Rewriting History

[westwall]

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.

AP courses came way after my time in HS so I have little idea of what they taught. What I can tell you is when I had students in my classes who had taken AP Chem or AP physics classes they were WAY ahead of the students who hadn't had them.

I attribute that to several causes, first, obviously, was the students themselves actually CARED about learning, and enjoyed it. Second was the AP class structure itself. It clearly was doing a good job, and lastly the parents of the kids who made it possible for them to take the classes in the first place.

 

[Nutz]

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.

AP courses came way after my time in HS so I have little idea of what they taught. What I can tell you is when I had students in my classes who had taken AP Chem or AP physics classes they were WAY ahead of the students who hadn't had them.

I attribute that to several causes, first, obviously, was the students themselves actually CARED about learning, and enjoyed it. Second was the AP class structure itself. It clearly was doing a good job, and lastly the parents of the kids who made it possible for them to take the classes in the first place.

I really am trying to remember the AP structure. Like I said, I may be wrong...but I do remember that all we studied was revolution, civil war, reconstruction, industrial revolution and the world wars. I was disappointed...I loved history and got nothing out of it...nothing past WWII

 

[Dad2three]

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.​

GAAAAWWWWDDD


Advanced Placement United States History (APUSH) course and exam.


HEARTLAND? LOL

Not satisfied with U.S. history, some conservatives are rewriting it


The most ballyhooed effort is under way in Texas, where conservatives have pushed the state school board to rewrite guidelines, downplaying Thomas Jefferson in one high school course, playing up such conservatives as Phyllis Schlafly and the Heritage Foundation and challenging the idea that the Founding Fathers wanted to separate church and state.



In articles and speeches, on radio and TV, conservatives are working to redefine major turning points and influential figures in American history, often to slam liberals, promote Republicans and reinforce their positions in today's politics.

The Jamestown settlers? Socialists. Founding Father Alexander Hamilton? Ill-informed professors made up all that bunk about him advocating a strong central government.

Theodore Roosevelt? Another socialist. Franklin D. Roosevelt? Not only did he not end the Great Depression, he also created it.

Joe McCarthy? Liberals lied about him. He was a hero.


...Here are five recent examples of new conservative versions of history:

JAMESTOWN

Reaching for an example of how bad socialism can be, former House of Representatives Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas, said recently that the people who settled Jamestown, Va., in 1607 were socialists and that their ideology doomed them.

"Jamestown colony, when it was first founded as a socialist venture, dang near failed with everybody dead and dying in the snow," he said in a speech March 15 at the National Press Club.

It was a good, strong story, helping Armey, a former economics professor, illustrate the dangers of socialism, the same ideology that he and other conservatives say is at the core of Obama's agenda.

It was not, however, true.

The Jamestown settlement was a capitalist venture financed by the Virginia Company of London — a joint stock corporation — to make a profit. The colony nearly foundered owing to a harsh winter, brackish water and lack of food, but reinforcements enabled it to survive. It was never socialistic. In fact, in 1619, Jamestown planters imported the first African slaves to the 13 colonies that later formed the United States.




ALEXANDER HAMILTON

At the same event, Armey urged people to read the Federalist Papers as a guide to the sentiments of the tea party movement.

"The small-government conservative movement, which includes people who call themselves the tea party patriots and so forth, is about the principles of liberty as embodied in the Constitution, the understanding of which is fleshed out if you read things like the Federalist Papers," Armey said.

Others such as Democrats and the news media, "people here who do not cherish America the way we do," don't understand because "they did not read the Federalist Papers," he said.

A member of the audience asked Armey how the Federalist Papers could be such a tea party manifesto when they were written largely by Alexander Hamilton, who the questioner said "was widely regarded then and now as an advocate of a strong central government."

Armey ridiculed the very suggestion.

"Widely regarded by whom?" he asked. "Today's modern, ill-informed political science professors? . . . I just doubt that was the case, in fact, about Hamilton."

Hamilton, however, was an unapologetic advocate of a strong central government, one that plays an active role in the economy and is led by a president named for life and thus beyond the emotions of the people. Hamilton also pushed for excise taxes and customs duties to pay down federal debt.

In fact, Ian Finseth said in a history written for the University of Virginia, others at the constitutional convention "thought his proposals went too far in strengthening the central government."

