It is getting worse (p.c.)

[Anrhydeddu]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,85594,00.html

[Craptacular]

"I think our textbooks should to our greatest capacity be free of any type of stereotyping," said Sue Stickel, deputy superintendent for curriculum and instruction for the California Department of Education (search). "We need to make sure that all ethnicities are represented. We need to make sure that both males and females are represented. We need to make sure that our materials cover the full gamut."

In other words, we need to lie.

[cuervo72]

[cuervo72]

Those who are offended by everything should either get the hell out or shut the hell up....ok, they don't have to shut up, but all the other damned fools should stop listening to them...

[AgPete]

If parents put as much effort into raising their kids as they do lobbying text book companies to be politically correct, Christian-minded or morally proper, we'd have some damn fine future Americans.

[Anrhydeddu]

It is a question whether there will be future Americans since our identity and heritage will be all but erased.

[Craptacular]

Originally posted by AgPete
If parents put as much effort into raising their kids as they do lobbying text book companies to be politically correct, Christian-minded or morally proper, we'd have some damn fine future Americans.

So their kids are not Americans now?

[Anrhydeddu]

Not in some minds. They prefer that we are all Global Villagists and that freedoms, liberties and democracy (as oppose to less freedoms, less liberties and non-democracies) cannot mean anything in that context.

[Radii]

Reason number 764 I'm glad I don't live in California.

[John Galt]

I'm not going to defend all of the changes made by California, but I think there are at least some places where they are right.

The primary place of my interest and something that I've written about in the "real world" concerns the issue of gender-neutral language. I think changes of language from "snowman" to "snowperson" seem trivial at first blush, but reflect an important understanding of language works to shape young minds in schools.

When one says "mankind," they create a notion of people where "man" is the neutral and "woman" is the abberant. "Man" both represents a single-sex as well as the entirety of humanity. This linguistic device is part of serves to make women a subset and an aberration of form in gender. Among children, this difference can have striking effects. There are already an incredible array of differences that are inflicted on both young boys and young girls (starting much earlier than the segregated toy isles). When language acts to confirm other social difference techniques, it forces boys and girls into gender roles that may not fit them. Over time, this can have a negative effect on developing minds.

Gender-neutral language isn't about offensiveness - it is about recognizing that our current language isn't neutral at all when it comes to sex.

[AgPete]

Originally posted by Craptacular
So their kids are not Americans now?

[CamEdwards]

Originally posted by AgPete
If parents put as much effort into raising their kids as they do lobbying text book companies to be politically correct, Christian-minded or morally proper, we'd have some damn fine future Americans.

nope. This isn't about Christian-minded or morally proper. In fact, the people that are lobbying these companies would say that Christian-based morality is just one facet of America, and to try and raise children as good moral Christians is wrong.

This is ridiculous.... but thanks for giving me a topic for tomorrow morning.

[Butter]

Wow, a story on that from Fox News. What a shocker.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
It is a question whether there will be future Americans since our identity and heritage will be all but erased.

Dola, this seems to presume that our "identity and heritage" are accurately reflected now. The example of images of American Indians is telling - the images that have been used for a long time were not actually reflective of how most lived their lives. The myth of a nomadic, rural population was supported through pictures and images and it turned out that that wasn't correct. Not coincidentally, the treatment of Indians as rural, "undeveloped" people has been used to justify some of America's historical bad moves.

[Craptacular]

Originally posted by AgPete

Sorry, just playing with your choice of wording: "future Americans"

[scooper]

Originally posted by Radii
Reason number 764 I'm glad I don't live in California.

What's reason number 522?

[AgPete]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
nope. This isn't about Christian-minded or morally proper. In fact, the people that are lobbying these companies would say that Christian-based morality is just one facet of America, and to try and raise children as good moral Christians is wrong.

This is ridiculous.... but thanks for giving me a topic for tomorrow morning.

I was referring to the part of the article that said that text book companies are hit with so many complaints these days that they just erase the "offensive" remark and go on. Christian moral majority types are just as guilty as the crazy PC libs. Although their agenda may be more against physical science books rather than social science books.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by John Galt
I'm not going to defend all of the changes made by California, but I think there are at least some places where they are right.

