I dunno, you didn't elaborate much on your oxymoron statement.
Legolas Send a noteboard - 14/03/2010 04:29:04 PM
And if you reply to a call to do something with nothing more than "that's impossible", people generally get the idea that you're not very enthusiastic about even trying.
My main problem with OSC's article was the way he says that there's this suggestion about limiting American history in 11th grade to stuff that happened after 1877, and then rants about them omitting all those things before 1877. But I don't see anything anywhere about whether the things before 1877 are covered in other years, which rather undermines his whole point (for the sake of comparison, history classes where I'm from are spread chronologically over the six years of HS, starting with the prehistory and ancient civilizations in 7th grade and ending with the 20th century in 12th - so to me it seems quite normal to limit oneself to a certain time period in the history class of a given year).
I'm now looking to see if I can find any more details on this...
Edit: From the NC Department of Public Instruction website:
"North Carolina's social studies standards are being revised to provide students more time to study United States history by providing a full year of U.S. history in both elementary school and middle school. Currently, students do not have a full year of U.S. history in elementary school, and they do not study U.S. history in middle school. The process of revising the curriculum standards has just begun, and the current draft is expected to undergo several revisions in coming months.
Students would build on that study in high school Civics and Economics and in U.S. History. The high school Civics course includes learning about our nation's development and foundation. The high school U.S. History course would begin with 1877, the end of Reconstruction, in order to give students and teachers time to study our nation's history in more depth. The years prior to reconstruction would have been covered with students three times before - in fourth grade (as part of North Carolina history) in fifth grade and in seventh grade.
A wide range of elective U.S. History and other history courses also would be available to students who wish to continue history study in high school. "
I'm rather unclear on why his comment is felt necessary though, since saying history should strive to be accurate is like saying science should strive to figure things out or clergy should seek to preach their faith. So essentially me say it's oxymoronic and him replying that we should strive for impartiality is sort of like my saying 'science doesn't know it all' and him saying 'that doesn't mean we should stop trying' or my saying 'no man can hope to know the mind of God' and him saying 'that doesn't mean we should all become atheists'. It just seems so out of place unless he assumed I was saying propaganda and distortion in history was fine which is why I queried and asked about the link, which happens to be a long rant by a centrist democrat about people flavoring kid's history books for political reasons. Mine is a cynical but true comment on history and on the NYT, which certainly knows about this and has chosen to highlight Texas when a lot of other states are doing the same thing under what I can only assume is the intentional equivalent of saying "The KKK is against gun control" an essentially transparent comment.
My main problem with OSC's article was the way he says that there's this suggestion about limiting American history in 11th grade to stuff that happened after 1877, and then rants about them omitting all those things before 1877. But I don't see anything anywhere about whether the things before 1877 are covered in other years, which rather undermines his whole point (for the sake of comparison, history classes where I'm from are spread chronologically over the six years of HS, starting with the prehistory and ancient civilizations in 7th grade and ending with the 20th century in 12th - so to me it seems quite normal to limit oneself to a certain time period in the history class of a given year).
I'm now looking to see if I can find any more details on this...
Edit: From the NC Department of Public Instruction website:
"North Carolina's social studies standards are being revised to provide students more time to study United States history by providing a full year of U.S. history in both elementary school and middle school. Currently, students do not have a full year of U.S. history in elementary school, and they do not study U.S. history in middle school. The process of revising the curriculum standards has just begun, and the current draft is expected to undergo several revisions in coming months.
Students would build on that study in high school Civics and Economics and in U.S. History. The high school Civics course includes learning about our nation's development and foundation. The high school U.S. History course would begin with 1877, the end of Reconstruction, in order to give students and teachers time to study our nation's history in more depth. The years prior to reconstruction would have been covered with students three times before - in fourth grade (as part of North Carolina history) in fifth grade and in seventh grade.