LIKE NEGATIVE (VETO) ON STATES LAWS, LOL

Not satisfied with U.S. history, some conservatives are rewriting it | Politics | McClatchy DC

THEODORE ROOSEVELT

Theodore Roosevelt was long an icon of the Republican Party, a dynamic leader who ushered in the Progressive era, busting trusts, regulating robber barons, building the Panama Canal and sending the U.S. fleet around the world announcing ascendant American power.

Fox TV commentator Glenn Beck, however, says that Roosevelt was a socialist whose legacy is destroying America. It started, Beck said, with Roosevelt's admonition to the wealthy of his day to spend their riches for the good of society.

"We judge no man a fortune in civil life if it's honorably obtained and well spent," Roosevelt said, according to Beck. "It's not even enough that it should have been gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it only to be gained so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community."

Actually, Roosevelt said, "We GRUDGE no man a fortune ... if it's honorably obtained and well USED." But either way, Beck saw the threat.

"Oh? Well, thank you," Beck said with scorn during his keynote speech to the recent Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington. The presidential suggestion that the wealthy of the Gilded Age should contribute to the good of society was a clear danger that must be condemned, Beck said.

"Is this what the Republican Party stands for? Well, you should ask members of the Republican Party, because this is not our founders' idea of America. And this is the cancer that's eating at America. It is big government; it's a socialist utopia," Beck said.

 

[Dad2three]

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.

You wouldn't like 'real history' taught, trust me as a guy with a minor in history. Of course you Klowns prefer David Barton's/Beck's 'history'...


Manifest Destiny – 1845 - Idea common in US that God had ordained the country to speed across the continent?

The Monroe Doctrine was a US foreign policy regarding Latin American countries in the early 19th century The Doctrine was issued in 1823


Its primary objective was to free the newly independent colonies of Latin America from European intervention and avoid situations which could make the New World a battleground for the Old World powers, so that the United States could exert its own influence undisturbed

 

[Dad2three]

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.

" 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."

lol, LINK? PLEASE?

The Jefferson Bible, or The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth as it is formally titled, was a book constructed by Thomas Jefferson in the latter years of his life by cutting and pasting with a razor and glue numerous sections from the New Testament as extractions of the doctrine of Jesus. Jefferson's condensed composition is especially notable for its exclusion of all miracles by Jesus and most mentions of the supernatural, including sections of the four gospels which contain the Resurrection and most other miracles, and passages indicating Jesus was divine.


Jefferson believed in the existence of a Supreme Being who was the creator and sustainer of the universe and the ultimate ground of being, but this was not the triune deity of orthodox Christianity. He also rejected the idea of the divinity of Christ, but as he writes to William Short on October 31, 1819, he was convinced that the fragmentary teachings of Jesus constituted the "outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man."

Jefferson's Religious Beliefs « Thomas Jefferson?s Monticello

 

[warwulf]

Jewish Publishers who hide the truth and re-write history

The story is pretty much the same for other media as it is for television, radio and newspapers. Consider, for example, newsmagazines. There are only three of any note published in the United States: Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News & World Report.

Time, with a weekly circulation of 4.1 million, is published by a subsidiary of Time Warner Communications, the new media conglomerate formed by the 1989 merger of Time, Inc., with Warner Communications. The CEO of Time Warner Communications, as mentioned above, is Gerald Levin, a Jew.

Newsweek, as mentioned above, is published by the Washington Post Company, under the Jewess Katherine Meyer Graham. Its weekly circulation is 3.2 million.

U.S. News & World Report, with a circulation of 2.3 million, is owned and published by the aforementioned Mortimer B. Zuckerman, who has taken the position of editor-in-chief of the magazine for himself. Zuckerman also owns the Atlantic Monthly and New York’s tabloid newspaper, the Daily News, which is the sixth-largest paper in the country.

Or consider books. There are literally thousands of publishers in the United States, and among these thousands are many with little or no direct Jewish control; there are some which actually dare to publish books not approved by the Jewish Establishment. But all of the latter publishers are very small, and their books seldom reach the great mass of Americans who buy their reading material from drugstore news racks or from the chain bookstores.

Among the giant publishing conglomerates, however, the situation is quite kosher. Three of the six largest book publishers in the United States, according to Publisher’s Weekly, are owned or controlled by Jews. The three are first-place Random House (with its many subsidiaries, including Crown Publishing Group), third-place Simon & Shuster, and sixth-place Time Warner Trade Group (including Warner Books and Little, Brown).

