If public US history books...

[fli]

Question:

What if US public education history books truly reflected US history.

My textbook didn't have a paragraph over about the "Annexation" of Texas. But if US history text books truly reflected US history, what would you think be changed. It would say something about the Lemon Grove Incident which ultimately provided the backbone to the Civil Rights movement (In that case, white families wanted Mexican children put into torn down barns for schools.)

Besides this "annexation" thing, It would show how Blacks, Latinos, Chinese, every minority were treated-- not just the Emancipation part. It would truly reflect how Chinatown was created. I mean, when I was studying WWII, there wasn't anything about Japanese concentration camps in my history book. The only way I learned it was because my teacher, who was a truly amazing person, made sure that we learned EVERYTHING, and not the best parts.

So, what would US history books truly reflect?

[BWS]

What if you went to college and it was your major? It would.

...oh. AMERICAN CONSPIRACY!!! >: (

[SumDomGye]

I think if they weren't all candied up and watered down, there would be alot less proud Americans. There are many scandals and, well, even conspiracies that we don't know about. If we did, we would have removed certain people from offices, fought more wars, ect.

If some cosmic force created a text book (heh) that contained all the historical facts of America and widely distributed it, we'd be in deep shit.

[witeshark]

Good thing us kids ignore history class (well cram for tests of course)

[Stresskillingme]

Canadian history books talk about all our abuses we also put Japanese Canadians into camps. We did the same thing to German and Hungarian Canadians into camps in World War One.

[fli]

At 8/27/04 12:46 AM, BWS wrote: What if you went to college and it was your major? It would.

...oh. AMERICAN CONSPIRACY!!! >: (

I attend to the Santa Clara University, a private university... English is my major.

[fli]

Goddamn public text books candy coat all shit. They never tell how we got to be on the top. The darkest period I could recall reading in my text book was about the Industrial Revolution, but even then it didn't explain how businesses pitched Immigrants against other immigrants.

It doesn't go in to great detail on how our imperialistic ways and exploiting people got us this far into progress.

What I want to see: The whole complete story. A whole chapter on the "Annexation" of Texas-- not one paragraph. I want more then just a page the treatment of Japanese during WWII, putting them in concentration camps. Perhaps a few pages dedicated to the Zoot Suit Riots... Add stuff how we invaded Castillo Chapultepec...

My hope: When the current crap (Iraq) is written down, it won't be candy coated to make Bush as some kind of hero, or have Enron written out completly...

[Nylo]

They'd reflect that the United States lost vietnam and that it wasn't even a war, but a police action. Not what my books said, though.

[Quetzalcoatl-88]

The US history books in my highschool doesn't explain alot about the dark side of the texas annexation. All I found was articles about the alamo and how "heroic" the 200 people were. The books don't even explain that a number of people who were fighting for texas were also fighting for slavery in texas. Texas was a colony under mexican rule and slavery was forbidden. Some people did not like that and therefore fought for it. It's bullshit when people try to sugarcoat history.

[SadisticLemming]

Yes, of course some American textbooks gloss over the darker patches of American past. And believe me, there are many. But the same is true for all countries all over the world.
Face it, a country is only as benevolent as it's people. And when people are scared, or people need something, all illusions of benevolence are shed as the masses strive for what they want. When 9/11 happened, you were all freaking out. Don't lie. You wanted to find the fuckers who did it and kill them again (slower the second time around). This is the same throughout history: Bad event ---> overreaction. Attrocities in the making.
Hey people, it's not just the government that committed those attrocities, it was YOUR ANCESTORS. And the attrocities that are going on now in Iraq? That's us, all of us. We feel guilty about it now of course, but that is why it's glossed over. It's an embaressment.
No it's not right, not at all, but that is why it happens.

Look, we're not a perfect country, but there isn't a damn country on this planet that doesn't have skelletons in their closet that their history books just gloss over. Just don't come away from this discussion thinking that America is evil and/or sucks. We're just trying our best, just like any other country.

oh and yes bush is an idiot, and if we want to become a better country he's gotta go.

