Hundreds of Colorado students protest history curriculum[W:234]

Re: Hundreds of Colorado students protest history curriculum

Grim17 said:

They never said that protests are wrong or should not be condoned... They said that school shouldn't "encourage or condone civil disorder, social strike or disregard of the law."

Translated, that means that breaking store front windows to protest tax breaks for the rich shouldn't be encouraged... That setting fire to homes and busineses to protest against the actions of a police officer shouldn't be taught as acceptable behavior... That denying someone their right to speak at a public event, because you may not agree with what they are saying, isn't keeping with the principals that this nation was founded upon.

There is a right way and a wrong way to express disagreement and they obviously want to make sure that schools are teaching children the correct way to express grievances, and not promoting acts of violence and lawlessness.

Click to expand...

Here's what the cons on the school board wanted:

The school board proposal that triggered the walkouts in Jefferson County calls of instructional materials that present positive aspects of the nation and its heritage. It would establish a committee to regularly review texts and course plans, starting with Advanced Placement history, to make sure materials "promote citizenship, patriotism, essentials and benefits of the free-market system, respect for authority and respect for individual rights" and don't "encourage or condone civil disorder, social strike or disregard of the law."

Click to expand...

That last part is what you quoted. So the American revolution was wrong then. So Lincoln should have just allowed the south to sucede. So, millions in the streets to stop the Vietnam war (who turned out to be right) was a bad idea; 50,000 more to "stop commuhnissam!!" would have been the right move.

And where do American history educational material say that, "That setting fire to homes and busineses to protest against the actions of a police officer shouldn't be taught as acceptable behavior"? And what cop are you talking about?

The right way and the wrong way to expres diagreement; wow, we owe England a huuuuge apology.

They said that school shouldn't "encourage or condone civil disorder, social strike or disregard of the law."

Click to expand...

Where in the curicculum does it say that? Got a page reference?

Re: Hundreds of Colorado students protest history curriculum

sangha said:

Equally "amazing" is that you stand by your lie that she was referring to the "attempts to end slavery by congress with The Act of 1807, The Act of 1818, The Act of 1819 and The Act of 1820" when no such quote, or anything even remotely resembling that quote, exists anywhere.

Still don't see the irony, huh?

Click to expand...

I stand corrected... The law of 1818 shoud not have been included.


The act of 1807:

The 1807 act was a comprehensive attempt to close the slave trade. By passing the law in March, Congress gave all slave traders nine months to close down their operations in the United States.


The act of 1819:

This act changed the direction of the suppression of the trade. The focus was now in part on the injustice of enslaving someone who deserved to be free. In part, the law now implicitly condemned American slavery itself. If it was wrong - unlawful - to enslave an African after 1819, why, someone might ask, was it not wrong to enslave an African before 1808? And if the original enslavement was morally wrong, then what was the basis of holding the descendants of that person in slavery? The act also took the United States out of the business of marketing slaves. Before 1819 confiscated slaves were sold under the laws of the states where they ended up. Naval crews and informants were in part compensated from the sale of these people. Now the taxpayers compensated naval crews and informants through bounties and the Africans went home. This was a dramatic change in American policy. For the first time in the nation's history, the United States was willing to spend money to help Africans regain their liberty.

The act of 1820:

The key element of the law were two sections declaring that any American citizen engaging in the African slave trade "shall be adjudged a pirate; and on conviction thereof before the circuit court of the United States for the district wherein he shall be brought or found, shall suffer death." The same language was applied to non-Americans found on board slavers owned or commissioned by Americans. This law was to be in force for only two years, but on January 3, 1823, Congress made it a permanent statute. This was a dramatic and important change in U.S. policy.

I lied huh?

If you can't be honest, you aren't worth wasting my time over.

Re: Hundreds of Colorado students protest history curriculum

tres borrachos said:

This nation's foundation wasn't "built on civil protests". What do you consider to be the foundation of this nation?

Click to expand...

