Another Attempt at Book Banning

Parent Cafe
81

Not a conspiracy theory, but there are certainly nuanced, manipulative ways to persuade children politically, and it happens all of the time. I remember teachers in elementary school making a strong point that we should all be proud of our differences and not to disrespect/treat others who look different. While this is all well and good on the surface (and I agree with it btw), it also correlates perfectly with the identity politics-driven campaign strategy of the left, and is complimented by the fact that the media forcibly portrays the right as a monolithic group of racists/bigots.

This is just one example obviously, but the issue of bias in education is as old as time itself.

82

“bias in education”

Biases occur everywhere, even in families. :wink: Education should be about being exposed to different viewpoints and to learn to critically consider them.

People who are afraid to have their children exposed to different viewpoints in a classroom and believe it is some master plot to indoctrinate children into a New World Order - yup, to me that is conspiracy thinking.

83

American history is always a bit of an indoctrination. I learned about the melting pot while my kids got the salad basket. But I do think we can at least get the facts right instead of telling fairy stories. Maybe an elementary school age kid doesn’t need to know about all the bad stuff, but we can at least try to be as honest as possible. We’ll never be completely honest - history ultimately is about interpreting those facts.

IME there are ultra-conservative groups who want to ban books because of sex or religion. Liberals are more likely to want to rework the canon - either because of offensive ideas (racist language and the like), or just because they think the traditional canon is too white and too male.

84

Of course, there is also the civil war about the causes of the Civil War.

85

I agree (except that I think the “offensive ideas” that they want to take out is that we were all hunky-dorey with the Indigenous peoples, etc) and this is what I’m trying to parse out with the “liberals want x banned” claims.

86

{Quote]@awcntdb - I’m curious as to what grade that text book was for.

[/Quote]

The wold history textbook was in middle school. The issue though about which grade is, to me, irrelevant. The errors in fact were just glaring and the book should not have been in any school.

The environmental science book was 10th - 12th grade.

And people let teachers do that? No wonder kids are ignorant about US history. The real story is rather cool actually, as the Pilgrims experimented with socialism and it failed, and the first Thanksgiving was the result of when they switched to capitalism’s principles.

I have no issue with presenting various interpretations of historical facts, but when the facts are set up in a way to give a false picture, that is where I draw the line.

87

Agreed, but when one side of the arguments are not being presented, that is not “being exposed to different viewpoints”. That is being exposed to one side’s viewpoints. :wink:

More importantly, I think we all agree that in public schools, children should (ideally) be taught the facts, minus any political biases. If parents choose to influence their kids one way or the other in their own home, that is their prerogative, but in public schools, children should not be persuaded one way or the other. I know for a fact that my teachers growing up gave me a much more cheery, positive view of one side of the political spectrum, and I’ll have you guess which side that was.

88

There is a lot of gray in history. Documentation and historical accounts are biased as well, given that they are recorded by biased humans and are open to interpretation, but yes, it should be as factual as possible given what is currently available, although the definition of “factual” is constantly in flux.

Maybe its because I am more centrist in many of my views but my kids were exposed to a range of viewpoints in their education. As thinking beings, they formed their own opinions - some of mesh with my own, some don’t. If you fall on one extreme of the political spectrum, by definition all the viewpoints your children will be exposed to will seem “one sided” if they don’t agree with your own. :slight_smile:

89

I’ll agree with you there, doschicos!

90

Please note - I was talking about the states and the institution of slavery that was after the Constitution. Jamestown was a British colony, and the free colonies and Constitution did not exist.

Even more relevant is that prior to the Constitution the northern colonies had already outlawed slavery and expanded that abolition to the new territories being formed out west. Only the South continued the practice. And England had also already outlawed the practice.

Hence, after the Constitutional Convention and adoption of the Constitution. the slavery that existed as an institution in the South was a democrat created and controlled institution because the rest of the United States had already outlawed that activity. Jim Cow and the KKK were no different and were wholly democrat created institutions, as those practices were outlawed in the rest of the United States.

Just to show how off we are in teaching history in general - my DS, at an Ivy League school, was shocked how many students there thought George Wallace, William Fulbright and Bull Conner were republicans. He is a senior now and still gets surprised at what these supposedly brilliant kids do not know. Yet, they believe they are in the right about their facts. So much for teaching history properly.

