Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   Conservative group is up in arms over US history being presented in our schools as one long story of groups in conflict   (foxnews.com) divider line 122
    More: Ironic, Advanced Placement, Americans, National Initiative, College Board, test preparation, greatest generation, curriculum framework, Roger Williams  
•       •       •

1808 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Aug 2014 at 3:41 PM (47 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



122 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-08-08 01:10:17 PM  
Look at our foreign policy from 1945-present and get back to me, swankytits

/crosses party lines too!
 
2014-08-08 01:12:48 PM  
um all history ever is groups in conflict because people are assholes
 
2014-08-08 01:22:55 PM  
"What you're going to find is our nation's founders portrayed as bigots who developed a belief in white superiority that was, in turn, derived from a strong belief in British racial and cultural superiority,"

Well, what other conclusion can you draw from the fact that many of the Founding Fathers believed that it was A-OK to own someone based upon nothing other than the color of their skin, and that the rest of the Founders didn't object to slavery except in the question of whether or not slaves should literally be counted as people.
 
2014-08-08 01:27:51 PM  
History is not the servant of your shiatty political views you mindless shiat wizards.
 
2014-08-08 01:41:24 PM  

Karac: "What you're going to find is our nation's founders portrayed as bigots who developed a belief in white superiority that was, in turn, derived from a strong belief in British racial and cultural superiority,"

Well, what other conclusion can you draw from the fact that many of the Founding Fathers believed that it was A-OK to own someone based upon nothing other than the color of their skin, and that the rest of the Founders didn't object to slavery except in the question of whether or not slaves should literally be counted as people.


John Adams frowns at you.
 
2014-08-08 01:44:25 PM  

Doktor_Zhivago: um all history ever is groups in conflict because people are assholes



The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.

Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.
 
2014-08-08 01:46:25 PM  
lol, subby, good one.
 
2014-08-08 01:49:01 PM  

Tigger: History is not the servant of your shiatty political views you mindless shiat wizards.


Band name.
 
2014-08-08 01:55:56 PM  

Doktor_Zhivago: um all history ever is groups in conflict because people are assholes


Yes, but if you declare American Exceptionalism you get to invoke Christian values to acquire divine powers of rationalization to cover all the evil shiat youv'e done.
 
2014-08-08 01:56:54 PM  
The two groups behind it appear to be the super-PAC arms of Concerned Women For America (a women's theocon group) and the American Principles Project (a moneycon-flavored group that put out an interesting rebuttal to the "GOP Autopsy" report).
Looks like astro-turf, offhand.
 
2014-08-08 02:01:24 PM  
What's missing from the curriculum, according to a former public school teacher and author of two Advanced Placement prep guides, is mention of John Winthrop and his "city upon a hill" sermon as one of the key early instances of American exceptionalism and references to Roger Williams and the birth of religious toleration


Let's see what Wikipedia has to say about him:
Between 1629 and his death in 1649, he (Winthrop) served 12 annual terms as governor, and was a force of comparative moderation in the religiously conservative colony, clashing with the more conservative Thomas Dudley and the more liberal Roger Williams and Henry Vane. Although Winthrop was a respected political figure, his attitude toward governance was somewhat authoritarian: he resisted attempts to widen voting and other civil rights beyond a narrow class of religiously approved individuals, opposed attempts to codify a body of laws that the colonial magistrates would be bound by, and also opposed unconstrained democracy, calling it "the meanest and worst of all forms of government".[2] The authoritarian and religiously conservative nature of Massachusetts rule was influential in the formation of neighboring colonies, which were in some instances formed by individuals and groups opposed to the rule of the Massachusetts elders.

Another asshole patriarch who thought that he and a few select others knew what was best for everybody else.
What a surprise.
 
2014-08-08 02:08:01 PM  
"It also omits the colonists' growing commitment to religious freedom and the emergence of a pluralistic society that lacked an entrenched aristocracy."

Two things that have definitely vanished into the long-forgotten past
 
2014-08-08 02:11:16 PM  

edmo: Doktor_Zhivago: um all history ever is groups in conflict because people are assholes

Yes, but if you declare American Exceptionalism you get to invoke Christian values to acquire divine powers of rationalization to cover all the evil shiat youv'e done.