The primary place of my interest and something that I've written about in the "real world" concerns the issue of gender-neutral language. I think changes of language from "snowman" to "snowperson" seem trivial at first blush, but reflect an important understanding of language works to shape young minds in schools.

When one says "mankind," they create a notion of people where "man" is the neutral and "woman" is the abberant. "Man" both represents a single-sex as well as the entirety of humanity. This linguistic device is part of serves to make women a subset and an aberration of form in gender. Among children, this difference can have striking effects. There are already an incredible array of differences that are inflicted on both young boys and young girls (starting much earlier than the segregated toy isles). When language acts to confirm other social difference techniques, it forces boys and girls into gender roles that may not fit them. Over time, this can have a negative effect on developing minds.

Gender-neutral language isn't about offensiveness - it is about recognizing that our current language isn't neutral at all when it comes to sex.

My thoughts on John's post. [edited because it somehow missed subby's tastes.]

[Butter]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
In fact, the people that are lobbying these companies would say that Christian-based morality is just one facet of America, and to try and raise children as good moral Christians is wrong.

Huh?

[Fritz]

Here come Dick, he's wearing a skirt
Here comes Jane, y'know she's sporting a chain
Same hair, revolution
Same build, evolution
Tomorrow who's gonna fuss

And they love each other so
Androgynous
Closer than you know, love each other so
Androgynous

Don't get him wrong and don't get him mad
He might be a father, but he sure ain't a dad
And she don't need advice that he send to her
She's happy with the way she looks
She's happy with her gender

Mirror image, see no damage
See no evil at all
Kewpie dolls and urine stalls
They'll be laughed at
The way you're laughed at now

Now, something meets Boy, and something meets Girl
They both look the same
They're overjoyed in this world
Same hair, revolution
Unisex, evolution
Tomorrow who's gonna fuss
And tomorrow Dick is wearing pants
And tomorrow Janie's wearing a dress
Future outcasts and they don't last
And today, the people dress the way that they please
The way they tried to do in the last centuries

And they love each other so
Androgynous
Closer than you know, love each other so
Androgynous

[cuervo72]

My biggest beef isn't with the man/person issue, even though I personally think it's pretty stupid (it's not even like snowmen are REAL; and how many women do you know that wear top hats and smoke pipes? Is frosty now a snowperson?

The issue is the rewriting of our countries history, almost as if there are some who believe our history is flawed from a moral perspective so it must be sanitized. In the future, is the war for Texas' independence going to be regarded as a transgression because there are so many Mexicans (not even Mexican-Americans, but illegals) living there? Is the opinion of the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor going to be modified because Japanese-Americans may feel their ancestors are being portrayed unfairly?

The Founding Fathers issue...yes, they were founding fathers. Part of the history of that time is the fact that men and women were not necessarily treated as equals. I think it is important to make that distinction, to see what strides we have taken as a nation from then until now...yes, there have been inequities in American society. No, they weren't right, but it should be acknowledged that they existed.



edit: snowmen don't wear pipes.....

[Subby]

Originally posted by Fritz
My thoughts on John's post. (open with care)

I think HA is right...your insane rate of posting has caused you to lose your edge...

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Subby
I think HA is right...your insane rate of posting has caused you to lose your edge...

it was the best I could find.

[Fritz]

dola

don't you have a chatroom to get back to?

[Marmel]

On the average, Fritz only posts 2 more times per day than Subby. That is not really an alarming rate.

[Anrhydeddu]

The myth of a nomadic, rural population was supported through pictures and images and it turned out that that wasn't correct.

John, your esteemed credibility just took a big hit. Apparently you do not know your history and therefore would certainly support unfactual revision of history to aid your agendas. There were many tribes that were nomadic and most of them were rural (as with all peoples living off of the land). Most of all of Plains Indians were nomadic and even of the more less-nomadic tribes like the Iroquois, through warfare and conquests, they picked and moved quite frequently. Why does it surprise me that you would come here and put the Natives on a pedestal as being all good and noble peoples when it serves your viewpoint that Euro-Americans were all bad?

