Why send your children to private school?

There are a inside jobs and there are copy past jobs , but hey!!! "Look how cool i am mam and dad!!!!!". The good old internet at his best.

Well lets add something relative to the topic for a change (or at least try).

This tactics mostly used by radical groups ALL over the globe (stay calm subsim fascists). After all the bigger the lie the more people will believe it.And who are the most easy target in this pathetic case? Children. So what i am going to do is to give you an example how it look like from my point of view.
Ok. Russia-"Russia for Russians only" edition, random son and random dad.
--------
Son - hello Papa
Dad - hello son
Son - Dad why our grandfather was a bad ass nazi b@stard
Dad - Whoooooooooootttttttttt
Son - I just learn in school today that our soldiers in ww2 hunt down the innocent Aryans and put them in concentration camps
Dad - fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
--------
This is what some individuals are trying to do. And every group have its own version of history for YA. O well, i`am done, spell check anyone?

@Dimitius07

Excellent post! And nice to be back on track.

That's why I often refer to Social Indoctrination, rather than "Education".

[CaptainHaplo]

And therein gentleman - lies the whole point. This is a battle for the minds of children.

Are we going to continue to put out false information (democracy vs republic as an example) - or are we going to correct inaccuracies? If your ok with kids in school learning stuff that simply is in error - well - thats up to you.

This is why I have put out the challenge - review the changes - and point out in the changes themselves (and not "news" articles) where the problesm are. I have linked to the actual document of changes - and have asked 3 times in this thread where exactly people take issue. So far - no one has dared touch that question.

Instead - we get "well the last version was ok" even though it had errors. Is this one perfect? No - I doubt anything can be - but for every "flaw" that it introduces, I am willing to bet I can match things it fixes to be factual. Course - when no one takes the first challenge - I can't even make the second one!

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Stealth Hunter - when I asked about issues in the curriculum - you steered toward the "wallbuilder" website,

"Steered" implies that I'm trying (or rather I tried) to dodge the issue, which I did not. The WallBuilder website simply shows the fantasy land these people live in, and why their position is not admissible in this case- furthermore to demonstrate their motives for making this textbook change. The responses to their lunacy on their website merely highlight the numerous inaccuracies and blatant dishonesty they have for history, and indeed science.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

as well as stated that there was "no real historical problem" with the existing curriculum.

Before this was passed, I mean. The current existing curriculum, they one they just voted on and passed, has made a problem of it because of the above mentioned historical revisionism towards the American Civil War and indeed the founding of the country, not to mention the figures for each historical event.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

the kids were being taught that this nation is a democracy - which is incorrect - and has been amended to a "constitutional republic" - which is accurate)

The United States government is a Constitutional Democratic Republic today, among other things. It was founded originally under the Articles of Confederation as... a Democratic Confederation. But because too many elements of Direct Democracy and Individual Statism existed, the country could get nothing done. Each state was practically its own individual nation. Ergo, the reason for the successful ratification of the United States Constitution. The Constitution establishes the country as two things: a Republic (the people elect their Congressional members and their leader) and a Democracy (the people are free to voice their opinions and may be directly involved in the affairs of government via the voting/campaigning processes; it's true when Lincoln said "for the people, of the people, by the people"). So is it wrong to teach the United States was historically founded as a democracy? No, because originally it was, and the beliefs in democracy are maintained to this very day by not only the law but the people. As far as what it is and isn't now, in the modern era, that's more of a question to be put to a government class, not a history class.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

- there were changes to be made.

Which have not done anything to teach the correct history of the United States. The history the books had previously was just fine; accuracy wasn't the problem. They were just too brief, not at all in-depth. Now, accuracy is a problem with them trying to teach that the CSA was a movement that was not treasonous (even though by legal definition it was in fact an act of treason) and that the country was founded on the principles of Christianity/religion, despite the words of the Founding Fathers (whom they also claim were mostly religious, despite the contradictory facts) and indeed the words of not only the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, but also the words and rulings of the Supreme Court, Congress, and several presidents.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

It also is the duty of the board, at specifed intervals, to review and amend the curriculum. That is what was done.

Nobody's debating that. Nobody's even trying to discuss that with the legal authorities right now. What they are going on about, however, is what they've decided to amend, and how they've decided they should amend it.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

So whether or not the last one was "pretty ok" is irrelevant.

Not really, considering that the last one was in terms of accuracy was at least correct in what it stated compared to this hogwash they're trying to put out there in the schools.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

The wallbuilders site is not the curriculum.

Master Of The Obvious.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Its the views of those that support a certain viewpoint.

Which are the exact same views the exact same people who founded the website (at least in the case of Mrs. Dunbar) are trying to put into the textbooks. This demonstrates exactly my point, and the point everybody else is trying to get across: the only reason they're amending the textbooks to say these things is because they don't like how the original ones don't support their views; how the original ones don't say that the United States was founded as a Christian/religious nation, that the majority of the Founding Fathers were Christians, that the Civil War was not an act of treason, and that the rebel Confederates were justified in their cause. The reason why the original textbooks didn't say these things? BECAUSE THAT'S NOT WHAT HAPPENED IN HISTORY. The United States was intended, as clarified by Madision, Jefferson, Paine, and indeed Washington in their writings and recorded statements to one another, among others (the former four being the most notable), to have religious and state affairs kept separate so as to avoid the possibility of liberty being curbed for the sake of possible theocratic elements entering into the system; as Wikipedia explains, the theological leanings of some 20 of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence have been established- and the majority were either self-admitted Deists or self-admitted to have been strongly influenced by Deism; only 9 have been positively identified as Orthodox Christians (source: http://www.theology.edu/ushistor.htm), and the Civil War was not an armed rebellion (implying that it was merely just a small-scale disruption against the government to make a point) but an act of treason in which a completely new government was established that split the original Union in two (the same Union the Founding Fathers they're speaking about creating this country on the principles, according to them, of Christianity) which started the whole war that lasted for four years by storming Fort Sumter after bombarding it mercilessly resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of soldiers within that time period and a lasting impression on people today that still creates resentment and controversy when the issue is brought up.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

The fact that some of those same people are part of the Texas Board of Education is no more a civil horror than avowed communists being advisors or leaders in federal government - which we have seen just recently.