As pointed out above, the Newhouse family owns Random House, and Gerald Levin is CEO of Time Warner Communications, of which Time Warner Trade Group is a division. Simon & Shuster is a subsidiary of Viacom, Inc., of which the chairman and CEO is Sumner Redstone, as already noted.

Another publisher of special significance is Western Publishing. Although it ranks only 13th in size among all U.S. publishers, it ranks first among publishers of children’s book, with more than 50 percent of the market. Its chairman and CEO is Richard Snyder, a Jew, who just replaced Richard Bernstein, also a Jew.

 

[DriftingSand]

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.

" 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."

lol, LINK? PLEASE?

The Jefferson Bible, or The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth as it is formally titled, was a book constructed by Thomas Jefferson in the latter years of his life by cutting and pasting with a razor and glue numerous sections from the New Testament as extractions of the doctrine of Jesus. Jefferson's condensed composition is especially notable for its exclusion of all miracles by Jesus and most mentions of the supernatural, including sections of the four gospels which contain the Resurrection and most other miracles, and passages indicating Jesus was divine.


Jefferson believed in the existence of a Supreme Being who was the creator and sustainer of the universe and the ultimate ground of being, but this was not the triune deity of orthodox Christianity. He also rejected the idea of the divinity of Christ, but as he writes to William Short on October 31, 1819, he was convinced that the fragmentary teachings of Jesus constituted the "outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man."

Jefferson's Religious Beliefs « Thomas Jefferson?s Monticello

I'm guessing that you're a liberal by your inability to understand the English language.

1) My comparison between Marx and Jefferson was an example of the type of thing that COULD happen. I didn't say that it DID happen. No link necessary.

2) Read my signature line. Jefferson considered himself to be a Christian (his words -- not mine). Proof that you Progs are attempting to rewrite history. Jefferson was opposed to a state church that demanded adherence. He wasn't opposed to Jesus Christ.

Pay closer attention next time.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.​

It's a Marxist Conspiracy, that's what it is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I suppose it was only a matter of time before the right accused the left of what the right has been doing for years. The Ministry of Truth, personified by PoliticalChic and others on the far right fringe of the GOP have been rewriting history in threads on this forum for years. Fox news and AM Radio 'philosophers' have been doing so for more than a decade.

What this tread proved, is that Daveman is slow to the take. That is all.

 

[daveman]

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.​

GAAAAWWWWDDD


Advanced Placement United States History (APUSH) course and exam.


HEARTLAND? LOL

Not satisfied with U.S. history, some conservatives are rewriting it


The most ballyhooed effort is under way in Texas, where conservatives have pushed the state school board to rewrite guidelines, downplaying Thomas Jefferson in one high school course, playing up such conservatives as Phyllis Schlafly and the Heritage Foundation and challenging the idea that the Founding Fathers wanted to separate church and state.



In articles and speeches, on radio and TV, conservatives are working to redefine major turning points and influential figures in American history, often to slam liberals, promote Republicans and reinforce their positions in today's politics.

The Jamestown settlers? Socialists. Founding Father Alexander Hamilton? Ill-informed professors made up all that bunk about him advocating a strong central government.

Theodore Roosevelt? Another socialist. Franklin D. Roosevelt? Not only did he not end the Great Depression, he also created it.

Joe McCarthy? Liberals lied about him. He was a hero.


...Here are five recent examples of new conservative versions of history:

JAMESTOWN

Reaching for an example of how bad socialism can be, former House of Representatives Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas, said recently that the people who settled Jamestown, Va., in 1607 were socialists and that their ideology doomed them.

"Jamestown colony, when it was first founded as a socialist venture, dang near failed with everybody dead and dying in the snow," he said in a speech March 15 at the National Press Club.

It was a good, strong story, helping Armey, a former economics professor, illustrate the dangers of socialism, the same ideology that he and other conservatives say is at the core of Obama's agenda.

It was not, however, true.

The Jamestown settlement was a capitalist venture financed by the Virginia Company of London — a joint stock corporation — to make a profit. The colony nearly foundered owing to a harsh winter, brackish water and lack of food, but reinforcements enabled it to survive. It was never socialistic. In fact, in 1619, Jamestown planters imported the first African slaves to the 13 colonies that later formed the United States.




ALEXANDER HAMILTON

At the same event, Armey urged people to read the Federalist Papers as a guide to the sentiments of the tea party movement.

"The small-government conservative movement, which includes people who call themselves the tea party patriots and so forth, is about the principles of liberty as embodied in the Constitution, the understanding of which is fleshed out if you read things like the Federalist Papers," Armey said.

