Texas Board of Education at it again Banning textbooks

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by Graham

Over what?

Presumably over the state of Texas. Rumor has it that Mexico claims sovereignty over Texas. That's the only reason I can think of for Texas demanding the federal government (whom it supposedly hates) send troops to patrol the Rio Grande.

One good thing about the Republican party and its politicos: they're not afraid to hold their hands out for federal giveaways as they proclaim how evil the feds are. Nothing duplicitous about the GOP at all.

[Tom Wood]

Originally Posted by Graham

Over what?

I think it has to do with the United Nations and not letting those furriners tell 'mericans what to do.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by rhadin

Presumably over the state of Texas. Rumor has it that Mexico claims sovereignty over Texas. That's the only reason I can think of for Texas demanding the federal government (whom it supposedly hates) send troops to patrol the Rio Grande.

Ah. OK.

I'd scanned through the rest of the manifesto and I still couldn't see why the word "restore" is in there. There's quite a lot about restoring Texan sovereignty, but not so much about restoring American sovereignty. But I could have missed it, what with all the other eyebrow-raisers.

Graham

[WT Sharpe]

The Texas School Board fiasco has been going on all year, and it doesn't appear to be letting up. Religious fundamentalists have been proposing amendment after amendment on social issues to weaken standards drawn up by professional educators with the intention of introducing a partisan political slant into the textbooks. Jefferson's "wall of separation" between Church as been attacked, as has the importance of Jefferson himself. Young-Earth creationists on the school board have demanded that in textbooks evolution be labeled "only a theory" (a clear misunderstanding as to the meaning in science of what a theory actually is, confusing the scientific term with its colloquial usage). They want the textbooks to reflect that the United States was founded upon Christianity, when in truth it was founded in the midst of the Age of Enlightenment and it's Constitution was the first in modern Western civilization to specify that its power was derived from "We the people" -- a most remarkable deviation from the earlier European concept of rule by the divine right of kings. (It's true that many of the founders were Christian, but many were not.) In short, they want to re-write both history and science texts and indoctrinate the children in their dogma. And as Texas is the largest single-buyer of textbooks, as goes Texas, so goes the nation.

[TheJohnNewton]

If you teach kids how to analyze and evaluate information the particular set of "facts" that you teach as history becomes less important. Incorporate into this history curriculum lessons on how history is written, what bias is, etc. Those lessons will have much better payout in the long term.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

And as Texas is the largest single-buyer of textbooks, as goes Texas, so goes the nation.

It's debatable whether Texas or California is largest; they're close enough that it may vary by year. Apparently Florida's third. (No idea why NY isn't third; maybe its population skews more adult?) But TX and CA are definitely the two big ones that publishers are concerned with pleasing. However, California's *utterly broke* right now, has no money, and isn't actively influencing the textbook market at the moment.

Note to people in other countries: this isn't a matter of laws inflicted on publishers; it's a matter of states considering their community values, and only agreeing to purchase educational materials that their communities feel is appropriate. The problem is that the "communities" in question are HUGE; CA is over 36 million people; TX is over 24 million.

I believe several, maybe most, US states have these kinds of guidelines... but most keep them in line with CA or TX's rules, as a matter of practicality. Publishers looking at those 70 million people for marketing aren't going to consider conflicting rules for small markets. If Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, North & South Dakota--states physically near each other--got together and made a set of combined guidelines for textbooks (perhaps requiring a focus on the international politics, as they're near Canada, or mentioning the importance of homesteading and cattle ranching)... they'd be ignored. Together, those five states have less than 5 million people. If they make rules about what books they won't carry that don't fit what's being sold in CA and TX, publishers just won't bother selling to them. Publishers won't re-write books to appeal to small markets.

[mwheinz]

Errr... what part of that article refers to "banning textbooks"?

[nguirado]

I'm a teacher in California. We just opened up a "Social Justice" academy at my high school. A whole school devoted a whole year to Communist Foucault. The only history-related stories in my English text were about the Tonkin incident and some place where Chinese immigrants wrote graffiti on a wall.

Basically, the only people complaining about Texas are leftists who are mad that they're not distorting history.

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by nguirado

Basically, the only people complaining about Texas are leftists who are mad that they're not distorting history.

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by nguirado

I'm a teacher in California. We just opened up a "Social Justice" academy at my high school. A whole school devoted a whole year to Communist Foucault.

