Texas Lesson Plan Instructs Students to Design Flags for a ‘New Socialist Nation’

[OldNCranky]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...ialist-nation/

"A curriculum system used across the state of Texas reportedly includes a lesson plan for 6th graders instructing students to create a flag for a “new socialist nation” using “symbolism to represent aspects of socialism/communism.”

The following was taken from the CSCOPE curriculum lesson plan: “Notice socialist/communist nations use symbolism on their flags representing various aspects of their economic system. Imagine a new socialist nation is creating a flag and you have been put in charge of creating a flag. Use symbolism to represent aspects of socialism/communism on your flag. What kind of symbolism/colors would you use?”

This is also the same folks that were teaching studetns that 'Allah is the Almighty God'

http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/texas-tea...-almighty-god/

[TXGringo]

I'd be curious to hear what Richard knows/thinks. According to my mom (middle school counselor), they use CSCOPE just as a supplemental source. It doesn't stand on its own, at least at her school.

From the article

A vocal critic has been Texas State Rep. Debbie Riddle, a Republican.

“I did pretty well with textbooks. Benjamin Franklin did pretty well with textbooks. Are they going to say reading books is not effective? Should we all stop reading our Bibles?

“Call me old-fashioned, but there is something about the feel, smell, holding a book; there is a lot to be said for holding a hard copy,” she said.

She is old-fashioned. Florida schools will be fully digital by 2015. Some have already made the jump.

[Razor]

Originally Posted by WCH

Florida schools will be fully digital by 2015.

Is that like the "paperless office" everyone was talking about 15 years ago? Still haven't seen even one yet.

[MR2]

Originally Posted by Razor

Is that like the "paperless office" everyone was talking about 15 years ago? Still haven't seen even one yet.

Well with the economy the way it is - who can afford paper?

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by Razor

Is that like the "paperless office" everyone was talking about 15 years ago? Still haven't seen even one yet.

I converted to a paperless office while provisioning frame-relay circuits a dozen years ago.
It was very effective.

Produced a little over 3 standard workloads (my employer got to bill for the work of 3 people) while only having to do about 2-3 hours of real work each day.
Ironically, my "system" was more robust than those who still used paper; didn't lose time working or lose data when servers crashed (paper pushers did).

Even more ironic was that the benefits were unintentional.
I developed it in a spirit of recalcitrance.

A vague directive came down requiring us to keep all "important" paperwork for one year.
Developed the paperless system, shredded files before enforcement began, and never printed anything ever again.

Originally Posted by Razor

Is that like the "paperless office" everyone was talking about 15 years ago? Still haven't seen even one yet.

That makes it still on paper, right?

[SomethingWitty]

I do not see why this is an issue. It is simply an activity that develops the idea that socialist/communist countries have used certain objects to symbolize their countries.

Both the first article, and the second article look to be looking for a story where there isn't any. A lot of it is taken out of context, or no context is provided what-so-ever. This is yellow journalism.

There also have been reports that the curriculum – contrary to recent Supreme Court rulings – says the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the right to bear arms, is limited to state-run organizations.


“The collective right’s advocates believed that the Second Amendment did not apply to individuals; rather it [the Second Amendment] recognized the right of a state to arm its militia. It recognized limited individual rights only when it was exercised by members of a functioning, organized militia while actively participating in the militia’s activities.”

A major area of American political history is the differing interpretations of the Constitution and how Federal power has been expanded and contracted over the our history. Just because there is a Supreme Court decision does not mean that we should be writing collective rights advocates out of history. They have had an impact on our recent history, and will continue to be vocal group regardless of a Supreme Court decision. What if DC vs Heller had gone differently (the NRA wouldn't touch it because they were afraid it would)? Should the individual right's advocates be written out of history or marginalized?

In one scenario, students are asked to study the tenets of Islam, and critics say the materials provided exceed impartial review of another faith, extending into requirements of conversion and moral imperatives.

A computer presentation utilized as part of a study of Islam includes information on how to convert, as well as verses denigrating other faiths.

I fail to see how learning about the 5 Pillars of Islam, requirements of conversion, or moral imperatives (I am guessing this refers to their legal system). The Islamic Caliphate is a pretty damn big deal when it comes to world history, and just like to study of any conquering empire, it is important to understand not only the way they operated, but also the way they absorbed conquered peoples. My experience in highschool has been that the ascent and decline of the Islamic empires are treated no different than the Roman or Mongolian empires.

But there is no mention of his documented sex activities with a child or his penchant for beheading entire indigenous people groups.

Judging people that have long been dead by the standards of our time is not a very good idea. Furthermore, neither of these facts are exceptional, and are of little historical importance.

It pisses me off to no end that there are people that believe history should merely be taught simply as a morality tale that ends with the creation of the 21st Century United States. I don't want to memorize that the American Civil War was just about Lincoln wanting to preserve the Union, and the racist South wanting to keep their slaves. I want to study how and why race relations were different in the South, about how blacks fought bravely for the North, and about how the South also had black soldiers. I also want to learn about how Abraham Lincoln used the Federal Government to imprison his political opponents, and suspended Habeus Corpus. The morality-play version of history takes something that is dynamic and exciting, and distills it into something that is dull, and unbelievable. Furthermore, when we approach history from this perspective of having flawless heros, it discourages critical thinking, and I do not think that is something we should be doing.

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by SomethingWitty

I I want to study how and why race relations were different in the South, about how blacks fought bravely for the North, and about how the South also had black soldiers. I also want to learn about how Abraham Lincoln used the Federal Government to imprison his political opponents, and suspended Habeus Corpus.