Sorry, I know that was another emotion knee-jerk response.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
John, your esteemed credibility just took a big hit. Apparently you do not know your history and therefore would certainly support unfactual revision of history to aid your agendas. There were many tribes that were nomadic and most of them were rural (as with all peoples living off of the land). Most of all of Plains Indians were nomadic and even of the more less-nomadic tribes like the Iroquois, through warfare and conquests, they picked and moved quite frequently. Why does it surprise me that you would come here and put the Natives on a pedestal as being all good and noble peoples when it serves your viewpoint that Euro-Americans were all bad?

Sorry, I know that was another emotion knee-jerk response.

First off, I in no way support the so-called "noble savage" myth. Such a notion has been almost as destructive to Indians as has the notion that they were undeveloped.

Second, I do not dispute the belief that SOME tribes were nomadic and that SOME had limited development. And don't talk down to me about history on this point. There has been quite a bit written discounting historians at the time who used there writings to promote the political agenda of conquerers in the 18th and 19th centuries. Many tribes had very advanced agricultural systems (and hence weren't nomadic). There level of agricultural development often exceeded the level of the settlers. There were also many large cities in the pre-settler era founded by American Indians. Only because of post-facto undercounting by settlers were these cities denied by early historians. The belief that Indians were rural and nomadic is not exclusive, yet that was the belief promoted by history textbooks for generations. Removing those stereotypes is an important step to undoing some of that mistaken belief system.

Further, there are many instances were American history as recorded in textbooks is far from "neutral" or "objective" (assuming such things are even close to possible). Accounts of Vietnam have been especially poor for years because people did not know what to say. The issue of Texas and Mexico has often been written to portray a rather interesting view of the events that took place. Hell, even the civil war is almost always portrayed with the Union as heroes reuniting the US (ignoring that the war was almost certainly not legal or justified by the Constitution). History is not neutral. Changing textbooks doesn't alter "our" heritage - "our" heritage is inevitably altered and has been for years.

[John Galt]

dola,

I can't seem to find great links with a quick google search regarding undercounting and the myth of rural and nomadic indians, but I seem to remember a really good chapter in the book "State of Native America" published in the early 90's (most of the rest of the book was drivel, but the history of census taking and demographics was really good).

[Drake]

John,

I think you're looking for an article like this one: http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/03/mann.htm

[Anrhydeddu]

If you want your history to be of tearing down instead of celebrating the great and heroic deeds, so be it. I chose to celebrate (and desire every generation to know) of the courage of the Mayflower Seperatists, the genius of those having the fortitude to break away from the tyranny of the monarchy, the incredible foresight of framing a new Constitution that would last for generations, the cause of Lincoln and the Union in ensuring the destruction of the slave economy to many other deeds. The fact that these were accomplished by fallible and imperfect humans makes these extraordinary deeds even more worth celebrating.

As far as your points about the Natives, your original assertion that Indians being "nomadic and rural" was a myth is not correct and I took issue with that. Most every tribes were hunters, gatherers and farmers, folks that have been "rural" in every culture but that could just be semantics. "Nomadic" existence could be implied to those communities and tribes picking up moving down the stream or next to another lake, as we call the uprooted culture among many today. Constant warfare, tribal assimilations and resource depletions dictated such movement, even among tribes not following a herd.

You can argue that their displacement by Euro-Americans was a wrong we must forever make up for but that is only focusing on a very selective history. What about the numerous tribes being displaced or annihilated by other tribes? What about the constant displacements of cultures and peoples throughout history (and still going on today)? That doesn't make any of it excusable but it certainly doesn't make any one example as extraordinary.

With all of the past wrongs throughout human history because of our sinful nature, it is a wonder that good things had been accomplished.

[Subby]

Originally posted by Fritz
dola - don't you have a chatroom to get back to?

Chatrooms don't have near the entertainment value of watching a once-great poster fumbling and stumbling around, clearly past his bulletin board prime...unable to just walk away...

