Republicans..The real allies of African Americans

[BrianH]

You guys are going off topic here, the education I was referring to is primary education, not so much secondary. This is were we need to start with education reform. Get it?

How? You going to empower the fed even more to mandate such reform? The best way to get the reform you want is to get the fed and state teacher education agencies out of the way. The problem with that will be why they got into it in the first place; separate but equal facilities based on race. We have similar problems now in that we have to make sure the leading families' and ranking school district officials' kids are not group into the same classrooms year after year in order to get superior education. Three superintendents ago fought us on that, and it took more than a year to force him to leave. We also lost three principals and a handful of senior administrators over the concept that their kids were no more special than those of the poorest families.

If you know how to return reform to the local level without the local elites trying to take over, let me know.

We've got to start somewhere. Yes more local contro,l but there must be competition and the teachers must be held accountable for their success or failure. The teachers unions are just as elitist as the politicians, these kids are stuck in the same failing schools it’s a never-ending cycle.

I agree on some of this, but not the last part about the teachers being elitist. The teachers are already held to WAY to much accountability; accountability that the rational mind would think absurd. 1. Teachers are paid like shit---maybe if we paid them more they would be better. 2. Teachers are treated like shit by administration---their disposable, so they don't feel wanted, thus performance lacks. 3. Example: (in my state) the 10th grade social studies test covers mostly U.S. History and geography. 10th graders here take World History...so their tested on something they haven't had yet or had in hunior high, and not what they were taught the present year. And the teacher is judged based on that test, even though the subject matter he or she taught isn't on there.... 4. The school is "TIED" to government hand outs and "grants." The school is held hostage by the federal and state governments based on standardized tests and attendance. Schools are trying to walk a beaurocatic tight-rope to get more funding for their schools. Rather than actually trying to educate the students, they're worried more about funding and teaching to the tests.

I taught high school for 2 1/2 years and must say that it was the worst job experience I have ever had. The kids were wonderful, they were learning, and I had them hooked on social studies. I had good repport with them and I had no problem controlling the classroom and teaching. My problem came from retarded adminstration decisions and the mistreatement of teachers by the administration. The pay sucked, teachers were treated more like students than professionals, and the administration NEVER backed up the teachers when confronted with problems from parents. The parents always got their way even if they were wrong.

I think their could be some major improvement on teacher training, however, I think making them accountable for more is a bit of a stretch.

 

[mdn2000]

mdn2000, thank you for answering part of the question. Were you required to read Zinn and Chomsky in college? Did you read the Bible, the Quran, Hitler, Lenin, Madison, Rousseau, Thoreau, Emerson, Roosevelt (both of them), Lincoln, Marshall, Dreiser, Hart, James, Wolfe, Shelley, Byron, Keats (!), Chaucer, Shakespeare, Jonson, Ibsen, Proust, Pratchett, and hundreds of other writers? You really think suppression of writers' works is the way to go, when I think, in all honesty, if your writers cannot combat their opponents, something is wrong with your point. Life is a market place of ideas in competition, yet you wish to act like a follower of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Pinochet, Diaz.

I am acting as Hitler by stating that Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky's books on history on not history as well as not worthy being taught in a history class. Hitler burned books that did not correspond with Nazi ideology. I admit, I do not like Howard Zinn's nor Noam Chomsky's books because they are ideological books, that Jake would argue to have ideological books used to teach simple history is more telling of Jakes ideology, the fact that Jake is quick to associate my ideology with Hitler's indicates that Jake is thinking as Hitler and is projecting, what Jake is himself he portrays others to be.

Now Jake you can take your customary victim tactic, and show the injustice I just perpetrated, go ahead and stomp your feet and private message me. Go ahead and demand to point out where you stated this.

Then go to college, learn the discipline of history and of pedagogy, and if you still don't like Zinn, don't use him. I gave a call to a friend over at the U, and he says no one he knows there uses Zinn or Chomsky as models for teaching, but if they did, who could possibly care?

Only you are equating Zinn and Chomsky with Hitler, which is an incredible stretch of the imagination.

