Communist, pro-terrorist propaganda?

[Chloe]

By M. Alex Johnson, staff writer, NBC News

Texas authorities are beginning a sweeping review this week of the state's dominant public school curriculum under pressure from critics who charge that it indoctrinates the children of Texas with communist, pro-terrorist propaganda from behind a shield of secrecy.
The State Board of Education will hold the first of a series of public meetings to organize the review in Dallas on Friday, three days after the state attorney general's office told NBC News that it has been looking into "potential improprieties" that raise "significant legal concerns about the program's operations."
It didn't specify those concerns, but legislative hearings have questioned the program's nonprofit status and the locking of some materials behind passwords accessible only to teachers and other "authorized users."

The designers of the curriculum — which is used in 875 of the state's 1,028 districts — say the program is closely aligned with standards mandated by the State Board of Education and is based on educational principles proven over decades. Critics, they say, are taking isolated parts of lessons out of context, equating simply teaching a controversial issue with endorsing it.
Even so, the parent organization of the program, called CSCOPE, has agreed to several demands by opponents, including opening its board meetings to the public, allowing teachers to post curriculum materials online, dropping its nonprofit status and creating a new website so parents can learn about the lessons from home.
CSCOPE (http://cscope.us/) — it's not an abbreviation for anything — is a Web-only repository of 1,600 lesson plans, study materials and other curriculum components. It's supposed to help teachers make sure pupils are taught what they need to know for the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills test.
"We live in a very mobile society," said Anne Poplin, chairwoman of the board of the Texas Education Service Center Curriculum Collaborative, or TESCCC, which administers CSCOPE.
CSCOPE means children who move from one school or district to another can be confident they'll pick up where they left off in their old classrooms, she told NBC News.
But since it began in the 2006-07 school year, CSCOPE has been a target for activists and conservative websites. Pressure has grown in recent months as critics have published details of its lesson plans.
"CSCOPE Teaches ALLAH is God (http://www.txcscopereview.com/2012/cscope-teaches-allah-is-god/)" and "CSCOPE Promotes Communism (http://www.txcscopereview.com/2013/cscope-promotes-communism/)," proclaim two of several dozen articles on Texas CSCOPE Review.
Glenn Beck's TheBlaze has run at least five "exposés" this year with headlines like "CSCOPE: Exposing the Nation's Most Controversial Public School Curriculum System (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/07/cscope-exposing-the-nations-most-controversial-public-school-curriculum-system/)," while Tucker Carlson's Daily Caller last month ran a story listing "egregious examples of the curriculum's inadequacies and absurdities (http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/21/ten-shocking-things-a-huge-texas-curriculum-conglomerate-has-foisted-on-public-school-students/)."
'Design a flag for a new socialist nation'
Critics fall into two camps.
The first is teachers who say the curriculum is flawed in general and that their districts require them to rigidly follow the program, even though CSCOPE says it's meant to be revised and "refocused" to serve local needs.
As part of a transparency agreement it worked out last month with Dan Patrick, the Republican chairman of the state Senate Education Committee, TESCCC said it would remind districts that lessons are simply resources for teachers, not meant to be taught verbatim.
The second group is larger and more vocal: parents, activists and lawmakers who say CSCOPE is a Trojan horse sneaking liberal ideals of socialism and cultural relativism into the classroom.

continued....
Texas reviews school curriculum targeted by conservatives over alleged communist propaganda - Open Channel (http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/28/17476492-texas-reviews-school-curriculum-targeted-by-conservatives-over-alleged-communist-propaganda?lite)

[Chloe]

Here is the link to the PDF for the lesson plans that are being called communist and pro-terrorist:

http://www.cscope.us/Terrorism.pdf (http://www.cscope.us/Terrorism.pdf)

This is an example of one of the lessons that they are calling pro-terrorist. I was looking at it and honestly I thought it was a clever assignment to get students thinking on a different level.

For example here is one of the scenarios from pages 2-5:

News report: New Act of Terror!

A local militia, believed to be a terrorist organization, attacked the
property of private citizens today at our nation’s busiest port. Although
no one was injured in the attack, a large quantity of merchandise,
considered to be valuable to its owners and loathsome to the
perpetrators, was destroyed. The terrorists, dressed in disguise and
apparently intoxicated, were able to escape into the night with the help
of local citizens who harbor these fugitives and conceal their identities
from the authorities. It is believed that the terrorist attack was a
response to the policies enacted by the occupying country’s
government. Even stronger policies are anticipated by the local citizens.

[Chloe]

To the british during the revolutionary war we were terrorists, although now the term "rebel" is used more often. If you read the scenario at face value and do not let it get you emotional it proves the point that there are two sides to every story, conflict, ideal, and so on. In my opinion these kinds of things are not pro-terrorists but instead are pro-critical thinking. It would be very easy for a school to teach an Americanized version of history that always puts us in a great light, but that's not fact and it's not education in my opinion.

[Private Pickle]

It is pro-terrorist in that scenario, obvious written in a bias way and making it out like they are freedom fighters. I like the militia jab too.

What is the point of the scenario?

[Ravi]

I'm a little confused. They are calling the lesson pro-terrorist? In other words, this group of critics believe the Boston Tea Party was a terrorist act?

[Chloe]

It is pro-terrorist in that scenario, obvious written in a bias way and making it out like they are freedom fighters.

What is the point of the scenario?

The "terrorists" in that scenario were Americans and it was the boston tea party. It was pretty much written from a british point of view and not patriot point of view. If you click on the PDF link it shows the entire lesson plan by the way.

[patrickt]

Attacking boxes of tea and attacking innocent civilians are equal only for those with a liberal education.

[Private Pickle]

To the british during the revolutionary war we were terrorists, although now the term "rebel" is used more often. If you read the scenario at face value and do not let it get you emotional it proves the point that there are two sides to every story, conflict, ideal, and so on. In my opinion these kinds of things are not pro-terrorists but instead are pro-critical thinking. It would be very easy for a school to teach an Americanized version of history that always puts us in a great light, but that's not fact and it's not education in my opinion.

That scenario only had one side.

[Private Pickle]

The "terrorists" in that scenario were Americans and it was the boston tea party. It was pretty much written from a british point of view and not patriot point of view. If you click on the PDF link it shows the entire lesson plan by the way.

How is it two-sided?

[Chloe]

That scenario only had one side.

As do most of our history books talking about the boston tea party. This just shows a version of the same scenario from the oppositions point of view. It shows us that what one person sees as patriotic another person may see as terrorism.

[zelmo1234]

When you have a goal of reducing the power and influence of a nation it is important to change the mids of the youth.

The left is really good at doing this. and I must tip my hat.

Now the policies of apeasment require the indoctrination of the youth to make them totally passive to the attacks of terrorist organizations by convincing the youth of our nations that it is the our fault and the terrorists were forced to kill inocent people to get back at our evil rich nation.

As Always this policy of apeasment will lead to the building of regional powers and eventually global conflict. of which a very large majority of the nations young people are killed.

Apeasment of evil must be indocrtrinated inot the coutries youth, as it is not something that a person would choose on their own.

But liberals have used this very well to get thier agendas through in the past and are being very effective with it now as well.

When the next event happens given enough time, there will be no retalation and then we can have more and more events until people will once again stand up against evil. at such a time we will count the deaths in millions instead of thousands, but that is the compassion of apeasment of evil!

[Private Pickle]

As do most of our history books talking about the boston tea party. This just shows a version of the same scenario from the oppositions point of view. It shows us that what one person sees as patriotic another person may see as terrorism.