Sounds too much like D&D.
 
2014-08-08 02:18:17 PM  

what_now: Karac: "What you're going to find is our nation's founders portrayed as bigots who developed a belief in white superiority that was, in turn, derived from a strong belief in British racial and cultural superiority,"

Well, what other conclusion can you draw from the fact that many of the Founding Fathers believed that it was A-OK to own someone based upon nothing other than the color of their skin, and that the rest of the Founders didn't object to slavery except in the question of whether or not slaves should literally be counted as people.

John Adams frowns at you.


Ummm, about that...

 The Abolition of Slavery must be gradual and accomplished with much caution and Circumspection ...

There are many other Evils in our Country which are growing, (whereas the 
practice of slavery is fast diminishing,) and threaten to bring Punishment on our Land, more 
immediately than the oppression of the blacks. ....


 I might even add that I have been informed, that the condition, of the common 
Sort of White People in some of the Southern states particularly Virginia, is more oppressed, 
degraded and miserable than that of the Negroes.



He might have disapproved of slavery, but not enough to actually do anything about it.
 
2014-08-08 02:19:31 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: "It also omits the colonists' growing commitment to religious freedom and the emergence of a pluralistic society that lacked an entrenched aristocracy."

Two things that have definitely vanished into the long-forgotten past


Remember that when conservatives refer to "religious freedom" that that has a very different connotation than it does to most people. Essentially they expect to have the freedom to oppress others.

/the pilgrims came here because they were right-wing religious whackos who got kicked out of Europe for being so over the top in their beliefs
 
2014-08-08 02:20:13 PM  

Dinki: what_now: Karac: "What you're going to find is our nation's founders portrayed as bigots who developed a belief in white superiority that was, in turn, derived from a strong belief in British racial and cultural superiority,"

Well, what other conclusion can you draw from the fact that many of the Founding Fathers believed that it was A-OK to own someone based upon nothing other than the color of their skin, and that the rest of the Founders didn't object to slavery except in the question of whether or not slaves should literally be counted as people.

John Adams frowns at you.

Ummm, about that...

 The Abolition of Slavery must be gradual and accomplished with much caution and Circumspection ...

There are many other Evils in our Country which are growing, (whereas the 
practice of slavery is fast diminishing
,) and threaten to bring Punishment on our Land, more 
immediately than the oppression of the blacks. ....

 I might even add that I have been informed, that the condition, of the common 
Sort of White People in some of the Southern states particularly Virginia, is more oppressed, 
degraded and miserable than that of the Negroes.


He might have disapproved of slavery, but not enough to actually do anything about it.


John Adams: the first Libertarian who thought slavery would die a natural death.
 
2014-08-08 02:21:23 PM  

abb3w: The two groups behind it appear to be the super-PAC arms of Concerned Women For America (a women's theocon group) and the American Principles Project (a moneycon-flavored group that put out an interesting rebuttal to the "GOP Autopsy" report).
Looks like astro-turf, offhand.


Here's something that strikes me as odd: these people live and breathe the reality that history is, shall we say "flexible" including that of the well-recorded past 250 years or so.  One historian presents it one way, another presents it a second way.  And yet they give unshakeable, literal credence to the Bible, cobbled together and transcribed decades to millenia after the fact. Meanwhile they've arrived at the obvious-to-them conclusion that the Bible promises great things for the United States of America, which at the time was occupied by millions of completely unaware-of-Abraham's-God inhabitants.

However, I'm sure I live with serious cognitive dissonance over a number of things, like rooting for the Eagles.
 
2014-08-08 02:27:27 PM  

Karac: John Adams: the first Libertarian who thought slavery would die a natural death.


Well he was right, to a point.  That point being the Mason-Dixon line.
 
2014-08-08 02:29:11 PM  

Karac: John Adams: the first Libertarian who thought slavery would die a natural death.


If it weren't for the invention of the cotton gin, it actually may have.
 
2014-08-08 02:33:41 PM  

what_now: Karac: John Adams: the first Libertarian who thought slavery would die a natural death.

If it weren't for the invention of the cotton gin, it actually may have.


That letter was written in 1801.  Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin in 1793.
 
2014-08-08 02:35:58 PM  
When you're a kid, you are taught that Christopher Columbus sailed across the ocean to prove that the world was round, and in doing so discovered America.

