The State of Texas is second only to California when it comes to number of textbooks bought. This is important why?
Because a fifteen-member panel is revisiting its standards for social studies standards. And content is king.
Content, under the proposed revised standards, would feature such prominent figures as Newt Gingrich, Sean Hannity, and Mike Huckabee and possibly omit Cesar Chavez because he’s not an excellent role model. I think it’s nice that we can look to history to find role models but does that mean we exclude everyone else? Can’t we learn from the bad guys, even if we can’t agree on who the bad guys are? In addition, can’t we learn from discussing who the bad guys are? What happened to vive la difference?
Who cares? Texas is going to secede anyway, right? Not likely. Texas secession is soooo 1861.
The panel is expected to vote along party lines, which means more Newt, less Chavez for history students in the Lone Star State.
There’s no official GreatHistory.com take on this issue, but I’d bet that our bloggers, history teachers, and thinking people worldwide would all agree that the more historical facts you have in your toolbelt, the better equipped you are to deal with the present and prepare for the future.
Maybe this is just a case of the pendulum swinging back after the reign of the liberal-leaning revisionists.
That’s the thing about pendulums. You know when you’re at Extreme Point A and when you’re at Extreme Point B. But almost anywhere in between, things get fuzzy. And discussions about fuzzy, in my experience, lead to enlightened critical analysis. Which is exactly what responsible historians engage in.
Related Articles |
Bambi Yost said:
As if Texans didn’t already have so many stereotypes to overcome…what next? Controversal subjects should be eliminated from all Texan schools. That way we will know right away where everyone in Texas stands on important issues like abortion, freedom of speech, carbon emissions, and greenhouse gases.
I agree with Tracey, why not keep history alive and full of debate? Why be afraid of sharing valuable lessons from recent events no matter how immoral or exemplary? For example, why not highlight Betty Ford’s Center for Texas Children in Irving, TX and show how well the biggest state takes care of its youth? Or maybe a simple history and demographics lesson on the 1 in 4 children living in poverty in Texas as of 2009? Wonder what Newt would have to say about that? And would it really make a difference if he said anything anyway? Let’s face it, Newt’s a talker, not a walker.
Texas reformers would do well to educate their youth for the tumultuous times ahead. Abstinence only works when you aren’t having sex. Learning only happens with an open mind. Don’t be afraid of the dark. Get out and hear what others have to say. History is far from absolute no matter what we choose to believe.
August 24th, 2009 at 12:26 am
Nathanael Greene said:
Looking at a junior high American history text I have here, Chavez turns up only as a player for the civil rights movement that took hold post WWII. In the two paragraphs of text, the book highlights his role in the UFW and his achievements to win higher wages and better working conditions for migrant workers. Chavez is just one of many points the book makes of the struggle of civil rights in America. I don’t see any problem with that.
Newt should be included in future American history books because of his achievements in changing the political complexion of the Congress in 1994. In effect, he made Clinton’s presidency what it was. As for Hannity and others, I would say only if they are included as bit players in the changing face of communications and the discussion of new technologies away from traditional sources of news and info such as print or network news.
August 26th, 2009 at 9:27 pm