[fli]

At 8/27/04 04:15 AM, SadisticLemming wrote:

Face it, a country is only as benevolent as it's people. And when people are scared, or people need something, all illusions of benevolence are shed as the masses strive for what they want. When 9/11 happened, you were all freaking out. Don't lie. You wanted to find the fuckers who did it and kill them again (slower the second time around).

I'm not the president. Don't tell me how I feel... I seriously did not feel that way. I of course was like, "Whoa, this can't be happening..." It made very sad to see footage of people falling to their deaths-- but lust for violence and hate? I was brought up in a household that believes that hate leads to more hate, and thus I grew up learning on to control emotions violent hate with ration, reason and love...

[fli]

At 8/27/04 04:00 AM, Quetzalcoatl_88 wrote: The US history books in my highschool doesn't explain alot about the dark side of the texas annexation. All I found was articles about the alamo and how "heroic" the 200 people were. The books don't even explain that a number of people who were fighting for texas were also fighting for slavery in texas. Texas was a colony under mexican rule and slavery was forbidden. Some people did not like that and therefore fought for it. It's bullshit when people try to sugarcoat history.

They didn't say that the majority of the settlers there were illegals too... or that they were stealing cattle and taxing free things (like salt), and etc... Or that one of the guys, I think Boone, was escaping the law because he was a murderer. I can't remember which one of the guys-- I have to recheck that one with my history teacher when the semester starts...

Anyways, it glosses way too much. History should be recorded exactly how it is without any biased opinion so that people can form their own opinions.

[EnragedSephiroth]

we can't ignore the truth, America certainly has a dirty past.. and a very swift way of cleaning up it's dirty past, with "patriotism" but the lecture still remains the same: if we were to have books that teach us every nook and cranny and bad thing in american history (the bad would obviously outweigh the good like in most cases) we would have some history books as obese as the current population... fat with information and heavy with facts. That's why we go to Universities, to learn all the dirty info you never hear about when you're young, to learn about all that shit that makes you want to cry when you salute the flag because you know our nation has been whored out many times before by corrupt idiots who still do it to this day.

[antiklaus]

At 8/27/04 06:01 AM, EnragedSephiroth wrote: That's why we go to Universities, to learn all the dirty info you never hear about when you're young, to learn about all that shit that makes you want to cry when you salute the flag because you know our nation has been whored out many times before by corrupt idiots who still do it to this day.

But why should you have to PAY to finally get the truth. It's pretty disturbing that your free education is little more than job training and government propoganda.

[shorbe]

Yeah, every nation writes its own history to make itself look good. Yes, history books may be biased (but how can history be unbiased anyway? It's always going to be written with a slant), but DUH! Why would the government use books that made students hate or mistrust it? Come on. At the end of the day, don't blame the government. I'm not arguing in favour of the government here. I'm quite opposed to the very notion. What I am saying is take some personal responsibility and go out there and investigate for yourself. Don't just accept everything you're told and then complain when you've been lied to.

[fli]

At 8/27/04 07:13 AM, shorbe wrote: Yeah, every nation writes its own history to make itself look good. Yes, history books may be biased (but how can history be unbiased anyway? It's always going to be written with a slant), but DUH! Why would the government use books that made students hate or mistrust it? Come on. At the end of the day, don't blame the government. I'm not arguing in favour of the government here. I'm quite opposed to the very notion. What I am saying is take some personal responsibility and go out there and investigate for yourself. Don't just accept everything you're told and then complain when you've been lied to.

But isn't it the responsibility of the government to make sure they provide accuracy? After all, it's our tax dollars. I mean, the US is good and all, but come one-- we've fucked the Native Americans, Blacks, Mexicans, just every race to get to the top. Shouldn't we be at least truthful and say this? I distinctly remember using my history book in the 7th grade while we were studying the Trial of Tears. I distinctly remember that it said that the Native Americans had to leave, and the Trial of Tears represented the tears they shed as they left home. But it never said that American Caucasions were the ones whom forced them off. See what I mean about pussyfooting and candycoating... "They were sad because they had to leave..." sounds better then "They were sad because we used force to make them leave."