Others such as Democrats and the news media, "people here who do not cherish America the way we do," don't understand because "they did not read the Federalist Papers," he said.

A member of the audience asked Armey how the Federalist Papers could be such a tea party manifesto when they were written largely by Alexander Hamilton, who the questioner said "was widely regarded then and now as an advocate of a strong central government."

Armey ridiculed the very suggestion.

"Widely regarded by whom?" he asked. "Today's modern, ill-informed political science professors? . . . I just doubt that was the case, in fact, about Hamilton."

Hamilton, however, was an unapologetic advocate of a strong central government, one that plays an active role in the economy and is led by a president named for life and thus beyond the emotions of the people. Hamilton also pushed for excise taxes and customs duties to pay down federal debt.

In fact, Ian Finseth said in a history written for the University of Virginia, others at the constitutional convention "thought his proposals went too far in strengthening the central government."

LIKE NEGATIVE (VETO) ON STATES LAWS, LOL

Not satisfied with U.S. history, some conservatives are rewriting it | Politics | McClatchy DC

THEODORE ROOSEVELT

Theodore Roosevelt was long an icon of the Republican Party, a dynamic leader who ushered in the Progressive era, busting trusts, regulating robber barons, building the Panama Canal and sending the U.S. fleet around the world announcing ascendant American power.

Fox TV commentator Glenn Beck, however, says that Roosevelt was a socialist whose legacy is destroying America. It started, Beck said, with Roosevelt's admonition to the wealthy of his day to spend their riches for the good of society.

"We judge no man a fortune in civil life if it's honorably obtained and well spent," Roosevelt said, according to Beck. "It's not even enough that it should have been gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it only to be gained so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community."

Actually, Roosevelt said, "We GRUDGE no man a fortune ... if it's honorably obtained and well USED." But either way, Beck saw the threat.

"Oh? Well, thank you," Beck said with scorn during his keynote speech to the recent Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington. The presidential suggestion that the wealthy of the Gilded Age should contribute to the good of society was a clear danger that must be condemned, Beck said.

"Is this what the Republican Party stands for? Well, you should ask members of the Republican Party, because this is not our founders' idea of America. And this is the cancer that's eating at America. It is big government; it's a socialist utopia," Beck said.

That's nice. Run along, now.

 

[daveman]

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.

You wouldn't like 'real history' taught, trust me as a guy with a minor in history. Of course you Klowns prefer David Barton's/Beck's 'history'...


Manifest Destiny – 1845 - Idea common in US that God had ordained the country to speed across the continent?

The Monroe Doctrine was a US foreign policy regarding Latin American countries in the early 19th century The Doctrine was issued in 1823


Its primary objective was to free the newly independent colonies of Latin America from European intervention and avoid situations which could make the New World a battleground for the Old World powers, so that the United States could exert its own influence undisturbed

Let me guess...you own all of Howard Zinn's "history" texts, don't you?

 

[daveman]

Jewish Publishers who hide the truth and re-write history

The story is pretty much the same for other media as it is for television, radio and newspapers. Consider, for example, newsmagazines. There are only three of any note published in the United States: Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News & World Report.

Time, with a weekly circulation of 4.1 million, is published by a subsidiary of Time Warner Communications, the new media conglomerate formed by the 1989 merger of Time, Inc., with Warner Communications. The CEO of Time Warner Communications, as mentioned above, is Gerald Levin, a Jew.

Newsweek, as mentioned above, is published by the Washington Post Company, under the Jewess Katherine Meyer Graham. Its weekly circulation is 3.2 million.

U.S. News & World Report, with a circulation of 2.3 million, is owned and published by the aforementioned Mortimer B. Zuckerman, who has taken the position of editor-in-chief of the magazine for himself. Zuckerman also owns the Atlantic Monthly and New York’s tabloid newspaper, the Daily News, which is the sixth-largest paper in the country.

Or consider books. There are literally thousands of publishers in the United States, and among these thousands are many with little or no direct Jewish control; there are some which actually dare to publish books not approved by the Jewish Establishment. But all of the latter publishers are very small, and their books seldom reach the great mass of Americans who buy their reading material from drugstore news racks or from the chain bookstores.

Among the giant publishing conglomerates, however, the situation is quite kosher. Three of the six largest book publishers in the United States, according to Publisher’s Weekly, are owned or controlled by Jews. The three are first-place Random House (with its many subsidiaries, including Crown Publishing Group), third-place Simon & Shuster, and sixth-place Time Warner Trade Group (including Warner Books and Little, Brown).

