My high school textbook seems politically biased and factually incorrect.

[Meathead]

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.

You're a hopelessly self-righteous windbag, and a bit scummy to boot.

 

[Annie]

Perhaps the reason that FDR is often touted as a great President has to do not with what he did but what he likely prevented.


I believe that FDR saved this nation from going down the extreme political avenues like that Russia went down(Marxist communism) and Germany went, down (modern Fascist socialism).

How did he do that?

By giving the American people HOPE that capitalism could be saved with some minor modifications (banking and stock market laws, mostly) and that once saved, the workers would once again be (small) benefactors of it.


FRD was considered a GREAT president by the people who lived THOUGH the depression and who saw how his "Aphabet Soup" of relief organizations and new policies gave them and their families help to survive until better times.



Had FDR not done many of policies that so many here complain about as creeping socialist, I suspect that this nation might actually have gone much further down the road of authentic socialism (be it the Marxist variety socialism or the FASCIST variety socialism) than it did.

LOL! Jobs 'saved' right? Measurably unmeasurable.

 

[Annie]

You’re confusing legal with illegal immigration.



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?

Indeed, and note the difference between bias or a point-of-view and re-writing, IOW lies, regarding history.

 

[Annie]

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.

Jake and Jillian though would find him 'brilliantly precocious' if he agreed with their political world view.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Perhaps the reason that FDR is often touted as a great President has to do not with what he did but what he likely prevented.


I believe that FDR saved this nation from going down the extreme political avenues like that Russia went down(Marxist communism) and Germany went, down (modern Fascist socialism).

How did he do that?

By giving the American people HOPE that capitalism could be saved with some minor modifications (banking and stock market laws, mostly) and that once saved, the workers would once again be (small) benefactors of it.


FRD was considered a GREAT president by the people who lived THOUGH the depression and who saw how his "Aphabet Soup" of relief organizations and new policies gave them and their families help to survive until better times.



Had FDR not done many of policies that so many here complain about as creeping socialist, I suspect that this nation might actually have gone much further down the road of authentic socialism (be it the Marxist variety socialism or the FASCIST variety socialism) than it did.

LOL! Jobs 'saved' right? Measurably unmeasurable.

If your biggest claim to "greatness" is being better than what people imagine COULD have happened, you pretty much suck. People can imagine a whole lot of stupid shit, all at the same time and nevertheless largely contradictory, and being better than an invasion by hostile buglike aliens or a meteor strike the size of Texas is not exactly the bar I'm looking for our leaders to clear.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jillian and I do not have the same world view, Annie, but you are correct in suggesting that we do not see the world as do wack far right extremists or libertarians.

I do agree with you that Politicskid writes better than CeCi.

 

[del]

Certainly takes one to know one, del.

are you training for next year's marathon?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Unkotare continues to inaccurately use the term "concentration camp" for where the Japanese-American internees were housed during WWII. If he continually used the term in history class, he would be corrected then start losing points off the grade.

A place where large numbers of political prisoners or members of persecuted minorities are imprisoned, esp. in Nazi Germany and occupied...
More info » Dictionary.com

 

[Meathead]

Jillian, Jake Starkey and now Del! I ask you, can a thread to piss on get better?

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are lucky, Meathead, that when you screw up, as we all do, you have the best in Jill and Del to take care of you when you are being silly.

 

[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.

You're a hopelessly self-righteous windbag.

How so? Can you dispute any of the FACTS mentioned above?

 

[Politicskid]

Your teacher is liberal, and therefore incapable of critical thinking?

If you come prepared with facts and allow yourself to be open to a discussion, instead of a cocky kid who saunters in thinking he can "one up" the only person in the room with a college education, I have no doubt you will, at the least, walk away having learned something and having given your teacher something to think about.

I think maybe I'll try that. Probably towards the end of the school year, when I don't have to worry about it affecting my grades in any way (not that I should ever). Also, I said "liberal" just because they seem to teach in a biased manner themselves. They'd showed us a video called "Green: The new red, white, and blue. And it said this, and I quote: Being green is the most patriotic thing a person can do".

Did your teacher produce the video?
Do you know what a curriculum is and how it is made for your school?
Do you think "being green" is unpatriotic?

I think questioning your text books, and expanding your education beyond just what is taught is great. However you seem awfully convinced that you can't bring your questions to your class, and open a dialog with your teacher. That is where my confusion lies. If you have questions, or find inconsistencies in your text books, why do you assume your teacher would be unwilling to listsen?

