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

[Richard]

Teaching kids about a New Socialist Nation is old news:

Hitler Youth comes to mind........

This discussion brought back memories of living in Columbus, GA, in the mid-80's and having to explain to my sons why the banks, state and federal offices were closed on MLK Day...yet the Muscogee County offices were all open that day and then closed the following day in celebration of RE Lee's birthday.

It has also brought to mind how readily we can find someone somewhere who "doesn't have enough sense to know better than to pound sand down a rat hole" (as my father used to say) and then use it as "proof" to proclaim the entire {system, organization, society, etc} is either declining or broken and unmendable, and heading inexhorably towards some sort of tragic "-ismic" end-state.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qam1fbQmA_s

And so it goes...

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 mark46th

FWIW- Here are some ideas for flags

The Communist Conspiracy goes even deeper than I initially believed...I got gold star stickers in Kindergarten for good behaviour...those flags have gold stars...it was just so I would be used to all of the communism, complacency, and laziness! I must check myself into Libertypendence Park to be de-programmed!

[BOfH]

Originally Posted by SomethingWitty

The Communist Conspiracy goes even deeper than I initially believed...I got gold star stickers in Kindergarten for good behaviour...those flags have gold stars...it was just so I would be used to all of the communism, complacency, and laziness! I must check myself into Libertypendence Park to be de-programmed!

Mine were silver.

[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.

[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

[BOfH]

Originally Posted by SomethingWitty

Entire post

Agreed, excellent post. I used the presidents as an example, however, as you have pointed out, there are other areas that have received the same or similar treatment. IMO: Many of the controversial areas of history are emotionally charged, and I believe that critical analysis has fallen by the wayside in fear of being stuck with a politically incorrect label. In the words of Warren Buffet: "It takes twenty years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it.", either yourself, or for someone else to ruin it for you.

Originally Posted by DJ Urbanovsky

Entire post.

Same here. Curiosity aside, I should credit several members(Sigaba, where art thou? ) of this BB, for respectfully calling me out on occasion, piquing my interest in reading/researching more.

My .02

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by SomethingWitty

Entire post.

Nice post.

I would argue that there are places for moral judgements in history if historians:

• frame an issue with primary sources,
• leave the act of judgment to the readers' discretion,
• remind readers of the perils of applying current standards to the past, and
• point out that while trajectories of historiographical inquiry can shift over time, history moves in one direction.

For example, a discussion of the "peculiar institution" can be framed in the contemporaneous accounts of those who experienced it first hand, as well as the surrounding debates. If a historian casts a wide enough net, a reader will understand that many Americans found the practice evil while some thought slavery was good. From there, a reader can make his/her own decision.

Originally Posted by Dusty

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

MOO, the argument that the New York intellectuals' greatly influence the study and teaching of history is not historiographically sustainable.

Second, given the Hegelian formulation of thesis ---> antithesis ---> synthesis, it is difficult to argue that all historical works are not, in one way or another, "revisionist."

Third, lumping together the diverse range of viewpoints (personal, political, philosophical, methodological) that drive historical inquiry under the umbrella of "liberalism" flies in the face of the many intense (and bitter) debates among historians over myriad topics.

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

Do you recall the name of the textbook (including edition) as well as the other secondary works you were assigned on FDR's presidency?

As a rule of thumb, high school history text books are up to fifty years out of date by the time a student reads one. Moreover, if one is studying a president in that president's home state, lessons that discuss how great he (and, eventually, she) was may be more a reflection of local factors than a grand agenda.

On another point. Since the rise of the "new" social history during the 1960s, and its focus on history "from the bottom up," the study of America's past has largely centered around a "bottom up" approach. This method rejects soundly the notion that "victors write history."

My $0.02

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

.

Second, given the Hegelian formulation of thesis ---> antithesis ---> synthesis, it is difficult to argue that all historical works are not, in one way or another, "revisionist."

My $0.02

That makes my point, doesn't it?

[TXGringo]

IMO, it's important to remember that teachers lead the direction of the class, not textbooks. A textbook is only as good, or as bad, as the students and teachers utilizing them.

[BOfH]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

Do you recall the name of the textbook (including edition) as well as the other secondary works you were assigned on FDR's presidency?

As a rule of thumb, high school history text books are up to fifty years out of date by the time a student reads one. Moreover, if one is studying a president in that president's home state, lessons that discuss how great he (and, eventually, she) was may be more a reflection of local factors than a grand agenda.

On another point. Since the rise of the "new" social history during the 1960s, and its focus on history "from the bottom up," the study of America's past has largely centered around a "bottom up" approach. This method rejects soundly the notion that "victors write history."

My $0.02

Sigaba,
Unfortunately I don't, however, you do raise an important point: To be fair, IIRC, the textbook bullet points the major accomplishments of FDR's presidency, and for the sake of neutrality, sticks with the things that he *actually* did, versus the debate and consensus over the outcomes and consequences of his actions and legislation. Unfortunately, you end up with dry facts which raise the perception that each and every contribution was in fact an accomplishment as opposed to a possible detriment. Additionally, I do remember the little gold/tan colored 'Critical Analysis' questions box being very PC'ish in content, without sparking much analysis, critical or otherwise.

My .02

[SomethingWitty]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

Nice post.

I would argue that there are places for moral judgements in history if historians:

• frame an issue with primary sources,
• leave the act of judgment to the readers' discretion,
• remind readers of the perils of applying current standards to the past, and
• point out that while trajectories of historiographical inquiry can shift over time, history moves in one direction.

For example, a discussion of the "peculiar institution" can be framed in the contemporaneous accounts of those who experienced it first hand, as well as the surrounding debates. If a historian casts a wide enough net, a reader will understand that many Americans found the practice evil while some thought slavery was good. From there, a reader can make his/her own decision.

I agree. This is basically what we were graded on in our Advanced Placement History classes during Highschool; They were/are a lot different than our mandatory World History classes (a joke that focused almost exclusively on Europe), and United States History classes. The College Board test is geared towards a mix of memory work (multiple choice section) and then interpretting history and crafting an argument (essay section). For the second portion; you do not really have to be completely accurate as long as you demonstrate an ability to analyze cause and effect.

In regards to providing moral judgements of history, I still agree, but the author of the second article was upset that whatever history lesson he/she was refering to did not mention that Muhammed would be considered a pedophile and war criminal today. That is akin to being upset that our US History textbooks do not make a list of who the most/least racist US Presidents are. To do either would just be pedantic sillyness.

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by SomethingWitty

). For the second portion; you do not really have to be completely accurate as long as you demonstrate an ability to analyze cause and effect.

Piece of cake for Sig.

[Pete]

It's public school - what more can be said.

Me and President Obama believe in one thing thats the same - private school for our children.

And your kid is in public school learning this crap because.....................?