"Zinn and Chomsky fail on their own, as pointed out everywhere, to compare not teaching garbage to Hitler shows how little understanding of history Jake has after reading Zinn and Chomsky." That makes absolutely no sense, mdn2000. Now please: point out where the two "fail on their own, as pointed out everywhere. . .". Does every scholar condemn the inadequacy of the two, or does one POV condemn them?

Historical research involves the objective collecting, sifting, and interpreting of a representative number of artificats to reach broad conclusions. In other words, facts are not twisted to a preconceived philosophy; the philosophy, however, is twisted to fit the facts.

I hope you understand now what I wrote earlier and try to misinterpret, deliberately or not, what I am saying.

What are you saying Jake, I have asked a question of you three times, you dodge the answer. What in the hell are you stating here, is this all historical work or some, all history involves an interpetation of philosophy, oh, and you spoke with a freind, a man who teaches and you feel you must state what your freind said, how about not dodging and answering.

Should Howard Zinn's work be taught as history.

mdn2000 made a response. I answered clearly and succinctly. He then tried to dodge and then said we were messing up Jroc's thread. Whatever. mdn2000 does not like answering questions, but that is how discussions are developed. (1) What lies are being taught as history, mdn2000? (2) Do you agree that America is best served as a market place of competing ideas? (3) Who says Zinn is not to be taught in history classes? (4) Can you point to exactly where I support Chomsky and Zinn?

mdn2000, as usual, makes wide, sweeping accusations that he can't support. I don't have to refute them until you support your points. So, shut up, mdn2000, until you can offer specific evidence for your points.

Jroc, my apologies.

Jake you never answered, you compared me to Hitler, where in that first response is any kind of answer to any kind of question?

No, mdn2000, that is where you are screwing up.

You have made the assertion that Zinn's work is bad for teaching history. Now you have to give your evidence for that assertion before you ask anyone to refute it.

Get going there, buddie, you got some work to do before you get back to us.

I have yet to ask you to refute Zinn, I merely asked you if Zinn should be taught. Show me where I have yet to demand or even ask that you refute Zinn or Chomsky.

Again, should Zinn's work be taught as history Jake.

Jake, on real history being taught, first we must throw out all the books by Chomsky and Zinn and fire all the teachers who have taught Zinn and Chomsky.

Jake, this is my statement, pure and simple.

Do you have anything that refutes this other than to compare me to Hitler.

Jake, do you support teaching Zinn's work as history.

Its a simple yes or no question, you have refused to answer this question. If you wish to engage me in a discussion I wish to know what you think of what we discuss, if you do not care to offer your opinion on Zinn that is your right.

Jake, why avoid a simple question? I am will easily answer any question you ask, provided your willing to do the same.

Jake, do you support teaching the works of Howard Zinn in a class on history. Yes or no.

mdn2000, you have offered a mere assertion. That means nothing unless you give evidence for it, before you can ask others to refute it. Don't you understand this. You have lost the discussion if you don't do this. I don't have to offer anything at all until you offer proof for your assertion. You don't have any, do you?

Jake, I made a post I am easily able to defend, after you stated that my actions are the same as Hitler or Stalin I asked a question of you. That is all.

I want to know what you personal position is Jake. Now I want to know more, I am more than happy to educate you, again, and again. You can jump and down all you want that I am wrong before I state my facts, for I have not made an assertion, I have stated a fact, Zinn is not a historical scholar and should not be taught.

Of course "The Howard Zinn Project", will disagree with me, but that is getting ahead of the conversation. Jake, I understand you want to claim your ideology the winner without ever stating your position, that is a nice luxury if I allow it. I also understand you want to declare your ideology and your belief in Zinn true without ever having to address your position, another nice luxury if I allow it.

So, Jake, you either care to disucss Zinn and your knowledge of Zinn or you do not.

I almost have to beleive you know nothing about Howard Zinn.

So if you care to discuss this with me, great, lets talk, I asked you a question, if you do not care to answer my questions when I have them I do not care to discuss this with you.

Do you Jake think Howard Zinn's work should be taught in a history class.
Have you read Howard Zinn?

