Schools teaching slanted view of America

[Joe]

Meanwhile, Lincoln's legacy is steadily chipped away every year by revisionists who try to paint him as a megalomaniac with no principles, and who try to paint the Confederates as something other than the slavery-loving exploiters that they really were.

Fortunately, Southern revisionists actually have not been able to significantly alter the content of history textbooks. If anyone is chipping away at Lincoln, it is liberal scholars (like Doris Kearns Goodwin) who give undue emphasis on the fact that Lincoln held racist ideals for much of his life.

[Xenophobe3691]

This is nothing more than political wrangling. Columbus is revered even though he was a mass-murderer whose men cut open pregnant women, ripped out their babies, and smashed their heads on the ground to set an example when the natives weren't obedient enough. Why? Who the fuck knows? Maybe because he was a devout Christian.

Well damn, I just ate! Shit, that sounds like the shit we heard about during the March of the Living. Columbus == BIG motherfucker.

Meanwhile, Lincoln's legacy is steadily chipped away every year by revisionists who try to paint him as a megalomaniac with no principles, and who try to paint the Confederates as something other than the slavery-loving exploiters that they really were.

Um...wasn't Lincoln a man with heavily Socialist leanings?

[Joe]

Um...wasn't Lincoln a man with heavily Socialist leanings?

Absolutely not.

[Durandal]

Um...wasn't Lincoln a man with heavily Socialist leanings?

No, but he did have anti-religious and atheistic leanings. Naturally, since all atheists are communists, one would conclude that he was, as well.

[TheDarkling]

Lincolns primary goal was to maintain the union he said himself that as long as that was achieved it didn't matter if a single slave was freed or if all of them were, he was personally against slavery but thought it far less important than the stability of the union.

[Darth Wong]

Lincolns primary goal was to maintain the union he said himself that as long as that was achieved it didn't matter if a single slave was freed or if all of them were, he was personally against slavery but thought it far less important than the stability of the union.

That was his primary objective during the Civil War, which makes perfect sense. It doesn't change the fact that he planned to abolish slavery.

[Joe]

Lincoln held some genuinely racist views for most of his life, and probably did not want to abolish slavery at the beginning of the Civil War. But his change of heart was genuine as well.

[Kamakazie Sith]

American history textbooks for younger children do indeed whitewash history. As students get older, however, they begin to present a more well-rounded view of American history.

Not really, no. My high school history book never mentioned the fact that Columbus was a genocidal, mass-murdering fuck, and my teachers never saw fit to inform me of that. That would fit with what I've read so far in the book I mentioned before.

Your high school teacher probably didn't know any better.

[Darth Wong]

Lincoln held some genuinely racist views for most of his life, and probably did not want to abolish slavery at the beginning of the Civil War. But his change of heart was genuine as well.

He was born in Kentucky! By modern standards, he was probably a racist. But that doesn't change the fact that he sincerely opposed slavery, and that he thought it should "be put on the road to ultimate extinction," in his words. Overnight abolition was an impractical solution (even a positive social change cannot be realistically implemented overnight), and that gives his detractors some ammo to twist the facts around against him, but he did feel strongly that slavery should be abolished.

[Utsanomiko]

At no point in my 12 years of High School did I receive what they call "leftist" or "anti-american" indoctrination.

Maybe it's because you went to one of them 12-year highschools.

[Hamel]

At no point in my 12 years of High School did I receive what they call "leftist" or "anti-american" indoctrination.

Maybe it's because you went to one of them 12-year highschools.

hahaha

ooooh nilly

[Alyrium Denryle]

Um... In my history clsse I have to POINT OUT the horrible things this country has done... My teachers dont mention it, and the book spends more time on range laws than it does on the genocide of the native americans.

[Perinquus]

Lincoln held some genuinely racist views for most of his life, and probably did not want to abolish slavery at the beginning of the Civil War. But his change of heart was genuine as well.

He was born in Kentucky! By modern standards, he was probably a racist. But that doesn't change the fact that he sincerely opposed slavery, and that he thought it should "be put on the road to ultimate extinction," in his words. Overnight abolition was an impractical solution (even a positive social change cannot be realistically implemented overnight), and that gives his detractors some ammo to twist the facts around against him, but he did feel strongly that slavery should be abolished.

This is true. Lincoln ruminated from time to time on what he regarded as the possibility of the innate inferiority of the negro. Before you condemn him for that, you have to remember: even if he held progressive views for his day, he was still a man of his time. By this I mean far more than that Lincoln merely subscribed to the social conventions of his day. He also had confidence in science, much as we do today. But in the mid-19th century, all kinds of ideas were accepted that we know to be bunk today. Phrenology is a shining example, and only a single one at that. In scientific matters, Lincoln, no scientist himself, deferred to the learned men of his day. And back in the mid-19th century, you had all manner of scientists, historians, physicians, et al. promulgating the idea that white men were intrinsically superior. And the industrial revolution was in full swing in the white man's world. White men invented the steam engine (at least the practical, modern versions), the railroad, the telegraph, the steamship, the firearm, the camera, the cotton gin, etc. etc. In a world like that, it wasn't hard to entertain the idea that blacks, along with other non-whites, were inferior. In this Lincoln was no different than most, and in fact seemed to be far more progressive than the majority of his fellow Americans of the that day.

[Xenophobe3691]

At no point in my 12 years of High School did I receive what they call "leftist" or "anti-american" indoctrination.

GAH, cheap jibe at leftist people!