[shorbe]

Spanish: It's also supposedly the responsibility of the government to hold up the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Actually, funny that, given the Tenth Ammendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The government shouldn't even be involved in the business of education in the first place. I could go into a whole lot of the other Ammendments also, but that would be a major digression, so I won't.

Okay, so now let's get in the real world you say. I agree. Given that the government shouldn't be doing a whole lot of things it is doing, what makes you think it's going to play fair when it does those things it shouldn't be doing? What, it's going to tell people the truth so they can lose their faith in it? Not likely! Why would it use your tax dollars that it took from you in the first place to actually empower you? Surely, if they wanted to do that, they wouldn't take that money from you in the first place. They'd actually just empower you by letting you decide how to spend your own money to begin with.

See, here's why I have a problem with your whole line of thought. On the one hand, you want to surrender power to someone else virtually unconditionally, yet then you complain when they abuse that power and feed you a line. Of course they will; that's their job!

Instead of relying on the nanny state or Big Mother/Big Brother to run your life for you and provide you with all the information you need, why not get it yourself? Of course, to some degree, you'll have to suffer these morons, but then, short of starting the next revolution, that's something you'll just have to accept and try to live your life around.

Why aren't you asking the bigger questions such as "why do I need the government to teach me history?" to begin with?

I'm in a different situation since I'm neither American, nor do I live there, but I'm still asking those questions and that's why I'm planning on homeschooling my own kids. At least that way I will know what's going into my kids' heads.

[Slizor]

They'd actually just empower you by letting you decide how to spend your own money to begin with.

You don't think there can be a government policy of taxation which means there is a higher level of empowerment? I don't see why you've reduced this down to an absolute - when people are taxed not all of their money is taken, they are still empowered with regards to the rest of their money.

Why aren't you asking the bigger questions such as "why do I need the government to teach me history?" to begin with?

Most people will need it because they can't afford the time to teach their kids (most people have these things called "jobs".) And most people are not qualified teachers, nor could they afford the required materials. There is also the downside of decreased interaction between your kids and others of their age group.

At least that way I will know what's going into my kids' heads.

shorbian propaganda?

[shorbe]

Slizor: Since taxation is involuntary, it is theft. Theft is not empowering. People shouldn't be made to feel grateful that they get whatever is inefficiently handed back to them. Cut out the ravenous middle man.

I wasn't saying people were completely disempowered. I was saying that they lost the amount of power that was taken from them. What I was saying was that more choice is more power.

Why can't people afford to teach their kids? Why is it that two or three generations ago, one family income was sufficient, often with more children? Why is it that back then, kids weren't put into daycare at three months old? That's partly to do with people deciding to work more, and that's often to do with greed for more consumer goods. However, it's also because government has become steadily more bloated, requiring a greater slice of what people have, requiring them to make more money to begin with. I'm not just talking about income tax, but all the hidden or not-so-hidden extras such as sales tax and various registrations and licences, etc.

Are you implying that because someone is not a qualified teacher that he or she cannot teach? Are you saying that a piece of paper suddenly makes the difference? Are you implying that everyone who does have a piece of paper to teach is a good teacher? It's got nothing to do with competency and everything to do with control. If you really want to get into it, look at how homeschooled kids do compared to those in the system though.

Furthermore, your notion of homeschooling is a little inaccurate. For instance, just because I may not be able to teach X or Y, but can teach A or B, it does not mean that I can't be part of a network whereby someone who can teach X or Y teaches my kids that, while I teach his or her kids A or B. Or it could even be that I don't teach my own children much at all, but provide some other service for them or other children or adults. There's also the possibility of the children (and this is going to come as a shock to anyone raised on the teat of government education!) might be both willing and able to control and direct their own learning after a certain point. Come on, think outside the box here. I'm not talking about living in isolation. I'm talking about utilising different alternative resources within an alternative educational community.

Finally, the required materials are not that expensive anyway. Firstly, if you had that money back from the educational bureaucrats, you'd be able to afford it easily and then some due to you being able to spend your money more efficiently on your own kids to meet their needs. Secondly, you just simply don't need a lot of expensive equipment. What's important is what is taught and how, not the budget behind it. This is as true of alternative schooling and conventional teaching. Throwing money at the problem won't necessarily fix it. Look into homeschooling though and you'll find that it's quite affordable on modest incomes.

