My high school textbook seems politically biased and factually incorrect.

[Cecilie1200]

Okay so I've been thinking for a while now that my AP Human Geography textbook is biased or factually incorrect, but I wanted to see if other people agreed. Let me tell you why I think so. By the way, I'm a freshman in a public high school, so if they're distributing politically biased textbooks, they are acting in an unconstitutional manner..

you are neither smart enough nor knowledgeable enough to have an opinion on what is 'biased'.

the text book isn't biased. you are.

and you should be sent to your room without supper.

now go study and learn something.

my son is a sophmore in a public high school and i'd whup him if he sounded as silly as you.

(although i do applaud your being political... even if you're still ignorant).

Jillian isn't a big fan of that whole "independent thinking" thing. She's got a whole raft of reasons why various people should never, EVER attempt to think about things or form their own opinion, and should instead blindly toe the government line and swallow whatever line they are fed.

I don't doubt for a second that Jillian would whup any child of hers that started developing such a nasty, questioning streak. I also don't doubt for a second that any child of Jillian's would be genetically incapable of thinking independently about whether or not to come in out of the rain unless receiving direct instructions from the DNC on the subject.

On the bright side, liberal ignoramuses like Jillian will be working for you some day. On the down side, they're too pig-stupid and lazy to be worth much.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Dont listen to her, kid. Just keep digging. Never stop questioning everything.

no. he SHOULD listen to me.

we can have a myriad of different opinions.

there is only one set of facts.

don't encourage ignorance.

You're right. He SHOULD listen to you. You're one of the best living examples of what NOT to do and what NOT to be that I've ever seen.

THIS is what you become when you worship the government, kid: a mindless cow contentedly chewing your cud while waiting in line for the slaughterhouse, telling people they're "too ignorant to be allowed to think and question", which is quite possibly the most hysterical thing I've heard all week.

 

[Cecilie1200]

"Some of today's immigrants to the United States and Canada are poor people pushed from their homes by economic desperation, but most are young, well educated people lured to economically growing countries."

I don't think this is true. With the millions and millions of uneducated people a year we're receiving from Latin America, I don't see how it can be.

You’re confusing legal with illegal immigration.

Here's what I thought was a big signal of bias. It's relating to illegal immigration:

"Hostile citizens in California and other states have voted to deny undocumented immigrants access to most public services, such as schools, day-care centers, and health clinics. The laws have been difficult to enforce and of dubious constitutionality, but their enactment reflects on the unwillingness of many Americans to help out needy immigrants."

I think the bias here is pretty obvious. It calls the citizens who vote not to allow illegals the right to use public services "hostile", for one. It also puts a very negative light on people with those views by essentially calling them unwilling to help out all immigrants, not just illegal ones.

There’s nothing ‘bias’ about it, just a statement of fact. The 14th Amendment affords all persons in the United States equal protection and due process rights, regardless immigration status, or lack thereof. See: Plyler v. Doe (1982).

To deny allegedly undocumented immigrants access to most public services, for example, simply because of their immigration status, is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. There are also potential due process violations as well.

From what you’ve posted your textbook is both accurate and un-biased.

Okay, on the first statement it was in a context which talks about all immigrants, not just legal ones, but that set aside, only 9.8% of Latino LEGAL immigrants have a college degree, and 29% of white immigrants. My textbook was just plain wrong saying that most immigrants are well-educated.

On the next statement, you are wrong about the 14th amendment protecting illegals, as it specifically states it only applies to "citizens" which undocumented people are not. Regardless, it presents that "fact" as though everybody should support certain policies, and has no place in our public schools. I'm assuming you don't support teaching creationism in our schools? This is the same sort of deal.

Also, could you please give me your opinion on the statement about Al-Queada and the Taliban that neglects to mention religion as their main motive?

Is anyone else fascinated by the sight of a high school freshman taking apart two of the most arrogant liberal poseurs on the boards like cheap watches?

 

[Meathead]

Dont listen to her, kid. Just keep digging. Never stop questioning everything.

no. he SHOULD listen to me.

we can have a myriad of different opinions.

there is only one set of facts.

don't encourage ignorance.

