<p>Texas</a> Conservatives Win Vote on Textbook Standards - NYTimes.com</p>
<p>This annoys me deeply. >.<</p>
<p>I say that history should be reported how it actually happened and that people should be able to form their own opinion of it. Maybe that’s why I don’t care for history, a lot of it is changed just to make America sound awesome. I want to hear what actually happened, not what the people in charge want me to hear.</p>
<p>Disgusting.</p>
<p>…For once they do something smart.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wow.</p>
<p>Then again, what do you expect? It’s Texas.</p>
<p>Sad thing about history is that 99.9% of it goes down the memory hole. It would be cool if we could trace the location of every particle at every point in time, but that probably violates one of the laws of thermodynamics - hence, only some entity that transcends logic (like God, if there is one) could ever do that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The problem isn’t that they outright lie about history (although they sometimes do that, too). They’re all sins of omission. There’s so much material, and not enough space in which to cover it. I agree we can make textbooks better, but there’s always going to be controversy about what exactly should be included.</p>
<p>^I agree. It just brings me back though to junior high when we learn about the colonists and how we became friends with the Native Americans and how nice it all was. Ya… that’s definitely how it went. I do agree that omission of information will lead to an unintended bias. But sometimes this bias is intended therefore producing a very one sided view of history.</p>
<p>And sometimes they have captions like “The Indians had never seen such a feast!” Haha, right. It was the separatist Pilgrims who had never seen such a feast.</p>
<p>There’s a reason I prefer math and science over history. It’s unbiased.</p>
<p>^Well, I agree, but some people don’t. One example: Epistemological anarchists. (What’s up with those guys?)</p>
<p>And then there are those who say the hegemonic implications of the scientific method and the Zermelo-Frankel set theory are inherently political.</p>
<p>Not quite unbiased. It really depends on your teacher…ours was ranting the first week of school about how we Americans should proudly keep up our non-metric ways because we’re the leader of the world. :/</p>
<p>“…For once they do something smart.”</p>
<p>what, now?</p>
<p>my philosophy teacher was talking about how sad this is, today D:</p>
<p>Cody, I’m really hoping you’re being sarcastic…again… LOL. I really, really, really do. I think I like science more than history now… still hate math.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not that I care, but every friggin assignment or reading that we have (almost more in science than social studies) is liberally biased and skewed up the wazoo. My Econ textbook last semester was so liberal that it said power lines are against animal rights because the magnetic fields confuse the birds and cause them not to fly south and therefore freeeze to death… that’s bull**** liberalism and I really wouldn’t mind not seeing it anymore. My dad refuses to help me with spanish assignments because our textbook is all wishy washy “help the enviroment” crap and he insists that global warming isn’t human induced and that our generation is being brainwashed into thinking that we’re the cause for every little problem on this planet and that we have to put important measures behind to take care of stupid CRAPP like global warming that we’ll ** never ** end up fixing. Like H1N1 for example. All that money spent and all that worrying for nothing. Why won’t global warming turn out the same way? It probably will… so why teach us all about fixing it and make us pay for the stupid mistakes that the last generation made?</p>
<p>This is just a personal preference I guess and my bad about the rant. I guess I’m conservitive and I do really think things in the school should be more balanced.</p>
<p>I was skimming until I crossed this: "“capitalism” throughout their texts with the “free-enterprise system.” </p>
<p>Using doublespeak to revise education is idiotic.</p>
<p>^^did you even read the article? they’re taking thomas JEFFERSON, virtually, OUT. that’s not ‘revising liberal bias’. that’s rewriting history. i was reading another article that said they were going to shave down the parts of the civil rights’ movement. because, clearly, THAT’S not important. i wouldn’t be surprised if they completely removed obama from the book, & implied that mccain had won -_- hell, in just a few more generations, texans may have ‘forgotten’ about the first black president, altogether.</p>