Shortly thereafter, a group of English Pilgrims decided to come to the Massachusetts because they wanted religious freedom. They had a rough go, but then some friendly Indians came over and gave them turkeys and corn and they had a celebration! And that was how we started America.


As you get older, you slowly learn- in the same school system that taught you that bullshiat- that Columbus knew the world was round, he was looking for a quicker route to Asia to enslave and rob the local population. He didn't land in the US, he landed in Jamaica where he promptly enslaved and robbed the local population.

It took another century before the European world rediscovered America, which had been found and settled hundreds of years before.

The Pilgrims weren't the first seeking religious freedom, they were looking for a place where they could dictate that NO ONE had religious freedom, and they didn't land in Massachusetts first, they landed in Jamestown, but because they were so farking incompetent then didn't bring anyone who knew how to build houses or farm, so they all starved to death.
 
2014-08-08 02:39:20 PM  

Karac: what_now: Karac: John Adams: the first Libertarian who thought slavery would die a natural death.

If it weren't for the invention of the cotton gin, it actually may have.

That letter was written in 1801.  Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin in 1793.


Cotton didn't become a hugely profitable crop until the early 19th century, and it wouldn't have been so profitable had it not been for the mechanization to separate the parts of cotton.

This isn't really controversial- the cotton gin is widely held to be a direct cause of the rise of slavery.
 
2014-08-08 02:41:54 PM  

what_now: Karac: what_now: Karac: John Adams: the first Libertarian who thought slavery would die a natural death.

If it weren't for the invention of the cotton gin, it actually may have.

That letter was written in 1801.  Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin in 1793.

Cotton didn't become a hugely profitable crop until the early 19th century, and it wouldn't have been so profitable had it not been for the mechanization to separate the parts of cotton.

This isn't really controversial- the cotton gin is widely held to be a direct cause of the rise of slavery.


Yes.  I know.
And that letter from Adams was written in the early 19th century, years after the device for the mechanical separation of cotton fibers from seeds had been invented.

And even if the cotton gin hadn't been invented, Adam's position on slavery still would have been "Yeah, owning people sucks, but what can you do?"
 
2014-08-08 02:45:01 PM  

Karac: what_now: Karac: what_now: Karac: John Adams: the first Libertarian who thought slavery would die a natural death.

If it weren't for the invention of the cotton gin, it actually may have.

That letter was written in 1801.  Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin in 1793.

Cotton didn't become a hugely profitable crop until the early 19th century, and it wouldn't have been so profitable had it not been for the mechanization to separate the parts of cotton.

This isn't really controversial- the cotton gin is widely held to be a direct cause of the rise of slavery.

Yes.  I know.
And that letter from Adams was written in the early 19th century, years after the device for the mechanical separation of cotton fibers from seeds had been invented.

And even if the cotton gin hadn't been invented, Adam's position on slavery still would have been "Yeah, owning people sucks, but what can you do?"


Killing a a bunch of Southerners and burning some of their cities seems to do the trick.
 
2014-08-08 02:50:44 PM  

what_now: they landed in Jamestown, but because they were so farking incompetent then didn't bring anyone who knew how to build houses or farm, so they all starved to death.


The prototype for Galt's Gulch!!
 
2014-08-08 03:07:19 PM  
"What you're going to find is Paul Revere honking his horn and telling the British that they'd better not try to take away our guns!"
 
2014-08-08 03:42:00 PM  

Diogenes: Tigger: History is not the servant of your shiatty political views you mindless shiat wizards.

Band name.


I thought the exact same thing.
 
2014-08-08 03:44:59 PM  
Conservative group is up in arms over US history being presented in our schools as one long story of groups in conflict

/fixed it
 
2014-08-08 03:50:45 PM  
"The College Board's Advanced Placement curriculum on U.S. history must include America's greatest icons, like Ben Franklin and Martin Luther King"

And Jesus.
 
2014-08-08 03:50:59 PM  
Conservative group is up in arms....

f*cking, constantly.
 
2014-08-08 03:52:47 PM  
It's history, not hagiography. Supposed to be, anyway.
 
2014-08-08 03:52:56 PM  
Conservatives are finally upset Texas cut Jefferson from the history classes?
 
