Oklahoma Bans AP US History

[Jamzmania]

An Oklahoma House committee on Monday approved a bill taking aim at the new AP U.S. History framework, which conservatives have decried as unpatriotic and negative, the Tulsa World reported.

State Rep. Dan Fisher (R) introduced a bill at the beginning of the month that keeps the state from funding AP U.S. History unless the College Board changes the curriculum. The bill also orders the state Department of Education to establish a U.S. History program that would replace the AP course.

Since the College Board released a new course framework for U.S. history in October 2012, conservative backlash against the course has grown significantly. The Republican National Committee condemned the course and its "consistently negative view of American history" in August. Numerous states and school districts have now taken action to denounce the exam.

Fisher said Monday that the AP U.S. History course emphasizes "what is bad about America" and complained that the framework eliminated the concept of "American exceptionalism," according to the Tulsa World.

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

During the hearing on the bill, state lawmakers also questioned the legality of all AP courses, comparing them to Common Core, which Oklahoma has repealed. According to the Tulsa World, lawmakers were concerned that College Board courses could be seen as an effort to create a national curriculum.

Rep. Sally Kern (R) said that she asked the state attorney general to review whether AP courses violate the legislation that repealed Common Core.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/o ... us-history

So, the Republican-controlled Oklahoma legislature has voted to ban Advanced Placement for US History for being too "unpatriotic".

Frankly -- this is ridiculous. American history has some negative history: what do they expect the history books to say? "The US had a brilliant agrarian economy supported by black slaves in the South who loved to work for their masters!" No. That's ridiculous. The uncomfortable and negative parts of history need to be taught, so people can learn from past mistakes. And so they can be, well, informed. This is censorship, and essentially similar to a far-right nationalist/extremist government banning materials because it paints the country in a bad light. Also the idea that AP US History didn't promote "American exceptionalism" is extremely stupid -- if you need to stop teaching about things like slavery and killing of Native Americans, then perhaps 'American exceptionalism' isn't a worthy term. The Republican Party has continued to embarrass itself, and frankly this is just insane. This will also be a huge blow to students in Oklahoma who will be less competitive for university admissions because they lack APUSH. I've taken APUSH and I wouldn't say I became a hater of America after taking it, although I felt that I got a very comprehensive and fair depiction of American history. This is ridiculous.


So, NSG, what say ye? Was this justified?

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.

[Liberty and Linguistics]

I'd like to send a letter to the people who voted for this bill. In the letter would be detailed instructions as to how they may sodomize themselves with cacti.

[Nerotysia]

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.

I can guarantee you it doesn't. The course is exceptionally well-balanced. I should know - I just took it last year, and it was fantastic.

[Nuwe Suid Afrika]

Well, I agree that a lot of our US history classes, not just AP History, focus on the severe negatives of the United States. History class is nothing but a guilt trip for everyone, because "In the 1500's, 1600's, and 1700's, your ancestors did this, and this is why you are bad."" with just about everyone.

Although it is good that we're cancelling out the negatives and bringing more positives into the AP history classes in Oklahoma, I really, really hope that they're not going to pretended that all of the bad things in our country never happened. It's not going to be good if they cancel the bad out and act like our history was 100 percent clean.

[Nerotysia]

Well, I agree that a lot of our US history classes, not just AP History, focus on the severe negatives of the United States. History class is nothing but a guilt trip for everyone, because "In the 1500's, 1600's, and 1700's, your ancestors did this, and this is why you are bad."" with just about everyone.

Although it is good that we're cancelling out the negatives and bringing more positives into the AP history classes in Oklahoma, I really, really hope that they're not going to pretended that all of the bad things in our country never happened. It's not going to be good if they cancel the bad out and act like our history was 100 percent clean.

Really? I've not seen that at all. Never in my life has a teacher said "this is why you are bad," they've merely pointed out the awful things done by our ancestors.

[Nuwe Suid Afrika]

Really? I've not seen that at all. Never in my life has a teacher said "this is why you are bad," they've merely pointed out the awful things done by our ancestors.

I was kidding about teachers bluntly saying we were bad. It's generally the point they get across when they exaggerate the horrible events in history all day, proceed to not make a single statement about the good that came out of the bad, and it tends to make everyone feel bad and not enjoy their history class.

[Nerotysia]

Really? I've not seen that at all. Never in my life has a teacher said "this is why you are bad," they've merely pointed out the awful things done by our ancestors.