Communists? I thought they were Socialists? Or are they Fascists? Nazis maybe? It changes every day with groups like the Tea Party. But that's not what we're talking about. It's not a matter of being a "civil horror", it's a matter of these people are being dishonest to twist the facts to their agenda. Even if they're not doing it intentionally, and they honestly do believe this stuff (which it wouldn't surprise me if they did), it's still not the historical truth. The kids are there to learn what actually happened in history; the original textbooks lived up to that. They were accurate, albeit brief. Now, they're inaccurate. How long is it until they decide to change something else in the historical textbooks? How long is it until they do it with the science textbooks? These exact same people advocate Creationism, you know; when are they going to say that teachers HAVE to teach "Intelligent Design" (they've started calling it that to make it sound more scientific) along with evolution? It's time to stop this dumbassery before it goes any further. It's not about "censorship" or anything like these people like to cry about; it's what's fact and what's not.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

The curriculum is a guideline - stating what the teacher is to teach.

The only real downside being that it's too brief; but now the information that the teacher is to teach is inaccurate, making it entirely problematic.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

How they choose to teach it is not specified - and so unless there are historical inaccuracies in the curriculum itself - and so far no one has pointed any out - I still don't see the problem.

Where have you been? Under a rock? Twiddling your thumbs in the bathtub perhaps? I reiterate, the United States was intended, as clarified by Madision, Jefferson, Paine, and indeed Washington in their writings and recorded statements to one another, among others (the former four being the most notable), to have religious and state affairs kept separate so as to avoid the possibility of liberty being curbed for the sake of possible theocratic elements entering into the system; as Wikipedia explains, the theological leanings of some 20 of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence have been established- and the majority were either self-admitted Deists or self-admitted to have been strongly influenced by Deism; only 9 have been positively identified as Orthodox Christians (source: http://www.theology.edu/ushistor.htm), and the Civil War was not an armed rebellion (implying that it was merely just a small-scale disruption against the government to make a point) but an act of treason in which a completely new government was established that split the original Union in two (the same Union the Founding Fathers they're speaking about creating this country on the principles, according to them, of Christianity) which started the whole war that lasted for four years by storming Fort Sumter after bombarding it mercilessly resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of soldiers within that time period and a lasting impression on people today that still creates resentment and controversy when the issue is brought up. They want to teach that the founders were mostly Christians who created the country based upon Christian/religious principles and that the Civil War was not an act of treason on the part of the Confederacy and that it was merely an armed rebellion against the United States government, to "protect states rights" (the main issue of which that was in dispute during the election of 1860 being slavery and arguments for and against it; the Southern Dixiecrats were afraid it would be abolished by Lincoln and would thereby cripple their economy; there is a reason you know why the country became rich so quickly in its brief history up to that point).

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

The question I put to you - and I welcome you or anyone else to answer, is in the actual changes to the curriculum - where you do you have an objection?

Alright now I know you haven't been paying attention. I've already stated where my objections lie; others have too. Why you can't see this is beyond me. It's painful to see the obliviousness. It really is.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Are we going to continue to put out false information (democracy vs republic as an example) - or are we going to correct inaccuracies?

I don't know. You tell me. If things continue with this whole affair in Texas, inaccurate information will simply be continued to be put out there. Should it be stopped? Absolutely. Are there people fighting to stop it? Thankfully, yes, there are.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

If your ok with kids in school learning stuff that simply is in error - well - thats up to you.

Indeed. I, for one, am not. Nor are most of my contemporaries here and elsewhere. Though some, including Mrs. Dunbar, really don't care so long as the information that our kids are learning suits what they believe and want to be taught, even though it is a-historical.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

This is why I have put out the challenge - review the changes - and point out in the changes themselves (and not "news" articles) where the problesm are.

I already have. The news articles have too. Their choices of wording are different, but the changes that will be made are nevertheless outlined in them. There is nothing that makes them inaccurate. They have outlined what they're going to change and what is inaccurate; I for one have spent most of my time here outlining what is inaccurate.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

I have linked to the actual document of changes - and have asked 3 times in this thread where exactly people take issue.

And we have responded three times to where we are taking issue. Or at least I have anyway. And I have outlined three times how to correct the issue. Yet, it is only you who are oblivious to this. Everyone else sees the posts; why can't you?

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

So far - no one has dared touch that question.

On the contrary, we have. So perhaps you should touch on why the information is accurate. I mean, we've already refuted your claims about the Christian/religious founding of the United States and the major religion/beliefs of the Founding Fathers, but that still doesn't mean you can't try (and fail lol) at trying to point out why their changes to the Civil War history are "accurate".

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Instead - we get "well the last version was ok" even though it had errors.

And we get utter obliviousness. You pretend not to see our arguments and the facts, pretend that we have no way to refute what you're saying, you trudge on, ignoring us even though we're damning your arguments by the keystroke. Furthermore, you have yet to outline what "errors" existed with the sections they decided to change. And you were refuted on your claim that the "United States isn't a democracy".

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Is this one perfect? No -

No kidding? Where was your first clue?

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

I doubt anything can be -

Master Of The Obvious.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

but for every "flaw" that it introduces, I am willing to bet I can match things it fixes to be factual.

Go for it. We've already shown why they aren't factual. So try your best. How much are you willing to put down? I'll wager a hundred.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Course - when no one takes the first challenge - I can't even make the second one!

Perhaps you should reread, on my part, these posts lol, though I doubt you'll be any less blind to them:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...&postcount=128
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...&postcount=134

[CaptainHaplo]

Stealth Hunter...

I have reread both your posts - and your response.

For some reason - you don't seem to get what I am trying to point out to you. So far you have complained all about how these people are "rewriting" history, made claims based off their personal beliefs and how those beliefs are being forcefed to the kids in Texas, etc.

What you have failed to do - though you have continually skirted the issue - is go to the ACTUAL changes in the curriculum - and point out where there is an error or cause for concern.

Here - I will post the link for the changes AGAIN:

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index2.aspx?id=3643

Or - if you want them direct - here ya go:

Kindergarten to 5th grade:
http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/teks/social/ELEM_TEKS_1stRdg.pdf

6th to 8th grade:
http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/teks/social/MS_TEKS_1stRdg.pdf

High School (9th to 12th Grade):
http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/teks/social/HS_TEKS_1stRdg.pdf

So far all you have done is quote news articles, personal beliefs of people involved, etc. You have refused to actually look at the changes and point out where you have issues with those changes. At least - if you have reviewed the actual changes - you have done your absolute best to not answer the simple question - Where do you find in the changes themselves - cause for concern?

And by the way - some of this is NOT history - it is Social Studies - so the issues of "democracy" vs "republic" can be dealt with. Sorry - we are NOT a democracy at a federal level - otherwise 51% could tell the other 49% how to live. This is why we elect "representatives" and why the executive is not chosen by purely popular vote. If we were a democracy, stuff would just work on popular vote.

So you can try and lecture and point to different posts you have made, and continue to link to all kinds of websites that tell you what to think - but if your going to debate the issue of changes being bad - look at the changes themselves and find where you have a beef - instead of taking others word for it. So far, you have been unwilling to do so.