2014-08-08 03:53:43 PM  

Tigger: History is not the servant of your shiatty political views you mindless shiat wizards.


Yes it is. History is always a servant of political views, and even a "non-biased" view is entirely biased. The very act of teaching "important" events imposes the political views of the teacher or curriculum.
 
2014-08-08 03:54:58 PM  

Karac: and that the rest of the Founders didn't object to slavery except in the question of whether or not slaves should literally be counted as people.


The funny thing about the 3/5th bit was that it wasn't because slaves weren't people, it was because the Free States didn't want the Slave States to pad their populations with people who couldn't even vote for the representatives they were supposedly sending to Congress.

In 1790, Georgia's total population was 82,548 and Vermont's was 85,539. Do they get the same representation in Congress, even though Georgia's 29,264 slaves were disenfranchised? Of course, the proper solution was to enfranchise the slaves, but the political solution was to count the slave population at 60%.
 
2014-08-08 03:56:34 PM  
So, I actually read TFA.  I have no idea what their actual farking problem is, other than "NO, WE DON'T WANT YOU TELLING THE TRUTH!"  or something.

Meh, it's friday and I don't really care anyway.
 
2014-08-08 03:57:21 PM  
"The Aug. 4 letter, which is addressed to David Coleman, president/CEO of the New York-based nonprofit, claims the new 98-page curriculum is a "dramatic departure" from the five-page outline previously used by teachers and students and offers a consistently negative view of Americans as oppressors and exploiters."

I think I've found the problem. Too many of them fancy words. Big ones, too, probably. Reading's for f****ts.
 
2014-08-08 03:58:44 PM  

To The Escape Zeppelin!: Tigger: History is not the servant of your shiatty political views you mindless shiat wizards.

Yes it is. History is always a servant of political views, and even a "non-biased" view is entirely biased. The very act of teaching "important" events imposes the political views of the teacher or curriculum.


Schrodinger's Curriculum, eh?
 
2014-08-08 03:58:45 PM  
www.michaelmaharrey.com
 
2014-08-08 03:59:38 PM  
One quick question from a foreigner living in an island off the coast of America (NYC):  What was the last generation of Americans who lived their entire lives without seeing their country go to war?
 
2014-08-08 04:04:05 PM  

NutWrench: What's missing from the curriculum, according to a former public school teacher and author of two Advanced Placement prep guides, is mention of John Winthrop and his "city upon a hill" sermon as one of the key early instances of American exceptionalism and references to Roger Williams and the birth of religious toleration


Let's see what Wikipedia has to say about him:
Between 1629 and his death in 1649, he (Winthrop) served 12 annual terms as governor, and was a force of comparative moderation in the religiously conservative colony, clashing with the more conservative Thomas Dudley and the more liberal Roger Williams and Henry Vane. Although Winthrop was a respected political figure, his attitude toward governance was somewhat authoritarian: he resisted attempts to widen voting and other civil rights beyond a narrow class of religiously approved individuals, opposed attempts to codify a body of laws that the colonial magistrates would be bound by, and also opposed unconstrained democracy, calling it "the meanest and worst of all forms of government".[2] The authoritarian and religiously conservative nature of Massachusetts rule was influential in the formation of neighboring colonies, which were in some instances formed by individuals and groups opposed to the rule of the Massachusetts elders.

Another asshole patriarch who thought that he and a few select others knew what was best for everybody else.
What a surprise.


They mentioned John Winthrop and religious toleration in the same sentence? Man, I needed a good laugh today.
 
2014-08-08 04:08:19 PM  

Joe Peanut: One quick question from a foreigner living in an island off the coast of America (NYC):  What was the last generation of Americans who lived their entire lives without seeing their country go to war?


None.

War of 1812
Mexican-American War
Civil War
Spanish-American War
WWI
WWII
Vietnam
Iraq
(this list incomplete but all that's needed)

If you want to go before America became a nation, maybe you could argue the Indian skirmishes before King William's War don't count and maybe there would be a few of the earliest colonists that lived and died before that.
 
2014-08-08 04:08:25 PM  

Joe Peanut: One quick question from a foreigner living in an island off the coast of America (NYC):  What was the last generation of Americans who lived their entire lives without seeing their country go to war?