Therefore, I have no issue on getting rid of books, which paint a false picture of historical and scientific facts.

91

It’s also not so much facts presented and whether they are truthful, but essential facts left out of history books.

D took a college course on the Civil War in which the professor barely mentioned Abraham Lincoln!! How she accomplished that, I will never know or understand why.

92

Different viewpoints, sure. Different interpretations, sure. Different facts, no.

People seem to be confusing opinion, interpretation and facts.

93

The world history textbook we got rid of had one paragraph on George Washington, nothing on the Bill of Rights, and three full pages about social justice. Still laughing about that one.

94

This discussion diverges from the original post and situation linked, which isn’t textbook related.

Perhaps @awcntdb’s school needs a better vetting process before incorporating new textbooks into the curriculum. There should be a process that allows review and discussion prior to making a purchase. To purchase texts and then step in to have them banned and removed is a huge waste of tax dollars. Textbooks are very expensive. Might be a good idea for you to have the school board consider change the textbook approval process rather than expend energy after the fact.

“The world history textbook we got rid of had one paragraph on George Washington, nothing on the Bill of Rights, and three full pages about social justice. Still laughing about that one.”

Sounds like you want to write the textbook yourself! Teachers can supplement as well if they wish to discuss George Washington in more detail, although that seems more suited to American History than World History.

95

History is written by the victors. That’s why, for example, I was taught in the 60s and 70s that the “Indians” were simple-minded savages who were grateful to the white man for “civilizing” them. Or they were bloody savages who scalped benevolent settlers for no good reason. In fact, they had damn good reason, but you wouldn’t have known that from my junior high history book.

96

These bad history books have consequences. I read recently that some large (can’t remember exactly) percentage of college students thought slavery originated in the United States.

97

“Even more relevant is that prior to the Constitution the northern colonies had already outlawed slavery and expanded that abolition to the new territories being formed out west. Only the South continued the practice. And England had also already outlawed the practice.”

I don’t know what history you are talking about, but factually this is just about totally out of whack. The constitution was adopted in 1787, and at that point more than a few of the “northern” colonies still allowed slavery;some had banned new slaves but also allowed the ban to be phased in over a period of time, usually 25 years, and NY and NJ for example didn’t put in the ban until the end of the 18th/early 19th century. The Northwest ordinance of 1787 did ban slavery in what would become Ohio and some of the northwest states. England didn’t ban slavery until 1809…and while in 1808 the US finally banned the important of new slaves, it was not exactly enforced, either, new slaves were coming into the hemisphere under false prentenses and went from Cuba and other places to the US later on.

"Hence, after the Constitutional Convention and adoption of the Constitution. the slavery that existed as an institution in the South was a democrat created and controlled institution because the rest of the United States had already outlawed that activity. Jim Cow and the KKK were no different and were wholly democrat created institutions, as those practices were outlawed in the rest of the United States.

That is simplifying this to the Nth degree, and it is the old dodge of using the past to excuse the present. First of all, while the Democrats were heavily tied up with slavery, there were Democrats who opposed it (for example, in the north, Tammany Hall and similar Democratic machines, places like Boston, Chicago, were vehemently anti slavery, for the very reason they feared slave labor and what it would do to jobs in those places, especially if the south industrialized. On the other hand, they weren’t exactly racial pioneers either, they also feared the freed slaves coming north and taking jobs from the people already there…

The other problem with this is the old Whig party, which the GOP replaced just before the Civil War, was rent by slavery, it is the issue that caused it to fall apart, and the GOP that formed was primary those who opposed slavery, which also drew I might add more than a few anti slavery Democrats to it. Post the Civil war the Democratic party was not one party, so calling it the party of Jim Crow and the KKK is playing with semantics to prove a point…you can’t argue that the northern Democratic party of the cities and such were the party of the KKK or Jim Crow, rather you can argue that they weren’t going to challenge Jim Crow or the KKK either, since this was a needed part of their coalition (Mencken called the farm populists, jim Crow southerners and so forth the KKK branch of the Democratic party). On the other hand, once reconstruction had ended, the GOP never did much to end Jim Crow or the influence of the KKK either, neither party wanted to upset the apple cart and didn’t shrug.