I was kidding about teachers bluntly saying we were bad. It's generally the point they get across when they exaggerate the horrible events in history all day, proceed to not make a single statement about the good that came out of the bad, and it tends to make everyone feel bad and not enjoy their history class.

I mean, there was a lot of evil in history. Life up until the modern age was kind of terrible, and atrocities were committed almost as a matter of course. Would you prefer they skip over it all? There's a lot to cover, and it's kind of hard to exaggerate.

[Arana]

Really? I've not seen that at all. Never in my life has a teacher said "this is why you are bad," they've merely pointed out the awful things done by our ancestors.

I was kidding about teachers bluntly saying we were bad. It's generally the point they get across when they exaggerate the horrible events in history all day, proceed to not make a single statement about the good that came out of the bad, and it tends to make everyone feel bad and not enjoy their history class.

Please. History classes barely scratch the surface of all the shit we've done to other countries and to our own country.

[Nuwe Suid Afrika]

I mean, there was a lot of evil in history. Life up until the modern age was kind of terrible, and atrocities were committed almost as a matter of course. Would you prefer they skip over it all? There's a lot to cover, and it's kind of hard to exaggerate.

There was also a lot of good in history. I wouldn't want the bad in history to be completely cancelled out, no, I'm completely against that. I think we just need to focus on the good things that come out of our history more than the bad things.

[Arana]

I mean, there was a lot of evil in history. Life up until the modern age was kind of terrible, and atrocities were committed almost as a matter of course. Would you prefer they skip over it all? There's a lot to cover, and it's kind of hard to exaggerate.

There was also a lot of good in history. I wouldn't want the bad in history to be completely cancelled out, no, I'm completely against that. I think we just need to focus on the good things that come out of our history more than the bad things.

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

[Eastern Equestria]

Really? I've not seen that at all. Never in my life has a teacher said "this is why you are bad," they've merely pointed out the awful things done by our ancestors.

I was kidding about teachers bluntly saying we were bad. It's generally the point they get across when they exaggerate the horrible events in history all day, proceed to not make a single statement about the good that came out of the bad, and it tends to make everyone feel bad and not enjoy their history class.

I've actually taken the course in question, and I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm not some edgy anti-American either.

[Czechostan]

I mean, there was a lot of evil in history. Life up until the modern age was kind of terrible, and atrocities were committed almost as a matter of course. Would you prefer they skip over it all? There's a lot to cover, and it's kind of hard to exaggerate.

There was also a lot of good in history. I wouldn't want the bad in history to be completely cancelled out, no, I'm completely against that. I think we just need to focus on the good things that come out of our history more than the bad things.

We need to focus on both in a balanced matter so that we can be optimistic of the future but remember our errors of the past.

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

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

[Nerotysia]

There was also a lot of good in history. I wouldn't want the bad in history to be completely cancelled out, no, I'm completely against that. I think we just need to focus on the good things that come out of our history more than the bad things.

Why? To make us feel good? If anything we should focus on the bad more so we don't make the same mistakes.

Please. History classes barely scratch the surface of all the shit we've done to other countries and to our own country.

It gives a fairly good general overview. Obviously it can't cover every detail.

[Liberty and Linguistics]

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

Holy fuck, seriously? How is unpatriotic to admit that we commited a genocide? That'd be like a German landstag signing in a law that would prevent schools from teaching about WW2 crimes.

[Nuwe Suid Afrika]

There was also a lot of good in history. I wouldn't want the bad in history to be completely cancelled out, no, I'm completely against that. I think we just need to focus on the good things that come out of our history more than the bad things.

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
-Seizure of Indian Land/ToT
-Civil Rights Protests

[Arana]

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
-Seizure of Indian Land/ToT
-Civil Rights Protests

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.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

The anti-intellectual movement in this nation is gaining steam. Not only are they anti-critical thinking, they're anti-factual information if said information does not comply with a specific nationalistic narrative. The danger that this poses to future generations cannot be overstated.

Patriotism based upon half-truths and lies is not solid patriotism any more than love based upon the impression that you get on a first date is real and lasting love. Real patriotism involves facing uncomfortable truths, acknowledging them, and still seeing that which is good and noble within a nation. Real patriotism involves seeing what needs fixing, and working to fix it. Real patriotism is hard. It involves work. A lazy and superficial course that only serves to whitewash history will only create lazy and superficial "patriots" with no real knowledge of the nation they claim to love.

[The United Colonies of Earth]

Well, I agree that a lot of our US history classes, not just AP History, focus on the severe negatives of the United States. History class is nothing but a guilt trip for everyone, because "In the 1500's, 1600's, and 1700's, your ancestors did this, and this is why you are bad."" with just about everyone.