Well, Bunker Hill started as a civil protest didn't it. Actually by then the North Carolinians had beat the English at Moore's Creek Bridge by then. The Regulators too had been on a "terrorists campaign" as well. Their executions just pissed everybody off even more.

When you say, "foundation of the nation", we could start with the Declaration of Independence; not exactly a very patriotic announcment at the time: a bit like the Declaration of Aborath in 1392, also not very patriotic toward the British. Of course by the time of our declaration, so much violence had been committed against the King's troops and his loyalists, that declaring a separation was of course the only logical conclusion to be reached. Outside of those examples your question is sort of vague I'm afraid.

Re: Hundreds of Colorado students protest history curriculum

Grim17 said:

I stand corrected... The law of 1818 shoud not have been included.


The act of 1807:

The 1807 act was a comprehensive attempt to close the slave trade. By passing the law in March, Congress gave all slave traders nine months to close down their operations in the United States.


The act of 1819:

This act changed the direction of the suppression of the trade. The focus was now in part on the injustice of enslaving someone who deserved to be free. In part, the law now implicitly condemned American slavery itself. If it was wrong - unlawful - to enslave an African after 1819, why, someone might ask, was it not wrong to enslave an African before 1808? And if the original enslavement was morally wrong, then what was the basis of holding the descendants of that person in slavery? The act also took the United States out of the business of marketing slaves. Before 1819 confiscated slaves were sold under the laws of the states where they ended up. Naval crews and informants were in part compensated from the sale of these people. Now the taxpayers compensated naval crews and informants through bounties and the Africans went home. This was a dramatic change in American policy. For the first time in the nation's history, the United States was willing to spend money to help Africans regain their liberty.

The act of 1820:

The key element of the law were two sections declaring that any American citizen engaging in the African slave trade "shall be adjudged a pirate; and on conviction thereof before the circuit court of the United States for the district wherein he shall be brought or found, shall suffer death." The same language was applied to non-Americans found on board slavers owned or commissioned by Americans. This law was to be in force for only two years, but on January 3, 1823, Congress made it a permanent statute. This was a dramatic and important change in U.S. policy.

I lied huh?

If you can't be honest, you aren't worth wasting my time over.

Click to expand...

I didn't see any of the above acts mentioned in her statement so yeah, you lied

Re: Hundreds of Colorado students protest history curriculum

jet57 said:

Here's what the cons on the school board wanted:


That last part is what you quoted. So the American revolution was wrong then. So Lincoln should have just allowed the south to sucede. So, millions in the streets to stop the Vietnam war (who turned out to be right) was a bad idea; 50,000 more to "stop commuhnissam!!" would have been the right move.

And where do American history educational material say that, "That setting fire to homes and busineses to protest against the actions of a police officer shouldn't be taught as acceptable behavior"? And what cop are you talking about?

The right way and the wrong way to expres diagreement; wow, we owe England a huuuuge apology.



Where in the curicculum does it say that? Got a page reference?

Click to expand...

So let me guess... You are now claiming that the school board doesn't was the history of the Civil War taught?

Good lord...

Re: Hundreds of Colorado students protest history curriculum

Grim17 said:

So let me guess... You are now claiming that the school board doesn't was the history of the Civil War taught?

Good lord...

Click to expand...

I am presuming that you meant to say, "You are now claiming that the school board doesn't want the history of the Civil War taught?

Get a grip please.

Your argument is ridiculous and without basis and I just showed that to you. Please read American history: epsecially the parts where us soon to be patriotic 'Mericans acted like terrorists and burned people's homes because we didn't like what they said.

GBFAN said:

That's exactly the point .... there was NO attempt to censor what was being taught, but rather to place the criteria in what the school board thought was 'proper context.'

Click to expand...

That certainly flies in the face of what you claimed. You said stuff was removed and replaced, now you say the context is changed. Which is it?