We can't have a discussion on specifics - when you refuse to get specific.

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

I have reread both your posts - and your response.

Then why do you persist in saying that nobody has answered your questions? Because I did.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

For some reason - you don't seem to get what I am trying to point out to you.

I get what you're trying (and failing) to say. You're saying that these changes are not inaccurate, and that you agree with them. That you have no problem with them. Your statements about the Founding Fathers' religions/beliefs and the supposed Christian/religious founding of America make that much obvious. At the same time, you're trying to say that nobody is able (or willing) to answer your questions about what parts of this whole affair we disagree with, even though I (and others here) have already pointed out what we disagree with and why we disagree with it; furthermore, what is accurate, and what it inaccurate.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

So far you have complained

Complained? Hardly. Merely pointed out what's going on.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

all about how these people are "rewriting" history,

Which, if you paid attention to what they were saying about the Founding Fathers, the basis on which the country was created, and the Civil War, you would have noticed already that what they are doing is revising what really happened. And I've already pointed out why. Steve has pointed out why. Ducimus has pointed out why. Tater has pointed out why. Skybird has pointed out why. Antikristuseke has pointed out why. Angus has pointed out why. Snestorm has pointed out why. But as to why this is so hard to see... well you'll have to answer me that. I can see it; why can't you?

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

made claims based off their personal beliefs

Quite. And indeed if you simply check their website to actually research how they believe, you'll see this is exactly what they're trying to do. They're admittedly there "to exert a direct and positive influence in government, education, and the family by (1) educating the nation concerning the Godly foundation of our country; (2) providing information to federal, state, and local officials as they develop public policies which reflect Biblical values; and (3) encouraging Christians to be involved in the civic arena."

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

and how those beliefs are being forcefed to the kids in Texas, etc.

Is there something hard to understand about this? The textbooks teachers are required to use to educate the kids are being changed to reflect this BS (and quite frankly it is nothing less; it's not accurate at all). The curriculum the teachers have to follow mandates that they have to teach the kids about, including but not limited to, the Founding Fathers, the founding of the country, and the Civil War. Can you make the connection on your own now, or do you want me to hold your hand and help you there?

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

What you have failed to do - though you have continually skirted the issue -

Lol "skirted". I've done no such thing. Nobody here has. Nobody but you, that is, as far as getting answers goes. You sure were quick to shut up about the fact that the United States was not founded on Christian/religious principles and that there does in fact exist a principle of Separation of Church and State after we all jumped onto you about making such erroneous claims about it, though... but anyway...

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

is go to the ACTUAL changes in the curriculum - and point out where there is an error or cause for concern.

Let me reiterate: the textbooks teachers are required to use to educate the kids are being changed to reflect this BS (and quite frankly it is nothing less; it's not accurate at all). The curriculum the teachers have to follow mandates that they have to teach the kids about, including but not limited to, the Founding Fathers, the founding of the country, and the Civil War. If what the textbooks are teaching are changed, the "how" of the curriculum also changes. The material that is being taught as part of the curriculum is changing, and it's not accurate at all; ergo the curriculum is changed along with it to reflect such inaccurate material... can you make the connection on your own now, or do you want me to hold your hand and help you there?

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

So far all you have done is quote news articles,

What articles would that be? I haven't actually quoted any, so you wrong you say I have. Actually, the sources I've cited are a standard Texas high school history text book by Prentice Hall, a few legal websites about Supreme Court cases, the WallBuilders website to show how insane those people are, some websites on US history and how it does not correlate well with theology, and a Christian Ethics report showing how even they know what these people are trying to promote is BS.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

personal beliefs of people involved,

And demonstrated how it is a valid logical connection to make. And indeed on their part self-admitted from their own website's "About Us" section. Not to say it's a wide-range movement from more than a few people, but the beliefs those few hold and the power they have in this case certainly demonstrated perfectly legitimately how its influencing their decisions. Purely related to logic, evidence, and psychology.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

You have

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

refused to actually look at the changes and point out where you have issues with those changes.

Actually I haven't. I've told you why already. But since you're going to continue this charade, I guess I'm going to have to hold your hand and walk you there like a little child. The United States was intended, as clarified by Madision, Jefferson, Paine, and indeed Washington in their writings and recorded statements to one another, among others (the former four being the most notable), to have religious and state affairs kept separate so as to avoid the possibility of liberty being curbed for the sake of possible theocratic elements entering into the system; as Wikipedia explains, the theological leanings of some 20 of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence have been established- and the majority were either self-admitted Deists or self-admitted to have been strongly influenced by Deism; only 9 have been positively identified as Orthodox Christians (source: http://www.theology.edu/ushistor.htm), and the Civil War was not an armed rebellion (implying that it was merely just a small-scale disruption against the government to make a point) but an act of treason in which a completely new government was established that split the original Union in two (the same Union the Founding Fathers they're speaking about creating this country on the principles, according to them, of Christianity) which started the whole war that lasted for four years by storming Fort Sumter after bombarding it mercilessly resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of soldiers within that time period and a lasting impression on people today that still creates resentment and controversy when the issue is brought up. They want to teach that the founders were mostly Christians who created the country based upon Christian/religious principles and that the Civil War was not an act of treason on the part of the Confederacy and that it was merely an armed rebellion against the United States government, to "protect states rights" (the main issue of which that was in dispute during the election of 1860 being slavery and arguments for and against it; the Southern Dixiecrats were afraid it would be abolished by Lincoln and would thereby cripple their economy; there is a reason you know why the country became rich so quickly in its brief history up to that point).

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

At least - if you have reviewed the actual changes - you have done your absolute best to not answer the simple question -

Kind of like how you've done your absolute best to continue this game pretending I haven't answered where my concern lies and where the changes are, when I have and when others have.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Where do you find in the changes themselves - cause for concern?

Again, the textbooks teachers are required to use to educate the kids are being changed to reflect this BS (and quite frankly it is nothing less; it's not accurate at all). The curriculum the teachers have to follow mandates that they have to teach the kids about, including but not limited to, the Founding Fathers, the founding of the country, and the Civil War. If what the textbooks are teaching are changed, the "how" of the curriculum also changes. The material that is being taught as part of the curriculum is changing, and it's not accurate at all; ergo the curriculum is changed along with it to reflect such inaccurate material... this is the third time I've posted this in this post alone... I hope, I honestly do, that you can make the connection on your own now...

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

And by the way - some of this is NOT history - it is Social Studies -

Though the textbook changes are reflecting upon public school textbooks about history.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

so the issues of "democracy" vs "republic" can be dealt with.