As pointed out above, the Newhouse family owns Random House, and Gerald Levin is CEO of Time Warner Communications, of which Time Warner Trade Group is a division. Simon & Shuster is a subsidiary of Viacom, Inc., of which the chairman and CEO is Sumner Redstone, as already noted.

Another publisher of special significance is Western Publishing. Although it ranks only 13th in size among all U.S. publishers, it ranks first among publishers of children’s book, with more than 50 percent of the market. Its chairman and CEO is Richard Snyder, a Jew, who just replaced Richard Bernstein, also a Jew.

Little note for you, Pointy Hat:

The Jew did not fuck up your life.

YOU did.

 

[daveman]

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.​

It's a Marxist Conspiracy, that's what it is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I suppose it was only a matter of time before the right accused the left of what the right has been doing for years. The Ministry of Truth, personified by PoliticalChic and others on the far right fringe of the GOP have been rewriting history in threads on this forum for years. Fox news and AM Radio 'philosophers' have been doing so for more than a decade.

What this tread proved, is that Daveman is slow to the take. That is all.

Oh, no, I've been well aware of the left's habit of rewriting history for years.

You're just getting more brazen with it.

Meanwhile, it says something for your intelligence that you compare a message board with a high school classroom.

It says something...and it's not complimentary.

 

[Dad2three]

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.

" 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."

lol, LINK? PLEASE?

The Jefferson Bible, or The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth as it is formally titled, was a book constructed by Thomas Jefferson in the latter years of his life by cutting and pasting with a razor and glue numerous sections from the New Testament as extractions of the doctrine of Jesus. Jefferson's condensed composition is especially notable for its exclusion of all miracles by Jesus and most mentions of the supernatural, including sections of the four gospels which contain the Resurrection and most other miracles, and passages indicating Jesus was divine.


Jefferson believed in the existence of a Supreme Being who was the creator and sustainer of the universe and the ultimate ground of being, but this was not the triune deity of orthodox Christianity. He also rejected the idea of the divinity of Christ, but as he writes to William Short on October 31, 1819, he was convinced that the fragmentary teachings of Jesus constituted the "outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man."

Jefferson's Religious Beliefs « Thomas Jefferson?s Monticello

I'm guessing that you're a liberal by your inability to understand the English language.

1) My comparison between Marx and Jefferson was an example of the type of thing that COULD happen. I didn't say that it DID happen. No link necessary.

2) Read my signature line. Jefferson considered himself to be a Christian (his words -- not mine). Proof that you Progs are attempting to rewrite history. Jefferson was opposed to a state church that demanded adherence. He wasn't opposed to Jesus Christ.

Pay closer attention next time.

False premises, distortions and lies, the ONLY thing conservatives have today....



In spite of right-wing Christian attempts to rewrite history to make Jefferson into a Christian, little about his philosophy resembles that of Christianity. Although Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence wrote of the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God, there exists nothing in the Declaration about Christianity.

Although Jefferson believed in a Creator, his concept of it resembled that of the god of deism (the term "Nature's God" used by deists of the time). With his scientific bent, Jefferson sought to organize his thoughts on religion. He rejected the superstitions and mysticism of Christianity and even went so far as to edit the gospels, removing the miracles and mysticism of Jesus (see The Jefferson Bible) leaving only what he deemed the correct moral philosophy of Jesus.



The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.

-Thomas Jefferson


Thomas Jefferson quotes

 

[Dad2three]

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.

You wouldn't like 'real history' taught, trust me as a guy with a minor in history. Of course you Klowns prefer David Barton's/Beck's 'history'...


Manifest Destiny – 1845 - Idea common in US that God had ordained the country to speed across the continent?

The Monroe Doctrine was a US foreign policy regarding Latin American countries in the early 19th century The Doctrine was issued in 1823


Its primary objective was to free the newly independent colonies of Latin America from European intervention and avoid situations which could make the New World a battleground for the Old World powers, so that the United States could exert its own influence undisturbed

Let me guess...you own all of Howard Zinn's "history" texts, don't you?

And I'm sure you have Rush Revere....

 

[daveman]

You wouldn't like 'real history' taught, trust me as a guy with a minor in history. Of course you Klowns prefer David Barton's/Beck's 'history'...


Manifest Destiny – 1845 - Idea common in US that God had ordained the country to speed across the continent?