 

[uscitizen]

Chomsky did a far better analysis of the situation in Iran and Afganistan than our government did.

 

[mdn2000]

Chomsky did a far better analysis of the situation in Iran and Afganistan than our government did.

After the fact or before.

 

[JakeStarkey]

[/QUOTE]

mdn2000 cannot and will not defend his assertion that Zinn and Chomsky should not be used in the history classroom

mdn2000 really wants me to rebut an assertion with evidence although he refuses to support his assertion. He clearly can't defend it.

Here, mdn200, this will help you support your assertion that Zinn and Chomsky should not be used in history classes: How to debate effectively and rationally.

 

[mdn2000]

mdn2000 cannot and will not defend his assertion that Zinn and Chomsky should not be used in the history classroom

mdn2000 really wants me to rebut an assertion with evidence although he refuses to support his assertion. He clearly can't defend it.

Here, mdn200, this will help you support your assertion that Zinn and Chomsky should not be used in history classes: How to debate effectively and rationally.[/QUOTE]

Still dodging and telling a lie Jake, why do you refuse to answer a simple question.

Should Zinn's work be used as material to teach history.

Jake, have you read Zinn.

Its simple Jake, if you wish to discuss something with me and know what I know you need to be a bit civil, that means if I ask a question to clarify for me, how you feel, you should answer, its the civil thing to do.

Jake, you seem to be ashamed of who you are otherwise why do you dodge simple questions which do not even determine if I am right or wrong.

Jake, should Zinn's work be used as material to teach history and how is that a question demanding you to prove the validity of Zinn's work.

Jake, if this simple question is so confusing, you keep characterizing this question as something it is not.

Is it your position Jake that Zinn's work should be used as material to teach history.

 

[Jroc]

I agree on some of this, but not the last part about the teachers being elitist. The teachers are already held to WAY to much accountability; accountability that the rational mind would think absurd. 1. Teachers are paid like shit---maybe if we paid them more they would be better. 2. Teachers are treated like shit by administration---their disposable, so they don't feel wanted, thus performance lacks. 3. Example: (in my state) the 10th grade social studies test covers mostly U.S. History and geography. 10th graders here take World History...so their tested on something they haven't had yet or had in hunior high, and not what they were taught the present year. And the teacher is judged based on that test, even though the subject matter he or she taught isn't on there.... 4. The school is "TIED" to government hand outs and "grants." The school is held hostage by the federal and state governments based on standardized tests and attendance. Schools are trying to walk a beaurocatic tight-rope to get more funding for their schools. Rather than actually trying to educate the students, they're worried more about funding and teaching to the tests.I taught high school for 2 1/2 years and must say that it was the worst job experience I have ever had. The kids were wonderful, they were learning, and I had them hooked on social studies. I had good repport with them and I had no problem controlling the classroom and teaching. My problem came from retarded adminstration decisions and the mistreatement of teachers by the administration. The pay sucked, teachers were treated more like students than professionals, and the administration NEVER backed up the teachers when confronted with problems from parents. The parents always got their way even if they were wrong.

I think their could be some major improvement on teacher training, however, I think making them accountable for more is a bit of a stretch.

Actually I was not talking about individual teachers as being elitist, I'm saying the teachers unions and all unions for that matter. The NEA is not focused on the Children, all they are worried about is the benefits they can get for the teachers. There are good and bad teachers, but they are all lumped into the same group by the unions. It doesn't matter how well they do their job, that's what mean by accountability. I defiantly agree that the federal government should get out of the business of educating our kids.

 

[JakeStarkey]

mdn2000 states that Zinn and Chomsky should not be used in history class, but won't tell us, but he wants me to refudiate his position.

If he can't support it, I don't have to rebut it.

Guns and Roses, at least, is trying to say 'why' instead of making an assertion that calling on others to tell him why he is wrong. If he tried that in college, he would fail. If he tried that in business, he would be terminated. If he tried that in the military, he would be court martialed or given nonjudicial administrative punishment.

Defend your assertion, mdn2000, or you have lost. No one who understands how discussion works is going to defend your approach.

 

[elvis]

mdn2000 states that Zinn and Chomsky should not be used in history class, but won't tell us, but he wants me to refudiate his position.