Why do Americans feel the need to meet everyone else's need in the world? From protecting them to ensuring we identify with their perspective.

It's just a long hard, arduous and meaningless road to the middle. Instead of being proud of what our ancestors did we have to make sure our kids know that somewhere in the world, someone doesn't agree with us... Pretty lame.

[Private Pickle]

As do most of our history books talking about the boston tea party. This just shows a version of the same scenario from the oppositions point of view. It shows us that what one person sees as patriotic another person may see as terrorism.

Maybe you can point to a history book that obfuscates the facts of what took place.

[Chloe]

When you have a goal of reducing the power and influence of a nation it is important to change the mids of the youth.

The left is really good at doing this. and I must tip my hat.

Now the policies of apeasment require the indoctrination of the youth to make them totally passive to the attacks of terrorist organizations by convincing the youth of our nations that it is the our fault and the terrorists were forced to kill inocent people to get back at our evil rich nation.

As Always this policy of apeasment will lead to the building of regional powers and eventually global conflict. of which a very large majority of the nations young people are killed.

Apeasment of evil must be indocrtrinated inot the coutries youth, as it is not something that a person would choose on their own.

But liberals have used this very well to get thier agendas through in the past and are being very effective with it now as well.

When the next event happens given enough time, there will be no retalation and then we can have more and more events until people will once again stand up against evil. at such a time we will count the deaths in millions instead of thousands, but that is the compassion of apeasment of evil!

But I don't see this as appeasement. I just see it as a critical thinking assignment. If you read the most common description of something like the Boston Tea Party you will read that patriots disregarded a tyrant and fought for liberty by destroying property of the tyrant in protest of his harmful and oppressive ways. That is the most commonly taught lesson about that topic in my opinion. Wouldn't you agree? However, that is OUR side of it and only teaches a kid that whatever we do or did in history is pure gold.

That one little scenario put people in the minds of a british loyalist almost and saw the act as destructive and quite possibly a form of terrorism on local business and trade. You may disagree with that point of view obviously but why not teach that opposing point of view and challenge a student to research and see both sides?

[Chloe]

Why do Americans feel the need to meet everyone else's need in the world? From protecting them to ensuring we identify with their perspective.

It's just a long hard, arduous and meaningless road to the middle. Instead of being proud of what our ancestors did we have to make sure our kids know that somewhere in the world, someone doesn't agree with us... Pretty lame.

It is a HISTORY class not an indoctrination class. A revolution or an act like the Boston Tea Party had two sides and two stories, both sides were factual and fictional at the same time. It is important to understand the history of something by studying the cause and effect from BOTH sides of a conflict and not just the side that you like.

[Private Pickle]

But I don't see this as appeasement. I just see it as a critical thinking assignment. If you read the most common description of something like the Boston Tea Party you will read that patriots disregarded a tyrant and fought for liberty by destroying property of the tyrant in protest of his harmful and oppressive ways. That is the most commonly taught lesson about that topic in my opinion. Wouldn't you agree? However, that is OUR side of it and only teaches a kid that whatever we do or did in history is pure gold.

That one little scenario put people in the minds of a british loyalist almost and saw the act as destructive and quite possibly a form of terrorism on local business and trade. You may disagree with that point of view obviously but why not teach that opposing point of view and challenge a student to research and see both sides?

No I wouldn't agree. Can you quote a history book that says that cause I seriously think you are completely overblowing it to try and make a point. Either that or you went to the worst public school system in the country.

I would agree that our history books predominately state that the Tea Party was as a result of taxation without representation via the Tea Act. Wouldn't you agree?

[Private Pickle]

It is a HISTORY class not an indoctrination class. A revolution or an act like the Boston Tea Party had two sides and two stories, both sides were factual and fictional at the same time. It is important to understand the history of something by studying the cause and effect from BOTH sides of a conflict and not just the side that you like.

Exactly. It's a history class. What history are we teaching by giving random opinions in the effort to spur what liberals call critical thought but what really amounts to an obfuscation of the facts? The Tea Party happened because of the Tea Act. That's high school history. Anything more or less is importing ones opinion and has no place in Public School.

[Chloe]

Maybe you can point to a history book that obfuscates the facts of what took place.

Staying with the american revolution for a moment: When the Boston Tea party is seen in our history books as an exciting event that defied a tyrant by dressing as indians and destroying tea but at the same time it does not mention anything as to why certain taxes were put on the colonies from the british point of view...that obfuscates facts. When the Boston Massacre is considered to be a horrible massacre that the british threw onto the innocent colonists of Boston instead of showing the fact that americans provoked it and that most of the british involved were found not-guilty of wrong doing...that obfuscates facts. I can promise you that a lot of people probably see both of those events as great example of american patriotism but know very little of the cause and effect around both historical events.

[Chloe]

No I wouldn't agree. Can you quote a history book that says that cause I seriously think you are completely overblowing it to try and make a point. Either that or you went to the worst public school system in the country.

I would agree that our history books predominately state that the Tea Party was as a result of taxation without representation via the Tea Act. Wouldn't you agree?

Taxation without representation sure, but that is still a colonial point of view. To the british they were citizens of britain not the united states and they were subject to the king not a non-existent president. To demand representation and liberty is the standard talking point of the founding of this country from OUR point of view but usually those books fail to show why the tea act was put in place, what was happening in britain at the time, why the king was doing what he was doing, what the culture of british society was at the time and why it was such a shocker to the king and loyalists that people were being so defiant. My point is that it is fine to teach history from an american point of view, but don't cry when a teacher tries to make a student think about something from the opposing point of view. It's not unamerican.

[Private Pickle]

Staying with the american revolution for a moment: When the Boston Tea party is seen in our history books as an exciting event that defied a tyrant by dressing as indians and destroying tea but at the same time it does not mention anything as to why certain taxes were put on the colonies from the british point of view...that obfuscates facts. When the Boston Massacre is considered to be a horrible massacre that the british threw onto the innocent colonists of Boston instead of showing the fact that americans provoked it and that most of the british involved were found not-guilty of wrong doing...that obfuscates facts. I can promise you that a lot of people probably see both of those events as great example of american patriotism but know very little of the cause and effect around both historical events.

Well you can't promise me that because you really don't know. That's how you view most Americans and that is your opinion. Then you take that opinion and want to apply it to the Public School system so that people share in your opinion. That my friend is call indoctrination.

Just the facts ma'am.

[Chloe]

Well you can't promise me that because you really don't know. That's how you view most Americans and that is your opinion. Then you take that opinion and want to apply it to the Public School system so that people share in your opinion. That my friend is call indoctrination.

Just the facts ma'am.

Sure and showing the famous paul revere photo of the boston massacre is standard americana but is no way based on fact, but yet it is in every single history book and shown to every single american student.

[Private Pickle]

Taxation without representation sure, but that is still a colonial point of view. To the british they were citizens of britain not the united states and they were subject to the king not a non-existent president. To demand representation and liberty is the standard talking point of the founding of this country from OUR point of view but usually those books fail to show why the tea act was put in place, what was happening in britain at the time, why the king was doing what he was doing, what the culture of british society was at the time and why it was such a shocker to the king and loyalists that people were being so defiant. My point is that it is fine to teach history from an american point of view, but don't cry when a teacher tries to make a student think about something from the opposing point of view. It's not unamerican.

What you're failing to do is see it from the Colonists perspective outside of the idea that they were acting as patriots. I think you are doing that because you see patriotism as an inherently bad ting and are looking to remove any hint of it from American history.

