[Winstonm]

Seriously, how does one combat this type of right-wing thinking pattern, that hiding the truth is to be encouraged and admired in order to promote a belief?

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2015-February-19, 08:32, said:

Seriously, how does one combat this type of right-wing thinking pattern, that hiding the truth is to be encouraged and admired in order to promote a belief?

The article has a link to the AP standards. I hadn't seen it. It's long. I scrolled down until I got to some random spot that seemd to be after 1776 and found this:

Quote

II. The policies of the United States that encouraged western migration and
the orderly incorporation of new territories into the nation both extended
republican institutions and intensified conflicts among American Indians
and Europeans in the trans-Appalachian West.
(POL-1) (PEO-4) (WOR-5)
A.
As settlers moved westward during the 1780s, Congress enacted
the Northwest Ordinance for admitting new states and sought to
promote public education, the protection of private property, and
the restriction of slavery in the Northwest Territory.
B.
The Constitution's failure to precisely define the relationship
between American Indian tribes and the national government led
to problems regarding treaties and Indian legal claims relating to
the seizure of Indian lands.
C.
As western settlers sought free navigation of the Mississippi River,
the United States forged diplomatic initiatives to manage the
conflict with Spain and to deal with the continued British presence
on the American continent.

Not for the first time, I learn that life was simpler when I was young. I have no idea what is meant by "republican institutions", extended or not. I do not know which part of the country is, or was, called "the trans-Appalacian West". I know nothing of negotiations with Spain regarding the navigation of the Mississippi River. Maybe the real concern of the pols is that they would not be able to pass an exam on this stuff, I know I wouldn't.


I intend to read more of the standards document, but so far I am fining it a little humiliating.

I am not entirely joking about motivation here. I learned long ago that I have enormous gaps in my knowledge. I have largely made my peace with this. Not everyon has. It's easy to scoff at serious issues and, essentially,say "I learned that George Washington admitted to chopping down the Cherry tree, that Abe Lincoln walked for miles to get educated, and that we are always right. This other stuff is just blah blah."

Added, just to show I didn't entirely sleep through history: I started thinking that since the time in question was before 1803, the year of the Louisiana Purchase, the negotiations about the Mississippi should have been with France. But then I had this vague recollection that France had grabbed this region from Spain at some point so I went to the Wikipedia where I found:

Quote

France controlled this vast area from 1699 until 1762, the year it ceded the territory to Spain. Under Napoleon Bonaparte, France took back the territory in 1800 in the hope of re-establishing an empire in North America. A slave revolt in Haiti and an impending war with Britain, however, led French officials to abandon these plans and sell the entire territory to the United States, which had originally sought only the purchase of New Orleans and its adjacent lands.

Ah yes, so the negotiations in the 1780s would have been with Spain. I hope that the exam is open book!

Bottom line: Looks like it could be a tough course. I am not seeing the ideological issues..

Still more: George Washington took office in 1789, so most of the 1780s pre-dated the installation of a U.S. president. The Wik tells me that 1789 is the year that the Constitution "came into force" Whatever is meant by "came into force" I assume that "the United States" was not negotiating with anyone before that date. Part II A mentions the 1780s, article II C, about navigating the Mississippi, mentions no time frame. But we see "As western settlers sought free navigation of the Mississippi River,
the United States forged diplomatic initiatives to manage the conflict with Spain" so I suppose that this would be after 1789, or at least after 1788, since it mentions the United States, and it would be before 1800 else we would be negotiating with France about navigating the Mississippi (and after 1803 we would not need to negotiate with either).

The Standards are advertised as promotimg critical thinking. I guess part of critical thinking could be figuring out what they are talking about.

Generally it seems like some good thought went into all of this, it may take some work to implement it.

[PassedOut]

Winstonm, on 2015-February-19, 08:32, said:

Seriously, how does one combat this type of right-wing thinking pattern, that hiding the truth is to be encouraged and admired in order to promote a belief?

By making sure the truth is available somewhere else, I guess.


Students can still read the NY Times, for example, on Presidents' Day: George Washington, Slave Catcher

Quote

During the president’s two terms in office, the Washingtons relocated first to New York and then to Philadelphia. Although slavery had steadily declined in the North, the Washingtons decided that they could not live without it. Once settled in Philadelphia, Washington encountered his first roadblock to slave ownership in the region — Pennsylvania’s Gradual Abolition Act of 1780.

The act began dismantling slavery, eventually releasing people from bondage after their 28th birthdays. Under the law, any slave who entered Pennsylvania with an owner and lived in the state for longer than six months would be set free automatically. This presented a problem for the new president.