Today's toddlers?
 
2014-08-08 04:08:42 PM  

eiger: NutWrench: What's missing from the curriculum, according to a former public school teacher and author of two Advanced Placement prep guides, is mention of John Winthrop and his "city upon a hill" sermon as one of the key early instances of American exceptionalism and references to Roger Williams and the birth of religious toleration
.

Like a dog with a bone, I can't let this go. If these asshats knew anything about American history, they would know that the "city upon a hill" speech had NOTHING to do with America except the fact that that city happened to be being built in America. The whole point was that they were building a society that was to be the perfect Christian society (other versions of Christianity and religions need not apply) that would then be reexported back to Europe. The whole point was to remake Europe (and presumably the rest of the world) as the correct kind of Christian pseudo-theocracy.

Shockingly, these people don't know what the hell they're talking about.

/And don't get me started on how the Puritans tried to banish Roger Williams back to England where they knew he would, at the very least, be tortured and probably executed.
//To be fair to Winthrop, he was buddies with Williams and warned him about the plan to give him a chance to escape.
 
2014-08-08 04:09:16 PM  

Satan's Bunny Slippers: So, I actually read TFA.  I have no idea what their actual farking problem is, other than "NO, WE DON'T WANT YOU TELLING THE TRUTH!"  or something.

Meh, it's friday and I don't really care anyway.


That's their problem in a nutshell.  They realize that history has a more liberal bent than they like (due to it being the reality of what happened), so they feel the need to re-write it to fit their worldview, and not reality.

The sad thing is, I have been told by people that are 'conservative' that I live in an echo chamber supplemented by the 'liberal media', yet they are more than willing to somehow believe that the UN is some massive, hidden power that is going to take over the US and that the President isn't a natural born American (even though the actual reality of both situations is nothing of the sort).

Yet I'M the one living in an echo chamber?
 
2014-08-08 04:09:42 PM  

what_now: The Pilgrims weren't the first seeking religious freedom, they were looking for a place where they could dictate that NO ONE had religious freedom, and they didn't land in Massachusetts first, they landed in Jamestown, but because they were so farking incompetent then didn't bring anyone who knew how to build houses or farm, so they all starved to death.


Are you sure you're not thinking of the "lost" Roanoke colony (from 1580something)? They didn't all starve to death, they joined the Croataon.
 
2014-08-08 04:09:52 PM  
Group conflict???   in 'murica???   impossible!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqW-Fv1eLCU    (some adult language)
 
2014-08-08 04:09:54 PM  
12349876:
If you want to go before America became a nation, maybe you could argue the Indian skirmishes before King William's War don't count and maybe there would be a few of the earliest colonists that lived and died before that.

If you look at casualty rates, those early Indian skirmishes were probably even more traumatic than most of the "real" wars.
 
2014-08-08 04:10:09 PM  

Joe Peanut: One quick question from a foreigner living in an island off the coast of America (NYC):  What was the last generation of Americans who lived their entire lives without seeing their country go to war?


I don't think that has ever happened. You could make a case for 1865-1898 being between the Civil War and the Spanish-American War, but there were countless wars with the American Indians during that time.
 
2014-08-08 04:10:47 PM  

Joe Peanut: One quick question from a foreigner living in an island off the coast of America (NYC):  What was the last generation of Americans who lived their entire lives without seeing their country go to war?


There never has been one.
 
2014-08-08 04:12:45 PM  

theorellior: Karac: and that the rest of the Founders didn't object to slavery except in the question of whether or not slaves should literally be counted as people.

The funny thing about the 3/5th bit was that it wasn't because slaves weren't people, it was because the Free States didn't want the Slave States to pad their populations with people who couldn't even vote for the representatives they were supposedly sending to Congress.

In 1790, Georgia's total population was 82,548 and Vermont's was 85,539. Do they get the same representation in Congress, even though Georgia's 29,264 slaves were disenfranchised? Of course, the proper solution was to enfranchise the slaves, but the political solution was to count the slave population at 60%.


Yup. It's an interesting artifact of history that the Free States wanted to not count slaves at all, and the Slave States wanted them to be fully counted (for exactly the reasons you name).
 
Displayed 50 of 122 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report