I have. I've found that you have to literally do an end run around American journalism and the educational system; both are rooted and steeped in revisionism in order to adhere to the liberalism preached by the sociopolitical movers emanating from the northeast.

As for the caliphate and how its tactics and strategy applies today as much as ever-good luck. The brainwashing done by the libs has driven a healthy sense of caution out of the collective conscious of the Country's people in general.

The complacent sloth that is the normal American these days doesn't want to be discomfited by a necessity to maintain vigilance; he just wants a cut of Obama's stash. If they see socialism as an easy way to get it, they don't care.

The trouble is, as I've said before, until we make the women and minorities who voted for a socio-communist understand the trouble that lies down the road, based on what has historically happened, we'll be where Europe is ourselves by 2017, and inextricably so.

[Dad]

I don't think we need to worry the curriculum is becoming too liberal in Texas. See what the conservativre Fordham Institute says

http://www.chron.com/default/article...de-2292973.php

[DJ Urbanovsky]

That's pretty much the majority of history. I didn't really start to learn about history until I was an adult and out in the world. The highly sanitized version they taught back when I was a kid was a joke. And it hasn't improved since then. I have a friend who's about ten years younger than me who has a bachelors degree in history, and I am constantly shocked by the things he probably should know, but doesn't. If you want to know the truth, you've gotta dig for it.

Originally Posted by Dusty

I've found that you have to literally do an end run around American journalism and the educational system

[Richard]

Originally Posted by SomethingWitty

I do not see why this is an issue.

I agree. Nice post.

Richard

[BOfH]

Originally Posted by SomethingWitty

It pisses me off to no end that there are people that believe history should merely be taught simply as a morality tale that ends with the creation of the 21st Century United States. I don't want to memorize that the American Civil War was just about Lincoln wanting to preserve the Union, and the racist South wanting to keep their slaves. I want to study how and why race relations were different in the South, about how blacks fought bravely for the North, and about how the South also had black soldiers. I also want to learn about how Abraham Lincoln used the Federal Government to imprison his political opponents, and suspended Habeus Corpus. The morality-play version of history takes something that is dynamic and exciting, and distills it into something that is dull, and unbelievable. Furthermore, when we approach history from this perspective of having flawless heroes, it discourages critical thinking, and I do not think that is something we should be doing.

FWIW, I agree. MOO: I would say it's less morally driven and more: "history is written by the victor". Case in point: In HS, I learned that FDR was was a brilliant statesman and his New Deal worked beyond expectation. As I got older, and started reading a bit more, I also learned that a) FDR was a brilliant politician, and nothing more, he was clueless with regards to most else b) each iteration of the New Deal mostly failed c) he was essentially a ruthless tyrant who used the position of the Executive to further his power and that of the Democratic party. Likewise with what I learned of Lincoln.

My .02

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by BOfH

FWIW, I agree. MOO: I would say it's less morally driven and more: "history is written by the victor". Case in point: In HS, I learned that FDR was was a brilliant statesman and his New Deal worked beyond expectation. As I got older, and started reading a bit more, I also learned that a) FDR was a brilliant politician, and nothing more, he was clueless with regards to most else b) each iteration of the New Deal mostly failed c) he was essentially a ruthless tyrant who used the position of the Executive to further his power and that of the Democratic party. Likewise with what I learned of Lincoln.

My .02

Amen.

[SomethingWitty]

Originally Posted by BOfH

FWIW, I agree. MOO: I would say it's less morally driven and more: "history is written by the victor". Case in point: In HS, I learned that FDR was was a brilliant statesman and his New Deal worked beyond expectation. As I got older, and started reading a bit more, I also learned that a) FDR was a brilliant politician, and nothing more, he was clueless with regards to most else b) each iteration of the New Deal mostly failed c) he was essentially a ruthless tyrant who used the position of the Executive to further his power and that of the Democratic party. Likewise with what I learned of Lincoln.

My .02

American Presidents are all treated with a similar narrative in basic High School classes. Everything is focused on the good things that Presidents did, or tried to do. If there is something that is very obviously bad, it is pardoned by either "they had good intentions" or by Congress repealing the law. Their noble intentions always trump their actions.

Woodrow Wilson gets remembered for the League of Nations, even though it was a failure; but not so much for the Espionage and Sedition acts, and the desegregation of the Federal Government is not even mentioned.

And to say that it is simply North Easterners that are responsible for what amounts to whitewashing history is erroneous. Reconstruction gets a similar pass from the textbooks, with the radical republicans, carpetbaggers, and scalawags eventually being displaced by Redeemer governments. Jim Crow laws and the Ku Klux Klan get a passive mention. There is no critical analysis or discussion of what or why the country reacted the way that it did. Nor is there any discussion of the long-term social and economic impacts the Civil War and Reconstruction had on the United States; Probably the single most important event in American history.

Instead, everything is treated with a monolithic march towards progress. We may have not actually granted blacks civil rights in the 1860's...but we eventually got around to it in the 1960's. Or we may have had a government controlled press during World War I...but we eventually came to our senses and got rid of those bad laws. Instead of aknowledging our flaws, mistakes, or incongruity, and using it as teachable moments to reflect upon; we distill everything into a third person narrative that is more suited for a story book than a history book. It not only does a diservice to our history, it also makes what is probably one of the most exciting subjects in school into something that is a boring memorization of "facts" to write down on the next test.