I will cry when a teacher tries to make the student think about that teachers opinions. My kid is in school to learn history, not the opinions of random teachers who like to change history to meet their ideological needs.

[Chloe]

What you're failing to do is see it from the Colonists perspective outside of the idea that they were acting as patriots. I think you are doing that because you see patriotism as an inherently bad ting and are looking to remove any hint of it from American history.

I will cry when a teacher tries to make the student think about that teachers opinions. My kid is in school to learn history, not the opinions of random teachers who like to change history to meet their ideological needs.

Is patriotism history or perspective?

[Chloe]

Both sides were being patriotic by the way. One side was fighting to form their own country and the other was fighting to preserve it. The civil war is a great example of perspective...except in that case the north was britain and the south were the rebels. The north was fighting to preserve and the south was fighting to separate, but both sides viewed their fight as the correct one and the patriotic one.

[Private Pickle]

Sure and showing the famous paul revere photo of the boston massacre is standard americana but is no way based on fact, but yet it is in every single history book and shown to every single american student.

So now American history is taught through pictures? Oh please.. Don't you think your opinions on American Patriotism is clouding your judgement as far as what is being taught in our schools?

[Private Pickle]

Is patriotism history or perspective?

It's neither.

[Chloe]

So now American history is taught through pictures? Oh please.. Don't you think your opinions on American Patriotism is clouding your judgement as far as what is being taught in our schools?

No I am not saying that it is taught through pictures. I am giving you an example of revolutionary propaganda that is iconic and to most people a factual representation of the boston massacre.

[Private Pickle]

Both sides were being patriotic by the way. One side was fighting to form their own country and the other was fighting to preserve it. The civil war is a great example of perspective...except in that case the north was britain and the south were the rebels. The north was fighting to preserve and the south was fighting to separate, but both sides viewed their fight as the correct one and the patriotic one.

We can get into a history debate if you like... But I thought this thread was focused on injecting ones perspective into the history class. You don't want an American biased history class and want to ensure that American kids know their country is bad and I don't want a biased history class.

[Chloe]

It's neither.

I disagree. In my opinion patriotism creates historical perspective in many cases. If something isn't viewed as being patriotic or supportive of one side (our side) then it is then labeled as pro-terrorist, as the OP points out.

[Mister D]

The "terrorists" in that scenario were Americans and it was the boston tea party. It was pretty much written from a british point of view and not patriot point of view. If you click on the PDF link it shows the entire lesson plan by the way.

I would almost certainly have been a loyalist. I have a very conservative disposition.

[Chloe]

We can get into a history debate if you like... But I thought this thread was focused on injecting ones perspective into the history class. You don't want an American biased history class and want to ensure that American kids know their country is bad and I don't want a biased history class.

Stop it

[Mister D]

Now what that has to do with communism I'm not sure.

[Private Pickle]

No I am not saying that it is taught through pictures. I am giving you an example of revolutionary propaganda that is iconic and to most people a factual representation of the boston massacre.

You're overblowing what you think is a problem in American education to justify inserting your political ideology. What you're doing is no better than what you claim you're trying to combat.

[Private Pickle]

Stop it

Perhaps now you are realizing that perspectives are impossible to teach in a high school history class? Everybody's perspectives are different. Saying that you are trying to remove American bias from education is to ignore the fact that you're replacing that bias with your own.

[Peter1469]

Here is the link to the PDF for the lesson plans that are being called communist and pro-terrorist:

http://www.cscope.us/Terrorism.pdf (http://www.cscope.us/Terrorism.pdf)

This is an example of one of the lessons that they are calling pro-terrorist. I was looking at it and honestly I thought it was a clever assignment to get students thinking on a different level.

For example here is one of the scenarios from pages 2-5:

News report: New Act of Terror!

A local militia, believed to be a terrorist organization, attacked the
property of private citizens today at our nation’s busiest port. Although
no one was injured in the attack, a large quantity of merchandise,
considered to be valuable to its owners and loathsome to the
perpetrators, was destroyed. The terrorists, dressed in disguise and
apparently intoxicated, were able to escape into the night with the help
of local citizens who harbor these fugitives and conceal their identities
from the authorities. It is believed that the terrorist attack was a
response to the policies enacted by the occupying country’s
government. Even stronger policies are anticipated by the local citizens.

Reading just the news alert I assume it was ELF or ALF destroying a boat load of SUVs.

From the lesson plan I see that it is the Boston Tea Party. From the Brit position it was terrorist / criminal activity.

Whether the lesson plan is pro-commie or terror, I can't say. If a lot of the lesson plans were like this, then I would say yes. But if there was a good balance I would say no.

[Chloe]

You're overblowing what you think is a problem in American education to justify inserting your political ideology. What you're doing is no better than what you claim you're trying to combat.

I'll give you an assignment. Print out that picture that paul revere created for the boston massacre and show it to most people and ask them what that picture is of. 10 out of 10 will all say "the boston massacre." However, i'd bet money on the fact that if you then told them the actual history of that "massacre" that they'd look at you like you have two heads since it would be contradictory to what the patriotic point of view of that event was that people accept as fact. That's all I am saying about this. History is often taught by the people who won and includes bias beyond belief in many cases. There is no harm to students to teach them a full history and not just the history from your country's point if view. It doesn't make some one a terrorist supporter, it doesn't make them anti-american, it doesn't make them unpatriotic, or anything like that. It just makes them more educated on the subject.

[Chloe]

Reading just the news alert I assume it was ELF or ALF destroying a boat load of SUVs.

From the lesson plan I see that it is the Boston Tea Party. From the Brit position it was terrorist / criminal activity.

Whether the lesson plan is pro-commie or terror, I can't say. If a lot of the lesson plans were like this, then I would say yes. But if there was a good balance I would say no.

Exactly. And my point to Pickle is that often times these additional points of view are labeled and condemned...case in point.

[zelmo1234]

But I don't see this as appeasement. I just see it as a critical thinking assignment. If you read the most common description of something like the Boston Tea Party you will read that patriots disregarded a tyrant and fought for liberty by destroying property of the tyrant in protest of his harmful and oppressive ways. That is the most commonly taught lesson about that topic in my opinion. Wouldn't you agree? However, that is OUR side of it and only teaches a kid that whatever we do or did in history is pure gold.

That one little scenario put people in the minds of a british loyalist almost and saw the act as destructive and quite possibly a form of terrorism on local business and trade. You may disagree with that point of view obviously but why not teach that opposing point of view and challenge a student to research and see both sides?

That is great but it was not desigen to be a critical thinking excersize if so then take my calculations of SS vs private investment and teach that to the students, and eacha nd every student would chose private investment. So it will not be tought.

It is an excersize in teaching children that the wealthy and powerful are in the wrong and that we caused these attacks by our actions

if it was critical thinking, then you would have to include the policies of taxation without representation and the policies that lead up to the revolt, In which you get about a 90% reversal in the way people think.

You see critical thinking woudl mean that you had all of the facts, and neither of these programs are designed to do this they are designed to indoctrinate people into beleiveing in the policies of apeasment.

Now offence but you are a great example, of a product of the current educational system. Not saying it is wrong but you truely beleive that if we leave the middle east alone that they will leave the USA alone? This is exactly what it is designed to taech, that our policies cause the poor countries to attack us and it is our fault

[Private Pickle]

Exactly. And my point to Pickle is that often times these additional points of view are labeled and condemned...case in point.