Washington developed a canny strategy that would protect his property and allow him to avoid public scrutiny. Every six months, the president’s slaves would travel back to Mount Vernon or would journey with Mrs. Washington outside the boundaries of the state. In essence, the Washingtons reset the clock. The president was secretive when writing to his personal secretary Tobias Lear in 1791: “I request that these Sentiments and this advise may be known to none but yourself & Mrs. Washington.”

The president went on to support policies that would protect slave owners who had invested money in black lives. In 1793, Washington signed the first fugitive slave law, which allowed fugitives to be seized in any state, tried and returned to their owners. Anyone who harbored or assisted a fugitive faced a $500 penalty and possible imprisonment.

Washington almost made it through his two terms in office without a major incident involving his slave ownership. On a spring evening in May of 1796, though, Ona Judge, the Washingtons’ 22-year-old slave woman, slipped away from the president’s house in Philadelphia. At 15, she had joined the Washingtons on their tour of Northern living. She was among a small cohort of nine slaves who lived with the president and his family in Philadelphia. Judge was Martha Washington’s first attendant; she took care of Mrs. Washington’s personal needs.

What prompted Judge’s decision to bolt was Martha Washington’s plan to give Judge away as a wedding gift to her granddaughter.

I think that AP students are inquisitive enough that they won't be fooled by the dolts who try to hide the facts. Instead, seeing educational censorship as it happens helps students to gain a healthy cynicism.

[onoway]

May be a reaction to the world simply getting too big, too fast, too complicated and it's an (unconscious?) effort to bring things back under control?

They perhaps haven't come to grips with the news that once this information is out there, it's not going to go away and trying to bottle it up makes them look like King Canute ordering the sea to stop rising. If he had been a little smarter he would have timed it better and impressed everyone no end.(Except, of course, people who knew about tides, but they could be discounted as a rabble rousing minority). That's sort of the difference between the smart and the not so smart politicians (and corporations)...the smart ones use information cleverly and convince people that their fantasy is real, the not so smart ones look like fools.

Perhaps the exceptionalism they claim to have ought to include the insight to know which fights to engage in and which to let be, but that's not exactly been a strength in the past.

[Winstonm]

PassedOut, on 2015-February-19, 09:23, said:

By making sure the truth is available somewhere else, I guess.


Students can still read the NY Times, for example, on Presidents' Day: George Washington, Slave Catcher


I think that AP students are inquisitive enough that they won't be fooled by the dolts who try to hide the facts. Instead, seeing of educational censorship as it happens helps students to gain a healthy cynicism.

It's not the AP students that concern me - it is the electorate who put these hide-the-truth politicians in office. How do we combat the ever-growing pervasiveness of this socially conservative, highly nationalistic propaganda that is erupting like Vesuvius and raining down purposeful ignorance like ash over a one-man, one-vote Pompeii?

[billw55]

If this passes - which seems possible - I do hope that colleges will decertify whatever substitute APUSH courses Oklahoma chooses to implement, i.e. refuse to award credit for them. This would probably get the bill repealed. In fact, threat of this might stop it getting passed to begin with.

I went to high school partly in Texas. They required a one semester course in Texas history. At the time, it did not occur to me to wonder how objective it was. I don't remember much of it, which in retrospect is probably just as well.

[PassedOut]

Winstonm, on 2015-February-19, 10:01, said:

How do we combat the ever-growing pervasiveness of this socially conservative, highly nationalistic propaganda that is erupting like Vesuvius and raining down purposeful ignorance like ash over a one-man, one-vote Pompeii?

My view is that politics has an ebb and a flow, and one might just as well combat the tides. We do need to stand firm on freedom of information though.

[barmar]

PassedOut, on 2015-February-19, 09:23, said:

I think that AP students are inquisitive enough that they won't be fooled by the dolts who try to hide the facts. Instead, seeing educational censorship as it happens helps students to gain a healthy cynicism.

It's not AP students you have to worry about, it's all the rest. The thought is that the AP standard influences the direction of the regular curriculum. So if we whitewash the AP test, the regular history classes will be even worse. And the students who aren't inquisitive enough to learn this on their own will just hear the one-sided version that the legislators are promoting.

This seems scarily similar to the efforts to block teaching of evolution in science and biology classes (the Scopes monkey trial) and later to require teaching of "alternative theories" (i.e. creationism and intelligent design).

[kenberg]

There are factual matters, some clear, some in dispute, and there are values. I think PassedOut above was making a similar point.