If he can't support it, I don't have to rebut it.

they should be used as a "Here's the opposing view." then maybe also include a neocon author like Kaplan.

 

[JakeStarkey]

mdn2000 states that Zinn and Chomsky should not be used in history class, but won't tell us, but he wants me to refudiate his position.

If he can't support it, I don't have to rebut it.

they should be used as a "Here's the opposing view." then maybe also include a neocon author like Kaplan.

That would have been sensible.

A. Assertion and evidence that Ziin and Chomsky are wrong

B. Counter assertion and evidence for Zinn and Chomsky

C. Why mdn2000's premise is correct

 

[Jroc]

History is history, facts are facts, and history should be thought without all the ideological bias. I'll bet most kids don't even know that Abraham Lincoln was a Republican, they don't know the history of the Republican Party, and that white Republicans were lynched because of their pushing for the rights of African Americans.

 

[elvis]

there's more to history than just facts and dates.

 

[JakeStarkey]

History is history, facts are facts, and history should be thought without all the ideological bias. I'll bet most kids don't even know that Abraham Lincoln was a Republican, they don't know the history of the Republican Party, and that white Republicans were lynched because of their pushing for the rights of African Americans.

Yes, a few were lynched, but most Republicans of Lincoln's time were overwhelmingly racist, wanting slavery and African Americans gone because the system and those workers threatened the opportunities of white economic opportunity.

 

[Jroc]

there's more to history than just facts and dates.

Really? so then teachers should push their ideological views on the kids?

 

[JakeStarkey]

there's more to history than just facts and dates.

Really? so then teachers should push their ideological views on the kids?

The interpretation of those facts and dates in context is part of the role of the teacher, who must objective and not indoctrinate. For instance, the Republicans freed the slaves although the party membership was generally racist.

 

[Jroc]

History is history, facts are facts, and history should be thought without all the ideological bias. I'll bet most kids don't even know that Abraham Lincoln was a Republican, they don't know the history of the Republican Party, and that white Republicans were lynched because of their pushing for the rights of African Americans.

Yes, a few were lynched, but most Republicans of Lincoln's time were overwhelmingly racist, wanting slavery and African Americans gone because the system and those workers threatened the opportunities of white economic opportunity.

Really? over 1200 were lynched is that a few to you?

 

[elvis]

there's more to history than just facts and dates.

Really? so then teachers should push their ideological views on the kids?

Not what I said. The study of history attempts to answer three questions:

1. What happened?

2. Why did it happen?

3. Should it have happened?

Teachers should present the facts and then show the opposing viewpoints in an attempt to get the students to answer questions 2 and 3 for themselves.

 

[JakeStarkey]

History is history, facts are facts, and history should be thought without all the ideological bias. I'll bet most kids don't even know that Abraham Lincoln was a Republican, they don't know the history of the Republican Party, and that white Republicans were lynched because of their pushing for the rights of African Americans.

Yes, a few were lynched, but most Republicans of Lincoln's time were overwhelmingly racist, wanting slavery and African Americans gone because the system and those workers threatened the opportunities of white economic opportunity.

Really? over 1200 were lynched is that a few to you?

The pitched battles of black and white Republicans with the Democrat redemptionists are not lynchings.

 

[JakeStarkey]

there's more to history than just facts and dates.

Really? so then teachers should push their ideological views on the kids?

Not what I said. The study of history attempts to answer three questions:

1. What happened?

2. Why did it happen?

3. Should it have happened?

Teachers should present the facts and then show the opposing viewpoints in an attempt to get the students to answer questions 2 and 3 for themselves.

Just so.

 

[Jroc]

Yes, a few were lynched, but most Republicans of Lincoln's time were overwhelmingly racist, wanting slavery and African Americans gone because the system and those workers threatened the opportunities of white economic opportunity.

Really? over 1200 were lynched is that a few to you?

The pitched battles of black and white Republicans with the Democrat redemptionists are not lynchings.

So you didn't even watch the video I posted..

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVzJ2RIlUwE"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVzJ2RIlUwE[/ame]