I promise there isn't a history class in America that doesn't recognize that from the British's perspective the Boston Tea Party was criminal.

[Chloe]

I promise there isn't a history class in America that doesn't recognize that from the British's perspective the Boston Tea Party was criminal.

and if rebels of the United States living here destroyed shipments of some of our most consumed products as a way to rebel would it not be deemed terrorism or at least domestic terrorism by today's standards?

[Private Pickle]

I'll give you an assignment. Print out that picture that paul revere created for the boston massacre and show it to most people and ask them what that picture is of. 10 out of 10 will all say "the boston massacre." However, i'd bet money on the fact that if you then told them the actual history of that "massacre" that they'd look at you like you have two heads since it would be contradictory to what the patriotic point of view of that event was that people accept as fact. That's all I am saying about this. History is often taught by the people who won and includes bias beyond belief in many cases. There is no harm to students to teach them a full history and not just the history from your country's point if view. It doesn't make some one a terrorist supporter, it doesn't make them anti-american, it doesn't make them unpatriotic, or anything like that. It just makes them more educated on the subject.

For all I know your "actual history" of the massacre is revisionist in nature.

Maybe now you understand my point?

[Private Pickle]

and if rebels of the United States living here destroyed shipments of some of our most consumed products as a way to rebel would it not be deemed terrorism or at least domestic terrorism by today's standards?

What part of "I promise there isn't a history class in America that doesn't recognize that from the British's perspective the Boston Tea Party was criminal." did you not understand?

[Chloe]

What part of "I promise there isn't a history class in America that doesn't recognize that from the British's perspective the Boston Tea Party was criminal." did you not understand?

So you acknowledge that in today's world the act that the colonists perpetrated on british goods would be considered terrorism by todays standards if it happened to us tomorrow at a major port...

[Private Pickle]

So you acknowledge that in today's world the act that the colonists perpetrated on british goods would be considered terrorism by todays standards if it happened to us tomorrow at a major port...

Considered terrorism by whom?

[Chloe]

Considered terrorism by whom?

If rebel citizens of the United States wishing to form their own country went to the port of Boston today and destroyed shipments of some of our most consumed goods would those rebels not be considered domestic terrorists and would the act not be portrayed in our media in the same as that lesson planned listed it?

[Private Pickle]

So you acknowledge that in today's world the act that the colonists perpetrated on british goods would be considered terrorism by todays standards if it happened to us tomorrow at a major port...

I don't consider the Tea Party as terrorism rather as political protest.

[Chloe]

I don't consider the Tea Party as terrorism rather as political protest.

Right, YOU don't, but the British did. The point of that lesson was to show that fact and then relate it to today.

[Private Pickle]

If rebel citizens of the United States wishing to form their own country went to the port of Boston today and destroyed shipments of some of our most consumed goods would those rebels not be considered domestic terrorists and would the act not be portrayed in our media in the same was as that lesson planned listed it?

So the Tea Party wasn't undertaken in an effort to form their own country. The people who partook were not rebels.

This is EXACTLY what I'm talking about.

[Private Pickle]

Right, YOU don't, but the British did. The point of that lesson was to show that fact and then relate it to today.

I'm going by the definition of Terrorism. You're going by what again?

The Tea Party wasn't undertaken to strike fear into the hearts of people...it was a symbolic act.

[Chloe]

I'm going by the definition of Terrorism. You're going by what again?

The definition of terrorism? Written by whom exactly? Webster? A dictionary definition does not matter to most people who are victims of an act...or to those that perpetrate it.

[Chloe]

Terrorism to one person is an act of defiance to another person. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. I'm sure you've heard that.

[TNHarley]

Very good thread Chloe!
I would consider it political protest
Given the US definition of terrorism today it probably would be terrorism
"one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter"

[Private Pickle]

Sam Adams (long thought to have planned the act) argued that the Tea Party was not the act of a terrorism or lawlessness, but was instead a protest and the only remaining option to express the oppression of rights...namely taxation without representation.

Given the way it was carried out...I would tend to agree with that... That doesn't mean I don't understand that the Brits looked at it differently and I don't need a pedestrian attempt at role playing to think critically about it...

[Kalkin]

When you obfuscate the youth's ability to discern between right and wrong, the future is bright for socialism.

[TheDictator]

I'm a conservative, Republican, Christian and a public school history teacher. Most people have no idea what it takes to educate a child. In history there is at least two perspectives. As a public school teacher it is not my job to teach one perspective or indoctrinate the conservative view. I like most Texas teachers I hate Cscope because of the educational problems of the program. An Example of most lessons take 1 1/2 hrs to do, but I have 45 min. A lot of schools require you to use it and that just gives teachers a lot of added problems.

[TNHarley]

Plus, didnt they think that those high taxes were going to their army during the war?

[Private Pickle]

Terrorism to one person is an act of defiance to another person. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. I'm sure you've heard that.

I've heard it although that isn't the definition of terrorism. Not all defiance is terrorism. "The right to peacefully assemble" is terrorism?

Terrorism:


The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

[Chloe]

Sam Adams (long thought to have planned the act) argued that the Tea Party was not the act of a terrorism or lawlessness, but was instead a protest and the only remaining option to express the oppression of rights...namely taxation without representation.

Given the way it was carried out...I would tend to agree with that... That doesn't mean I don't understand that the Brits looked at it differently and I don't need a pedestrian attempt at role playing to think critically about it...

Ok you don't, but a typical young student probably does.

[zelmo1234]

Right, YOU don't, but the British did. The point of that lesson was to show that fact and then relate it to today.

I am not sure about that, look at what the occupy movment did in oakland?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/03/occupy-oakland-violence-_n_1073325.html

It wold appear that as long as you lean toward the left you are OK

However if you are a peaceful TEA Party memeber you are a terrorist?

http://www.christianpost.com/news/gop-tea-party-labeled-as-terrorist-deal-called-satan-sandwich-53221/

So does this help you to see what they are actually trying to accomplish.

It is not objective, just like the occupy movement gets a pass! and the TEA party is labled as terrorist!

[Mister D]

I've heard it although that isn't the definition of terrorism. Not all defiance is terrorism. "The right to peacefully assemble" is terrorism?

Terrorism:

The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.





Sums up the Sons of Liberty pretty well.

[Chloe]

Sums up the Sons of Liberty pretty well.

But I promise you to most people who were taught about it in history class the sons of liberty were peaceful, patriotic, and the living embodiment of liberty. Not to say that their actions didn't help spark revolution, but their actions to the british and probably a lot of colonial citizens were terroristic.

[Private Pickle]

The definition of terrorism? Written by whom exactly? Webster? A dictionary definition does not matter to most people who are victims of an act...or to those that perpetrate it.

That definition was written by Webster. So according to you, any act of defiance is terrorism. You must be in support of the National Guard at Kent State then? Those terrorists were out of control.

Who were the victims of the Boston Tea Party?

You're trying so hard to think critically that you are stuck on one track. Critical thinking isn't taking anything from an American History class and tossing it out of the window as blind patriotism. Ultimately the act of the Tea Party wasn't truly violent in nature nor coercive. It was a protest just like burning the American Flag or hanging an effigy of a President.

[zelmo1234]

Ok you don't, but a typical young student probably does.

Because they are tought to! So if the 911 terrorists were to have made a stop and let all of the passengers off the planes and then warned the people in the buildings to get out and then flew the planes into the buildings and destroyed property and not people would that ahve been a political protest then?????

There is a difference between good and evil, right and wrong, winning and loosing and the current system is trying to say that there all the same!