No my teacher didn't produce the video. Basically, it was a persuasive clip that advocated for "green" energy use, but not the practical kind. You know, solar and wind, and heavily implied that we could run our day to day live off of just these sources, which is not the case.

And no, of course I don't think being green is unpatriotic! I simply think that it is a huge overstatement to say that it's the most patriotic thing you can do for your country. That virtually implies that being green should be your highest priority, which is very debatable.

I don't know, I might tell my teacher when the school year gets closer to the end. I just don't want to appear like I'm overreacting. Also, I know he has no control over what textbooks we use. He actually is a very good teacher, probably my favorite. Don't get me wrong. In fact, he got the school bored to allow my school to offer and him to teach the only freshman AP classes in Oregon! As it stands, I just don't want to waste his time.

 

[Meathead]

You are lucky, Meathead, that when you screw up, as we all do, you have the best in Jill and Del to take care of you when you are being silly.

I have no idea what the hell that means.

In my short time here, I have found the three of you, among others, to be the most ill-informed and dogmatic bunch of intellectual midgets I've seen in some time. I am sure there are others, but for whatever reason, I have been indelibly unimpressed by the three of you on this thread.

Nothing personal, but I do not suffer fools gladly.

 

[Unkotare]

Unkotare continues to inaccurately use the term "concentration camp" for where the Japanese-American internees were housed during WWII. If he continually used the term in history class, he would be corrected then start losing points off the grade.

A place where large numbers of political prisoners or members of persecuted minorities are imprisoned, esp. in Nazi Germany and occupied...
More info » Dictionary.com

It is exactly the correct term, whether you are comfortable with it or not. It is the term the scumbag FDR used himself. I have "continually used" the term in classes attended and classes taught. As usual, YOU don't know what you are talking about.

"political prisoners"
"persecuted minorities"

Try reading the words instead of just cutting and pasting them, you ignorant clown.

 

[Politicskid]

Might I suggest a book by my old Division Chairman, James Loewen, even if his PhD is from Harvard. He needs the royalties. The title is "Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong, Revised and Updated Edition". I could only find three or four actual errors in it. The actual topic is how textbooks in history and civics are written in America. He is among the foremost scholars in this area and is well worth the read. Other books by him in the same field include:

"Teaching What Really Happened: How to Avoid the Tyranny of Textbooks and Get Students Excited About Doing History "

"The Confederate and Neo-Confederate Reader: The "Great Truth" about the 'Lost Cause"'

"Lies Across America: What Our Historic Sites Get Wrong"

While not trained as an historian, Dr. Loewen has written several good history books.

On a personal note, since we no longer teach logic or rhetoric in our high schools (unless you attend a Latin school)I would recomment that you seek out a high school debate program if you wish to gain an education in logical reasoning and argumntation. Fair warning: the first thing you should learn from that endeavor is that just because you win an argument does not make you right. In college forensics, all debaters alternate sides of the question.

Best of luck

Okay thanks, I'll check some of those out!

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Waste his time", kid. Believe me, he will respond most favorably. He will respond positively to this type of interaction, if you are indeed what you claim to be.

And if you are, accept my apology for doubting you.

If you are interested in how text books reflect contemporary mores and beliefs, pick up a Texas history book for 1955 and 1956. See how it deals with issues of race, Brown, and see how many darker faces you will find in the photos.

I think maybe I'll try that. Probably towards the end of the school year, when I don't have to worry about it affecting my grades in any way (not that I should ever). Also, I said "liberal" just because they seem to teach in a biased manner themselves. They'd showed us a video called "Green: The new red, white, and blue. And it said this, and I quote: Being green is the most patriotic thing a person can do".

Did your teacher produce the video?
Do you know what a curriculum is and how it is made for your school?
Do you think "being green" is unpatriotic?

I think questioning your text books, and expanding your education beyond just what is taught is great. However you seem awfully convinced that you can't bring your questions to your class, and open a dialog with your teacher. That is where my confusion lies. If you have questions, or find inconsistencies in your text books, why do you assume your teacher would be unwilling to listsen?

No my teacher didn't produce the video. Basically, it was a persuasive clip that advocated for "green" energy use, but not the practical kind. You know, solar and wind, and heavily implied that we could run our day to day live off of just these sources, which is not the case.

And no, of course I don't think being green is unpatriotic! I simply think that it is a huge overstatement to say that it's the most patriotic thing you can do for your country. That virtually implies that being green should be your highest priority, which is very debatable.