[sabotai]

"Reason number 764 I'm glad I don't live in California."

Only 764? I'm over 2000 by now...

"nope. This isn't about Christian-minded or morally proper. In fact, the people that are lobbying these companies would say that Christian-based morality is just one facet of America, and to try and raise children as good moral Christians is wrong. "

Come on Cam, you know that's a load of crap. Something people tend to always forget is that most liberals ARE christians. So saying that they would say that raising kids as good moral Christians is wrong, when they themselves are Christians, is just plain ignorant.

"the treatment of Indians as rural, "undeveloped" people has been used to justify some of America's historical bad moves."

John, yes, they were bad moves. But how do you educate kids on this issue? Do you cover it up like it never happened, or do you tells kids what happened and explain to them how it is wrong?

California is doing the former, when in my opinion, the latter is the better way.

And if it was just about these isssues, it may not be SO bad, but...

Changing The Founding Fathers to The Framers...
Changing Snowman to Snowperson
Changing Senior Citizen to Older Person
Changing Jungle to Rain Forest
Saying it is too elitist to use the word Yacht

Is just insane. (for the record, I think calling them 'older person' is more demeaning then 'senior citizen'.)

[Anrhydeddu]

I find this question from the article (thanks, Drake) to be interesting

I asked seven anthropologists, archaeologists, and historians if they would rather have been a typical Indian or a typical European in 1491. None was delighted by the question, because it required judging the past by the standards of today—a fallacy disparaged as "presentism" by social scientists.

I would have chosen neither, truthfully. Life was imaginably hard, when compared to today's soft culture. Epidemics throughout Europe destroyed a great percentage of the population, esp. in their urban squaller but lack of food/rain likewise had destroyed whole tribes and settlements in North America (like the Anasazis). The best manor farmer of the Middle Ages probably can compare to the laborers of native North Americans but that latter had the advantage of more freedom of movement (as long as you didn't encroach upon an enemy's territory) and resources (as long as the rains came in some parts).

My point is that humans of all races and cultures have been resourceful throughout history, doing their best to ensure survivability and the hope for prosperity. Ensuring those things have always came at a cost because nothing can be done in a vacuum.

[Drake]

I'm glad you liked the article, Bucc. I stumbled across it in a doctor's office a year or so ago and thought enough of it not to forget it. I think I stole the actual magazine as well, but I'll be darned if I can find it right now.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
If you want your history to be of tearing down instead of celebrating the great and heroic deeds, so be it. I chose to celebrate (and desire every generation to know) of the courage of the Mayflower Seperatists, the genius of those having the fortitude to break away from the tyranny of the monarchy, the incredible foresight of framing a new Constitution that would last for generations, the cause of Lincoln and the Union in ensuring the destruction of the slave economy to many other deeds. The fact that these were accomplished by fallible and imperfect humans makes these extraordinary deeds even more worth celebrating.

As far as your points about the Natives, your original assertion that Indians being "nomadic and rural" was a myth is not correct and I took issue with that. Most every tribes were hunters, gatherers and farmers, folks that have been "rural" in every culture but that could just be semantics. "Nomadic" existence could be implied to those communities and tribes picking up moving down the stream or next to another lake, as we call the uprooted culture among many today. Constant warfare, tribal assimilations and resource depletions dictated such movement, even among tribes not following a herd.

You can argue that their displacement by Euro-Americans was a wrong we must forever make up for but that is only focusing on a very selective history. What about the numerous tribes being displaced or annihilated by other tribes? What about the constant displacements of cultures and peoples throughout history (and still going on today)? That doesn't make any of it excusable but it certainly doesn't make any one example as extraordinary.

With all of the past wrongs throughout human history because of our sinful nature, it is a wonder that good things had been accomplished.

I partly agree and partly disagree with your sentiments. I have no desire to tear down history for the sake of doing so. However, I think celebrating history is almost always a mistake. History is what it is - a story about events that happened before us. Investing belief in what it should be often blinds us to what happened. I have no problem celebrating the efforts of the framers, but I also don't forget that many of them were slaveholders.