Do you perhaps mean the French philosopher and historian Michel Foucault? I'm not familiar with the practice of "labelling" a person with their political beliefs in this way.

[GlennD]

Originally Posted by Graham

Over what?

Graham

10. Restoring American sovereignty and leadership, and we honor all of those that serve and protect our
freedom with peace through strength.

It's a statement against any kind of world government. There have been several attempts at establishing a UN tax, and putting Americans on trial in international courts, particularly American soldiers. A core issue is that no American citizen should ever be on trial where his constitutional rights are not guaranteed. I don't mean that Americans abroad aren't subject to the laws where they travel; it's more along the lines that guards in Guatanomo won't be put on trial in an international court for their actions - they'd be subject to trial in an American (presumably military) court.

[GlennD]

Originally Posted by Tom Wood

I'm from Texas and I apologize to the rest of the nation for our lunacy.

To understand the source, you have to know that the Republican party here is mostly Christian Dominionist in flavor, and they are firmly in control of state government. To see how loony they are, read their party platform:

Texas GOP Party Platform

A quick skim doesn't show anything too loony to me. It all makes perfect sense, assuming the party actually follows it.

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by HarryT

All sockpuppets of terrazoids. All now banned. Terrazoids has now been banned permanently.

Originally Posted by rhadin

Texas and California have state mandates, that is, only textbooks approved by state boards can be used in schools. Most other states leave the decision up to local school districts. Consequently, publishers cater to Texas and California because if they don't, they lose the opportunity to sell millions of books. But if they anger a local school district, they lose a sale of hundreds.

The way to combat Texas is to have more realistic states join forces as joint book buyers. The problem with choosing Connecticut and Iowa is that Connecticut closer to California and New York in outlook and Iowa generally is closer to Texas in outlook.

Originally Posted by ardeegee

What I think about is-- look at all the rumors and legends that quickly cropped up after the deaths of Elvis, JFK, Hitler (not a Godwin) and so many other famously dead. All of them survive their death and go into hiding somewhere, where they are/were occasionally sited. Complete distortions and misrememberings and utter fabrications start days after an event (if not minutes) so imagine what can happen in a century, in a time without photographs and newspapers and television to make any tangible record of an event.

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

As for understanding Jesus, I agree. You can't begin to understand who Jesus was without a good grasp of his Jewish underpinnings. There is a vast difference in my opinion between the man, his teachings, and the subsequent religion that was founded in his name.

Don't forget that as as jesus was concerned, he was not forming a religion. he never even claimed to BE the messiah!

[Graham]

Originally Posted by GlennD

10. Restoring American sovereignty and leadership, and we honor all of those that serve and protect our
freedom with peace through strength.

It's a statement against any kind of world government. There have been several attempts at establishing a UN tax, and putting Americans on trial in international courts, particularly American soldiers. A core issue is that no American citizen should ever be on trial where his constitutional rights are not guaranteed. I don't mean that Americans abroad aren't subject to the laws where they travel; it's more along the lines that guards in Guatanomo won't be put on trial in an international court for their actions - they'd be subject to trial in an American (presumably military) court.

So, restoring American sovereignty over America?

The rest of the sentence is clear enough (which is why I omitted it from my quote) but the sovereignty part was confusing without a clear target for that sovereignty.

In your reply you say there have been attempts to do these things. If they've not actually come to pass, then shouldn't it say "protecting" or "preserving" American sovereignty, rather than "restoring"?

Regarding trials, does the party believe that no human being should be tried in an international court, or just no Americans?

Graham

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by GlennD

A core issue is that no American citizen should ever be on trial where his constitutional rights are not guaranteed. I don't mean that Americans abroad aren't subject to the laws where they travel; it's more along the lines that guards in Guatanomo won't be put on trial in an international court for their actions - they'd be subject to trial in an American (presumably military) court.

It's a nice thought, but it doesn't make sense. If US citizens don't want to be subject to the judgment of other governments, they shouldn't go to or do business with those countries.

Certainly the US gov't has no moral issue with prosecuting people from other countries without regards to the rights their home country grants them.

Soldiers are no more permitted to commit criminal acts in other countries, or upon their citizens, than anyone else. There are international guidelines and treaties about how prisoners should be treated; any nation that fails to follow them leaves its soldiers open to civil prosecution instead of the military courts.