Rewriting History

daveman

Diamond Member
Jun 25, 2010
76,336
29,353
2,250
On the way to the Dark Tower.
Rewriting History
The same man who was one of the lead architects in creating the Common Core State Standards Initiative, David Coleman, has now redesigned the Advanced Placement United States History (APUSH) course and exam. Aside from the fact that these huge changes have received almost no media coverage (possibly because the Common Core advocates at the Gates Foundation are now funding education coverage by NBC) and they greatly remove control from parents, teachers, and students, the revision aims to teach a biased version of American history that largely focuses on the supposed faults of our country rather than our accomplishments.

While multiple practice exams for the course were previously available to the public online, the College Board, the organization responsible for AP tests, will now only release a single practice exam to teachers of the course. If a teacher discloses the content of the sample exam, he will be penalized and possibly stripped of his right to teach Advanced Placement courses. This lack of transparency is an attempt to silence the public as well as to foster reliance on the state for education. Since students can no longer self-prep for the exam, they must take the course to discover what material will be covered on the exam.


--

Along with the grand encroachment on teacher’s freedoms in the classroom, the material presented in the framework is clearly biased to portray American history from a Leftist point of view. The course morphs the discipline of history into a subject that more closely resembles sociology. The framework does not emphasize student knowledge of important figures and events that shaped our great nation but rather the development of “historical thinking skills” with much emphasis on changing roles of race and ethnicity, gender, social classes, and power relations throughout our country’s history. In fact, the required themes and objectives are: “Work, Exchange, and Technology; Identity; Ideas, Beliefs, and Culture; America in the World; Environment and Geography; Politics and Power; Peopling” with no mention of figures and events.

The philosophy behind the revision of APUSH is flawed in itself, but the view of history it seeks to present is historically dishonest and utterly dangerous to the future of our country. The most blatant inaccuracy is evident in the framework’s discussion of the Founding of our nation. Incredibly, George Washington is only mentioned in passing reference to his Farewell Address not in regards to his heroic sacrifices as a general and the first leader of our country. Furthermore, no other Founding Fathers are mentioned nor are any of the events or principles that led to the American War for Independence.

Most amazingly, neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution are mentioned in great detail or even listed as suggested reading (however Betty Friedan’s The Feminist Mystique is suggested reading, placing it and other biased sources above some of the most important documents to the American people). The theories and principles behind these two founding works are never discussed and neither is any mention of how our government is organized. The lack of import placed on these essential documents does a great disservice to the future voters of this country and further promotes a reliance on the state for educating voters with what it deems necessary rather than allowing individuals to think for themselves.

What the framework does mention regarding the Founding of our nation (and in every historical period following) is the apparent tension and inequality among various minority groups. This topic is a major theme of the new course at the expense of the study of influential people and events that formed and maintained the United States. While it may be important to study the trends and conflicts between groups in America, it is academically dishonest to slant history to overwhelmingly focus on these aspects without, for example, mentioning major battles or political conflicts during the Civil War, the Gettysburg Address, the fact that Lincoln was assassinated, key details and motives in World War I, or even Hitler’s existence and prominence in World War II.​
 
Leftists, it should tell you something that your philosophy can't survive without forcing it on people too unsophisticated to question it.

It should, but it won't.
 
AP history assumes the students have some background in history, and capable of going beyond the George Washington chopped down a cherry tree history. As one goes up the grade-ladder in teaching history, history becomes more truthful, with more thinking and less memorization. Should AP history be a course that has some value in life and citizenship or just more cherry-tree patriotism? Should history be used for indoctrination or learning our past, as historians have learned the past? What should be the purpose of AP history?
 
Common Core doesn't teach the principles of our founding? How ironic. The USMB lefties think our founding principles are leftist principles; you'd think these principles would be a new area of concentration in our schools.
 
AP history assumes the students have some background in history, and capable of going beyond the George Washington chopped down a cherry tree history. As one goes up the grade-ladder in teaching history, history becomes more truthful, with more thinking and less memorization. Should AP history be a course that has some value in life and citizenship or just more cherry-tree patriotism? Should history be used for indoctrination or learning our past, as historians have learned the past? What should be the purpose of AP history?