For example, the History course at Aurora High had devolved into a discussion of all the ills of the American system. It was an anti-capitalism, anti-government presentation. NO time was spent discussing the accomplishments of the founding fathers, but over 3 weeks were spent discussing the civil rights movement of the 60s. Logic would tell you that understanding the tenets of the American government that allowed the civil rights movement would be at least as important. There was a large part of the school year discussing the impacts of the industrial revolution on climate change, but not one word about the positive impacts ... better wages, better working hours, greater mobility, etc., etc., etc. The lopsided presentation of Civil War history was nothing short of ridiculous. Whether we like to admit it or not, the bombing of Hiroshima was a significantly more positive act than it was negative.

The simple fact was that the American History effort had become a liberal forum for indoctrinating the students about everything that is wrong with the American system, rather than a reasoned, rational, and fair presentation for the students to consider for themselves. This proposal was an attempt to rein in an educational department that had gone off the tracks, rather than confront the teachers face-to-face.

How do I know? I am a member of the District Accountability Committee here in Colorado Springs for one of the school districts. We are trying to resolve the Common Core-Instructor Responsibility conundrum. We were briefed on the Aurora situation, since that is really the driver behind this whole fiasco. Frankly, I have no idea if it's been published anywhere.

Click to expand...

Details and documentation needed here. Everything you say is broad generalities and opinions. I want factual details, not opinions.

Redress said:

That certainly flies in the face of what you claimed. You said stuff was removed and replaced, now you say the context is changed. Which is it?



Details and documentation needed here. Everything you say is broad generalities and opinions. I want factual details, not opinions.

Click to expand...

Then ... hold your breath.

I tried to explain that the history courses had devolved to what was, effectively, a liberal indoctrination. Given the sheer impossibility of firing a teacher, the school tried to mandate what would be taught in the class. When an American History class makes no mention of the first three presidents, but DOES focus on all the negative things - the course has gone off-track.


I gave you what I received in a briefing ... if you need more detail, there are flights to Denver.

Re: Hundreds of Colorado students protest history curriculum

jet57 said:

I am presuming that you meant to say, "You are now claiming that the school board doesn't want the history of the Civil War taught?

Get a grip please.

Your argument is ridiculous and without basis and I just showed that to you. Please read American history: epsecially the parts where us soon to be patriotic 'Mericans acted like terrorists and burned people's homes because we didn't like what they said.

Click to expand...

An excellent example of the attitude that was being taught in the American History class ... all one-sided, and no overall context.

GBFAN said:

When an American History class makes no mention of the first three presidents

Click to expand...

It is stupid to think that every american history class should teach about the first three presidents.

Re: Hundreds of Colorado students protest history curriculum

GBFAN said:

An excellent example of the attitude that was being taught in the American History class ... all one-sided, and no overall context.

Click to expand...

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Let me put this in language that everyone can easily understand...

If our public schools were teaching a balanced history of slavery in America, then how come so many people, especially liberals, claim that the 3/5 clause was racist and that it's purpose in the constitution was to denigrate black people by proclaiming them as inferior human beings that shouldn't be counted the same as a white person?

I know I wasn't taught the true purpose behind that clause when I went to school and was under that same false, racism based impression for years, until I took the time to research it myself and discover the truth.

GBFAN said:

Then ... hold your breath.

I tried to explain that the history courses had devolved to what was, effectively, a liberal indoctrination. Given the sheer impossibility of firing a teacher, the school tried to mandate what would be taught in the class. When an American History class makes no mention of the first three presidents, but DOES focus on all the negative things - the course has gone off-track.


I gave you what I received in a briefing ... if you need more detail, there are flights to Denver.

Click to expand...

Again, that is not documentation, that is simply your impression. I want facts, not some random guys opinions of what he heard of from who knows where,

americanwoman said:

I'm with the students on this one. Complete bs on the part of that school board. No curriculum should be biased or censored, just straight facts.

Click to expand...

Yeah? which facts?

Re: Hundreds of Colorado students protest history curriculum

apdst said:

It's a sad day when HS kids protest patriotism.

Click to expand...

A person in high school might have been following politics with enough attention to have any clue for what? four years, maybe, in the unusual case six?

Well, today's HS kids have known no Government other than one headed by Obama and the Radical Lefties.