[Mister D]

But I promise you to most people who were taught about it in history class the sons of liberty were peaceful, patriotic, and the living embodiment of liberty. Not to say that their actions didn't help spark revolution, but their actions to the british and probably a lot of colonial citizens were terroristic.

The Sons of Liberty were gangsta as fuck. Sorry, someone once said that on a forum and I loved it. :grin:

Read this a few years ago. Great book on loyalist sentiment.

http://www.amazon.com/loyalists-American-revolution-Claude-Halstead/dp/1177646900/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1364484151&sr=1-3&keywords=loyalists+in+the+american+revolution

[Private Pickle]

But I promise you to most people who were taught about it in history class the sons of liberty were peaceful, patriotic, and the living embodiment of liberty. Not to say that their actions didn't help spark revolution, but their actions to the british and probably a lot of colonial citizens were terroristic.

Many of their actions were terroristic in nature. The Tea Party was not one of them.

By definition the Sons of Liberty were patriots. I dunno about the whole living embodiment of liberty or whatever hyperbole you want to insert. Hopefully you will never be a teacher and insert that type of rhetoric onto kids who are just trying to learn.

[Chloe]

Many of their actions were terroristic in nature. The Tea Party was not one of them.

By definition the Sons of Liberty were patriots. I dunno about the whole living embodiment of liberty or whatever hyperbole you want to insert. Hopefully you will never be a teacher and insert that type of rhetoric onto kids who are just trying to learn.

I don't want to be a teacher but I think I would be a good teacher.

[TNHarley]

Because they are tought to! So if the 911 terrorists were to have made a stop and let all of the passengers off the planes and then warned the people in the buildings to get out and then flew the planes into the buildings and destroyed property and not people would that ahve been a political protest then?????

There is a difference between good and evil, right and wrong, winning and loosing and the current system is trying to say that there all the same!
Amen to that!
Thats why this country is turning into one big PANSY

[Private Pickle]

Ok you don't, but a typical young student probably does.

No...they probably don't. You're simply inserting what you think is right but you are completely off base, influenced by a poltical ideology that tells you these things must be going on.

Did you go to public school?

[Private Pickle]

I don't want to be a teacher but I think I would be a good teacher.

Not if you start making judgements based on your opinions (which were extrapolated from your experiences, political ideology and own bias) vs. based on what happened.

[Chloe]

No...they probably don't. You're simply inserting what you think is right but you are completely off base, influenced by a poltical ideology that tells you these things must be going on.

Did you go to public school?

yes I went to public school

[Private Pickle]

yes I went to public school

Did you walk away from your history class with a feeling that it wasn't comprehensive?

[Chloe]

Did you walk away from your history class with a feeling that it wasn't comprehensive?

If we went straight by the book then I probably would have felt that way yes, but the teachers in many ways expanded on the stuff written in the books and made it more challenging and comprehensive by doing things that made us think and not just memorize. My high school is actually one of the oldest and best rated public schools in the country, not everyone has that though.

[Private Pickle]

If we went straight by the book then I probably would have felt that way yes, but the teachers in many ways expanded on the stuff written in the books and made it more challenging and comprehensive by doing things that made us think and not just memorize. My high school is actually one of the oldest and best rated public schools in the country, not everyone has that though.

So you just assume that other schools aren't talking... OK

Did your teachers go into the fact that prominent businessmen like Ben Franklin offered to compensate the crown for the damages?

[Chloe]

So you just assume that other schools aren't talking... OK

Did your teachers go into the fact that prominent businessmen like Ben Franklin offered to compensate the crown for the damages?

Look I am not trying to say that I want history class to be anti-american or anything like that at all. I'm not anti-american. All I am saying is that these kinds of lessons that I posted on the first page are not pro-terrorist or any sort of nonsense like that just because it makes someone think a little.

[Private Pickle]

Look I am not trying to say that I want history class to be anti-american or anything like that at all. I'm no anti-american. All I am saying is that these kinds of lessons that I posted on the first page are not pro-terrorist or any sort of nonsense like that just because it makes someone think a little.

They seem pretty apologist to me and are written in a biased way. They are not geared to make someone think a little. They are geared to make someone think a little like the person who wrote them. Please tell me you recognize the difference.

[Chloe]

They seem pretty apologist to me and are written in a biased way. They are not geared to make someone think a little. They are geared to make someone think a little like the person who wrote them. Please tell me you recognize the difference.

I understand the difference but in this case I don't have as cynical of a point of view towards it. I don't think it's as bad as people want to make it out to be.

[Private Pickle]

I understand the difference but in this case I don't have as cynical of a point of view towards it. I don't think it's as bad as people want to make it out to be.

You ABSOLUTELY have a cynical point of view only it's based on what you think is currently being taught, not this particular method which I consider a form of indoctrination.

[TNHarley]

I can agree that opposing viewpoints are a good idea
If they get opposing viewpoints they might can come up with their OWN opinions
No need to increase the herd, it is big enough
I do think that this certain one is a little anti-american
It just makes us look like the bad guys, which in NO WAY were we

[Chloe]

You ABSOLUTELY have a cynical point of view only it's based on what you think is currently being taught, not this particular method which I consider a form of indoctrination.

I don't completely know how this stuff is being taught across the country obviously, I am just focusing on this particular method and lesson. All I was saying originally is that I don't think it is pro-terrorist just because it makes students put themselves into the shoes of the british authorities.

[Agravan]

One of the above threads mentioned that both sides of the story should be taught in order to give students perspective. Ok. Let's change the subject from History to Science. There is only one viewpoint taught in school - Darwinism (Theory of Evolution). If teaching opposing viewpoints is so important to the socialist indoctrinated youth of today, then why not teach the theory of Intelligent Design?
No, teaching that America/Americans are inherently bad is OK. Teaching that God may have had a hand in evolution will drive liberals bat-sh*t crazy.

[roadmaster]

I understand the difference but in this case I don't have as cynical of a point of view towards it. I don't think it's as bad as people want to make it out to be. You are young and wouldn't want to live in any communist country. Ask one of these teachers to bring all of your class to one and watch their reaction.

[Private Pickle]

Both sides were being patriotic by the way. One side was fighting to form their own country and the other was fighting to preserve it. The civil war is a great example of perspective...except in that case the north was britain and the south were the rebels. The north was fighting to preserve and the south was fighting to separate, but both sides viewed their fight as the correct one and the patriotic one.

Not really. The Colonies were a part of the British Empire. Kinda hard to be patriotic when you're exploiting your own people don't ya think?

[Private Pickle]

I don't completely know how this stuff is being taught across the country obviously, I am just focusing on this particular method and lesson. All I was saying originally is that I don't think it is pro-terrorist just because it makes students put themselves into the shoes of the british authorities.

That's not what you said earlier:


Sure and showing the famous paul revere photo of the boston massacre is standard americana but is no way based on fact, but yet it is in every single history book and shown to every single american student.


To demand representation and liberty is the standard talking point of the founding of this country from OUR point of view but usually those books fail to show why the tea act was put in place, what was happening in britain at the time, why the king was doing what he was doing, what the culture of british society was at the time and why it was such a shocker to the king and loyalists that people were being so defiant.


I can promise you that a lot of people probably see both of those events as great example of american patriotism but know very little of the cause and effect around both historical events.


However, i'd bet money on the fact that if you then told them the actual history of that "massacre" that they'd look at you like you have two heads since it would be contradictory to what the patriotic point of view of that event was that people accept as fact.