I don't know, I might tell my teacher when the school year gets closer to the end. I just don't want to appear like I'm overreacting. Also, I know he has no control over what textbooks we use. He actually is a very good teacher, probably my favorite. Don't get me wrong. In fact, he got the school bored to allow my school to offer and him to teach the only freshman AP classes in Oregon! As it stands, I just don't want to waste his time.

 

[Politicskid]

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." A problem. Is the claim that young, well-educated seeking economically growing countries cannot be poor? Seems we have many that fit that description right here.

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! (Well there's lots wrong here. Women in general, Muslim or not, had nothing to do with 9/11. The reason perchance that Islam wasn't mentioned where you thought it should be, was because it was obvious. All of the conspirators were Muslims, never a question on that.

I get that you are in AP classes, but my 7th graders on 9/11 in real time, recognized both bin Laden and the Taliban, before the second plane hit the WTC tower.

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.

On this you are correct. The bias is obvious and kudos to you for recognizing.

Thanks for your response. Regarding, the point about 9/11, it may be obvious, but isn't it important to at least remind people, especially when talking about the motives? Remember, most people in my class were only 3 years old when it happened.

 

[Politicskid]

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.

I believe your assessment is fair, and I agree with you that the text is biased.

Textbooks would be 3 times as large if all the views had to be stated and included, unless people AGREED how to state things objectively without downplaying one point or another.

That would be great to reach a consensus with a diverse review panel where every viewpoint is represented, but the books might never make their publishing deadlines.

(Here in Texas, we even had a case of our state historical commission "altering" a narrative on a marker to REMOVE a reference to "segregation" of public housing, even though "segregation" was the actual term used, and the public housing was being recognized as a landmark in Civil Rights history, when the Civil Rights Act ended "segregation." Someone on the committee decided to describe the housing in another way, missing the entire point!
Again, due to deadlines it was better not to dispute the change, and just accept the plaque.)

Note: For those like Jillian who may not recognize any bias and think you are being trivial or petty, I will list examples of
changes I would have recommended to the editors:

Instead of "Hostile," they could have said "Opposing." That is more objective, without emotion or judgment attached to the opposition.

Instead of saying "needy" immigrants, they could have said "indigent" immigrants, which is more neutral.

Instead of just stating the laws are of dubious Constitutionality, they could have explained that people on both sides of the conflict over undocumented immigrants are seeking Constitutional protections of their rights they argue are threatened by the other policy.

This is too hard to say in a few words, to cover both sides equally, so the text will inevitably be limited by time and space.

Thanks for your response

Yes, you are correct that it's impractical for a textbook to mention every talking point, but the problem here is there doesn't seem to be really any places in the textbook where it only shares a conservative point of view, that's why I think this book should be replaced next year. How do you feel?

 

[Politicskid]

obvious troll is obvious

*only 14 and defending the pursuit of happiness*

Troll?

What, you don't like my slogan?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I think maybe I'll try that. Probably towards the end of the school year, when I don't have to worry about it affecting my grades in any way (not that I should ever). Also, I said "liberal" just because they seem to teach in a biased manner themselves. They'd showed us a video called "Green: The new red, white, and blue. And it said this, and I quote: Being green is the most patriotic thing a person can do".

Did your teacher produce the video?
Do you know what a curriculum is and how it is made for your school?
Do you think "being green" is unpatriotic?

I think questioning your text books, and expanding your education beyond just what is taught is great. However you seem awfully convinced that you can't bring your questions to your class, and open a dialog with your teacher. That is where my confusion lies. If you have questions, or find inconsistencies in your text books, why do you assume your teacher would be unwilling to listsen?

No my teacher didn't produce the video. Basically, it was a persuasive clip that advocated for "green" energy use, but not the practical kind. You know, solar and wind, and heavily implied that we could run our day to day live off of just these sources, which is not the case.

And no, of course I don't think being green is unpatriotic! I simply think that it is a huge overstatement to say that it's the most patriotic thing you can do for your country. That virtually implies that being green should be your highest priority, which is very debatable.

I don't know, I might tell my teacher when the school year gets closer to the end. I just don't want to appear like I'm overreacting. Also, I know he has no control over what textbooks we use. He actually is a very good teacher, probably my favorite. Don't get me wrong. In fact, he got the school bored to allow my school to offer and him to teach the only freshman AP classes in Oregon! As it stands, I just don't want to waste his time.

I can't see that asking questions and seeking a deeper understanding of what you're told could possibly be a waste of his time. In fact, seems to me that that's his JOB.

By the way, it's "school BOARD", however unintentionally accurate your slip might have been