I still think you are overstating your case about rural and warlike tribes. Remember that the Europeans were essentially the same except they had gunpowder and castles. Levels of rural population weren't really that different across the Atlantic and the level of warfare (as far as scale) was significantly lower in the Americas. I also think that prior displacement by other peoples does nothing to diminish the atrocities settlers committed against tribes. Indian hunts and small-pox infested blankets are just two of the darker deeds commmitted by early American settlers. They should not be forgotten nor should the myths that justified them (that Indians were just uncivilized savages) be taught in schools.

[Radii]

Originally posted by scooper
What's reason number 522?

The inhumane treatment of the Rally Monkey.

[Anrhydeddu]

But here's the problem I have of what is being taught: it is at the expense of instead of being inclusion, which is what history should always be about. Just because some of the Founding Fathers (yes, I will use that term because it is accurate) were slaveholders does in no way minimize their extraordinary accomplishments. The fact that a civil war was fought should in no way reduce the joy of a population being emancipated from slavery (an interesting parallel to recent events, huh?). I fear that the next generation (maybe even this one) will grow up not knowing who George Washington was and his heroic leadership in the Revolutionary War but would instead know who Sally Hennings was. There is nothing wrong with knowing both in their historical context but that appears to now be the agenda of some of those responsible for what is being taught.

[Anrhydeddu]

They should not be forgotten nor should the myths that justified them (that Indians were just uncivilized savages) be taught in schools.

I think that is a myth from the other side in thinking that this is still true (it wasn't when I was young) and therefore, must overcompensate because of reparations.

[clintl]

I am extremely skeptical about the veracity of this article, given a quick scan of the California State Department of Education curriculum standards.

[Drake]

Oooh. Good link, clint.

[Anrhydeddu]

clintl: Sounds like a vocal group within the Department are wanting more radical changes?

"I think our textbooks should to our greatest capacity be free of any type of stereotyping," said Sue Stickel, deputy superintendent for curriculum and instruction for the California Department of Education

As long as they stereotype white presidents or rich Americans.

And there will be no more reading about Mount Rushmore (search), where the faces of four U.S. presidents are carved into stone, because it appears to offend some American-Indian groups.

So much for studying history.

[Craptacular]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu

So much for studying history.

Why couldn't this have happened when I was in school?

[tucker342]

I can't stand it when they do things like that. Our history maybe wasn't perfect, but you can't ignore it.

[clintl]

Basically, I believe Fox is probably grossly exaggerating the situation to appeal to its conservative, public-school bashing political base. It takes a few basically innocuous examples (who really cares, for example, whether you call the Founding Fathers the Framers instead - both terms are essentially accurate with regard to what they did), and suggests that there's a wholesale rewriting of history going on. The Department's curriculum standards suggest otherwise, and it would be impossible to teach to those standards if what Fox is implying were true. And since I have a 9-year old niece, I'm pretty sure I would have heard an earful of complaints from my conservative brother and sister-in-law if what's being taught was falling short of they would expect. In fact, what I'm hearing is the opposite - that my niece is being taught at a more advanced level than we were at the same age.

What Fox seems to be doing reminds me basically of the science fiction writing technique of creating rubber sciences - learn a little bit about the science, put everything you know about it into the story, and imply you know a lot more. It works fine for fiction, but not for journalism.

[Vince]

Originally posted by John Galt
the level of warfare (as far as scale) was significantly lower in the Americas

John, although my studies of North American history are severely lacking (strange that I'm a senior History major, and I haven't taken a Northern American History class since High School), wouldn't you think that the reason for the discrepancy in the scale of warfare would be directly related to the technological superiority of European Nations? Is it fair to compare North American warfare to European warfare at all between the 15th and, say, the 17th centuries?

[mckerney]

Originally posted by Radii
The inhumane treatment of the Rally Monkey.

and reason 521 is the rally monkey

[GrantDawg]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
I think that is a myth from the other side in thinking that this is still true (it wasn't when I was young) and therefore, must overcompensate because of reparations.

Never was taught it that way either. I seriously doubt anybody since 1970 has been taught that way.