But I promise you to most people who were taught about it in history class the sons of liberty were peaceful, patriotic, and the living embodiment of liberty.
There are a few more. Now if this isn't cynical thinking I don't know what is.

[Chloe]

One of the above threads mentioned that both sides of the story should be taught in order to give students perspective. Ok. Let's change the subject from History to Science. There is only one viewpoint taught in school - Darwinism (Theory of Evolution). If teaching opposing viewpoints is so important to the socialist indoctrinated youth of today, then why not teach the theory of Intelligent Design?
No, teaching that America/Americans are inherently bad is OK. Teaching that God may have had a hand in evolution will drive liberals bat-sh*t crazy.

American's aren't inherently bad. I don't think that any country is inherently bad. However, that being said, all countries have done bad things in their histories and you can't ignore that as well when teaching history even if it is about your own history. I'm pretty sure in Germany it is mandated for public school kids to visit concentration camps so that they understand how bad things can happen anywhere, including your own back yard. If a teacher brought a class to an internment camp where Japanese citizens were kept in this country that teacher would probably be labeled anti-american or just a crazy liberal.

As for evolution and creation it is what it is in my opinion. Evolution is based on scientific theory and creation is based on religious faith. Just because the faith may help bridge a gap for some people when it comes to science and evolution it does not necessarily mean that it belongs in the conversation. Science is taught in science class and religion is taught in religious studies class. I personally believe that God had a hand in everything, but that is separate from science since that is faith. In my opinion of course.

[Chloe]

That's not what you said earlier:









There are a few more. Now if this isn't cynical thinking I don't know what is.

I can see how those comments could be considered cynical, but for me it's more of a frustration over peoples' inability to look from the outside in when it comes to the US. I think that some people believe that if they question something regarding this country's history and patriotism then they will be labeled or shut down.

[Greenridgeman]

You ABSOLUTELY have a cynical point of view only it's based on what you think is currently being taught, not this particular method which I consider a form of indoctrination.


I taught for 25 years, mostly history. Today's public school students accept the public school teacher as chief indoctrinator, just as they accept the sun rising. It is all they ever have known.

No small wonder our kids are such poor students when ranked against the rest of the industrial world.

They do feel really good about themselves though, for what that is worth in the unemployment lines.

[Private Pickle]

I can see how those comments could be considered cynical, but for me it's more of a frustration over peoples' inability to look from the outside in when it comes to the US. I think that some people believe that if they question something regarding this country's history and patriotism then they will be labeled or shut down.

Again I think you are being cynical with the idea that the American public as a whole is unable to look from the outside in. Are you really worried about being labeled? You have a right to free speech but you are not exempt from it.

I think that that people label individuals as patriotic readily and do so in a negative light. You can't say that you are a patriot anymore without getting the label as a naive sheep that doesn't recognize the dark spots in American history. Sad really.

[Chloe]

Again I think you are being cynical with the idea that the American public as a whole is unable to look from the outside in. Are you really worried about being labeled? You have a right to free speech but you are not exempt from it.

I think that that people label individuals as patriotic readily and do so in a negative light. You can't say that you are a patriot anymore without getting the label as a naive sheep that doesn't recognize the dark spots in American history. Sad really.

But see there are people that refuse to believe that America has any dark spots. There are people who believe that the founding fathers were practically perfect god like people who had the most original idea in history. I'm not bashing on them or america I am just saying that there is nothing wrong with seeing both sides and even teaching it.

[Private Pickle]

But see there are people that refuse to believe that America has any dark spots. There are people who believe that the founding fathers were practically perfect god like people who had the most original idea in history. I'm not bashing on them or america I am just saying that there is nothing wrong with seeing both sides and even teaching it.

Those people only exist in liberal talking points...not in the real world...

Teaching sides is a slippery slope that almost always end in one teaching their perspective and not history...

[Chloe]

Those people only exist in liberal talking points...not in the real world...

Teaching sides is a slippery slope that almost always end in one teaching their perspective and not history...

And teaching one side of history isn't a slippery slope that ends up teaching one perspective and not history?

[Private Pickle]

And teaching one side of history isn't a slippery slope that ends up teaching one perspective and not history?

Not in an elementary or high school setting. Stick to the curriculum agreed upon.

[Chloe]

Not in an elementary or high school setting. Stick to the curriculum agreed upon.

Why are you so lazy when it comes to challenging your way of thinking or someone else's way of thinking?

[Private Pickle]

Why are you so lazy when it comes to challenging your way of thinking or someone else's way of thinking?

What you call lazy I call guarded...I don't want my kids eating your particular brand of bullshit... Just give them the dates, names and places...a foundation for future critical thought... I will leave it to them to choose their route when they partake in higher education...

If you think your type of thinking is new in the world then you're not only sorely mistaken but also very full of yourself...

[Chloe]

What you call lazy I call guarded...I don't want my kids eating your particular brand of bullshit... Just give them the dates, names and places...a foundation for future critical thought... I will leave it to them to choose their route when they partake in higher education...

If you think your type of thinking is new in the world then you're not only sorely mistaken but also very full of yourself...

Soooo basically it's either I stick with my bullshit which means that i'm also full of myself, or I just need to shutup and accept your type of thinking?

[Chloe]

I'm sorry if I believe that telling a kid the following: "United States vs Britain...1776....we won...you'll learn more in college," is a pretty lazy way of educating someone.

[Private Pickle]

Soooo basically it's either I stick with my bullshit which means that i'm also full of myself, or I just need to shutup and accept your type of thinking?

You don't have to accept my type of thinking... But like I said before, you don't have the right to push your line of thinking onto the children of this country...maybe you will realize that when you have kids and someone takes it upon themselves to teach them their perspective of say the holocaust and how it never happened... Think about that the next time you talk about viewing things from all sides...

[Private Pickle]

I'm sorry if I believe that telling a kid the following: "United States vs Britain...1776....we won...you'll learn more in college," is a pretty lazy way of educating someone.

That post and its attempted point was lazy now wasn't it?

[Chloe]

That post and its attempted point was lazy now wasn't it?

No not lazy, snide yes, but not lazy. I was using your teaching method....names, dates, places.

[Chloe]

You don't have to accept my type of thinking... But like I said before, you don't have the right to push your line of thinking onto the children of this country...maybe you will realize that when you have kids and someone takes it upon themselves to teach them their perspective of say the holocaust and how it never happened... Think about that the next time you talk about viewing things from all sides...

My line of thinking? What makes your line of thinking the right line of thinking? All I am saying is that most wars are fought between two countries and both countries fighting are fighting for different reasons. Why not talk about it in a classroom setting so that the students learn the whole story of the war and not just the American side?

[Private Pickle]

No not lazy, snide yes, but not lazy. I was using your teaching method....names, dates, places.

Yawn...if you want to reduce this conversation down to simpleton levels with no respect or rational thought we can do that...

[Chloe]

Yawn...if you want to reduce this conversation down to simpleton levels with no respect or rational thought we can do that...

oh my god for like 10 pages I have been nothing but respectful to you and others in spite of my opinion being called crazy, bullshit, naive, liberal, and whatever else it's been called. All I am saying is that if you want a kid to be well educated then they need to know details and backgrounds and the whole story, especially about war and how this country was founded. To not do that or to wait till college isn't a good thing in my opinion it's lazy, it's overly guarded, it's borderline nationalistic, and it's just not a full education in my opinion.

