Texas Students Are Being Taught A False Version Of History

The principle will get tired of you real fast - like I just said, almost everything taught in schools today is a lie.

Not to mention the principle would call you crazy...

reply to post by ShaolinTemple


How is this news? I already heard about this. The Founders were declared terrorists too and Andy Jackson was declared a terrorist because he told the Bank of the United States to piss off and it was the first and last time we have been "debt free" from banks.

I'm not sure why you would call this a secret agenda or anything of that nature. The lesson teaches 2 things.

1)That the term 'terrorism' is rhetorical and general. It can be applied to just about anyone, at some point.

and

2)That some people fighting for freedom are called terrorists.

neither is wrong. Or are we subscribing to the "they were working to free americans, therefore cant be terrorists" POV?

reply to post by GoldenVoyager



There's your problem. Buy a hand grinder and a french press. Why drink that swill they serve at starbucks when you can have it the way it is meant to be had.

There is no telling what future students will be taught. McGraw-Hill has sold it's education and textbook branch to an investment firm known as the Apollo Group. Annouced today.

www.deadline.com...

The owners of Silver-Burdett are equally troubling.

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by ShaolinTemple
reply to post by Montana

 

I am certain this is real. Even mainstream news has covered this story if you do not believe me then google it your self.

Let's hope it's real. That is an EXCELLENT lesson on how bias affects our perceptions in the study of history.

The study of history is NOT learning a bland one-dimensional chronology of people, places, and events. It's understanding HOW TO UNDERSTAND those people, places, and events.

This is simply describing the Boston Tea Party from the British perspective.

What's wrong with that?


Oh...by the way...nothing here was "re-written". The events are described clearly and accurately as they happened...the only difference is that you are seeing the world through the eyes of someone else for a bit.

Originally posted by PaperbackWriter
There is no telling what future students will be taught. McGraw-Hill has sold it's education and textbook branch to an investment firm known as the Apollo Group. Annouced today.

www.deadline.com...

The owners of Silver-Burdett are equally troubling.

en.wikipedia.org...

You have got to be kidding me!

I have some history with Apollo. They owned a business I was associated with managing. Ruthless, no good, cut throat. I could tell stories that would make your blood boil....but won't.

What you can expect from their ownership of McGraw-Hill: no concern for quality (or the employees) with maximized monetary extraction as the only goal.

Wait till I tell the guys at work.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
I'm not sure why you would call this a secret agenda or anything of that nature. The lesson teaches 2 things.

1)That the term 'terrorism' is rhetorical and general. It can be applied to just about anyone, at some point.

and

2)That some people fighting for freedom are called terrorists.

neither is wrong. Or are we subscribing to the "they were working to free americans, therefore cant be terrorists" POV?

Exactly!!!

I have a Master's in History and this is an EXCELLENT exercise usually reserved for college coursework. The fact that something which ACTUALLY CHALLENGES the student to THINK for a second and SEE THE WORLD THROUGH ANOTHER PERSON''S EYES is absolutely WONDERFUL.

It actually begins to give me a little hope in our educational system again.

Ironically, OP considers this to be a "re-writing" of history because apparently he only ever got spoon-fed the Official Brainwash Version from Post War America.

-The participating "founding fathers" WERE a local militia...and an illegal one at that.
-The British DID view the "patriots" as "terrorists".
-The founding fathers DID destroy private property.
-They WERE drunk when they did it...especially Ben Franklin (of course).
-They WERE disguised as Mohawk Indians.
-Britain WAS an occupying government.
-The locals DID have reason to believe that steeper taxes were headed their way and on much more than just sugar, tea, dice, and playing cards.

There is NOTHING about this lesson that is "re-written" or untrue. The only change to the version most of us have been taught is that the adjectives and adjunctive nouns have been replaced with synonyms which historically conjure negative images instead of positive ones. (i.e. "terrorist" in place of "patriot", "fugitives" instead of "protestor", etc).

Remember Ronnie Reagan's Afghan "Freedom Fighters"? They were also called the "Rebels" the "Mujahideen", and later become known as the "Taliban". Same thing...beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by PaperbackWriter
There is no telling what future students will be taught. McGraw-Hill has sold it's education and textbook branch to an investment firm known as the Apollo Group. Annouced today.

www.deadline.com...

The owners of Silver-Burdett are equally troubling.

en.wikipedia.org...

You have got to be kidding me!

I have some history with Apollo. They owned a business I was associated with managing. Ruthless, no good, cut throat. I could tell stories that would make your blood boil....but won't.

What you can expect from their ownership of McGraw-Hill: no concern for quality (or the employees) with maximized monetary extraction as the only goal.

Wait till I tell the guys at work.

Correct. The ongoing corporatizing of textbooks is disgusting and worrysome...although it should be noted that OP is talking about something entirely different and which stands in CONTRAST to the usual brain-washing doled out by special interest groups.

Originally posted by Annee
Texas teaches their own version of the Alamo too.

They went to court and won the right to teach it they way they want to.

Yeah...but in THIS case the "alternate" version is 100% identical to the "normal" version.

It's just an exercise to get students to see how one's culture shapes historical perception. This is the Boston Tea Party from the eyes of Britain...and it contains only factual information.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by ShaolinTemple

 

So by depicting the original Tea Party as terrorists, they hope to correlate the new label to today's Tea Party.