Not really sure what you mean by this since we have already dealt with it... but whatever.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Sorry - we are NOT a democracy at a federal level - otherwise 51% could tell the other 49% how to live.

I never claimed were were a democracy at a federal level lol... nobody but you has even stated anything remotely along those lines... all I pointed out was that the United States today is a Constitutional Democratic Republic. And listed off the reasons why.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

This is why we elect "representatives" and why the executive is not chosen by purely popular vote.

The Constitution establishes the country as two things: a Republic (the people elect their Congressional members and their leader) and a Democracy (the people are free to voice their opinions and may be directly involved in the affairs of government via the voting/campaigning processes; it's true when Lincoln said "for the people, of the people, by the people"). So is it wrong to teach the United States was historically founded as a democracy? No, because originally it was, and the beliefs in democracy are maintained to this very day by not only the law but the people. The popular vote still decides the electoral vote; there's a reason why we base the number of representatives off the population of a state, you know, and still allow the citizens of the state to vote for both their representatives and their leaders to decide the electoral college outcome.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

If we were a democracy, stuff would just work on popular vote.

You fail to understand much about this. Nobody is claiming the United States is a democracy lol. Though it is obvious to anybody who understands about how the country works that there exist elements of it within the system, just as there exist elements of Republicanism and Constitutionalism. This isn't hard. It really isn't.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

So you can try and lecture and point to different posts you have made, and continue to link to all kinds of websites that tell you what to think - but if your going to debate the issue of changes being bad - look at the changes themselves and find where you have a beef - instead of taking others word for it. So far, you have been unwilling to do so.

Now I KNOW you're just being hard headed. We've already decimated your arguments here, but you just don't want to admit it. Like the issue that there DOES exist a barrier between church and state in our country- when you claimed the opposite was true. Sorry, but I'm not the one who's linking to websites telling me what to think. Actually, nobody here is. Oddly enough, neither are you. I'm doing what any sensible person does in a debate: CITING MY SOURCES. Furthermore, I have been more than willing to highlight what areas I have problems with and what areas are factually incorrect, and explain why it's important that the education system at least be correct in what it's teaching an entire generation of people in a state, nevermind how that applies to the entire country and all its individual states therein. It is YOU who have been unwilling to acknowledge that I have done so, instead deciding to play games with us and pretend like I'm not doing what you're asking when I have. Others have too. I'm not going to play games though; sorry.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

We can't have a discussion on specifics - when you refuse to get specific.

We're not discussing "specifics" lol. You're tossing this out there like it actually means something in this debate, when it doesn't. It sounds really philosophical and good, but it doesn't have any relevance in this. I've pointed out the factual inaccuracies with the changes they've made to the textbooks and shown why and how it will fallback on the curriculum, nevermind how it will affect the students who have to learn it.

Furthermore, I have demonstrated why these people are by definition historical revisionists, and that I am not alone on this conclusion; that their own Christian peers agree with me as evidenced by the Christian Ethics report (i.e. my source... it's not telling me what to think lol... it's my source... you cite them in a debate, you know). Finally, I have shown the dangers they pose to education because of the power they hold in their respective school board districts and because of their self-admitted revisionist beliefs, evidenced by their website (which I also cited to show the similar psychology that exists amongst them, in addition to their core beliefs in spreading this kind of "education" en masse").

[CaptainHaplo]

Stealth Hunter.

You are bound and determined to NOT address the issues.

Show me - and everyone else - where in the actual curriculum it makes the claims your stating. Then we can deal with them on the question of accuracy or not. But instead - you continue to not go to the actual documents.

The issue of the Civil War and its causes. Slavery was a huge factor - I have said so before. However, it was NOT the only cause - States Rights issues were in fact a significant cause as well. To claim it was ONLY about slavery ignores historical fact. Let me quote myself when this issue has come up previously:

If the issue of Slavery was the cause of the civil war - then why did the North continue to allow slavery?

"On New Year's Day, 1863, Lincoln issued the final Emancipation Proclamation. Contrary to what its title suggests, however, the presidential edict did not immediately free a single slave. It "freed" only slaves who were under Confederate control, and explicitly exempted slaves in Union-controlled territories, including federal-occupied areas of the Confederacy, West Virginia, and the four slave-holding states that remained in the Union.

The Proclamation, Secretary Seward wryly commented, emancipated slaves where it could not reach them, and left them in bondage where it could have set them free. Moreover, because it was issued as a war measure, the Proclamation's long-term validity was uncertain. Apparently any future President could simply revoke it. "The popular picture of Lincoln using a stroke of the pen to lift the shackles from the limbs of four million slaves is ludicrously false," historian Allan Nevins has noted."

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n5p-4_Morgan.html

Slaves were owned in the North during the civil war - and in fact the "hero" of the Civil War - Ulysses S. Grant - Union Military leader at the end of the war as well as President after Lincoln and Jackson owned slaves.

The fact is that slavery WAS an issue - but it was not by any means the only one - or even the largest one. It has been portrayed as such because morally - it is an abhorrent practice, and the victor gets to write the history. What better causus belli for later generations to look at than a vile acceptance of such practices?

Note there is not claim that slavery was not an issue. But the reality is that there were more issues than just the one. Yet you take exception to teaching that historical fact? *If you doubt its fact - look at the following, which I will quote from my friend Platypus:

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. " - Abraham Lincoln

http://www.abfition.com/abraham-linc...es-slavery.htm

As to whether the South considered Slavery the cause of the civil way, we can reference the individual declarations of the states.

If you read "Confederate States of America - Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union" you will see that in South Carolina, secession was based on slavery as well as State Sovereignty.

“A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union” mentions slavery but puts more emphasis on State Sovereignty.

As does “Georgia Declaration of Secession”

As does “A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union

Florida, Alabama,Louisiana, Arkansas, North Carolina, Tennessee, Missouri, and Kentucky all had declarations of independence that did not mention slavery at all, but listed State Sovereignty.

Virginia, always being different, makes an oblique reference of solidarity with the other Southern States concerning Slavery but also stated State Sovereignty as one of the justifications of its secession.

So to tally up the score

5 states list slavery as one of the justifications of secession
8 states do not list slavery as one of the justifications of secession.

However all of them mention State Sovereignty as one of the justifications for secession.

So just by reading the individual state’s declarations of independence, it seems that the primary justification for secession was State Sovereignty

According to you - the states referenced State Sovereignty should NOT be taught - even though a review of history shows it was an issue. So your arguing AGAINST teaching fact now. Why? Given that the "trianglular trade" is going to allow an even further in depth study of slavery and its economic impact (which is why it was an issue for the Civil War) - you seem unhappy that any other data except one thing be taught. And here I was basing my discussion with you on the premise that you wanted fact to be taught - not a biased viewpoint you hold. I still say let the kids have the facts and let them determine their own views from them.

