My high school textbook seems politically biased and factually incorrect.

[AmyNation]

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.

 

[AmyNation]

Oh, and of course text books can be bias. Again, it you are 14, you will eventually learn that it's nearly impossible to find anything that is totally unbiased, because we are humans not robots, and everyone( even the writers of text books) bring their own experiences to the table.

 

[Politicskid]

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.

 

[Politicskid]

Oh, and of course text books can be bias. Again, it you are 14, you will eventually learn that it's nearly impossible to find anything that is totally unbiased, because we are humans not robots, and everyone( even the writers of text books) bring their own experiences to the table.

Yeah, I know, but the problem is the book doesn't seem to have any conservatively biased parts of it; the school should demand better material. I mean, they're already paying a fortune to these textbook monopolies!

 

[AmyNation]

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.

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.

 

[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..

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).

Man, you moonbats really HATE it when a kid questions his liberal indoctrination, don't you?

 

[Politicskid]

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.

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".

 

[AmyNation]

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.

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?

 

[oldfart]

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

 

[Unkotare]

no. he SHOULD listen to me.

don't encourage ignorance.

You're contradicting yourself.

 

[Votto]

Oh, and of course text books can be bias. Again, it you are 14, you will eventually learn that it's nearly impossible to find anything that is totally unbiased, because we are humans not robots, and everyone( even the writers of text books) bring their own experiences to the table.

Spot on. Facts are meaningless in and of themselves. It is only when we assign value to those facts and then attempt to show how we believe they relate to the world in terms of association that they become meaningful. In short, a belief system of sorts is vital to making sense of these facts and we all have one. Unfortunatley, these belief systems are all flawed to various degrees.

 

[Annie]

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.

 

[Meathead]

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).

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.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

 

[emilynghiem]

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).

Really, Jillian?

 

[Unkotare]

read.

learn.

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

 

[Meathead]

I, for one am very grateful that my son, also 14, has been spared the politically correct indoctrination which has led to a generation of self-righteous whiners in the US and UK. There is no shortage of either on this site. Their indoctrination shines through in the regurgitated dogma that they reflexively spew.

In the Czech Republic children they do not learn of the great achievements of their primary minority, the Roma (Gypsies), or that all differences between groupings of people are necessarily superficial. On the other hand they are not taught to hate are disparage those whose appearance or behavior are unlike their own.

There are obvious influences both at home and away, but they are not systematically influenced by an educational agenda. They are allowed instead to form their own opinions of the world and those around them.

 

[editec]

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.

Do I think your HS geography textbook has a bias?

Hell, yes.

Although to be fair, writing a survey text of history or geography without an overarching biased POV is pretty damned difficult.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your language clearly reveals you are not an adult. And you need to explain more in fully your reasons for your opinions in you want to move beyond the second level of critical thinking.

The first paragraph, in context, began with "some". It must be interpreted that way. Talk to your English teacher.

The second paragraph is correct in describing extremists as those who are opposing globalization. They are. You can add to the conversation that you think the extremists religion should be mentioned.

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.

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?

 

[jillian]

read.

learn.

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

i've done fine. thanks.

clearly you haven't.