprised that this post of mine got a negative.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/17/AR2010031700560.html explains the issues with it a little more clearly. i am pretty sure that this is a larger rewrite than the one referenced in the original post, but golly gee its being done up more conservative, what a surprise that noone here cares.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' date='02 July 2010 - 02:50 PM' timestamp='1278100256' post='2137013']
i am actually quite surprised that this post of mine got a negative.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/17/AR2010031700560.html explains the issues with it a little more clearly. i am pretty sure that this is a larger rewrite than the one referenced in the original post, but golly gee its being done up more conservative, what a surprise that noone here cares.
[/quote]

[img]http://cdn.nahright.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/umad.jpg[/img]

[Socrates]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' date='02 July 2010 - 03:50 PM' timestamp='1278100256' post='2137013']
i am actually quite surprised that this post of mine got a negative.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/17/AR2010031700560.html explains the issues with it a little more clearly. i am pretty sure that this is a larger rewrite than the one referenced in the original post, but golly gee its being done up more conservative, what a surprise that noone here cares.
[/quote]
What's wrong with conservative?

The people attacking the textbook revisions seem more driven by ideology than those proposing the changes. Public school textbooks in the past have often been rather heavily skewed to the left, and most of the changes just balance some of the initial bias.

I have yet to see anything directly quoted from the proposed textbooks that is factually inaccurate or otherwise problematic. The [i]Washington Post[/i] article contained almost no direct quotes from the text, but just people complaining about it. I really didn't see what the big deal was with the quotes in the [i]Newsweek[/i] rant. The author had to rail on extensively to "explain" to the reader how awful they were.

In any case, the whole think looks to me like much ado about nothing.


No, I didn't give you the "-1," even though I thought the linked article was stupid. Someone's just getting ridiculous in here.

Edited July 2, 2010 by Socrates

[Archaeology cat]

Too bad they can't just use primary source sourcebooks for textbooks. Of course, interpretation would still happen. Everyone has biases, especially when it comes to history.