Also - you have YET to show anywhere in the changes that the curriculum now states that the country was founded by a bunch Bible thumping believers - yet you claim it does so. Instead of going "Look what they want to teach the kids", you continue to go to outside sources which are not what the kids are being taught. Maybe you just want to pull down anything on the internet you disagree with - after all - the kids might see it, right? I mean - if you can't deal with the curriculum itself - and point out IN IT where there are flaws - but instead want to rant about what other people's beliefs on websites... .well... I guess you just want to "protect" the children.

Though the textbook changes are reflecting upon public school textbooks about history.

Yea buddy - you really know what your talking about don't you Stealth Hunter? Lets look at the actual documents shall we? Since your statement proves you have not done so.

Proposed Revisions to 19 TAC Chapter 113,
Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills for Social Studies, Subchapter A, Elementary

Proposed Revisions to 19 TAC Chapter 113,
Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills for Social Studies, Subchapter B, Middle School

Proposed Revisions to 19 TAC Chapter 113, Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills for Social Studies, Subchapter C, High Schooland
19 TAC Chapter 118, Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills for Economics with Emphasis on the Free Enterprise System and Its Benefits,
Subchapter A, High School

Funny - I see "Social Studies" in each one of those titles. Social Studies and history go hand in hand - and it does deal with standards on BOTH - but the fact you have not looked at the actual documents (as made apparent in your claim) show that you continue to take other sources at their word without actually looking at this for yourself.

See I can say that in the elementary changes I might have an issue with one set of changes - and point to them like this:

Section 113.15

Continual references to "Native American" are replaced with "American Indian".

I see some reasoning for making this change, but also see reasons against it. That is what I am talking about - locating an issue within the documents themselves and bringing them up. You can't - or won't. Its either because you can't find the things your griping about - or the reality that the changes reflect history is unacceptable to you - in which case history is unacceptable and you would choose to rewrite it. Given you can't be chuffed enough to actually read the documents (its all about history - yea buddy!) and your continuation of using anything but said documents, demonstrate that it is likely a conglomeration of the two factors.

[tater]

BTW, while I abhor curricula that are pushed by religious fundamentalists (regardless of flavor), I also abhor political indoctrination in curricula of any sort.

As I said above, all history is biased. All.

My brother in law gave me a history on the golden age of piracy, for example. I didn't finish the first chapter as the author's modern political bias was evident in the first few pages. The same is true of any history you read, albeit usually it is more subtle.

If the state pays for texts, then the taxpayers—through their elected representatives—have a right to vet them politically. The argument WRT Texas is that TX exercises much power because unlike other States, they buy all public school texts at the State level. So TX decides on certain content, and that's what gets published because TX is a big sale. My argument to that is, tough. If NY doesn't like it, they can buy for the whole State and counterbalance TX. The market is open, I don't see other states compelled.

Course my kids go to private school anyway, and if they want history, my library is pretty decent (even if it is heavily weighted towards military history).

What would be wrong (if anything), with each school district choosing their own textbooks. Thus returning, as I think it should be, local control.

[antikristuseke]

That would cause a huge cluster**** in the education system.

[Platapus]

But with the advent of digital publishing, school systems are becoming less dependent on large publishing houses for their text books.

I don't think it is too unrealistic that in the future, each school district will be able to obtain their own version of text books.

I can easily foresee the time when students are issued an E-reader for all their texts.

Of course E-readers for school kids would be a terrible thing. How can you ask that cute girl if you can carry her books for her, when they can all be stored on a flash drive?

[Sailor Steve]

Interesting diversion here:

The fact is that slavery WAS an issue - but it was not by any means the only one - or even the largest one. It has been portrayed as such because morally - it is an abhorrent practice, and the victor gets to write the history. What better causus belli for later generations to look at than a vile acceptance of such practices?

"Or even the largest one"? We just had that discussion, and it's pretty much a given that throughout The South 'The Cause' is still alive, and they won't ever admit it.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Note there is not claim that slavery was not an issue. But the reality is that there were more issues than just the one. Yet you take exception to teaching that historical fact?

Not me. I take exception to teaching that slavery was a minor issue. You'll have to read my post in the 'Confederate's Day' thread or whatever it was - I'm not going to go through all that again here. Slavery was the overriding and overwhelming cause of secession, and secession is what the war was fought over. And that's the real fact, deny it as you may.

At the same time you accuse others of not facing the truth, you seem to be arguing for a very biased picture of history.

[tater]

Not the slavery nonsense again. Slavery was THE issue. No slavery, no Civil War—PERIOD. There might well have been other reasons—all of them combined were noise compared to slavery.

Lincoln elected, South secedes under the fear northern (and Republican) control would outlaw the practice.

There is no possible scenario where the Civil War happens without slavery being involved.

[CaptainHaplo]

Steve - I have read your posts in the other thread - and you have very good arguements.

The key here is no one is saying slavery was a "minor" issue. Slavery was the engine behind the Southern economy. The economic concerns led directly to the decisions that meant Secession. Secession itself (as well as slavery) was a question of states rights at the time. No one is seperating them. No one is saying that they are not inter-related.

The problem is you jump at the fact that now slavery isn't the ONLY issue discussed, and somehow turn that into it being "minor" - which is not the case. Again - like with Stealth Hunter - look at the changes made. Show where it now has relegated slavery to be a "minor" issue. It hasn't. The discussion has simply been broadened to include other historical concerns as well.

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

You are bound and determined to NOT address the issues.

Do you guys think I should continue feeding the troll? I mean, even if he can't see it, the rest of you can see that I am in fact answering him and I am making points to counter his, even though he keeps pretending I'm not.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Show me - and everyone else - where in the actual curriculum it makes the claims your stating.

I never said it was a revision to the act wording of the curriculum lol. Merely that the changes to the textbooks, the tools the teachers have to use to teach the kids, the blood that keeps the curriculum alive, will fall back and affect the actual curriculum- as in how effective it is and how these things shall be taught. I've already explained why in the post above.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Then we can deal with them on the question of accuracy or not. But instead - you continue to not go to the actual documents.

And you continue to play the role of Captain Clueless, continuing the charade of "You're not answering my questions; I'm going to continue pretending that you're dodging the issues even when you're not; you can't make me stop! Hahaha!" Very childish, comparable to a kid covering his ears and making noise to keep from hearing what he doesn't want to hear.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

The issue of the Civil War and its causes. Slavery was a huge factor - I have said so before. However, it was NOT the only cause - States Rights issues were in fact a significant cause as well.

