Oklahoma Bans AP US History

[Madiganistan]

You're using the wrong interpretation of the word "worth."

If a teacher fails them, they aren't prepared. If they don't, they are.

There is no reason to punish those that don't.

They say that too many pronouns can spoil the sentence.
You literally can't prepare for a test that the teachers themselves have no knowledge of the content of.

There are other things grades include, not only tests.

You and Estva are looking at this from the perspective of the student and their purely administrative concern of acquiring transferable college credit, while I'm looking at it from the perspective of the academic concerns and limitations of the lesson planner--- two entirely different standpoints with entirely different priorities, and it's why neither of us will achieve anything worthwhile from playing this out.

[Estva]

They say that too many pronouns can spoil the sentence.
You literally can't prepare for a test that the teachers themselves have no knowledge of the content of.

Then you bomb the AP test. Your HS GPA is unaffected and you don't get college credit for it.

[Smoya]

I have to say this is outright ridiculous. I love my country but without a doubt we have done some bad things. Our citizens have a right to know those bad actions so we don't do it again.

[Greater Nevadian Empire]

This is completely absurd.

[MERIZoC]

The fuck? These assholes need to get their brains checked out. Also, this just further confirms my theory that the Republican party is a secret political branch of a paramilitary group dedicated to destroying America. Stay classy, GOP.

[Othelos]

These are the same people who denounced China's plan to introduce patriotism into Hong Kong students' curricula.

Conservative inconsistency strikes again.

[Hladgos]

America has never done anything bad, ever. Look, it even says in the book, the bible I mean!

Really. Really, this is pathetic. It doesn't have the correct amount of American exceptionalism. Bullshit. History is about presenting facts correctly so we don't forget important things, good and bad. Eliminating the bad moments is just lying. Conservatives in the government over there are being idiots.

[Aethrys]

This has me curious to learn just how radically the course has changed since I took it. I came away with a firm understanding of such topics as King Jackson's unconstitutional tyranny, as well as the series of events instigated by the wealthy slave lords of the south that brought tensions to a head in the 1860s as part of their plot to kill democracy, among other subjects. I came away with the view that the US had a very tumultuous, if comparatively brief, history which the Union persevered through despite the attempts of many to destroy it.

[The Conez Imperium]

Hmm, I would assume they have double standards to if Germans were to stop teaching the Holocaust in their nation...

[Wisconsin9]

This has me curious to learn just how radically the course has changed since I took it. I came away with a firm understanding of such topics as King Jackson's unconstitutional tyranny, as well as the series of events instigated by the wealthy slave lords of the south that brought tensions to a head in the 1860s as part of their plot to kill democracy, among other subjects. I came away with the view that the US had a very tumultuous, if comparatively brief, history which the Union persevered through despite the attempts of many to destroy it.

I heard a thing or two about Jackson. Three tops.

[Aethrys]

This has me curious to learn just how radically the course has changed since I took it. I came away with a firm understanding of such topics as King Jackson's unconstitutional tyranny, as well as the series of events instigated by the wealthy slave lords of the south that brought tensions to a head in the 1860s as part of their plot to kill democracy, among other subjects. I came away with the view that the US had a very tumultuous, if comparatively brief, history which the Union persevered through despite the attempts of many to destroy it.

I heard a thing or two about Jackson. Three tops.

In a nutshell, Jackson was mentioned for the following things:

Pros: Turned back the British at New Orleans. (At the time I was taught, the text made it out that the battle was unnecessary and only served to demonstrate American military capability. This has of course more recently been proven false, with the discovery that the Empire planned to occupy and annex as much of the Louisiana territory as possible, treaty be damned.)

Prevented secession during his presidency through swift, and decisively iron fisted action to silence calls for it over the so-called "Tariff of abominations"

Cons: Was very, very racist. Came up with the Indian removal act pursuant to this. Ignored the Supreme court's existence when they surprisingly made an honest ruling in the favor of Native Americans. Went ahead with the trail of tears anyway.

Anecdotes: Was very fond of dueling, and killed at least one person over a political dispute if memory serves.

Survived an assassination attempt when two pistols subsequently misfired, then proceeded to beat the would-be assassin with his cane.

That's all I recall, anyway.

[Forsher]

Wake up sheeple.

I don't know what moron came up with sheeple. Did they think their audience was to dense to grasp the sheep metaphor?

I would prefer if a neutral view was presented on history.

A neutral view of history would be one that is unpatriotic. A patriotic view of history is inherently carefully selective of facts to present an overall message (patriotism!) rather than how things happened (i.e. history). Perhaps apatriotic is a better term than unpatriotic because there is a suggestion of being anti there rather than pure not promoting a message of positivity.

Well-fucking-done, Oklahoma.

That's not how you spell Obama.

The House Common Education Committee voted for the bill 11-4, with all Republicans voting for the legislation and all Democrats voting against it.

Why am I not surprised?

Familiarity with unselective history?

Why are you getting a response? What is this rhetorical question of which you speak?

No one is saying that the negative side of American history shouldn't be taught. The issue is that the new AP history curriculum focuses too much on negativity, while assumingly ignoring the positive side.

Saying that a colonial process was dodgy with serious ethical issues doesn't mean that you can't acknowledge the successes of the people on the ground of that colonial processes. Acknowledging the successes without mentioning the dodgy nature of the process is unethical and is nothing more than lying.

In other words, you're kind of going to have to point out the specifics of the curriculum that is at fault.