If you had grown up during such leadership, would you have a sense of value and loyalty toward Government and Country?

I can't find it to blame HS students for hating American Government, all they've known is a Government which is contemptible and views the citizens as slaves or worse.

I can blame the parents who were foolish enough to allow such a Government to gain power.

-

Re: Hundreds of Colorado students protest history curriculum

Geoist said:

I have a bachelors in history.

But it seems you are confusing what I said. I simply stated what should be, not what is.

Click to expand...

Someone with a degree in History should have learned better the value to the individual in having a just and sane Nation behind them to protect their rights.

Nations arouse out of the needs of the people who banded together under the rules of their Nation for mutual protection from marauding hordes of barbarian raiders and looters.

People who have contempt for Nationalism have never really learned History's lessons on why Nationalism is a very good thing to have in your life.

If you want to know the bare beginning of the value of Nationalism, read post #138.
-

Re: Hundreds of Colorado students protest history curriculum

Grim17 said:

They never said that protests are wrong or should not be condoned... They said that school shouldn't "encourage or condone civil disorder, social strike or disregard of the law."

Translated, that means that breaking store front windows to protest tax breaks for the rich shouldn't be encouraged... That setting fire to homes and busineses to protest against the actions of a police officer shouldn't be taught as acceptable behavior... That denying someone their right to speak at a public event, because you may not agree with what they are saying, isn't keeping with the principals that this nation was founded upon.

There is a right way and a wrong way to express disagreement and they obviously want to make sure that schools are teaching children the correct way to express grievances, and not promoting acts of violence and lawlessness.

Click to expand...

And here we have the root of why Dr. ML King was a great man, and Louis Farrakhan is merely a popular, reactionary, racist, thug.

-

americanwoman said:

Hundreds of Colorado students protest history curriculum changes that would promote patriotism | Fox NewsI'm with the students on this one. Complete bs on the part of that school board. No curriculum should be biased or censored, just straight facts.

Click to expand...

It is impossible to remove bias, which is why everyone has different opinions.

We can be very truthful about telling the facts but it is less truthful when related facts are being omitted. That seems to be the case here. The students want the facts to gibe with their previously help opinions.

Grim17 said:

Let me put this in language that everyone can easily understand...

If our public schools were teaching a balanced history of slavery in America, then how come so many people, especially liberals, claim that the 3/5 clause was racist and that it's purpose in the constitution was to denigrate black people by proclaiming them as inferior human beings that shouldn't be counted the same as a white person?

I know I wasn't taught the true purpose behind that clause when I went to school and was under that same false, racism based impression for years, until I took the time to research it myself and discover the truth.

Click to expand...

I agree with that to an extent - the better non-racist ratio was probably 0/5ths, because the South shouldn't have been allocated Congressional seats based on their slave populations. But I think what sticks with people is the fact that the Constitution - of the country which declared "all men are created equal" - explicitly declared some men worth less than others. That decreased the power of the slave holders relative to a 5/5ths counting of the slaves, but increased the South's power relative to 0/5ths. It was a necessary compromise to getting the Constitution ratified.

At any rate, the Constitution was racist because it explicitly condones slavery and proclaims blacks as inferior human beings. The 3/5 compromise just isn't the best example of it.

JasperL said:

I agree with that to an extent - the better non-racist ratio was probably 0/5ths, because the South shouldn't have been allocated Congressional seats based on their slave populations. But I think what sticks with people is the fact that the Constitution - of the country which declared "all men are created equal" - explicitly declared some men worth less than others. That decreased the power of the slave holders relative to a 5/5ths counting of the slaves, but increased the South's power relative to 0/5ths. It was a necessary compromise to getting the Constitution ratified.

At any rate, the Constitution was racist because it explicitly condones slavery and proclaims blacks as inferior human beings. The 3/5 compromise just isn't the best example of it.

Click to expand...

You completely ignore my point... People believe the 3/5 clause was based on racism because our schools never bothered to teach them any different. It was a compromise to prevent the pro-slavery south from using their slaves to get more pro-slavery representation in congress.

