|
Post by Tom Nuckols on Mar 13, 2010 2:42:51 GMT -5
Below is a report from the last meeting of the State Board of Education. I urge us all to pay attention to these proceedings because the outcome will be taught as historical fact to millions of 7th graders. I'm confident in assuming that (1) Juan Seguin is the target of the remark that "the one Tejano leader left before the fight" and (2) the intended implication is that he did so out of cowardice. Who will stand silent in the face of that kind of modern-day historical revisionism?
"As Berlanga predicted, the board did, in fact, remove the standard, previously approved in January, calling for study of 'Tejano leaders' who died at the Alamo. Bradley said state historical experts told him 'The one Tejano leader left before the fight'....Outside in the hallway, holding court with reporters, Berlanga quipped that discovering — late in life — that Hispanics had fought and died at the Alamo, was like 'discovering a dinosaur bone.' Hispanics at the Alamo, throughout her life, had been personified only in the villainy of Santa Anna."
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Mar 13, 2010 9:30:25 GMT -5
Good grief. And people like this are making decisions about what will be taught and how it will be taught in our history books? Holy crap.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Mar 13, 2010 12:22:47 GMT -5
I find it apalling that the committee chose to omit any reference to Tejano defenders at the Alamo. That's just wrong.
Jim
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Mar 13, 2010 13:29:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Mar 13, 2010 17:41:08 GMT -5
Here are a few more sources on this bizarre phenomenon. It boggles the mind. It's the very thing we used to criticize Russia for doing -- rewriting "history" to suit a political agenda. These textbooks have been a problem for a long time. For a good background, read James Loewen's "Lies My Teacher Told Me." I think textbooks are out of date and unnecessary. Texas' decisions on textbook content have affected the entire country because Texas and California buy more textbooks than any other state and publishers want to accommodate them. We met a history teacher from Arizona in San Antonio who was trying to get rid of textbooks altogether; she taught history the way it ought to be taught - by giving her students original documents and having them interpret them and write accounts that were supported by the documents. Unfortunately, a majority of parents insist on schools using textbooks because that's what they were given in school and they can't relate to an alternative. Even that's a relatively minor issue compared to casting aside facts for propaganda. www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html?hpwww.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/12/texas-education-board-app_n_497440.htmltinyurl.com/yf2uyaoAllen
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Mar 13, 2010 18:23:13 GMT -5
Allen, I just read aloud your post to my s/o, who's a lifelong educator, and a damned good one, and she agrees wholeheartedly with what you wrote. History teaching based on DBQs (document-based questions), which evidently is what the Arizona teacher you met is striving to do, is a progressive and increasingly accepted method. It helps the student look at history in a critical, thinking manner rather than being spoon-fed a bunch of factoids that a politically-driven committee moshes together and calls a "textbook."
|
|
|
Post by Seguin on Mar 13, 2010 20:29:15 GMT -5
Below is a report from the last meeting of the State Board of Education. I urge us all to pay attention to these proceedings because the outcome will be taught as historical fact to millions of 7th graders. I'm confident in assuming that (1) Juan Seguin is the target of the remark that "the one Tejano leader left before the fight" and (2) the intended implication is that he did so out of cowardice. Who will stand silent in the face of that kind of modern-day historical revisionism? Now Juan Seguin is targeted as a coward. It used to be traitor. I wonder if the attacks on Seguin´s character will ever stop. "It's the very thing we used to criticize Russia for doing -- rewriting "history" to suit a political agenda." That´s right, Allen, and now it happens in "Land of the free, home of the brave"! It´s shocking that the ultra right-wing has so much power they can rewrite history just like the communists did. It only goes to show there´s no difference between the extreme right-wing and the extreme left-wing. They both want to rewrite history so it suits their own ideology. They don´t care about objectivity or fair play, only about creating a country to their own liking. They´re dangerous people.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Mar 14, 2010 10:45:12 GMT -5
Juan and the rest of the Tejanos fall victim to Angry Conservative America. Looks like in primary school education we have jumped back about 50 years ago.
I guess the next move will to bring back the unedited Texas History Movies back to the class room.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Mar 14, 2010 11:41:18 GMT -5
While I'm not going to defend an uninformed decision, and bigotted comments, most people that study history would agree with the majority of the decisions made. The board rejected parts of the proposed texts, for who was being omitted - not over who was added. Among those omitted were Founding Fathers, Frankiln and Jefferson (how do you omit the writer of the Declaration of Independence?) Robert E. Lee and many more.