And the States' Rights issue was over what? Oh yeah- that's right: slavery. We've covered this before. The Southern states were concerned that the men in Washington would decide to abolish slavery, which would thereby cripple their economy. They argued that it was perfectly within their rights as a part of the Union to own and sell slave laborers. Lincoln, who was known for his outspoken criticism of slavery, worried them greatly over this when he was elected in 1860. Stephen A. Douglas, the main man who was running against Lincoln along with John Bell and John C. Breckinridge, while not fond of slavery was still in favor of protecting the Southern states' rights to keep slaves, because he knew that it would damage the economy if this free source of labor were to be abolished and permanently outlawed. Still, they knew that their best chances were with Breckinridge, who was totally supportive of the system- hence why virtually all the southern states and territories voted for him. While he was ahead of everyone except Lincoln on the electoral vote, he was far behind Douglas on the popular vote.

They were panicked almost the second his victory was announced that they would see the trade abolished on his watch. Hence the main reason for succession: States' Rights on the issue of slavery, which caused them to question all of their rights as territories of the Union. This is basic history here, nothing complex or difficult to understand...

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

To claim it was ONLY about slavery ignores historical fact.

You keep saying it ignores historical fact in an attempt to lend some seeming credency through tone to your statements. If you open any historical book or read any historical webpage on this subject, you will find that the main reason the Southern states seceded from the Union was because Lincoln won, and because they were afraid he would abolish the slave trade and cripple their economy by eliminating their source of free, plentiful labor. The main issue of the Election of 1860 was States' Rights on the issue of slavery, not only within states but within territories. I suggest you study this before you open your mouth on it.

http://www.tulane.edu/~latner/Background/BackgroundElection.html

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Let me quote myself when this issue has come up previously:

Be my guest.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

If the issue of Slavery was the cause of the civil war - then why did the North continue to allow slavery?

This is actually untrue. The North did not allow slavery at the time of the American Civil War. At least, the states that fought for the North and remained part of the Union didn't. As of 1789, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Massachusetts had abolished slavery within their borders.

By 1799, New York, Vermont, and New Hampshire had joined the list of free states.

By 1800, the Indiana Territory and Northwest Territories were constituted as free territories.

By 1861, the year the Civil War began, slavery had also been abolished in Iowa, Minnesota, Oregon, and California- and finally Kansas (even though it was a border debate state). The Washington, Nebraska, and "Unorganized" Territories were also free territories where slavery did not exist. All other remaining northern states, New Jersey, Delaware Maryland, etc., by this time had done so as well.

These were state/territory decisions that were made by their respective state/territory governments. They were ratified only on a state level. The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments added on to the Constitution federally abolished slavery permanently. All the Emancipation Proclamation was there to do was to say that this would be done by the federal government in the South once the CSA was defeated. And it was. The slaves were freed in the South. The document itself is what led to the establishment of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. Basic high school American history here...

Again, before you open your mouth, make sure you know what it is you're talking about:

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/slavery

It's a video series, so you won't have to do any reading. And I know how hard reading can be on here. If you need any more help, let us (especially me know). Kthnx.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

"On New Year's Day, 1863, Lincoln issued the final Emancipation Proclamation.

Yep.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Contrary to what its title suggests, however, the presidential edict did not immediately free a single slave. It "freed" only slaves who were under Confederate control, and explicitly exempted slaves in Union-controlled territories, including federal-occupied areas of the Confederacy, West Virginia, and the four slave-holding states that remained in the Union.

Again, this is because the states that remained in the Union had already abolished slavery via state legislative acts. It wasn't an issue that needed immediate federal addressing in them, precisely why the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments didn't come along until after all this had gone on to federally abolish slavery, to ensure a state could never try to revoke its decision or future states admitted could never have a different stance from the other states within the Union. The Emancipation Proclamation is what led to these amendments after the Civil War. The Proclamation itself was just an executive order; Congress had not taken any official decisions on the nation issue of slavery up until the passage by them of the aforementioned amendments.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

The Proclamation, Secretary Seward wryly commented, emancipated slaves where it could not reach them,

To show the Southern states that, when they were defeated, and it was a certainty that they eventually would be, even if it took years and years, they were going to have to pay their workers like everybody else instead of using slaves to do the work for them on plantations and the like. That's one of the main reasons he presented it not only to the slaves but to the CSA's government members. It let the slaves know what would happen in the end; it let them know they would be freed in and at the end of it all. But the freedom would have to come after the Confederates had been defeated. And then there's also the previously mentioned reason towards the CSA's government. Moving on.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

and left them in bondage where it could have set them free.

They were already free in the states that remained in the Union though lol. How is it that you did not know this before hand? What are they teaching you in school today? New York, Massachusetts, Maryland, Vermont, New Hampshire, Delaware, Iowa, Indiana, Pennsylvania, etc. had all already abolished slavery on a state level in their borders. There was no logical reason to issue such an executive order to them therefore... it wasn't an issue. There needed to be laws enacted federally to prevent slavery, but that's a completely different historical talk to be had.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Moreover, because it was issued as a war measure, the Proclamation's long-term validity was uncertain.

Not really. It was pretty much guaranteed Lincoln would survive the war so it would outlast the whole bloody affair. And indeed he did. He wasn't assassinated (or at least didn't actually die) until April 15, 1865. The war ended on six days earlier.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Apparently any future President could simply revoke it.

You can do that with any executive order. But that's the price you pay for living in a country using this kind of system of checks and balances and division of power between branches. He did the most he could do; and he did quite well.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

"The popular picture of Lincoln using a stroke of the pen to lift the shackles from the limbs of four million slaves is ludicrously false," historian Allan Nevins has noted."

He's right. Seriously, nobody here is disagreeing with this. Nobody even teaches that he used "a stroke of the pen to lift the shackles from the limbs of four million slaves". And precisely why nobody here before has even made such an outlandish claim.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Slaves were owned in the North during the civil war -

Actually no. Citizens residing in the Northern states where their respective state legislatures had already abolished it were not allowed to own slaves. During the Civil War, nobody living in one of these states owned slaves either. Census records going up to 1860 show that there were escaped slaves living in the Northern states, hence they were listed as "slaves" on it. Some 87,000 escaped successfully just into Maryland; Delaware had 1,700 runaways living in it; the Nebraska Territory only 18.

