Nothing here addressing any real point I've made, it's merely right wing silliness trying to find an argument to fit an already determined conclusion. The fact that you think the objective of education should be something other than the actual purpose of education tells me you should stay far away from it. The fact that you can't step outside your mythically determination of my position on this topic tells me you have trouble grasping this conversation. Your inability to figure out that my rejection of making the objective of education as creating patriotism is anything other than my rejection of non-thinking over thinking demonstrates your limitations, thus far, on the topic.
Your second sentence invalidates the first one. Just give it up. Besides, someone has to give companies workers that aren't drooling idiots. You're welcome.
Uni, if fostering thinking is the approach, why is only one bias acceptable. You can't even think around your own bias to understand the point, all the while telling me I don't know education well enough to discuss it. It's the Butch Jones conversation about his monopoly on ability to judge progress. Good stuff. As to my not commenting on your points, you made none. You've avoided the point that your own bias is so absurdly strong that it's imbued in your teaching. Your inability to acknowledge it is funny as hell and very Butch like.
Tell them it's about slavery and the South's fault. No, serioously, I am heavy in presenting major issues of contention both sides raised and giving them primary documents to examine. I point out a lot of various arguments, which includes the accusations of Southerns of northern use of factory workers as de facto slavery, which is something that's pretty unique to them and fosters a good amount of reflection.
It's not bias, not perspective. You still don't get that concept. It's an objective, a goal that has been stated. Surely, despite your inherent right wing bias (that's how it's correctly used), you understand this differentiation, right? My points have been pretty clear. The fact that you tap dance around them or create your own argument for me isn't my issue, it's yours.
If you are arguing in support of removing any civil disobedience, slavery, social unrest, etc from US history, you are not arguing to foster debate or for the facts. You are arguing for a whitewashed history. Period. Or are you saying those things never happened?
No, it's just perspective. Not thinking and ignoring events is a perfectly acceptable "bias", since liberals are so biased and controlling education. Makes sense.
It really is. I could make an entire course, even in high school, on the Civil War and Reconstruction. Every time I teach it, I feel like I'm selling the kids short because I have such a short time frame. World War II is the same deal. Also, one of the oddities in history courses that I try to correct in my class is that the Spanish Flu of 1918 is not addressed, often not even mentioned in a lot of 800+ page textbooks even though it was the worst pandemic in human history since the Black Death. Crazy to me.
The way I was taught it (by a very conservative preacher man who I am now facebook friends with, btw-- I'm sure I'm just misreading his Republican posts and he's secretly liberal though) was that the seeds were planted from Day 1 of the US, by avoiding the issue of slavery yet calling all men created equal. From there, it became about economics and each side trying to get a majority in terms of slave and free states.
Bullshiz. Objectives are the same thing. Theyre borne of the perspective. Your lone point, that only you know education, was the dumb one. The rest was pretending objectivity cloaked in silliness about fostering critical thinking. I haven't tapdanced. You can't acknowledge that the current, and your own, approach is littered with biases and it's no better than another bias, which can foster critical thinking just as well. It's dumb.
Did civil disobedience, slavery, etc happen or not? Please answer. If so, how does not teaching it foster debate or eliminate bias? because that is what the OP was about.
Who argued any of that? How was their objective in any way glossing over anything? I can approach from patriotism as my highest value and still recognize problems. Can you not reason through this? This approach makes the confederacy rebels. It should. What's glossed over? You're so invested in the current educational worldview that anything different is whitewashing? That's narrow and stupid - but fits the current worldview of academia in the broad sense.
If you are arguing in favor of the changes to the AP US history course in Jefferson County Schools, the topic of the thread, you are. The school board wants to eliminate civil disobedience, slavery, etc. from the curriculum. That's what sparked the thread. Those are factual topics, not political bias. They happened.
The OP is about what? It's about a perspective on teaching. If it's advocating excepting history intentionally, I'm not for it. I am for a perspective that promotes patriotism over civil disobedience, but not glossing. i didn't read about what they're doing in practice. I want us fostering patriotism or country over self.
I don't care what they're doing in prwctice. If they're intentionally omitting history, which obtw happens both ways, then they're wrong.
I have no problem fostering patriotism, so long as it is done with the facts (which are more than adequate, we have a history to be very proud of even if we aren't perfect). But that isn't the controversy out here. There are plenty of fairly conservative people who are pissed with the idea of removing segregation from being taught, and such.