[Private Pickle]

My line of thinking? What makes your line of thinking the right line of thinking? All I am saying is that most wars are fought between two countries and both countries fighting are fighting for different reasons. Why not talk about it in a classroom setting so that the students learn the whole story of the war and not just the American side?

Yes, your line of thinking... My line of thinking is devoid of perception or preconceived bias... It isn't the American side and it isn't the "other" side.

Yours introduces that to kids who have yet to gain the baseline knowledge needed for critical thought. Ever wonder why you can't vote until your 18? Ever wonder why you can't drink until your 21?

Leave your bias out of my kid's learning...

[Chloe]

Yes, your line of thinking... My line of thinking is devoid of perception or preconceived bias... It isn't the American side and it isn't the "other" side.

Yours introduces that to kids who have yet to gain the baseline knowledge needed for critical thought. Ever wonder why you can't vote until your 18? Ever wonder why you can't drink until your 21?

Leave your bias out of my kid's learning...

I'm 19. Not too long ago I was in high school. Are you saying that just a couple of years ago I wouldn't have been able to have critical thought around the british perspective concerning the american revolution? or even now since I can't even drink yet? Age is not always that much of a factor in my opinion. Between the two of us right now I am advocating for a more well rounded education whereas you are wanting it to be thin and to the point....the american point on top of that. If my way of thinking is biased then yours is lacking intellectual curiosity and also showing very little regard for the minds of students.

[Private Pickle]

oh my god for like 10 pages I have been nothing but respectful to you and others in spite of my opinion being called crazy, bullshit, naive, liberal, and whatever else it's been called. All I am saying is that if you want a kid to be well educated then they need to know details and backgrounds and the whole story, especially about war and how this country was founded. To not do that or to wait till college isn't a good thing in my opinion it's lazy, it's overly guarded, it's borderline nationalistic, and it's just not a full education in my opinion.

Now you're playing the victim card?

Your education has taught you that nationalism is a bad thing...that being patriotic is a bad thing...that is the PERFECT living example of my point and why people should leave their bias out of the classroom..

That isn't being lazy or overly guarded...that is simple logic in the face of a political environment bent on indoctrinating kids into believing a certain way.

[Private Pickle]

I'm 19. Not too long ago I was in high school. Are you saying that just a couple of years ago I wouldn't have been able to have critical thought around the british perspective concerning the american revolution? or even now since I am can't even drink yet? Age is not always that much of a factor in my opinion. Between the two of us right now I am advocating for a more well rounded education whereas you are wanting it to be thin and to the point....the american point on top of that. If my way of thinking is biased then yours is lacking intellectual curiosity and also showing very little regard for the minds of students.

I'm saying you still don't... But I've never treated you like a kid. Age is not a factor to you because you don't have it yet. You're bright and sharp but ready for true critical thought? Nope. You're too influenced by your emotions as all youth is...

If it makes you feel better, neither am I.

[Chloe]

Now you're playing the victim card?

Your education has taught you that nationalism is a bad thing...that being patriotic is a bad thing...that is the PERFECT living example of my point and why people should leave their bias out of the classroom..

That isn't being lazy or overly guarded...that is simple logic in the face of a political environment bent on indoctrinating kids into believing a certain way.

You need to be a little more fair to me. I am not playing the victim card I was just pointing out that I have been respectful to you this entire time.

Also I don't have a problem with being patriotic but history class is not supposed to be about teaching patriotism

[Chloe]

I'm saying you still don't... But I've never treated you like a kid. Age is not a factor to you because you don't have it yet. You're bright and sharp but ready for true critical thought? Nope. You're too influenced by your emotions as all youth is...

If it makes you feel better, neither am I.

My emotions aren't driving my opinion on this. I believe that if you are going to teach history then you need to teach history and not just the history that affects your nation or mindset. What harm is there for a high school freshman to have a few lectures about the british perspective of the colonies?

[Private Pickle]

You need to be a little more fair to me. I am not playing the victim card I was just pointing out that I have been respectful to you this entire time.

Saying that I'm taking the lazy route is not respectful...maybe your wording could have been rethought huh?


Also I don't have a problem with being patriotic but history is not supposed to be about teaching patriotism

Now wait a second...I though you advocated to show all sides? Does that mean all sides except for your own country's?

This is exactly my point...anyone will interject their own personal bias if allowed to do so...so doing in an elementary or high school setting opens the door for an education predicated not upon historical basis rather than on personal perspective.

[Private Pickle]

My emotions aren't driving my opinion on this. I believe that if you are going to teach history then you need to teach history and not just the history that affects your nation or mindset. What harm is there for a high school freshman to have a few lectures about the british perspective of the colonies?

No more or less harm than teaching freshmen the finer parts of Hitler's perspective surrounding the final solution.

[Peter1469]

My emotions aren't driving my opinion on this. I believe that if you are going to teach history then you need to teach history and not just the history that affects your nation or mindset. What harm is there for a high school freshman to have a few lectures about the british perspective of the colonies?
None, if you also teach the American side.

But you are correct, the Americans at the Boston massacre were all pretty drunk and belligerent. That is why the British were acquitted at trial. It is a shame that America has degenerated to Miller and Budweiser.

[Chloe]

None, if you also teach the American side.

But you are correct, the Americans at the Boston massacre were all pretty drunk and belligerent. That is why the British were acquitted at trial. It is a shame that America has degenerated to Miller and Budweiser.

Exactly. Pickle seems to think that I want to get rid of the american point of view and only teach the opposing side but all I have been saying for 10 pages now is that both sides should be discussed with equal importance so that students get the full picture and not just the one that benefits our point of view. There are two sides to everything and when you ignore the other side till college then you are left with ignorant and biased people in my opinion.

[Private Pickle]

None, if you also teach the American side.

But you are correct, the Americans at the Boston massacre were all pretty drunk and belligerent. That is why the British were acquitted at trial. It is a shame that America has degenerated to Miller and Budweiser.

If we started out drunk...doesn't that mean we never degenerated to being drunk?

[Private Pickle]

Exactly. Pickle seems to think that I want to get rid of the american point of view and only teach the opposing side but all I have been saying for 10 pages now is that both sides should be discussed with equal importance so that students get the full picture and not just the one that benefits our point of view. There are two sides to everything and when you ignore the other side till college then you are left with ignorant and biased people in my opinion.

So you agree that we should teach Iran's perspective on the holocaust when teaching the holocaust?

[Chloe]

So you agree that we should teach Iran's perspective on the holocaust when teaching the holocaust?

No because Iran has absolutely nothing to do with the actual holocaust

[Peter1469]

If we started out drunk...doesn't that mean we never degenerated to being drunk?

Just cheaper beer.

[Private Pickle]

No because Iran has absolutely nothing to do with the actual holocaust

Well somebody didn't study that deep into the holocaust... Look up the Shah's advocation for it...

OK...how bout Hitler's perspective making sure to position the class equally between the Germans and the Jews?

[Chloe]

Well somebody didn't study that deep into the holocaust...

OK...how bout Hitler's perspective making sure to position the class equally between the Germans and the Jews?

Hitlers perspective IS discussed in classes. His perspective is pretty well known.

[Private Pickle]

Just cheaper beer.

I dunno man...just think about how many floaters 18th Century beer had...

[Peter1469]

The Nazi's made close ties in the Arab Middle East (not sure about Iran). The Baath party in Iraq and Syria are Nazi.

[Private Pickle]

Hitlers perspective IS discussed in classes. His perspective is pretty well known.

Here goes the rabbit hole....he is portrayed as a maniac hell bent on the destruction of the Jewish race...but from his perspective he was a patriot who was defending his people from foreign economic oppression...