And, hey, history can be sort of flexible. For instance, the US congress caused WWII is a supportable statement. It's not the best way of understanding things if a) you don't see the end of WWI as having been where WWII's roots lie and b) you argue that Wilson's points were neither as good as the way we learnt them to be nor as undermined by congress as, again, we learnt it.

Hi, Oklahoman (and lover of history) here. Interesting article.

Is this ridiculous? Yes.

I'd like to find out what parts if not the whole thing that they consider "unpatriotic" but whatever.

Trail
Of
Tears

Almost romantic name that. How about, "Forced Relocations of Indigenous Populations"? Or "Genocide of Native Americans?"

Yes, it's a genocide. Using the term to exclusively refer to deliberate acts of extermination of people is extremely misleading and completely irresponsible. The point of genocide is to eliminate a group and this can be done through any variety of means.

Well, yeah, those are pretty big parts of American history. The first was how we built our nation, the second how we spread it, and the third was an international embarrassment and one of few times the Soviet Union could legitimately mock us. All terrible, but crucial to our history.

Well of course, I understand that, we could teach these three and focus on the good that came out of them, and not the bad as we do in schools now.

When we talk about slavery, we talk about how badly the blacks were worked, what they were and weren't fed, how they were beaten and raped, etc. We talk about these things instead of talking about how we went from a giant forest into an industrialized paradise.

What would you rather talk about? Abuse, oppression and enslavement of Africans due to the massive depopulation of the Americas in the early colonial period (i.e. not enough Native Americans around to enslave efficiently) or the abuse, oppression and terrible working conditions of industrial workers?

Or maybe we could talk about ecological collapse? Pollution? There's lots to say.

When we talk about the seizure of land of the native americans, we talk about the tragic wars, the native americans captured and murdered, and sometimes, even the enslaved native americans. We do this instead of talking so much about how we went from just having a a few thousand square miles as the thirteen colonies, to the entire United States that we have now.

Er, that's the same thing? It's just that the former one isn't ignoring how it happened.

When we discuss the civil rights movements, we discuss how poorly the blacks were treated, the conditions that the police officers gave them, and how the Koo Klutz Klan did what they did to them. We do this instead of focusing on how minorities went from being mistreated in a nation where everyone was welcome, to gaining the same rights as whites did, something that they were striving to get for the last 300 years or so.

Again, same thing. And it's Ku Klux Klan. (I didn't notice the Klutz bit when I wrote that last bit, but that still doesn't explain Koo to me.)

[Havenburgh]

This has gotten so off topic...

[Madiganistan]

Almost romantic name that. How about, "Forced Relocations of Indigenous Populations"? Or "Genocide of Native Americans?"

Yes, it's a genocide. Using the term to exclusively refer to deliberate acts of extermination of people is extremely misleading and completely irresponsible. The point of genocide is to eliminate a group and this can be done through any variety of means.

It was extremely courteous of you to provide the definition nobody asked for.

Also, I'm proud of how enthusiastic you are to get offended on behalf of other ethnic communities, but you might do well to learn that "Trail of Tears" is less a whitewashing euphemism and more a phrase popularized by the Choctaw during the time that was eventually extrapolated to refer to the suffering of all relocated Native groups throughout the Era, both by contemporary critics and in the legacy memorialized by popular history and modern indigenous groups.

Not everything is controversial.

[Eleanor Ritas]

You can't have people that think critically and know what kind of things have happened in the past when a bunch of ignorant half human half swine hybrids had control.

You guys, we have to stop ManRepublicanPig! I'm cereal!

[Madiganistan]

You can't have people that think critically and know what kind of things have happened in the past when a bunch of ignorant half human half swine hybrids had control.

You guys, we have to stop ManRepublicanPig! I'm cereal!

Right there what you shoulda gone with was ManBearPublican.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Only Oklahoman Republican Representatives.

Bunch of dipshits.

[Wickedly evil people]

the article does a poor job of saying what the objections are to the course, pretty difficult to tell what the issue is reading that hatchet piece

[Kainesia]

A typical ailment of American conservatives is selective amnesia.

[The United Neptumousian Empire]

if we don't ban unamerican things the commies win

[Wisconsin9]

if we don't ban unamerican things the commies win

Shit, they're on to us! Cheese it!

[Shigiel]

America: land of the free. Oh, and, erm, censorship.

[New Chalcedon]

Care to list some positive things that aren't adequately covered, or negatives that are covered too much?

We don't usually go over positive ones that are adequately covered, so I'll just list off some negative ones.

-Slavery

Which is how the early US economy - even in the North - got a good head of steam to compete with European (non-slave-trading, by the 19th century) economies.

-Seizure of Indian Land/ToT

Which is how the Continental U.S. got between 30% and 40% of its landmass, depending on how you count. No, not a major factor in the USA's history at all. /sarcasm

-Civil Rights Protests

Because, of course, the Civil Rights Movement didn't shape an entire generation - half in support, and half opposed.

[Nazi Flower Power]

That is going too far. Oklahoma schools are free to put their own spin on things, but people should still have access to AP courses because it will help them prepare for college, and they may be able to save money on college tuition by getting credit for AP courses. This is putting young people at a disadvantage compared to people from other states where the AP courses are provided.

[Kainesia]

That is going too far. Oklahoma schools are free to put their own spin on things, but people should still have access to AP courses because it will help them prepare for college, and they may be able to save money on college tuition by getting credit for AP courses. This is putting young people at a disadvantage compared to people from other states where the AP courses are provided.

But... But... 'murica is awesome and never had any bad history.