My high school Civics teacher, Mr. Tighe, in 1955 or so, once remarked in passing that in the 1930s there were many Americans who felt Hitler was doing a good job in Germany. He did not make a large point of this, he mentioned it. From time to time we saw short films about this and that. One that he put up for us was made in the early years of our involvement in WW II and spoke enthusiastically of the "brave Russian people" resisting the German invasion of a year or so earlier. Perhaps the influence of McCarthy and HUAC were a bit on the wane, but I still regard ihs actions as courageous. Mostly I don't remember high school as a place to learn much about anything that would be the least bit controversial.

But facts are facts, and a course in History should present historical facts.

How we should interpret those facts are another matter entirely. I would not be happy at all with any requirement that students accept any "correct" interpretation of events. For example, I believe that the most important thing to understand from the European and then later American takinig of land from the native Americans is that when civilizations clash, the losing side will suffer greatly. It follows that you do not want to be on the losing side. I would not favor requiring students recite that this is the most important lesson, but I would also not favor having them recite the opinion of someone else as to what the most important conclusion is.

So if we stick with teaching facts and testing on facts, I think that we should all support such an effortt. Leave people to draw their own conclusions as to the meaning of these facts.

[Winstonm]

What troubles me most is that the nuts in the past stayed mainly isolated - but now they are organized and are starting to influence national discussions. Where are the network newscasters willing to unmask the idiocy of things like this? Without those news organization watchdogs, how is sensationalism and propaganda countered?

To me, it is troubling that our national news organizations are more concerned with not upsetting their access to power than in reporting any conflict with facts made by that power.

[akwoo]

The problem is that, in history, you can't go very far before having interpretations.

Take the Battle of Gettysburg. About all you can say based on the facts is that a bunch of people wearing grey clothing who several years prior spent most of their time in a Southern state and a bunch of people wearing blue clothing who several years prior spent most of their time in a Northern state shot and killed each other under the direction of some more well known people.

Calling it a battle as part of a war is already an act of interpretation.

[PassedOut]

akwoo, on 2015-February-19, 11:58, said:

The problem is that, in history, you can't go very far before having interpretations.

Take the Battle of Gettysburg. About all you can say based on the facts is that a bunch of people wearing grey clothing who several years prior spent most of their time in a Southern state and a bunch of people wearing blue clothing who several years prior spent most of their time in a Northern state shot and killed each other under the direction of some more well known people.

Calling it a battle as part of a war is already an act of interpretation.

What are the other reasonable interpretations?

[billw55]

Winstonm, on 2015-February-19, 11:57, said:

What troubles me most is that the nuts in the past stayed mainly isolated - but now they are organized and are starting to influence national discussions. Where are the network newscasters willing to unmask the idiocy of things like this? Without those news organization watchdogs, how is sensationalism and propaganda countered?

To me, it is troubling that our national news organizations are more concerned with not upsetting their access to power than in reporting any conflict with facts made by that power.

Network news was obsolete as a news source years ago, maybe decades. It is just another TV show. Getting reliable news seems very difficult these days.

As for the nut you link to, I think ignoring him is best.

[kenberg]

Don't hold me too literally to the word "interpretations". I was trying to get at the difference between "Did this or did this not happen?" and "What lessons can be drawn from what happened". A current example would be Obama's recent reference to the horrors of the Crusades and the Inquisition in discussing current terrorism. Exactly what happened during the Crusades and the Inquision can be, and is, debated but they toook place and few would deny that they were awful, even if some would downplay some of the horrs. That takes care of "Did it happen?". Turning to the second question about lessons to be drawn. What are they? Presumably no one is arguing that because of the Inquisition we should simply say "Oh well, beheading people, shooting school children and setting peoople on fire is just one of thoise things humans do, no big deal". But if that is not the purpose of bringing it up, what was the purpose? So people would not get on their high horse? That's it?

So I am claiming: Learning facts about the Inqusition is one thing, students should learn these facts. How these facts apply to ISIS is another matter.


I mean this as an example of the distinction between facts and interpretations. Pick another example if you don't like this one.

[blackshoe]

kenberg, on 2015-February-19, 09:03, said:

It's easy to scoff at serious issues and, essentially,say "I learned that George Washington admitted to chopping down the Cherry tree, that Abe Lincoln walked for miles to get educated, and that we are always right. This other stuff is just blah blah."

Remember this?

[akwoo]

PassedOut, on 2015-February-19, 12:18, said:

What are the other reasonable interpretations?