History should be based on fact. All the facts. Not just the PC facts or those cherry picked by the left. What's more, advanced education should be able to determine the "intent" of historical figures. Instead of finding some faults of one historical figure or another history should be able to advance the purpose and ultimate goal of that historical figure as well as the significant impact he or she had on the course of mankind's history.

History should NOT be taught as a means to mold young minds into a particular political paradigm but should be taught in such a manner as to allow the student to understand the political tides that molded ancient as well as modern history and to determine whether or not a particular historical figure was beneficial or detrimental to man's existence and society's ultimate growth. For instance, modern history shouldn't pick out Karl Marx's good points while emphasizing Thomas Jefferson's faults or mistakes. That sort of methodology is not only dishonest but ultimately detrimental.
 
During the Korean war some of our prisoners were subjected to a process now called brainwashing. It ended up with 24 or of our prisoners not wanting to come home. The brainwashing process was investigated and one Col. Meyers reported that one of the differences in our prisoners was their education, those taught American history, warts and all, were more resistant to the brainwashing process.
 
During the Korean war some of our prisoners were subjected to a process now called brainwashing. It ended up with 24 or of our prisoners not wanting to come home. The brainwashing process was investigated and one Col. Meyers reported that one of the differences in our prisoners was their education, those taught American history, warts and all, were more resistant to the brainwashing process.

That's very interesting. Truth has a way of warding off lies.
 
During the Korean war some of our prisoners were subjected to a process now called brainwashing. It ended up with 24 or of our prisoners not wanting to come home. The brainwashing process was investigated and one Col. Meyers reported that one of the differences in our prisoners was their education, those taught American history, warts and all, were more resistant to the brainwashing process.

Yes, we've done some bad stuff in wars. So has the rest of humanity.

It isn't a pretty picture.
 
Leftists, it should tell you something that your philosophy can't survive without forcing it on people too unsophisticated to question it.

It should, but it won't.

So you have no problem of the history books written with a right slant?
 
Liberals espouse and embrace what they interpret to be "faults" of the greatest nation in the history of modern mankind, then adopt those so-interpreted "faults" as a cornerstone of their ideology as a basis for their own order.

Their idea is that once their "order" has been implemented they can then exert control over the population of polluted minds.
 
There is only one AP History course, correct? I mean, a student wouldn't take AP History each year of high school right...IIRC, I took AP history in 11th grade.
 
Leftists, it should tell you something that your philosophy can't survive without forcing it on people too unsophisticated to question it.

It should, but it won't.

So you have no problem of the history books written with a right slant?
If you expect me to say "No, I have no problem with that"...you're going to be disappointed.

I want REAL history taught. Not leftist "America sucks!" history.
 
How much history can be taught in a year? AP History is about interpretation of events. Its about studying an event and everything around it...the literature, the culture, the opinions, the ideals.

I am not saying I agree with Common Core...but I am saying the article is disingenuous.
 
How much history can be taught in a year? AP History is about interpretation of events. Its about studying an event and everything around it...the literature, the culture, the opinions, the ideals.

I am not saying I agree with Common Core...but I am saying the article is disingenuous.





Quite a bit actually. I took a medieval Swedish history course at Caltech and other than not reading medieval Swedish (really limited my material) was able to learn a tremendous amount. It's how you spend the time learning that counts. A good professor makes a world of difference too.
 
How much history can be taught in a year? AP History is about interpretation of events. Its about studying an event and everything around it...the literature, the culture, the opinions, the ideals.

I am not saying I agree with Common Core...but I am saying the article is disingenuous.





Quite a bit actually. I took a medieval Swedish history course at Caltech and other than not reading medieval Swedish (really limited my material) was able to learn a tremendous amount. It's how you spend the time learning that counts. A good professor makes a world of difference too.

I took AP History in HS...it was an elective. It did not cover the history of the US in a linear fashion...it was more of taking an event and studying everything that was going on at the time. It was a long time ago, I may be wrong - but I seem to remember...shit, I am old. But what I remember is that we only studied periods...like the revolution, the civil war, reconstruction, the industrual revolution, WWI and WWII. Each of those segments were intense (by HS standards) where we studied the historical events as well as literature and opinions of the time. The course was designed to teach history and critical thought of the events as opposed to normal classes where they were taught to regurgitate events and dates.
 

Forum List

Back
Top