A wide range of elective U.S. History and other history courses also would be available to students who wish to continue history study in high school. "
This message last edited by Legolas on 14/03/2010 at 04:30:40 PM
Texas Approves Curriculum Revised by Conservatives
- 13/03/2010 12:02:15 AM
1180 Views
"Impartial Historical Account" is an oxymoron
- 13/03/2010 12:21:20 AM
500 Views
So is "a sinless life," but that doesn't justify murder. *NM*
- 14/03/2010 12:22:16 AM
170 Views
Strange choice of analogies...
- 14/03/2010 12:17:03 PM
397 Views
I could be wrong, but I think his point was simply...
- 14/03/2010 03:53:23 PM
484 Views
I think it was that it just seems too out of place
- 14/03/2010 04:14:55 PM
524 Views
I dunno, you didn't elaborate much on your oxymoron statement.
- 14/03/2010 04:29:04 PM
517 Views
It didn't really seem something that needed elaborating 
- 14/03/2010 05:20:33 PM
566 Views
- 14/03/2010 05:20:33 PM
566 Views
It's about time.
- 13/03/2010 01:17:25 AM
528 Views
Don't forget interned German-Americans in BOTH world wars. *NM*
- 13/03/2010 02:47:25 AM
292 Views
*NM*
- 13/03/2010 02:47:25 AM
292 Views
Oh I haven't, but being Italian myself it's an issue close to my heart. *NM*
- 13/03/2010 04:41:19 AM
244 Views
Yes, because this article is all about presenting the truth in an unbiased manner *NM*
- 13/03/2010 11:02:20 AM
168 Views
I'm assuming Art. 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli 1797 is banned from Texan history lessons, then?
- 13/03/2010 12:26:41 PM
444 Views
And, along similar lines, both Article VII of the US Constitution and Missouri v. Holland. *NM*
- 14/03/2010 12:26:10 AM
176 Views
*NM*
I would assume the Treaty of Tripoli 1797 would outside of the scope of a Texas history lesson
- 16/03/2010 07:54:53 PM
464 Views
Do the states just teach their own history, as opposed to that of what-was-then-the-USA? *NM*
- 16/03/2010 11:57:06 PM
245 Views
They teach both...at least at the college level. U.S. history and Texas History were requirements.. *NM*
- 17/03/2010 05:38:46 AM
245 Views
Texas history or Texas government?
- 18/03/2010 06:53:15 PM
380 Views
Good question....I don't remember if it was history or govt to be honest. *NM*
- 18/03/2010 07:59:10 PM
252 Views
When does revisionist history descend to the level of mere hypocrisy? I weep for my country.
- 15/03/2010 04:16:25 AM
649 Views
calling Zavala a city is a bit of a stretch don't you think?
- 15/03/2010 05:39:03 PM
470 Views
Seguin's a city, or at least town; Zavala is a county.
- 15/03/2010 09:00:54 PM
424 Views
Zavalla is a town as well and city is a bit of stretch for Seguin
- 15/03/2010 10:23:41 PM
382 Views
Fair enough, just trying to make clear I was speaking about municipality and county, respectively.
- 29/03/2010 03:49:30 PM
406 Views
See the problem is the argument is total BS
- 29/03/2010 05:27:53 PM
442 Views
Don't you guys essentially list all of the handful guys who fought at the Alamo already, anyway? *NM*
- 29/03/2010 08:55:34 PM
168 Views
There was 190 or so people there so no they are not all in the textbook
- 31/03/2010 05:31:41 PM
449 Views
Do you have any examples of where they are not teaching the truth?
- 15/03/2010 05:42:27 PM
416 Views
I think it is what they are leaving out that is worrisome.
- 15/03/2010 06:58:38 PM
431 Views
I don't see anything sayting they are leaving that out
- 15/03/2010 08:26:50 PM
430 Views
We were talking about this last night
- 15/03/2010 11:38:02 PM
591 Views
Still not sure I see a problem
- 16/03/2010 04:58:50 PM
370 Views
This thread is indeed making me wonder how textbooks are used in the US...
- 16/03/2010 05:05:13 PM
358 Views