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~ajac/

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

And in fact the "hero" of the Civil War - Ulysses S. Grant - Union Military leader at the end of the war

Actually no. That was Grant's father-in-law, Colonel Frederick Dent. He worked on the Dent Farm, after he married Julia, in the 1850s for a time- which was located near St. Louis, Missouri, a state where slavery had not officially been abolished by the state legislature (it was a state that was divided about the issue, and indeed about which side to take during the actual coming war). He had only one slave put under his care whilst he worked there, who was later taken back by Colonel Dent when Grant left to go to Illinois to work in a tannery. Julia still owned four, as a Dent, but the Grant family, Ulysses' family, never owned and slaves in his lifetime. Grant himself opposed slavery. He openly said he did during the election of 1860. And during the Reconstruction Era, he had an amazing track record for fighting for civil rights for freed slaves given the times.

http://www.empirenet.com/~ulysses/

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

as well as President after Lincoln and Jackson owned slaves.

Lincoln and Jackson were years and years apart from one another on their presidential terms. What are you talking about?

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

The fact is that slavery WAS an issue -

The defining issue. It's what led to the whole fight over States' Rights, the ONLY right in question being the right to own and sell slaves.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

but it was not by any means the only one - or even the largest one.

Really, it was. And I've already demonstrated why. What the States' Rights argument was about (slavery), what the anti-abolitionist attitude was about (slavery), what the main issue of the election of 1860 was about (slavery), and why the CSA was established and so many Southern states seceded from the Union to join the CSA (because the issue of States' Rights was drawn into question because of the abolitionist attitude towards, that's right, slavery was being brought up as an issue for the president and Congress to begin considering more seriously, because the South's economy was so dependent on the work of slaves).

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

It has been portrayed as such because morally - it is an abhorrent practice, and the victor gets to write the history.

Or because, you know, that's how it actually happened... again, you really need to do some reading about reasons WHY the war began and WHY slavery was such a big issue during the election of 1860.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

What better causus belli for later generations to look at than a vile acceptance of such practices?

It's a conspiracy!

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Note there is not claim that slavery was not an issue.

Just claims that slavery was not one of the biggest influencing issues behind it all, when really it was. hat the States' Rights argument was about (slavery), what the anti-abolitionist attitude was about (slavery), what the main issue of the election of 1860 was about (slavery), and why the CSA was established and so many Southern states seceded from the Union to join the CSA (because the issue of States' Rights was drawn into question because of the abolitionist attitude towards, that's right, slavery was being brought up as an issue for the president and Congress to begin considering more seriously, because the South's economy was so dependent on the work of slaves).

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

But the reality is that there were more issues than just the one.

Starting with the issue of slavery, leading to States' Rights being questioned over slavery, leading to the main issue of the election of 1860 being over slavery and abolition of it, leading to th- you see where this is going. This is the third time I've had to explain it to you in this post alone. It started with the issue of slavery being called into question in politics during the 1850s, from there on slavery was just the connecting issue between each and every one of these major events in United States history. This isn't some kind of nonexistent claptrap, it's historical fact.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Yet you take exception to teaching that historical fact?

I take exception to downplaying its role in the Civil War. Their original statement said that it was an issue of States' Rights. Not entirely true. It was about States' Rights over SLAVERY. Not States' Rights in general compared to the federal government's rights/powers, it was over the issue of the trading and ownership of slaves in the United States. The reasons why the South objected to abolishing it or even admitting there was a serious ethical problem I have already posted: because their economy was dependent on slave labor, and they didn't want to even so much as RISK losing it- because it would cripple their economy. And indeed, it did in the end during the Reconstruction Era on well into the 20th century.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

*If you doubt its fact - look at the following, which I will quote from my friend Platypus:

He is incorrect on several points, including Missouri- which did not actually secede from the Union; it was divided on what side to take, as was it on the issue of slavery (the southern counties mostly took the side of the Confederates, the northern ones mostly took the side of the Union, probably because of their border with Iowa and Illinois- states which had already abolished slavery in their state legislatures). Although, I'm not debating what he's debating; I'm merely debating the issues that LED up to the Civil War and succession. He's trying to talk about what justifications the states gave for their secession from the Union.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

According to you - the states referenced State Sovereignty should NOT be taught - even though a review of history shows it was an issue.

I never said that. You're putting words in my mouth. You have quite a bad habit of that. But on, the current textbooks teach that State Sovereignty was an issue... because State Sovereignty is an issue that pertains as a subdivision of States' Rights. And the issue of States' Rights arose in the first place because the issue of whether or not states should have the right to allow slaves to be owned/traded arose beforehand in the 1850s, in the beginning of the Abolitionist Movement when it first made its real entrance into politics.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

So your arguing AGAINST teaching fact now.

Actually, I'm not. I'm arguing about going back to the old things the textbooks said, because this issue was originally presented factually and clearly; now, they've gotten it jumbled up into the realm of inaccuracy by confusing what was the real reoccurring issue behind each of these events. The events remain separate, that much is true, so it's no inaccurate in that sense, but in the sense they're presenting the history in an incomplete format now (by not teaching that the debate over slavery was the connecting issue between each event)- inaccurate towards the Civil War because of their instigation that it was not an act of treason, but rather an "armed rebellion" against the government (insinuating it was a small and negligible event, when that's simply not the case). And I've already explained why this is the case in my previous post.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Given that the "trianglular trade" is going to allow an even further in depth study of slavery and its economic impact (which is why it was an issue for the Civil War) - you seem unhappy that any other data except one thing be taught.

How exactly will changing what the name of the trade is called make the study any more in depth than it previously was as you are claiming? It really doesn't, and that's all they've done is change the name. Schools study the Atlantic Slave Trade under this name because that's precisely what the primary export/import was: slaves. From Africa and South, Central America and the Caribbean (though it later became mostly just Africans after the natives from the Americas they were originally losing literally disappeared because of mass death from smallpox, measles, and other European diseases). There were two separate markets to it: slaves and goods. They don't just study they Atlantic Slave Trade, they also study the Transatlantic Trade- which is the one that pertains specifically to goods being traded, not the people.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

And here I was basing my discussion with you on the premise that you wanted fact to be taught -

That makes two of us.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

not a biased viewpoint you hold.

This is the first time either one of us has accused the either of bias. I haven't accused you of bias. So tell me, what bias exactly do I hold? There's got to be some kind of name to describe it. What exactly are my motives lol?

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

I still say let the kids have the facts and let them determine their own views from them.

As do I, my dear boy, as do I.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Also - you have YET to show anywhere in the changes that the curriculum now states that the country was founded by a bunch Bible thumping believers - yet you claim it does so.

Actually, I don't claim that about the CURRICULUM; merely what the curriculum runs around- the tools the students and teachers have to use to learn/teach respectively: the textbooks, and that this will have fallout repercussions on the curriculum- not that the actual curriculum is being changed (as in the documents that dictate what must be taught by the teachers).