[Mister D]

The Nazi's made close ties in the Arab Middle East (not sure about Iran). The Baath party in Iraq and Syria are Nazi.

Iran too. Germany was actively trying to undermine British influence and foment revolts against western imperialism during both world wars.

[Private Pickle]

The Nazi's made close ties in the Arab Middle East (not sure about Iran). The Baath party in Iraq and Syria are Nazi.

Iran translates into "The Land of Aryans".

[Chloe]

Here goes the rabbit hole....he is portrayed as a maniac hell bent on the destruction of the Jewish race...but from his perspective he was a patriot who was defending his people from foreign economic oppression...

Comparing teaching anti-semitism from the perspective of a mass murderer is NOT the same as teaching the british perspective concerning their beliefs or points of view regarding one of its colonies rebelling against its mother country because of taxes and things like that. You are making crazy comparisons in my opinion.

[Private Pickle]

Comparing teaching anti-semetism from the perspective of a mass murderer is NOT the same as teaching the british perspective concerning their beliefs or points of view regarding one of its colonies rebelling against its mother country because of taxes and things like that. You are making crazy comparisons in my opinion.

And here I thought we were teaching different perspectives....I guess that only applies to teaching perspectives you agree with or perspectives that don't offend you huh? Maybe realizing that what you consider crazy others may consider rational...thus the slippery slope and thus keep that shit away from my kids...

[Chloe]

And here I thought we were teaching different perspectives....I guess that only applies to teaching perspectives you agree with or perspectives that don't offend you huh? Maybe realizing that what you consider crazy others may consider rational...thus the slippery slope and thus keep that shit away from my kids...

So because you can't teach the nazi perspective that means that all other perspectives contrary to the American perspective is "shit'?

[Private Pickle]

So because you can't teach the nazi perspective that means that all other perspectives contrary to the American perspective is "shit'?

So now you admit that you want to teach perspectives that are contrary to American perspective? That's just as rational as teaching anti-Semitic perspectives...

I'm saying that keep your perspectives to yourself and in the public realm, stick to the facts...

[Mister D]

Truth be told, the Nazis had a point. British and western European imperialism was hypocritical to say the least.

[Chloe]

So now you admit that you want to teach perspectives that are contrary to American perspective? That's just as rational as teaching anti-Semitic perspectives...

I'm saying that keep your perspectives to yourself and in the public realm, stick to the facts...

No I am not saying that I just saying that there are two sides and the main example was the one from the first page when it was giving the point of view of the boston tea party from the british perspective which I thought was just an interesting way to get people to see things differently.

[Private Pickle]

Lets think of some other perspectives we can teach that are contrary to the American perspective:

Religious oppression
Racial inequality
Repression of free speech

[Private Pickle]

No I am not saying that I just saying that there are two sides and the main example was the one from the first page when it was giving the point of view of the boston tea party from the british perspective which I thought was just an interesting way to get people to see things differently.

And I'm saying that you can't have your cake and eat it too... You can't pick and choose perspective education... That's why it should be in the realm of higher education when the student actually can exercise the right to choose what they learn... Until then, keep your bias perspectives out of public education...

You don't have the right to teach my kids to think like you...

[Private Pickle]

Truth be told, the Nazis had a point. British and western European imperialism was hypocritical to say the least.

See what I mean?! That is an honest and valid point the likes of which cannot possibly be comprehended by even the most stout academics let alone 9th graders...

[Mister D]

See what I mean?! That is an honest and valid point the likes of which cannot possibly be comprehended by even the most stout academics let alone 9th graders...

Western academics have attempted to monopolize the discussion and pretend the only meaning the war could possibly have is the meaning liberals (I mean liberal in a very general sense) assign to it.

[Mister D]

That said, I think you are overreacting. Personally, I find the loyalist/crown perspective fascinating. It makes for a richer intellectual life and I really appreciate that as a lover of history. I really don't think the motive is to turn children away from the US. Granted, this is probably the case in some instances. I'm not saying that doesn't happen but I don't think this is one of them.

[Mister D]

2205

[Private Pickle]

That said, I think you are overreacting. Personally, I find the loyalist/crown perspective fascinating. It makes for a richer intellectual life and I really appreciate that as a lover of history. I really don't think the motive is to turn children away from the US. Granted, this is probably the case in some instances. I'm not saying that doesn't happen but I don't think this is one of them.

Neither do I...but it's a slippery slope... I liken it to things like a Federal Registry on firearms...

[Mister D]

Neither do I...but it's a slippery slope... I liken it to things like a Federal Registry on firearms...

It can be. Kids often like to skip the traditional perspective for the more 'realistic' one. For example, I've met many Noam Chomsky fans who think he debunks perspectives they aren't even familiar with. Anyoen who actually encourages that kind of sloppiness is a dirtbag. On that, we agree.

[Chloe]

And I'm saying that you can't have your cake and eat it too... You can't pick and choose perspective education... That's why it should be in the realm of higher education when the student actually can exercise the right to choose what they learn... Until then, keep your bias perspectives out of public education...

You don't have the right to teach my kids to think like you...

Im not trying to make anybody think like me

[Private Pickle]

Im not trying to make anybody think like me

Yes you are.

[simpsonofpg]

Why do we have ciriculum programs that are secret. Every parent should have access. From the British point of view the Boston Tea Party was a terriorist attack. I wish I know what the definition of a terrorist is. Is it someone who disagrees with me or it is the degree to which they disagree, like blowing up the World Trade Center or put a sign on the road calling me a name.

[jillian]

Attacking boxes of tea and attacking innocent civilians are equal only for those with a liberal education.

because, of course, it must be "liberal education" if it doesn't relate the glen beck view of the world, right?

the reality is that the first is an act of VANDALISM. the second is an act of terror.

p.s. i have no clue whether my teachers and/or professors were "liberal". it wasn't relevant to my education.

[jillian]

Why do we have ciriculum programs that are secret. Every parent should have access. From the British point of view the Boston Tea Party was a terriorist attack. I wish I know what the definition of a terrorist is. Is it someone who disagrees with me or it is the degree to which they disagree, like blowing up the World Trade Center or put a sign on the road calling me a name.

your use of the word "terror" isn't correct. in reality, it wasn't even an act against the british government, except insofar as the british government had given a monopoly to the east india company.

i'm not sure why the confusion between terror and vandalism.

[Peter1469]

your use of the word "terror" isn't correct. in reality, it wasn't even an act against the british government, except insofar as the british government had given a monopoly to the east india company.

i'm not sure why the confusion between terror and vandalism.

It depends upon who writes the history books.

[jillian]

It depends upon who writes the history books.

i'm not sure that's the case. terrorism is an act of violence against innocent people for purposes of political gain.
vandalism is the destruction of property.

whether or not something is an act of treason no doubt depends on who is writing the history.

whether someone is a terrorist depends on whether or not the target is innocent.

[Peter1469]

i'm not sure that's the case. terrorism is an act of violence against innocent people for purposes of political gain.
vandalism is the destruction of property.

whether or not something is an act of treason no doubt depends on who is writing the history.

whether someone is a terrorist depends on whether or not the target is innocent.

Were not the Colonists seeking political change? I guess you can argue that at the call for independence started later.

[simpsonofpg]

We must be like congress. How does this stuff get into the circulum without being reviewed. No wonder our kids rank 25 in the world in education. Charter schools are looking better and better. Parents aren't teaching their kids anything these day. If you think I am wrong watch the news or read the paper.