The Monroe Doctrine was a US foreign policy regarding Latin American countries in the early 19th century The Doctrine was issued in 1823


Its primary objective was to free the newly independent colonies of Latin America from European intervention and avoid situations which could make the New World a battleground for the Old World powers, so that the United States could exert its own influence undisturbed

Let me guess...you own all of Howard Zinn's "history" texts, don't you?

And I'm sure you have Rush Revere....

As usual, you are wrong.

Seriously, dood? Zinn? When Marxists memorialize a guy, you know he's a lying sack of shit.

 

[initforme]

There was this crying and whining "more accountability" and "more rigorous" and an anti teacher sentiment as though their exorbitant salaries are the cause of economic problems and the blame for society's ills. So then the common core comes. Now that is no good. I understand. I would hope those that were the whiners and complainers are happy with the mess they have helped to create. I don't blame the teachers or schools. I place the blame on those who started the fire to make all these changes. Now they have to reverse the trend.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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?

AP courses didn't exist when I went to high school, but the difference between high school and the university was night and day. High school used one book, a text book. At the U. we used primary sources: Essays, letters, newspapers, magazines, books, Bios and AutoBios; era novels & nonfiction, foreign and domestic; photographs, art and poetry,

 

[DriftingSand]

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.​

It's a Marxist Conspiracy, that's what it is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I suppose it was only a matter of time before the right accused the left of what the right has been doing for years. The Ministry of Truth, personified by PoliticalChic and others on the far right fringe of the GOP have been rewriting history in threads on this forum for years. Fox news and AM Radio 'philosophers' have been doing so for more than a decade.

What this tread proved, is that Daveman is slow to the take. That is all.

Question: Are you interested in absolute truth and factual information or just those facts that bolster your personal cause?

 

[DriftingSand]

" 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."

lol, LINK? PLEASE?

The Jefferson Bible, or The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth as it is formally titled, was a book constructed by Thomas Jefferson in the latter years of his life by cutting and pasting with a razor and glue numerous sections from the New Testament as extractions of the doctrine of Jesus. Jefferson's condensed composition is especially notable for its exclusion of all miracles by Jesus and most mentions of the supernatural, including sections of the four gospels which contain the Resurrection and most other miracles, and passages indicating Jesus was divine.


Jefferson believed in the existence of a Supreme Being who was the creator and sustainer of the universe and the ultimate ground of being, but this was not the triune deity of orthodox Christianity. He also rejected the idea of the divinity of Christ, but as he writes to William Short on October 31, 1819, he was convinced that the fragmentary teachings of Jesus constituted the "outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man."

Jefferson's Religious Beliefs « Thomas Jefferson?s Monticello

I'm guessing that you're a liberal by your inability to understand the English language.

1) My comparison between Marx and Jefferson was an example of the type of thing that COULD happen. I didn't say that it DID happen. No link necessary.

2) Read my signature line. Jefferson considered himself to be a Christian (his words -- not mine). Proof that you Progs are attempting to rewrite history. Jefferson was opposed to a state church that demanded adherence. He wasn't opposed to Jesus Christ.

Pay closer attention next time.

False premises, distortions and lies, the ONLY thing conservatives have today....



In spite of right-wing Christian attempts to rewrite history to make Jefferson into a Christian, little about his philosophy resembles that of Christianity. Although Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence wrote of the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God, there exists nothing in the Declaration about Christianity.

Although Jefferson believed in a Creator, his concept of it resembled that of the god of deism (the term "Nature's God" used by deists of the time). With his scientific bent, Jefferson sought to organize his thoughts on religion. He rejected the superstitions and mysticism of Christianity and even went so far as to edit the gospels, removing the miracles and mysticism of Jesus (see The Jefferson Bible) leaving only what he deemed the correct moral philosophy of Jesus.



The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.

-Thomas Jefferson


Thomas Jefferson quotes

See? I knew you would reject the truth. It's the Liberal Democrat way.

 

[daveman]

There was this crying and whining "more accountability" and "more rigorous" and an anti teacher sentiment as though their exorbitant salaries are the cause of economic problems and the blame for society's ills. So then the common core comes. Now that is no good. I understand. I would hope those that were the whiners and complainers are happy with the mess they have helped to create. I don't blame the teachers or schools. I place the blame on those who started the fire to make all these changes. Now they have to reverse the trend.

So, the left screws up education...and it's the RIGHT'S fault.