You're one of the best living examples of what NOT to do and what NOT to be that I've ever seen.

THIS is what you become when you worship the government, kid: a mindless cow contentedly chewing your cud while waiting in line for the slaughterhouse, telling people they're "too ignorant to be allowed to think and question", which is quite possibly the most hysterical thing I've heard all week.

Spot on!

Kid, think for yourself and be happy Jillian is not your mother.

 

[Cecilie1200]

First, you are not a 14 year old, or you are one who had significant help from an adult.

Second, "Some of today's immigrants . . . [most of whom] are young, well educated people . . ." accurately and factually describe many African, Asian, and South American immigrants into western industrialized nations. You need to read that sentence in context.

Third, "A much more extreme to globalization. . ." is rooted in the local and cultural beliefs of Afghanistan and Pakistan and various parts of the Middle East. "globalization" is a term for "western secularization" resisted in the Muslim Middle and Far East.

Fourth, "hostile" is a nicer term yet less accurate than "nativism", the one usually used. Does the book accurately tie the connection to the native-born American n hostility to both legal and illegal immigration in the 1850s in northern sea ports and cities?

I congratulate you on look for the contradictions, the second step of critical thinking.

Don't stop there.

Okay so I've been thinking for a while now that my AP Human Geography textbook is biased or factually incorrect, but I wanted to see if other people agreed. Let me tell you why I think so. By the way, I'm a freshman in a public high school, so if they're distributing politically biased textbooks, they are acting in an unconstitutional manner.

Here's one quote from it:

"Some of today's immigrants to the United States and Canada are poor people pushed from their homes by economic desperation, but most are young, well educated people lured to economically growing countries."

I don't think this is true. With the millions and millions of uneducated people a year we're receiving from Latin America, I don't see how it can be.

Also, here's a paragraph that attempts to briefly describe the motives of the 9/11 terrorists, linking it to opposition of globalization:

"A much more extreme opposition to globalization led to the attack by al-Qaeda terrorists against the United States on September 11, 2001, with support of the Taliban then in control of Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda selected targets- the World Trade Center and the Pentagon-they considered especially visible symbols of US domination of globalization trends in culture, politics, and economy. Afghanistan's Taliban leaders justified such actions as banning television and restricting women's activities as consistent with local traditions, and such punishments as public floggings and severing of limbs as a necessary counterbalance to strong forces of globalization."

Okay, there's nothing factually wrong here, I just think it left out a very important detail. It didn't mention the Taliban's and al-Qaedas religious beliefs, which are a very important detail to include because they pretty much control they're behavior. They don't restrict women's activities to stay consistent with "local traditions", as my textbook claims, they do it because of they're radical beliefs!

Here's what I thought was a big signal of bias. It's relating to illegal immigration:

"Hostile citizens in California and other states have voted to deny undocumented immigrants access to most public services, such as schools, day-care centers, and health clinics. The laws have been difficult to enforce and of dubious constitutionality, but their enactment reflects on the unwillingness of many Americans to help out needy immigrants."

I think the bias here is pretty obvious. It calls the citizens who vote not to allow illegals the right to use public services "hostile", for one. It also puts a very negative light on people with those views by essentially calling them unwilling to help out all immigrants, not just illegal ones.

So, after reading through these, do you agree with me that my textbook is biased? These are just some of the examples of bias, by the way, and there are many others. I'm going to look for the textbook for more as I know they're in there and I might post again on this same subject.

Okay, as flattered as I am that you think I seem older, I am only fourteen. I'm a freshman. I take the time to use proper grammar because I doubt anybody half intelligent would respond if I didn't.

The first sentence is in context, it was the beginning of a paragraph, and it outright said it as if it was fact that the majority of all immigrants from everywhere are well educated, which is not at all true.

Regarding the second point, like I said the book seems to deliberately avoid stating the religion of the terrorists, which is a very important fact. They were not "opposing globalization"; they were opposing America's moral values due to their radical Muslim beliefs.

