Texas Revisited

Here is one review of Texas' new history standards (by a conservative institute - no less!).

Complex historical issues are obscured with blatant politicizing throughout the document. Biblical influences on America’s founding are exaggerated, if not invented. The complicated but undeniable history of separation between church and state is flatly dismissed. From the earliest grades, students are pressed to uncritically celebrate the “free enterprise system and its benefits.” “Minimal government intrusion” is hailed as key to the early nineteenth-century commercial boom—ignoring the critical role of the state and federal governments in internal improvements and economic expansion. Native peoples are missing until brief references to nineteenth-century events. Slavery, too, is largely missing. Sectionalism and states’ rights are listed before slavery as causes of the Civil War, while the issue of slavery in the territories—the actual trigger for the sectional crisis—is never mentioned at all. During and after Reconstruction, there is no mention of the Black Codes, the Ku Klux Klan, or sharecropping; the term “Jim Crow” never appears. Incredibly, racial segregation is only mentioned in a passing reference to the 1948 integration of the armed forces.

They just left out much of what I remember (and found interesting) about history!  But apparently I grew up reading liberal history texts that gave way too much ink to those darn minorities and all the other whiners and victims throughout our history.

Again, as stupid as it is to push an agenda in history texts, it is almost impossible.  One of my favorite history professors really helped me to clarify the concept of history when he said, "We don't study history itself; instead we study people's interpretations of history."

Texas has certainly given us their version of history. 

But that is one of the great things about history - there are so many different interpretations and views!  Even our local history here tells us that.  If you were a Native American, you likely had a different a different view of history than that of the settlers who encroached on your land.  If you were a new immigrant, you likely had a different view of history than that of the settlers.  If you were a woman, you likely had a different view of history than that of your husband and his friends.  

It seems logical to me to strive to study as many perspectives as possible, as opposed to focusing just on any specific one.

If I taught history in Texas, the first thing I'd have my kids looking for would be the biases written in to the text and the important events left out!  That type of assignment can fit either conservative or liberal views.  Plus, it gets kids to think critically about what they are being told. 

The danger with all history, though, is that we all want to remember our pasts as we want to remember them, not necessarily as they really happened.  But we can't afford to teach our children just the history that we want them to know.  

So what happens when the report comes out?  Does it lead to debate or discussion and revision?

Of course not!  This is America.  It simply leads the supporters of the curriculum change to undermine the report.  Here is what the Liberty Institute had to say


This attack comes from a group funded in part by the liberal Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, but I must admit I am still embarrassed for them in their inaccuracies, even with their clear bias,” said Kelly Shackelford, president/CEO for Liberty Institute. “Texans are not impressed by some education elitist ‘think tank’, with left-wing funding and an agenda, launching bombs from Washington, D.C., aimed at Texas. This attack was baseless, inaccurate, biased, and ineffectual.

Is it me, or does that blurb fail to solve anything?  It simply dismisses the report!  The first half seems to try to undermine the report by attacking those who funded it.  The latter half an us vs. them rant.  But you have to love the rhetoric, don't you.

The report is labeled an 'attack' that features 'inaccuracies' and 'clear bias.'  That's really too rich, isn't it?  Given what the textbooks are leaving out?


Furthermore, the writer assumes that all Texans side with her (that trick is the oldest one in the rhetoric book!) by claiming that "Texans are not impressed"  and of course the writer makes it seem like the good old country bumpkin', Bible thumping Texans are under attack ("launching bombs") by those nefarious "left-wing" evil-doers.  

This is not surprising at all given the polarizing times in which we live.  God forbid, there be any gray in the world!  But I think it would be a great PhD topic to study the war and terrorism rhetoric used by politicians (both sides of the political spectrum).  When did we all become so volatile? 

I wonder what this guy and his wonderful book, Lies My Teacher Told Me would have to say about all of this?