Low.

Not at all. Not even a little.

This is an exercise to view a historical event from the "other" side.

The linked article contains 100% factual information. The only difference is that it tells it from the eyes of how the British perceived the Boston Tea Party.

Just like how all of those "terrorists" in the Middle East are viewed by the local populations as "freedom fighters" against a foreign tyrant.

...or how the Afghan Mujahideen were "Freedom Fighters" in the '80's when they fought against the Soviet Union (at least according to Ronnie Reagan)...and morphed into "Islamic Extremists" and the "Taliban" less than 10 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union when WE wanted to occupy them.

There is no downside to teaching kids that the British used to perceive the colonial era revolutionaries as "terrorists"...in fact...it may serve to get them to think twice the next time the "news media" calls a protestor a "terrorist".

This is a good thing...not a bad thing.

reply to post by milominderbinder



while it may stand in contrast, i would posit that it likely doesn't. Or, if it doesn't, not for long.

Apollo has absolutely no interest in anything other than making money. If i told you some of the shenanigans they pulled you would not believe me. I have never seen a company that had such a lack of value in their employees. The horror stories you hear about WalMart pale in comparison.

Having painted a vaguely horrific picture, to continue on.....how will they manage McGraw-Hill? I would suspect that they will find a "professional" that will basically keep the company afloat while Apollo siphons out the value Someone needing "a professional" of this nature is ripe for the picking if you are of a more clandestine purpose. What better way to enact the indoctrination than to actually write the textbooks?

Apollo are just a means to an end. If someone from the CIA wanted to offer their work for the lowest price, while still providing the highest returns, they would be guaranteed to get the contract.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by milominderbinder

 

while it may stand in contrast, i would posit that it likely doesn't. Or, if it doesn't, not for long.

Apollo has absolutely no interest in anything other than making money. If i told you some of the shenanigans they pulled you would not believe me. I have never seen a company that had such a lack of value in their employees. The horror stories you hear about WalMart pale in comparison.

Having painted a vaguely horrific picture, to continue on.....how will they manage McGraw-Hill? I would suspect that they will find a "professional" that will basically keep the company afloat while Apollo siphons out the value Someone needing "a professional" of this nature is ripe for the picking if you are of a more clandestine purpose. What better way to enact the indoctrination than to actually write the textbooks?

Apollo are just a means to an end. If someone from the CIA wanted to offer their work for the lowest price, while still providing the highest returns, they would be guaranteed to get the contract.

I agree.

...but the lesson plan in the OP isn't linked to Apollo, McGraw-Hill, or ANY textbook company at all. CSCOPE is part of the Texas state school system.

lol ummm the History we are taught is highly distorted.
In my opinion its apart of psyops to get us to think a certain way
The Holocaust for example I believe is mildly distorted to get the masses to believe and feel a certain way in favor of those who benefit and are still benefiting from it.

Oh don't you just wonder about the Truth

yes...yes I do

oops talking to myself again

I'm not seeing the big deal here. The Boston Tea Party by today's standards would be considered an act of terror. The American Revolution would be considered a bunch of entitled brats that hated evil rich people and wanted their money.

I suggest people actually do the exercise and see how you come out of it.

Honestly this kind of contrast thinking should be taught everywhere.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
I'm not sure why you would call this a secret agenda or anything of that nature. The lesson teaches 2 things.

1)That the term 'terrorism' is rhetorical and general. It can be applied to just about anyone, at some point.

and

2)That some people fighting for freedom are called terrorists.

neither is wrong. Or are we subscribing to the "they were working to free americans, therefore cant be terrorists" POV?

I subscribe to the "they dumped tea overboard and didn't strap bombs to children, therefore are not terrorists" POV. Had they blown the ships up, a stronger case would be made. Had they blown up a building killing people, you'd be in business.

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
I'm not sure why you would call this a secret agenda or anything of that nature. The lesson teaches 2 things.

1)That the term 'terrorism' is rhetorical and general. It can be applied to just about anyone, at some point.

and

2)That some people fighting for freedom are called terrorists.

neither is wrong. Or are we subscribing to the "they were working to free americans, therefore cant be terrorists" POV?

I subscribe to the "they dumped tea overboard and didn't strap bombs to children, therefore are not terrorists" POV. Had they blown the ships up, a stronger case would be made. Had they blown up a building killing people, you'd be in business.

So THAT'S the criteria? You do realize than many VERY young people fought in the revolutionary war, and died? Right?

reply to post by captaintyinknots


What does fighting vs other soldiers have to do with the intentional killing of civilians? One is a soldier, one is a terrorist. The Revolutionary War had many soldiers. The Boston Tea Party was a rebellious act, not a terrorist act.

ETA: most of the VERY young people were killed by Britain. So I guess they are the terrorists you speak of?

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


The revolutionaries tortured civilians (via tar and feathering that caused burns) and burnt their houses down if they were thought to be British sympathizers.

Modern day eco-terrorists burn down Mcdonalds and are convicted of terrorism so....or should it just be called "rebellion"?

reply to post by Trustfund


It resulted in first degree burns. Painful. Not the same as climbing into a bus and killing everyone you can.

Many of the leaders of the Revolution called for it to be stopped.

What exactly does any of this have to do with the Boston Tea Party? Nothing? Thought so.