While the liberal media is portraying this whole thing in a negative light, most of the reporting is ignoring what the publishers took out of the proposed texts. In the Social Studies Text there is a discussion of American holidays, a Hindu religious holiday was added to the proposed text (nothing wrong with that), but all mention of Christmas and Easter was removed. OF COURSE the rejection of that proposal is being reported as the Religious Right being out of control and dictating the teaching of Christianity (of course the deliberate deletion of Christmas isn't mentioned). There is a lot more to this story than is being reported nationally.
This topic may be dangerously close to the partisan political debates that destroyed other sites and probably should be locked.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Mar 14, 2010 12:15:41 GMT -5
While political discussions can lead to acrimony, I'd like to leave this thread open as long as things are respectful. Every story I've seen on this textbook decision has been troubling, and I'd be happy to read the "other side" of the story. Though I'm in agreement that Judeo-Christian principles have likely been understated in some textbooks of late, the pendulum needn't swing so far in the other direction that history is rewritten, and even some conservatives have voiced that complaint. The longest article I've seen on this is from the NYT Magazine, which I know is regarded as liberal. Here's a link: tinyurl.com/yf2uyaoJim
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Mar 14, 2010 12:27:57 GMT -5
Now that this back open, I will simply then ponder on two questions:
1. Why was Juan and the boys singled out? Is it as simply a matter of "you got rid of our guy so we are going to get rid of yours?"
2. Who were the historians that adviced them that the "Tejano leader left during the siege?" Yes, Juan did leave, but as a trusted courier.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Mar 14, 2010 12:38:15 GMT -5
As I read it, the board omitted the references to Jefferson, apparently based on the idea that Jefferson's philosophy was derivative. According to reports, board member Cynthia Dunbar proposed dropping references to "Enlightenment ideas," and Thomas Jefferson from the standard. Here's the language from someone who was live blogging the event: The blog is here: tfninsider.org/2010/03/11/blogging-the-social-studies-debate-iv/
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Mar 14, 2010 12:41:55 GMT -5
Kevin, the omission of the Tejanos in the Alamo story is inexplicable. I'd really like to know the thought process behind that one if, in fact, that's what was decided.
As Hans points out, hasn't Seguin's reputation, in particular, been slighted enough already?
I'd like to read another angle on these board decisions if there's one out there. Googling didn't do me much good.
Jim
|
|
|
Post by jesswald on Mar 14, 2010 14:54:49 GMT -5
It appears that there may have been objection to Seguin being depicted as a Tejano leader, as opposed to a Tejano fighter. Good grief. Of course Seguin was a Tejano leader. Further objection was that he left before the battle. Guess he should have been insubordinate and refused to ride for assistance. He is being dissed for missing the final assault. This was a 13-day siege, not just a 90-minute battle, right? Anyway, I don't see where James Bonham's reputation has suffered just because he missed part of the siege. Both men slipt out and passed Mexican lines with messages, and subsequently breturned to the Alamo. Unlike Bonham, Seguin happened to arrive too late for the assault. He was left the sad duty of honoring his comrades' remains. And for this he is banned from the textbooks? Not to mention the other Tejanos who, thanks to the whitewashing of popular history, have been ignored and forgotten despite spilling their blood at the Alamo. Jesse Waldinger
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Mar 14, 2010 15:48:54 GMT -5
It appears that there may have been objection to Seguin being depicted as a Tejano leader, as opposed to a Tejano fighter. Good grief. Of course Seguin was a Tejano leader. Further objection was that he left before the battle. Guess he should have been insubordinate and refused to ride for assistance. He is being dissed for missing the final assault. This was a 13-day siege, not just a 90-minute battle, right? Anyway, I don't see where James Bonham's reputation has suffered just because he missed part of the siege. Both men slipt out and passed Mexican lines with messages, and subsequently breturned to the Alamo. Unlike Bonham, Seguin happened to arrive too late for the assault. He was left the sad duty of honoring his comrades' remains. And for this he is banned from the textbooks? Not to mention the other Tejanos who, thanks to the whitewashing of popular history, have been ignored and forgotten despite spilling their blood at the Alamo. Jesse Waldinger I have been cleaning through my old correspondence and research files and was reminded that back around the time of the Texas Sesquicentennial I was contacted by someone who was serving on this board to see if I could confirm that Juan Seguin had not only fought against the Texans in 1842 but also also against the United States in 1846-48. Also, they want to know the exact documentation for Ignancio Zaragoza being born in Goliad (La Bahia). So, this is somewhat of an old debate. I pointed out to the folks that while they were at it, if they were so concerned about the text, could they please work on proper identification of images(La Bahia being the Mission at Goliad and such). I never have understood why we can't balance the scales instead of tipping them either left or right!
|
|