* Most people have no idea that the importation of slaves was to become illegal in 20 years from the ratification (in 1808) as per the constitution...

* Most people have no Idea that congress moved to totally outlaw slavery the very first day when that 20 years was up.

* Most people have never heard of the Act of 1807 that congress passed, which was a comprehensive attempt to close the slave trade. By passing the law, Congress gave all slave traders nine months to close down their operations in the United States.

* Most people have never heard of the Act of 1819 that congress passed, which changed the direction of the suppression of the slave trade. The focus was then in part on the injustice of enslaving someone who deserved to be free. In part, the law implicitly condemned American slavery itself, and for the first time in the nation's history, the United States committed to spending money to help Africans regain their liberty.

* Most people have never heard of the Act of 1820 passed by congress, which declared that any American citizen engaging in the African slave trade "shall be adjudged a pirate; and on conviction thereof before the circuit court of the United States for the district wherein he shall be brought or found, shall suffer death."


You see my point?

School children aren't taught about how hotly this issue was contested, how vehemently it was opposed, how it almost prevented the union from forming, and how steps were taken right from the beginning to pave the way for the eventual abolishment of slavery... Kids are taught the same way I was back in the 70's that by implication slavery was as American as apple pie, was a fully accepted and uncontested practice back in 1776, and that didn't change until President Lincoln took office. They have no idea that the founding fathers were faced with having a union and accepting slavery, or abolishing the slave trade and having no union at all. Our children need to know this information, rather than growing up believing that every one of our founding fathers were racists that believed black people were property to be bought, sold and used by white men.

It's called "balance".

Grim17 said:

You completely ignore my point... People believe the 3/5 clause was based on racism because our schools never bothered to teach them any different.

Click to expand...

It was based on racism. The southern states were given political representation based on the people living there but those people were not given political representation. The entire reason for doing this was because of slavery, which if you haven't noticed, was racist.

Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

Click to expand...

What is not racist about counting people who were born in the country (ie should be citizens) as 3/5 a person because they were slaves?

School children aren't taught about how hotly this issue was contested, how vehemently it was opposed, how it almost prevented the union from forming, and how steps were taken right from the beginning to pave the way for the eventual abolishment of slavery... Kids are taught the same way I was back in the 70's that by implication slavery was as American as apple pie, was a fully accepted and uncontested practice back in 1776, and that didn't change until President Lincoln took office. They have no idea that the founding fathers were faced with having a union and accepting slavery, or abolishing the slave trade and having no union at all. Our children need to know this information, rather than growing up believing that every one of our founding fathers were racists that believed black people were property to be bought, sold and used by white men.

Click to expand...

Bull crap. I was taught that and students today are taught that. They are taught about the Abolitionist Movement, John Brown, the reasons for the 3/5 clause, etc

This is the exact type of BS that this wingnut school board is trying to push. It makes it clear that the entire motivation is a political scam

Redress said:

Again, that is not documentation, that is simply your impression. I want facts, not some random guys opinions of what he heard of from who knows where,

Click to expand...

First of all, it was NOT my opinion ... it was the opinion of the Superintendent of the School District involved.

If you want facts, get them ... write to the school and ask them. I clearly told you it was what I heard at a briefing from the school district. If you don't want to believe it, or you want to ignore it, feel free. After all, why would you possibly want additional information, particularly when it shows your ilk in a bad light?

Re: Hundreds of Colorado students protest history curriculum

jet57 said:

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Click to expand...

Oh, I know what I'm talking about .... I've dealt with narrow-minded people forever.

sangha said:

It is stupid to think that every american history class should teach about the first three presidents.

Click to expand...

They were SOOOOOO unimportant.

GBFAN said:

They were SOOOOOO unimportant.

Click to expand...

I can't speak for your kids, but mine don't need to learn the same thing every year. By the time they reach HS, they've had at least 8 years of history. If someone's kid doesn't know about the first three presidents by then, it's not the curriculums' fault

But maybe the kids of right wingers have to re-learn addition and subtraction every year. After all, those are important too.