And yes, the book does briefly cover slavery; but that has nothing to do with today's immigration. The book heavily implies that it's bad to not want to give illegals public services, which is taking a political position, is it not?

I'm laughing my ass off that Jake thinks a 14-year-old can't possibly post intelligent, well-reasoned, and grammatical remarks without the help of an adult, since the main reason he thinks that is because HE HIMSELF - as a putative adult - cannot match the performance.

I don't know this kid, so I obviously can't vouch for whether or not he IS a kid, but I can say that my own son was more than capable of doing the same thing at fourteen. I hate to break it to some of you, but not everyone in the country has succumbed to your "grunting and pointing is enough" standards of education.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If you are actually a 14 year old kid, I would suggest you do your own research and then start a discussion about what you've concluded with your teacher.

Text books are only a tool, and only as good as the person teaching them.

What do you want me to do, go and tell my obviously liberal teacher that they're teaching us bad information? I'd look stupid; and I'd seem like I was overreacting.

Amy's half-right; you SHOULD go do your own research. Is there any point to arguing with your teacher about what you find? Probably not. Even if your teacher wasn't liberal, he or she has no control over which textbooks the school uses. You'll have to judge for yourself how willing you are to sit quietly and listen if and when a teacher starts propounding things you know to be nonsense in a lecture. I can definitely promise you that it WILL happen at some point in your education, and we've all had to decide whether it was worth confronting quite possibly the whole class, and risking a bad grade.

The lesson to take away from this can be summed up by a quote from Ronald Reagan: Trust, but verify.

 

[Cecilie1200]

My kids came back from college (NYU and Maryland) convinced that FDR was "Great" and I felt that I failed as a parent

That's where the whole "communicating with your kids" thing comes in handy. I have lengthy discussions with my son concerning everything he ever thinks about (no wonder I'm getting gray hairs! ) When the subject of FDR and his "New Deal" came up, I took him to talk to his grandmother and other people who actually lived through it. Not that you ever want to substitute anecdotal "evidence" for historical fact, but those viewpoints can go a long way toward fleshing out the realities behind the bare, cold info.

I know you, Frank, and I find it very hard to believe that you just let "FDR was great" stand unchallenged.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You are neither smart enough nor knowledgeable enough to have an opinion on what is 'biased'.

A simple Copy&Paste, and lo and behold, a poignant response.

^^^^^^^

proof of the failure that occurs when one has no education.

Madam, I have zits on my ass there a more learned than you.

And THEIR pus probably doesn't explode everywhere nearly as often as Jillian's does.

 

[rdean]

Okay so I've been thinking for a while now that my AP Human Geography textbook is biased or factually incorrect, but I wanted to see if other people agreed. Let me tell you why I think so. By the way, I'm a freshman in a public high school, so if they're distributing politically biased textbooks, they are acting in an unconstitutional manner.

Here's one quote from it:

"Some of today's immigrants to the United States and Canada are poor people pushed from their homes by economic desperation, but most are young, well educated people lured to economically growing countries."

I don't think this is true. With the millions and millions of uneducated people a year we're receiving from Latin America, I don't see how it can be.

Also, here's a paragraph that attempts to briefly describe the motives of the 9/11 terrorists, linking it to opposition of globalization:

"A much more extreme opposition to globalization led to the attack by al-Qaeda terrorists against the United States on September 11, 2001, with support of the Taliban then in control of Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda selected targets- the World Trade Center and the Pentagon-they considered especially visible symbols of US domination of globalization trends in culture, politics, and economy. Afghanistan's Taliban leaders justified such actions as banning television and restricting women's activities as consistent with local traditions, and such punishments as public floggings and severing of limbs as a necessary counterbalance to strong forces of globalization."

Okay, there's nothing factually wrong here, I just think it left out a very important detail. It didn't mention the Taliban's and al-Qaedas religious beliefs, which are a very important detail to include because they pretty much control they're behavior. They don't restrict women's activities to stay consistent with "local traditions", as my textbook claims, they do it because of they're radical beliefs!