I don't think there any other reasonable interpretations in the case of the Battle of Gettysburg being a battle.

But what I'm trying to get at is that there is no clear dividing line between what's a fact and what's an interpretation, unless perhaps you want to put the dividing line very far over on one side.

Anytime you start organizing what happened into something that can actually be taught, you are already implicitly giving some bias by the way you organize the facts as well as the selection of facts to be taught. This isn't something that can be avoided.

Of course that does not mean that every method of organizing the facts are equal. Some are better than others. This is a value judgement. Indeed in many value judgements almost everyone agrees.

I am not saying that all value judgements are equal. Of course some values are better than others, and in most but not all cases we agree that certain values are better than certain other values.

[kenberg]

The Standards address WW II starting on page 70 (page refers to page on the Standards, the pdf file is different). Here we find:
III. The involvement of the United States in World War II, while opposed by most Americans prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor, vaulted the United States into global political and military prominence and transformed both American society and the relationship between the United States and the rest of the world.

This seems to me to be beyond dispute.

We then have:
A. The mass mobilization of American society to supply troops for the war effort and a workforce on the home front ended the Great Depression and provided opportunities for women and minorities to improve their socioeconomic positions.

Here I might quibble a little with tone. No doubt the war was a key factor in ending the depression. Improved economic position for women may be more of a mixed bag. Yes Rosie got a job as a riveter but if Rosie had a couple of kids and a husband who was a Private in the Army, her economic position might or might not be better than it was before, when her husband was at home. At any rate, Rosie's new role as a riveter was a side effect of the war. The phrasing might not make that clear.


It has often been observed that wars can have side effects that benefit mankind. This claim could be profitably examined, I imagine there is considerable truth to it. But it is not the reason that wars are fought.

Next item:

B.Wartime experiences, such as the internment of Japanese Americans, challenges to civil liberties, debates over
race and segregation, and the decision to drop the atomic bomb raised questions about American values.

I am working on this sentence. It seems to include "debates over race and segregation" as a wartime experience. I was young at the time, but I do not remember this. I can imagine some such debates occurred as wartime experiences, but I am not sure just how large a role they played. I also am not sure what is meant by saying that dropping the atomic bomb raised questions about American values. Raised what questions and with whom? Did dropping the atomic bomb raise these questions in a way that the firebombing of Tokyo did not? If so, why? And what will the students be tested on? Imagine the question "What did dropping the atomic bomb do?" .Is the answer "bring the war to an end" to be marked wrong since the "right" answer is "raise questions about American values"? We have, I assume, all experienced both teachers and tests that take this approach..


The writing of standards is, I am sure, a difficult task. We can all appreciate a serious effort, and this is one. Mindless jabbering that the Standards are not sufficiently patriotic should be rejected, but I don't think that the Standards, any standards, should be beyond criticism. This applies whether we are speaking of History or Mathematics.

[mike777]

Politicians have attacked this sort of thing since at least the ancient Greeks, nothing new under the sun here.

In this example some politicians don't like the general approach of the AP history course, nothing new here.

FWIW I remember complaining to my HS principle about the poor job our history teacher was doing. Told the principle I could do a better job and she should hire me. btw this teacher was some very young temp teacher

[kenberg]

mike777, on 2015-February-20, 11:29, said:

Politicians have attacked this sort of thing since at least the ancient Greeks, nothing new under the sun here.

In this example some politicians don't like the general approach of the AP history course, nothing new here.

FWIW I remember complaining to my HS principle about the poor job our history teacher was doing. Told the principle I could do a better job and she should hire me. btw this teacher was some very young temp teacher

To the best of my recollection, I never spoke to my high school principal and he never spoke to me. A fine arrangement. But your comment triggered a menory about temps and such. We had a student teacher, probably in her last year of college, as an assistant in my senior English class. Somehow we hit it off. Anything was better than the regular teacher and despite everything she seemed to tolerate me or maybe she just thought of me as a good case study.. Anyway, at that time I strongly held the position that I didn't read anything. Then one day she caught me in the library reading. Moreover it was some story that wasn't even assigned. I tried my best to wiggle out of it, sort of like the old Groucho joke where a guy gets caught with his mistress and says "It's not me", but she had me dead to rights and was very pleased with herself. I used all of my powers of persuasion to get her to not tell anyone. She was a fine person and kept it quiet.

[onoway]

billw55, on 2015-February-19, 12:54, said:

As for the nut you link to, I think ignoring him is best.

http://www.theguardi...t-nightmare-snl