Africa Speaks Reasoning Forum

Texas textbook war: 'Slavery' or 'Atlantic triangular trade'?

Changes to social studies textbooks in Texas proposed by conservatives have resulted in a partisan uproar and generated interest far beyond the Lone Star State.

By Amanda Paulson, Staff writer / May 19, 2010
Chicago


While the proposed changes to Texas social studies standards aren’t quite so simple (and contrary to some reports, Thomas Jefferson would still be part of the curriculum), the debate over the standards pushed by a conservative majority of the Texas Board of Education – which will be voted on this week – has resulted in a partisan uproar and generated interest far beyond the Lone Star State.

Conservatives say that the changes are a long-overdue correction to a curriculum that too often deemphasizes religion and caters to liberal views. Critics are dismayed at what they see as an attempt to push conservative ideology – even if it flies in the face of scholarship – into textbooks. And with a textbook industry that is often influenced by the standards in the largest states, there is a chance that the changes have influence beyond Texas.

“Decisions that are made in Texas have a ripple effect across the country,” says Phillip VanFossen, head of the Department of Curriculum and Instruction and a professor of social studies education at Purdue University.

Still, he notes, as the pendulum swings toward national standards – which have yet to be developed for social studies – that influence might wane. Just in case, California this week passed a bill out of a Senate committee that would ensure no California textbooks contain any Texas-driven changes.
Conservatives dominate Texas Board of Education

The root of the uproar is a regular process in which the Texas Board of Education revises the state’s standards. Far more than in most states, the elected board is entrusted to write standards itself, rather than merely approve them. With a 10-5 Republican majority, including a coalition of seven social conservatives, the board has pushed what some see as a particularly partisan agenda.

Among the changes: Students would be required to learn about the “unintended consequences” of Title IX, affirmative action, and the Great Society, and would need to study conservative icons like Phyllis Schlafly, the Heritage Foundation, and the Moral Majority.

The slave trade would be renamed the “Atlantic triangular trade,” American “imperialism” changed to “expansionism,” and all references to “capitalism” have been replaced with “free enterprise.”

The role of Thomas Jefferson – who argued for the separation of church and state – is minimized in several places, and the standards would emphasize the degree to which the Founding Fathers were driven by Christian principles.

Full article: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Education/2010/0519/Texas-textbook-war-Slavery-or-Atlantic-triangular-trade (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Education/2010/0519/Texas-textbook-war-Slavery-or-Atlantic-triangular-trade)

The continuem of Crusader Zionism unrelenting.  The big C encompasses little z.  Injecting Tony Martin scholarship to critique this assault (where Texas seems to be ground zero in USA) reveals much about the agenda ongoing against the sons and daughters of Ham.  Most disturbing here is  "triangular trade" first used by British academics to sanitize imperial process  subjugating China through opium wars via India. Used again, C-z redefines the "slave trade" via Texas.  "slave trade"  was inadequate and sanitized to begin with as defining phrase.

Reminds me of label "Iran Contra affair", where we are to associate Iran with Reagan's war against women and children in central america, (Iran?) Olliver North story, (Iran?)Barry Seal story,(Iran?) Cocaine o rama throughout the gulf coast story, (Iran?)the Arkansas connection story,  oops don't talk about that or you will wind up dead on the rail road tracks near a greasy little ariport caled Mena . 

Perhaps a better sholastic undperpinning:  "Incredible story- how AFricans survived and eventually prosperred despite a process meant to eventually exterminate them in Americas, after the work was "done".  Thinking of it that way, head is held high indeed? Or just : "How did they do it? Surviving the Moffa" (sp?)

You could say the same about Native North Americans: "How did they survive at all? the real story".