Here's what I thought was a big signal of bias. It's relating to illegal immigration:

"Hostile citizens in California and other states have voted to deny undocumented immigrants access to most public services, such as schools, day-care centers, and health clinics. The laws have been difficult to enforce and of dubious constitutionality, but their enactment reflects on the unwillingness of many Americans to help out needy immigrants."

I think the bias here is pretty obvious. It calls the citizens who vote not to allow illegals the right to use public services "hostile", for one. It also puts a very negative light on people with those views by essentially calling them unwilling to help out all immigrants, not just illegal ones.

So, after reading through these, do you agree with me that my textbook is biased? These are just some of the examples of bias, by the way, and there are many others. I'm going to look for the textbook for more as I know they're in there and I might post again on this same subject.

Hates gays.
Against women's rights.

Hmmm, sounds like right wing Christians.

I think it's you who biased.

 

[Ernie S.]

you are neither smart enough nor knowledgeable enough to have an opinion on what is 'biased'.

the text book isn't biased. you are.

and you should be sent to your room without supper.

now go study and learn something.

my son is a sophmore in a public high school and i'd whup him if he sounded as silly as you.

(although i do applaud your being political... even if you're still ignorant).

And I side with the kid. In stead of marginalizing him, implying he is ignorant, perhaps you could explain where he is wrong. (and learn to spell sophomore)

the kid is a child who needs encouragement from people who actually believe in education... not from people (not you, but like some others) who think an education is a liberal plot.

i never could spell that word for some reason...

You see, Jill, Conservatives believe in education. (The process of receiving or giving systematic instruction) We just take issue with indoctrination.

An example: My son Greg is 34. When he was in 4th grade, I thumbed through his Social Studies text. I found one paragraph on the US Constitution and 4 pages on Martin Luther King.
I can pretty much live my entire life knowing nothing about King, other than the very basics, but the Constitution is something that affects my life daily.
Teaching the Constitution runs counter to Liberal indoctrination and may just cause a 14 year old to question what he is being taught.

 

[Cecilie1200]

no. he SHOULD listen to me.

we can have a myriad of different opinions.

there is only one set of facts.

don't encourage ignorance.

You're one of the best living examples of what NOT to do and what NOT to be that I've ever seen.

THIS is what you become when you worship the government, kid: a mindless cow contentedly chewing your cud while waiting in line for the slaughterhouse, telling people they're "too ignorant to be allowed to think and question", which is quite possibly the most hysterical thing I've heard all week.

Spot on!

Kid, think for yourself and be happy Jillian is not your mother.

For more reasons than I could possibly list here.

 

[Cecilie1200]

And I side with the kid. In stead of marginalizing him, implying he is ignorant, perhaps you could explain where he is wrong. (and learn to spell sophomore)

the kid is a child who needs encouragement from people who actually believe in education... not from people (not you, but like some others) who think an education is a liberal plot.

i never could spell that word for some reason...

You see, Jill, Conservatives believe in education. (The process of receiving or giving systematic instruction) We just take issue with indoctrination.

An example: My son Greg is 34. When he was in 4th grade, I thumbed through his Social Studies text. I found one paragraph on the US Constitution and 4 pages on Martin Luther King.
I can pretty much live my entire life knowing nothing about King, other than the very basics, but the Constitution is something that affects my life daily.
Teaching the Constitution runs counter to Liberal indoctrination and may just cause a 14 year old to question what he is being taught.

You're going to have to explain the difference between "education" and "indoctrination" to Jillian, as both words contain more than one syllable.

 

[Ernie S.]

And I side with the kid. In stead of marginalizing him, implying he is ignorant, perhaps you could explain where he is wrong. (and learn to spell sophomore)

Only if you learn how to spell instead...

oops...

I was taught that it was 2 words. I believe either is acceptable now. Instead seems more common. I guess I'm just old

 

[Ernie S.]