The worst part is, if it weren't for the Republican Party's anal whoring to the Christian Coalition, I'd've grown up a die-hard Republican. Oh well, time to go hug some gangstas and hope I don't get stood up and killed for my $100 sneakers...

Why can't we all just get along?

[Xenophobe3691]

DAMMIT, forgot to mention that I grew up in a Conservative household...

[Crayz9000]

Maybe because he [ Columbus ] was a devout Christian.

More likely a relic of the Spanish Inquisition...

[seanrobertson]

This is true. Lincoln ruminated from time to time on what he regarded as the possibility of the innate inferiority of the negro. Before you condemn him for that, you have to remember: even if he held progressive views for his day, he was still a man of his time. By this I mean far more than that Lincoln merely subscribed to the social conventions of his day.

Affirmative.

Regarding what to teach kids, does anyone else think it'd be overly complicated to teach Lincoln's musings about black people alongside the most relevant things he did?

You could ask the same for a geniune turd like Columbus, I suppose: is it wise to teach young children that, while he was a sadist and murderer, he "discovered the Americas" too?

We aren't dealing with millions upon millions of kids like Mike's, here. At least in elementary school, I'd guess you'd want to keep it simple enough for all the children to grasp the fundamentals. Furthermore, you've got a lot of material to cover, so you're already threatened with a Jack of all trades, Master of none scenario. (Shit, when I was in elementary school, one teacher taught all the subjects. With the amount of free time younger kids have, I doubt we spent more than 30-40 min. daily with history or, "social studies" as they came to be known.)

So, is it better to risk potential misunderstandings by feeding these kids all the information at hand, or is it better to just hit the high points?

I honestly do not know. I'm no educator...I was only about married to one, once We didn't talk about various approaches to the little ones.

[Stark]

Maybe schools should stop trying to teach what we consider complex adult ideas to fourteen-year olds? Most highschoolers don't know their ass from a hole in the ground - many don't even learn to READ properly. I don't see why every kid should have every subject rammed down their throat by an ineffective school system. I learnt two things in primary school (grade 1-7 here) - long division and clouds. Thats it. In one semester at uni learnt more about maths and science than I did in my senior years.
The question isn't 'should be teach our kids the bad things about history/historical figures/our nation, but is it safe to only teach someone half of anything? All the stupidist, most racist, ignorant people I know were taught just enough to believe they know it all.

[MKSheppard]

Meanwhile, Lincoln's legacy is steadily chipped away every year by revisionists who try to paint him as a megalomaniac with no principles, and who try to paint the Confederates as something other than the slavery-loving exploiters that they really were.

Uh hum, Tell that to Maryland, where Lincoln had the state seized by force,
and had Habeus Corpus repealed to hold the state in by gunpoint. Out of
2,500 registered voters in Montgomery County, MD, where I live, only 50
voted for Honest Abe

[Vympel]

Washington's owning slaves may not make him a horrible person since it was widespread in the Americas, but he most certainly was not the blemish-free Greek god that we make him out to be.

Nitpick- one thing I'll say about Greek gods is that they were human as fuck- I cannot think of one virtuous Greek God/Goddess- they were petty, jealous, murderous, vengeful, angry etc. Kinda makes you wonder why we worshipped them.

[HemlockGrey]

Um... In my history clsse I have to POINT OUT the horrible things this country has done... My teachers dont mention it, and the book spends more time on range laws than it does on the genocide of the native americans.

You have a bizarre history book. My book has four chapters on the Trail of Tears, an entire unit on the Indian Wars, casualty figures for the bombings of Dresden and Tokyo, numerous units on slavery, and every history teacher I've ever had has pointed out that Jefferson and Washington both held slaves.

[Patrick Degan]

Washington's owning slaves may not make him a horrible person since it was widespread in the Americas, but he most certainly was not the blemish-free Greek god that we make him out to be.

Nitpick- one thing I'll say about Greek gods is that they were human as fuck- I cannot think of one virtuous Greek God/Goddess- they were petty, jealous, murderous, vengeful, angry etc. Kinda makes you wonder why we worshipped them.

Well, after all... who then would really want to take the chance of pissing off a pack of petty, jealous, vengeful, angry, murderous gods?

[His Divine Shadow]

FIGHTING APATHY
Over the past 30 years, the percentage of people under 25 who vote has dropped 15 percentage points, the report says. It cites other signs of apathy and low patriotism, such as when children touring Washington said they knew Memorial Day as "the day the pools open."

American's are so patriotic that I think it might borders on brainwashing in some places, with the saluting the flag everyday in school and whatnot, sounds 1984'ish to me.

We're not a fraction as patriotic here in Finland yet the majority votes anyway, there is another problem if people do not vote, or if people have to be so patriotic as to the point of raising the flag everyday and saluting it in order to vote.

[His Divine Shadow]

Not really, no. My high school history book never mentioned the fact that Columbus was a genocidal, mass-murdering fuck, and my teachers never saw fit to inform me of that. That would fit with what I've read so far in the book I mentioned before.

And to think that Mickey Mouse played Columbus once in a comic, oh mickey, how the mighty have fallen...

[Gandalf]

Isn't it just PC now to teach history like that, when we learn of the settlement of Australia, all we hear about is how the English would kill and harm the Aborigines.
Nothing of how they managed to forge an infrastructurein a very harsh environment. We also never hear of any of the other counties that discovered Australia too, like the Dutch, many Asian countries, and some others I can't remember.