I bring that up, not to diverge the topic, but to show how historical "truths’ have nuances that need to be discussed. The black and white “Democrats=slavery and the Jim Crow South” fails to indicate that not all the Democrats were pro slavery or pro Jim Crow, but didn’t do anything for political expediency, nor does it point out that the post Civil War GOP with its emphasis on business, was not exactly the ‘radical republicans’ of the post Civil war period, it is why it needs to be discussed.

98

Thank you @musicprnt – I read that post and it didn’t settle right with me either. I thought the consensus among historians was that the only 2 northern states that had abolished slavery prior to the Constitution were Massachusetts and Vermont.

99

@romanigypsyeyes :
Unfortunately, along with the social conservatives or the ones who have the lala land idea that US history is ‘perfect’
and any criticism of it is ‘wrong’, more than a fair amount of book banning is happening along leftist lines. Not so much politics, but much of it is along the lines of identity politics and removing books that ‘make someone uncomfortable’ or worse, appear to make someone uncomfortable. There was a case several years ago where a teacher ended up in hot water for using a book called “Nappy Hair”, a parent assumed it was a racist book because of the title (Nappy Hair being a negative description of the hair of those of African descent). It turned out the book was actually about self esteem, the exact opposite of what the parent assumed, the parent (who was black) assumed the teacher (who was white) was being racist, when the intent was the opposite.

Huck Finn is usually challenged by leftists upset by the language, the same with the Merchant of Venice, books that argue that nature in things like intelligence is a strong influence (as opposed to the raw slate)…On the other hand, the list of banned books that I see are overwhelmingly books banned by social conservatives, books that are positive in their portrayal of LGBT people, “The Origin of Species”, Harry Potter and the like for 'promoting Wicca or the Occult", history books critical of the founders and the course of US History (after all, God himself created the US …), etc.

Leftist or rightist, I have a problem with book banning, because what it boils down to is trying to control people’s right to think, pure and simple. Those who want to teach that the US was founded by the white race as this glorious venture of God and therefore was perfect are just as out of line as those who want to teach things that simply aren’t true to enhance their view that the US didn’t do anything right (I am talking extremes here), banning books is just creating your own little world, rather than letting people see things. It wasn’t all that long ago in terms of history that a magazine was shut down because it had an ad for a book promoting family planning , because religious figures had that kind of clout to get the postal inspectors and others to ban such things (not even going to mention what they did to the book publishers). People on the left and right may have different motives, sometimes with their hearts in the right place but their brains taking a vacation IMO, but book banning is not the way to do it.

On the other hand, I also don’t think that Huck Finn is the be all and end all (personally, I share with Mr. Twain the idea that it is a wonderful book about a boy, and anyone attempting to find a plot shall be shot lol), and I have read books that add to that perspective.

As far as what is taught in the classroom, though, that doesn’t mean “any idea” is worth in a world of equal ideas, I don’t think a book written by a holocaust denier should be allowed because “that is his belief”, any more than a book defending slavery as 'not being so bad" should be allowed, or teaching creationism as an ‘alternate theory’ to evolution, there is a point where it goes from being a viewpoint to being untrue, both the idea of slavery not being that bad or the holocaust as a lie are not viewpoints, they are downright untrue and if being taught as history, should not be allowed unless they are being used to show how people will try to defend the undefendable.

100

Thank you musicparent for clarifying the slavery issue. It is not nearly so simple as @awcntdb stated. One of the crueler things I heard about recently involved a northern state that was phasing out slavery. I think it was PA but might be wrong. If you born before after a certain date, your slavery status would end after you reached a certain age. If you were born before this date - too bad. Any new babies born would be considered free so women of childbearing age, who were born before the unlucky date, would often be sold to a different state so their new owners could claim all their future babies as well. Just horrible! And just one of many horrible instances.

When I was looking up the date for the first enslaved people arriving in Jamestown, I came upon something about the very first enslaved people sold by the British. Of course the ship captain in charge of it all was quite religious and had services on the ship twice a day. Queen Elizabeth was furious when she found out about it - until they told her how much money they made.

I really think that the awful history of slavery belongs to us all. For every northerner who opposed slavery but still put sugar in their coffee or wore cotton clothing- well they were complicit too. I’ll never forget visiting the Whitney plantation and seeing this cast iron jail that was meant to punish enslaved people. It was made in Pennsylvania.