Okay so I've been thinking for a while now that my AP Human Geography textbook is biased or factually incorrect, but I wanted to see if other people agreed. Let me tell you why I think so. By the way, I'm a freshman in a public high school, so if they're distributing politically biased textbooks, they are acting in an unconstitutional manner.

Here's one quote from it:

"Some of today's immigrants to the United States and Canada are poor people pushed from their homes by economic desperation, but most are young, well educated people lured to economically growing countries."

I don't think this is true. With the millions and millions of uneducated people a year we're receiving from Latin America, I don't see how it can be.

Also, here's a paragraph that attempts to briefly describe the motives of the 9/11 terrorists, linking it to opposition of globalization:

"A much more extreme opposition to globalization led to the attack by al-Qaeda terrorists against the United States on September 11, 2001, with support of the Taliban then in control of Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda selected targets- the World Trade Center and the Pentagon-they considered especially visible symbols of US domination of globalization trends in culture, politics, and economy. Afghanistan's Taliban leaders justified such actions as banning television and restricting women's activities as consistent with local traditions, and such punishments as public floggings and severing of limbs as a necessary counterbalance to strong forces of globalization."

Okay, there's nothing factually wrong here, I just think it left out a very important detail. It didn't mention the Taliban's and al-Qaedas religious beliefs, which are a very important detail to include because they pretty much control they're behavior. They don't restrict women's activities to stay consistent with "local traditions", as my textbook claims, they do it because of they're radical beliefs!

Here's what I thought was a big signal of bias. It's relating to illegal immigration:

"Hostile citizens in California and other states have voted to deny undocumented immigrants access to most public services, such as schools, day-care centers, and health clinics. The laws have been difficult to enforce and of dubious constitutionality, but their enactment reflects on the unwillingness of many Americans to help out needy immigrants."

I think the bias here is pretty obvious. It calls the citizens who vote not to allow illegals the right to use public services "hostile", for one. It also puts a very negative light on people with those views by essentially calling them unwilling to help out all immigrants, not just illegal ones.

So, after reading through these, do you agree with me that my textbook is biased? These are just some of the examples of bias, by the way, and there are many others. I'm going to look for the textbook for more as I know they're in there and I might post again on this same subject.

Hates gays.
Against women's rights.

Hmmm, sounds like right wing Christians.

I think it's you who biased.

There was no indication in what he wrote that he hates gays or is against women's rights, only an indication that he is capable of independent thought.
It's a shame that contemporary Liberal indoctrination seeks to discourage that.

 

[daveman]

Okay so I've been thinking for a while now that my AP Human Geography textbook is biased or factually incorrect, but I wanted to see if other people agreed. Let me tell you why I think so. By the way, I'm a freshman in a public high school, so if they're distributing politically biased textbooks, they are acting in an unconstitutional manner.

Here's one quote from it:

"Some of today's immigrants to the United States and Canada are poor people pushed from their homes by economic desperation, but most are young, well educated people lured to economically growing countries."

I don't think this is true. With the millions and millions of uneducated people a year we're receiving from Latin America, I don't see how it can be.

Also, here's a paragraph that attempts to briefly describe the motives of the 9/11 terrorists, linking it to opposition of globalization:

"A much more extreme opposition to globalization led to the attack by al-Qaeda terrorists against the United States on September 11, 2001, with support of the Taliban then in control of Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda selected targets- the World Trade Center and the Pentagon-they considered especially visible symbols of US domination of globalization trends in culture, politics, and economy. Afghanistan's Taliban leaders justified such actions as banning television and restricting women's activities as consistent with local traditions, and such punishments as public floggings and severing of limbs as a necessary counterbalance to strong forces of globalization."

Okay, there's nothing factually wrong here, I just think it left out a very important detail. It didn't mention the Taliban's and al-Qaedas religious beliefs, which are a very important detail to include because they pretty much control they're behavior. They don't restrict women's activities to stay consistent with "local traditions", as my textbook claims, they do it because of they're radical beliefs!

Here's what I thought was a big signal of bias. It's relating to illegal immigration:

"Hostile citizens in California and other states have voted to deny undocumented immigrants access to most public services, such as schools, day-care centers, and health clinics. The laws have been difficult to enforce and of dubious constitutionality, but their enactment reflects on the unwillingness of many Americans to help out needy immigrants."