Shorbian propoganda? Perhaps. However, it's interesting to note that within my own family, there are four completely different political and religious sets of beliefs. My father, despite having very strong religious and political beliefs himself, always pushed open dialogue and critical thinking over dogma. That's the approach I would take too. It's an approach that I don't think occurs within the traditional education system anyway. That is so heavily laden with dogma it is ridiculous, which, to get this back on track, seems to be the very reason for this topic.

[antiklaus]

At 8/27/04 07:13 AM, shorbe wrote: Don't just accept everything you're told and then complain when you've been lied to.

Try passing a High School History Exam using the unvarnished truth.

Trust me, you will fail, regardless of your accuracy. I have been told, "you take this class according to the book we teach, not according to whatever the reality might be... I'm paid to teach this book... not the facts."

Propoganda. Pure and simple.

The sad part is many kids never get exposed to the reality. All they know is what little they got out of high school.

[Slizor]

Slizor: Since taxation is involuntary, it is theft. Theft is not empowering.

Since exploitation is involuntary in a capitalist system, it is theft. Theft is not empowering. If, as you suggest, you can not have a system of taxation which is empowering, then you can not have capitalism which is empowering.

However, the idea that because people are taxed they lose all power over their lives is a myth and it also fails to take into account the empowering nature of welfare (for which taxation is required.) The only reason welfare is required is because of the exploitation of the capitalist system.

What I was saying was that more choice is more power.

So when people are given the economic means to makemore choices, they are more empowered?

Why can't people afford to teach their kids? Why is it that two or three generations ago, one family income was sufficient, often with more children? Why is it that back then, kids weren't put into daycare at three months old?

Because of the decline of the working wage. Relatively the poor are getting worse and worse wages and so two people are required to work in a family (as was done at the start of the industrial revolution.) Capitalism has caused two wages to be required - people can not afford to not have two wages now.

Are you implying that because someone is not a qualified teacher that he or she cannot teach?

Are you implying that teaching courses make no difference whatsoever and teaching is something which you are born with? Do you not think that a qualified teacher would generally be better then an unqualified teacher?

There's also the possibility of the children (and this is going to come as a shock to anyone raised on the teat of government education!) might be both willing and able to control and direct their own learning after a certain point.

Certainly, in fact it should be required that children are given the chance to control their own education. However, until children reach the point where they want to learn, they will have to be taught.

I'm talking about utilising different alternative resources within an alternative educational community.

Only if you have those resources at your disposal can you do that. It would seem you are very lucky if you have those resources.

That is so heavily laden with dogma it is ridiculous, which, to get this back on track, seems to be the very reason for this topic.

Dogma is indeed a part of education and the discussion of it.

[SeedyKay]

Concerning the claims that all nations gloss over there history:

Having studied History at both Secondary Education and College,
Here in England, there is no glossing over of the truth. We learn very little of our own history, and what we do learn is made specifically too make us look bad. Sort of the opposite of your school system.

We currently have a Government that is trying to make us feel as unpatriotic as possible. It's by no means a good think, as it ignores some of the good things our nation has done.

Both our countries need a happy medium. Education that teaches our major achievemnets for us to be proud of, and our major mistakes, so that we may learn from them

[shorbe]

Your idea that capitalism is inherently based upon exploitation is as flawed as the notion you're supposedly against. It presupposes that every interaction between two humans is done with the sole, or at least main, purpose of making money. It also presupposes that this is not voluntary or mutually beneficial to both parties. It's analagous to the "heterosexual sex is rape" argument and actually belittles both parties in the scenario.

Again, I re-iterate: I'm not saying people lose all power over their lives when they are taxed, merely some power, somewhat proportional to the taxation. Actually, welfare is not empowering. It creates a cycle of dependency that is anything but empowering.

I know where you're going with your question about people having more economic choices and being more empowered. I should have been more precise. People who create their own economic choices are empowered. Those who choose not to, yet expect a handout are gaining power in one sense, but sacrificing it in another.

