Tea Party Demands "Minority Experience" Be Removed From Textbooks

But they're not racist.

Actually, judging just by what's in that article, they really aren't. It seems the goal is to remove any possible negative portrayal of the Founding Fathers.

That's so cute. They can change textbooks however they like and it won't change the facts or that people will still know about it.

It seems the goal is to remove any possible negative portrayal of the Founding Fathers.

Luckily, that's still stupid.

This is getting creepy.

This is a silly move on the Tea Party's side. Even though I don't see much point in those little "What it was like to be a Chinese immigrant going through customs in 1894" blocks, making a big deal out of trying to take that stuff away makes the Tea Party look stupid and racist, even to conservatives like me. It gives the opposition ammunition.

Immoral? Yes. Stupid? No.

It's relevant to keep in mind in any discussion of the Tea Party, especially of the more outrageous actions thereof, that it's not a unified movement. There is no central leadership or control, just a bunch of people with the same overall ideas.

Blaming the whole movement for things like this is kind of like blaming all churches that call themselves Baptist for the Westboro Baptist Church's actions.

edited 16th Jan '11 12:28:24 PM by Wanderhome

They're trying to remove important history from textbooks in order to perpetuate the deification of flawed historical figures. That seems dumb to me.

In Arizona, they did a similar thing. They banned all ethnic studies(e.g. African-American studies, Chicano studies). Personally, I think both of these are somewhat racist. What counts as minorities? Wasn't everybody who originally migrated to America a minority? Also, doesn't everybody have a an ethnicity?

"They're trying to remove important history from textbooks in order to perpetuate the deification of flawed historical figures. That seems dumb to me."

Since their goal is, I assume, to foster reverence and respect for the Founders as much as possible in order to encourage a the next generation of voters to be more in tune with their own political views, it's not stupid at all, if they can get it through.

edited 16th Jan '11 12:31:53 PM by Wanderhome

History books are about history, or at least they should be. It's a written account of something that happened, ideally with little bias. The Founding Fathers were hypocritical at times, and even I would argue that some of them were rotten to the core, but at the same time I think it would be a disservice to the actual individuals who helped found this country if we focused solely on their good deeds or on their hypocrisy. They were men, just like we are today. Their ideas are the things that conservatives should venerate. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to representation, all that good stuff.

Well, you're right in that it's strategically advantageous to them.

What the Tea Party is really just doing is the conservative version of what liberals have been doing for decades: focusing on one part of history with a filter that favors their ideology. I've always been opposed to that sort of thing in textbooks, regardless of which side is favored, and if the Tea Party is trying to revise history then they're just as morally deficient as the liberals who focus on minority experiences as a way of fostering their own point of view on students.

"In Arizona, they did a similar thing. They banned all ethnic studies(e.g. African-American studies, Chicano studies). Personally, I think both of these are somewhat racist. What counts as minorities? Wasn't everybody who originally migrated to America a minority? Also, doesn't everybody have a an ethnicity?"

I cannot speak to the inner motives of the people behind those laws, but it was probably a good idea to get rid of ethnic studies. By encouraging the preservation of ethnic subcultures inside the United States, such studies most likely hamper assimilation of those subgroups, thereby fostering continued divisions within American culture. It's better to encourage absorption of immigrant ethnic cultures into the larger whole of American society, thereby reducing divisions between population groups and increasing the overall cultural unity of the nation.

^^ I don't believe it. There's a difference between wanting to portray both sides of the story and wanting to actively suppress one side of the story.

edited 16th Jan '11 12:37:33 PM by BobbyG

Can you show an example of what you are talking about please.

And focussing on minority things tends to be important because otherwise it gets forgotten and then people don't understand what people are moaning about. If you see only the burned out house you don't know if it was destroyed by arson or stupidity.

edited 16th Jan '11 12:37:37 PM by JosefBugman

@Wanderhome: But like I said, doesn't any study of any culture count as ethnic studies? So theoretically, European history should be banned too, but I doubt that would ever happen because white is the default in America. Isn't European history targeted at a specific group(people of European descent)? And I really don't know any ethnic studies classes that encourage overthrow of the government or teach you to hate everybody. If they had cited better reasons, then maybe I would agree.

Bobby, there's limited room in a textbook. It doesn't seem that way, considering the size, but it's true. Every time the editors decide to devote a page to a minority perspective, something larger and more general has to get left out. I'm not opposed to textbooks representing minorities at all, but unless it affects the United States as a whole - like, say, the Civil War and the Civil Rights Act - such material is better suited for a class that focuses on that minority in particular. It's why there are African-American Studies classes, for example.

Josef, unfortunately I haven't got my high school textbook with me. Getting it into the car and driving it to Ohio is impossible without a crane, and I don't have the proper license.

EDIT: Wuggles, focusing on a European-American perspective of history is more understandable, as the vast majority of Americans come from Western or Northern Europe. In a course on world history, the class should focus more on those civilizations that are more powerful, populous and advanced than the others during that time period. For example, it wouldn't make sense to focus on Bronze Age Scotland when the most powerful nations were in modern-day Greece, Iraq and China.

edited 16th Jan '11 12:48:42 PM by InkyQuills

Sorry. I just wanted an example if one was possible.

But slavery and the treatment of the American Indians massively impacted American history.

Besides, history is just as much about the ordinary lives of ordinary people in a given time period as it is about the major events, and neither is more important than the other. Both have a lasting cultural impact.

I understand where you're coming from, Bobby. At the same time, though, history is the study and chronicling of events. A personal perspective is only relevant if it is an account of an event. In the case of slavery and Native Americans, I'd argue that the former was enormously important and worthy of study, and the latter to be significantly worthy of study. I don't object to the chronicling of events that effect the nation as a whole, but I would object if it was seen through a moral lens, or neglected the impact of such events on the wider American perspective.

Even if you accept the premise that history textbooks are full of liberal bias (which I really don't buy, in some cases if almost feels the other way, but that's offtopic), this is going far beyond correction, to the point that, as some posters have mentioned, even conservatives think it's stupid. It seems to me that this TP splinter is trying to whitewash anything bad one of the Founders ever did, so we can think of them as gods. What on earth is to be gained by that?

Who told you that? And can I find them because they appear to have come from the 19th century and they need to get back there!

History is not just events, its placing events in context, its arguing about why the events happened, what the events caused and what they represent. History is not just going "this big thing happened, then this thing and then etc etc" like one of those early bible books that only feature's people with names like "isiah" or "Malithmathon". Minor event's in the past can have grave import today. Look at the corn law league, you may not think it;s that vital but it was the start of large conglomerate business enterprises banding toghether.

It is neccesary to look at almost everything in history in order to understand it, a personal take is what defines history, and whilst it is never right to impose moral judgement's on the past it is vital that things that affect the present (and as shown here minority views and where they come from are certainly that) are examined.

Absolutely nothing other than political gain. If they're trying to deify anyone, then they're in the wrong.