I think the bias here is pretty obvious. It calls the citizens who vote not to allow illegals the right to use public services "hostile", for one. It also puts a very negative light on people with those views by essentially calling them unwilling to help out all immigrants, not just illegal ones.

So, after reading through these, do you agree with me that my textbook is biased? These are just some of the examples of bias, by the way, and there are many others. I'm going to look for the textbook for more as I know they're in there and I might post again on this same subject.

Hates gays.
Against women's rights.

Hmmm, sounds like right wing Christians.

I think it's you who biased.

Politicskid, pay no mind to Rderp. He's a serial liar.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I'm laughing that CeCi who is challenged with diction and syntax issues believes she is posting any "intelligent, well-reasoned, and" grammatically sophisticated piece of writing. CeCi, also, would benefit from an adult's help. Thanks, CeCi, for posting. Your type of reasoning and thinking catlogues examples of why we lost this election.

Neither the poseur nor CeCi have noted the bias of the "kid's" post against the supposed bias of the "text book."

First, you are not a 14 year old, or you are one who had significant help from an adult.

Second, "Some of today's immigrants . . . [most of whom] are young, well educated people . . ." accurately and factually describe many African, Asian, and South American immigrants into western industrialized nations. You need to read that sentence in context.

Third, "A much more extreme to globalization. . ." is rooted in the local and cultural beliefs of Afghanistan and Pakistan and various parts of the Middle East. "globalization" is a term for "western secularization" resisted in the Muslim Middle and Far East.

Fourth, "hostile" is a nicer term yet less accurate than "nativism", the one usually used. Does the book accurately tie the connection to the native-born American n hostility to both legal and illegal immigration in the 1850s in northern sea ports and cities?

I congratulate you on look for the contradictions, the second step of critical thinking.

Don't stop there.

Okay, as flattered as I am that you think I seem older, I am only fourteen. I'm a freshman. I take the time to use proper grammar because I doubt anybody half intelligent would respond if I didn't.

The first sentence is in context, it was the beginning of a paragraph, and it outright said it as if it was fact that the majority of all immigrants from everywhere are well educated, which is not at all true.

Regarding the second point, like I said the book seems to deliberately avoid stating the religion of the terrorists, which is a very important fact. They were not "opposing globalization"; they were opposing America's moral values due to their radical Muslim beliefs.

And yes, the book does briefly cover slavery; but that has nothing to do with today's immigration. The book heavily implies that it's bad to not want to give illegals public services, which is taking a political position, is it not?

I'm laughing my ass off that Jake thinks a 14-year-old can't possibly post intelligent, well-reasoned, and grammatical remarks without the help of an adult, since the main reason he thinks that is because HE HIMSELF - as a putative adult - cannot match the performance.

I don't know this kid, so I obviously can't vouch for whether or not he IS a kid, but I can say that my own son was more than capable of doing the same thing at fourteen. I hate to break it to some of you, but not everyone in the country has succumbed to your "grunting and pointing is enough" standards of education.

 

[Unkotare]

.

Finally, that you are upset with the word the use of "hostility", which does describe accurately the nativism of many Americans who oppose immigrants, indicates you may be influenced by nativism.

LOL! And YOU are trying to lecture this kid about "critical thinking"? What a joke.

 

[Unkotare]

read.

learn.

Maybe you should worry about yourself in that regard before 'advising' others, eh?

i've done fine. thanks.

It doesn't seem that way.

 

[Unkotare]

the kid is a child who needs encouragement from people who actually believe in education...

Then why do YOU keep posting here?

 

[Unkotare]

FRD was considered a GREAT president by the people who lived THOUGH the depression .

And how about the more than 100,000 Americans he threw into concentration camps? Do you think they considered/consider him "great"? What did he "prevent" for them? Their freedom? Their human dignity? Their private property? Their families? Their rights as US citizens? Fuck that sucmbag.