With that said, the proposed changes to the textbooks do portray the Founding Fathers in the light of being believers in the religion of Christianity, when, as I have already explained, the majority were not. Jefferson, an outspoken critic of religion, is being removed from the chapter on the foundations which led to the ideas which made the country what it is today and replaced by Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin; for whatever reason, they're keeping Voltaire, John Locke, Rene Descartes, and Immanuel Kant in the same chapter even though they have more to do with the foundation and solidification of the Enlightenment Era than the subdivision of the Intellectualism Movement.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Instead of going "Look what they want to teach the kids", you continue to go to outside sources which are not what the kids are being taught.

Also known as primary sources. You should look into them sometime. If the kids are being taught accurate information to begin with, which the are, the information you get off Encyclopedia Britannica or the United States Supreme Court website or any other website like these examples will match up to what the textbooks say. And they do, when you make a comparison with what the current books say (not the ones they've amended and are getting ready to print) to what such primary sources say.

Though, if you really are that concerned about eliminating non-existent bias as you claim to be, you should be a proponent in favor of teaching the kids via using multiple primary sources rather than manipulative textbooks, although the information in the books was accurate albeit brief before this whole affair.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Maybe you just want to pull down anything on the internet you disagree with

Funny. I could apply that exact same argument to you. No indeed everybody else who argues like this on the Internet. Disagreement implies opinion, however. This is not a fight of opinion over what's going into the textbooks; it's a matter of what is factual that is/should be put into them and what is not factual that isn't/should not be put into them.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

after all - the kids might see it, right?

Right, it's all part of my dastardly scheme to destroy the textbooks of the state of Texas... mind control and manipulation... lol.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

I mean - if you can't deal with the curriculum itself

Even though the actual curriculum I haven't been going on about so much as the actual textbooks that are a major pillar in the actual teaching/learning process.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

- and point out IN IT where there are flaws -

Which I already have by addressing the problems with the books and brief chapters they have within them, and how that has fallout impacts on the curriculum (the teaching/learning process). Still oblivious as hell I see.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

but instead want to rant about what other people's beliefs on websites...

In case you haven't noticed, I've been doing two things: arguing about the problems with the change they're making in the textbooks, and arguing about the problems with actually allowing these people to serve on the school board to promote such factual inaccuracies about United States history, ESPECIALLY about the Founding Fathers.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

.well... I guess you just want to "protect" the children.

Well hey you said it man; I never said I wanted to "protect" the children- merely that I wanted inaccuracies to be rendered accurate once again as they were in the first place.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Yea buddy - you really know what your talking about don't you Stealth Hunter? Lets look at the actual documents shall we? Since your statement proves you have not done so.

Already have, pal. But keep it up with the impotent attitude. You're really making yourself look good here...

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Funny - I see "Social Studies" in each one of those titles.

Nothing funny about it. At least, not to me.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Social Studies and history go hand in hand -

Master Of The Obvious. Where did I say they didn't? I didn't. But history is a BRANCH of Social Studies; Social Studies merely refers to a wide range of classes (political science, sociology, economics, religion, history, geography, culture, civics, etc.), each of which breaks down into even more subdivisions (Recent American History, World History, Business Economics, Theological Studies, World Cultures & Geography- a single class BTW, etc.). In each class, you receive a specific book tailored to that specific class' needs. The changes these school board members have agreed to pass will affect only the history classes... you don't get a Recent American History textbook if you taking a civics or economics class; the changes are geared towards American history, but certainly will reflect upon World History in relation to the removal of Jefferson as a member of the Intellectualism Movement- being replaced with John Calvin and Thomas Aquinas.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

and it does deal with standards on BOTH -

As a branch of Social Studies? Yes. Strictly throughout Social Studies? No. Again, Social Studies has a bunch of different fields, not just all relating to history but also religion, economics, civics, etc.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

but the fact you have not looked at the actual documents (as made apparent in your claim) show that you continue to take other sources at their word without actually looking at this for yourself.

How does not looking at the documents about Social Studies (which I have, for the record) do anything to discredit my original argument about the inaccuracy of the changes being made to the historical textbooks to begin with? Because really it's not doing anything more than changing the subject...

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

See I can say that in the elementary changes I might have an issue with one set of changes - and point to them like this:

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Section 113.15

Continual references to "Native American" are replaced with "American Indian".

American Indian referring to individual Indian groups from North America (as the term is coined for them). By just saying "Native American", it is not specific, ergo can refer to natives from anywhere in the continent chain- indeed the Caribbean. Speaking in terms of descriptions and admissibility, there's really nothing wrong with it. As far as opinions go, on whether or not you're offended, state your annoyances as you please.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

I see some reasoning for making this change, but also see reasons against it.

Out of curiosity, what reasons?

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

That is what I am talking about - locating an issue within the documents themselves and bringing them up.

Within the curriculum... which is not what I'm debating. Merely the changes to the textbooks, which will have a fallout effect on the actual curriculum by changing the experience endured under this particular teaching/learning process.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

You can't - or won't.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Its either because you can't find the things your griping about -

Which have nothing to do about the actual curriculum, merely what the chapters in the textbooks will actually say.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

or the reality that the changes reflect history is unacceptable to you -

Inaccuracy is unacceptable, especially when there's no reason for it to be inaccurate. Furthermore, when it's a matter of education that we're talking about.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

in which case history is unacceptable

Only warped revised histories, mate.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

and you would choose to rewrite it.

Or just right it back to what it was, when it was right before these people got a hold of it.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Given you can't be chuffed enough to actually read the documents

Which, as I've pointed out, I have, and, as I've also pointed out, this argument about the curriculum is sidetracking from the actual historical debate taking place. If we prove that their history is inaccurate that they're going to be putting in the textbooks, which we have, we prove then that they are not competent to serve as governing members of the school board, and that they have too much power in a position they are not cut out to fill. Furthermore, that the changes they have made should be revoked and the text restored to what it originally was.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

(its all about history - yea buddy!)

Indeed. But have you anything more to say on the whole issue of Separation of Church and State and the fact that the United States was not founded on a religion/belief, or are you admitting defeat now? I really am curious to know where you stand now after so many here have corrected you.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

and your continuation of using anything but said documents, demonstrate that it is likely a conglomeration of the two factors.

Or perhaps that I'm not willing to sidetrack from the original topic: that the revisions to the history books they are making are, in the first place, inaccurate- ergo their entire positions on the matter invalid and the entire school system in jeopardy because of these incompetents are not cut out to hold a position of this kind of power in the education system, in which case they should be removed and the changes they've made revoked. Which, given that this has already been done by myself and others here, means that really there's nothing to continue arguing about. But if you really want to, I'm game.