I'm not disagreeing with you that some people are getting poorer. However, it is the productive classes (especially what would traditionally be considered the middle class), the people who actually work for it and pay the overwhelming majority of taxes. Of course, it's also because they buy into consumerism (if you'll pardon the pun) in a big way, which is a big problem. Just because I'm a capitalist does not mean I'm materialistic. I think it's possible to get by without all the latest consumer goods, and they're not even my objectives in life. There's also the issue of government (which goes hand in hand with big business, and I think you mistake me for being pro-big business here) becoming more bloated and powerful, which you failed to address.

Having done a teaching course myself, and worked within that system, I am quite sceptical of the quality of educational courses and the people within them, including myself at times. I am not saying there aren't things to be learnt, but merely that they are not the be all and end all. There are many paths to becoming a good teacher (and perhaps some of it is to do with things you're born with, I don't know), and the official one is not always successful. For one, it breeds a certain orthodoxy and acceptance of the status quo.

Still, you didn't answer my question, are you implying that because someone is not a qualified teacher that he or she cannot teach?

Your idea that children have to be taught until they reach an age where they want to learn is contentious. In the Montessori philosophy, for instance, it is believed that children naturally want to learn and all that is required is a decreasing level of guidance to help them reach their potential. The Montessori system is opposed to the idea of "teaching" in the traditional sense of receiving information. Even the youngest children are encouraged to actively explore their own world and take charge of their own learning.

The resources of which I am talking are not hard to obtain or find within western nations like the USA, UK and Australia. There are networks available, and these days, with the internet, it's easier than ever before.

[the-niratcire]

At 8/27/04 04:00 AM, Quetzalcoatl_88 wrote: The US history books in my highschool doesn't explain alot about the dark side of the texas annexation. All I found was articles about the alamo and how "heroic" the 200 people were. The books don't even explain that a number of people who were fighting for texas were also fighting for slavery in texas. Texas was a colony under mexican rule and slavery was forbidden. Some people did not like that and therefore fought for it. It's bullshit when people try to sugarcoat history.

if you live in texas you get the full story. we know that they were fighting to keep their slaves but they were also trying to fight being forced into the roman catholic church (even though they agreed too) and that they were trying to stop americans from coming to texas illegally. also my text book dont water down alot of fact. it may not go into great detail on the issues that have been mentioned in this post but they are mentioned.

[Proteas]

At 8/27/04 03:43 AM, darkmage8 wrote: They'd reflect that the United States lost vietnam and that it wasn't even a war, but a police action. Not what my books said, though.

An 11 year police action that ended with 52,000 U.S. Soldiers Dead, 30,000 M.I.A./P.O.W., and 1.2 Million injured? And we lost it, two years after we had already gave up and left?

Doesn't exactly sound like a police action to me. Sounds more like, oh, I don't know... a WAR perhaps?

As far as a book that illustrates the truth about American History, one does exist. It's called "Lies My Teacher Told Me." I highly recomend it.

[deadhorses]

Did you ever think about the fact that maybe "history" is all an elaborate construction used in prophaganda efforts? Could it all be just one big story?

[Camarohusky]

At 8/27/04 12:11 PM, Proteas wrote: Doesn't exactly sound like a police action to me. Sounds more like, oh, I don't know... a WAR perhaps?

Nope it was a police action, no official declaration of war went out.

[Camarohusky]

At 8/27/04 10:57 PM, cropknok wrote: Did you ever think about the fact that maybe "history" is all an elaborate construction used in prophaganda efforts? Could it all be just one big story?

Yeah, but I don't mind. I choose to believe it.

[Camarohusky]

At 8/27/04 10:57 PM, cropknok wrote: Did you ever think about the fact that maybe "history" is all an elaborate construction used in prophaganda efforts? Could it all be just one big story?

Yeah, but I don't mind. I choose to believe it.

[antiklaus]

Howard Zinn's "American History"

Best History Text ever written... If you haven't read it, check it out or even buy it. Trust me, it's worth the cost. You'll be citing it for years to come.