Although it is good that we're cancelling out the negatives and bringing more positives into the AP history classes in Oklahoma, I really, really hope that they're not going to pretended that all of the bad things in our country never happened. It's not going to be good if they cancel the bad out and act like our history was 100 percent clean.

My history class was mostly about American industry and who did what and what happened where. And some stuff about TR (Teddy Roosevelt). We also discussed the Civil War a little, but my teacher never condemned the US.

The anti-intellectual movement in this nation is gaining steam. Not only are they anti-critical thinking, they're anti-factual information if said information does not comply with a specific nationalistic narrative. The danger that this poses to future generations cannot be overstated.

Patriotism based upon half-truths and lies is not solid patriotism any more than love based upon the impression that you get on a first date is real and lasting love. Real patriotism involves facing uncomfortable truths, acknowledging them, and still seeing that which is good and noble within a nation. Real patriotism involves seeing what needs fixing, and working to fix it. Real patriotism is hard. It involves work. A lazy and superficial course that only serves to whitewash history will only create lazy and superficial "patriots" with no real knowledge of the nation they claim to love.

You are a model for all nationalists to emulate.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Well, I agree that a lot of our US history classes, not just AP History, focus on the severe negatives of the United States. History class is nothing but a guilt trip for everyone, because "In the 1500's, 1600's, and 1700's, your ancestors did this, and this is why you are bad."" with just about everyone.

Although it is good that we're cancelling out the negatives and bringing more positives into the AP history classes in Oklahoma, I really, really hope that they're not going to pretended that all of the bad things in our country never happened. It's not going to be good if they cancel the bad out and act like our history was 100 percent clean.

My history class was mostly about American industry and who did what and what happened where. And some stuff about TR (Teddy Roosevelt). We also discussed the Civil War a little, but my teacher never condemned the US.

The anti-intellectual movement in this nation is gaining steam. Not only are they anti-critical thinking, they're anti-factual information if said information does not comply with a specific nationalistic narrative. The danger that this poses to future generations cannot be overstated.

Patriotism based upon half-truths and lies is not solid patriotism any more than love based upon the impression that you get on a first date is real and lasting love. Real patriotism involves facing uncomfortable truths, acknowledging them, and still seeing that which is good and noble within a nation. Real patriotism involves seeing what needs fixing, and working to fix it. Real patriotism is hard. It involves work. A lazy and superficial course that only serves to whitewash history will only create lazy and superficial "patriots" with no real knowledge of the nation they claim to love.

You are a model for all nationalists to emulate.

I'm not even sure that I'd describe myself as a nationalist. I'm certainly a patriot. I just try to make sure that I don't mistake jingoism for the real thing.

[To Quoc Duc]

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.

I can guarantee you it doesn't. The course is exceptionally well-balanced. I should know - I just took it last year, and it was fantastic.

I took it about eight years ago when I was in highschool and I loved it too. I consider myself a very patriotic American, I love my country and it's history both good and bad, and felt it was fair, balanced, and unbiased. I never encountered a situation where I felt I was being indoctrinated to be ashamed of my nation. If that were the case, I would have sympathy with the Oklahoma board of education. That said, this *was* eight years ago, a lot could've changed.

I'm in Florida, and the new education benchmark is that all history courses, world, European, and American, must contain a significant section on Islam's influence, a fact I find rather odd. Hell, in my younger step-brother's American history textbook, the first chapter is: 'Islamic Civilization and the Impact on the Early American Republic'...as someone who is highly educated, with advanced degrees in history, I was perplexed, since beyond the Barbary Wars we had only limited interaction with the Islamic world at that point!

[Nerotysia]

I took it about eight years ago when I was in highschool and I loved it too. I consider myself a very patriotic American, I love my country and it's history both good and bad, and felt it was fair, balanced, and unbiased. I never encountered a situation where I felt I was being indoctrinated to be ashamed of my nation. If that were the case, I would have sympathy with the Oklahoma board of education. That said, this *was* eight years ago, a lot could've changed.

I'm in Florida, and the new education benchmark is that all history courses, world, European, and American, must contain a significant section on Islam's influence, a fact I find rather odd. Hell, in my younger step-brother's American history textbook, the first chapter is: 'Islamic Civilization and the Impact on the Early American Republic'...as someone who is highly educated, with advanced degrees in history, I was perplexed, since beyond the Barbary Wars we had only limited interaction with the Islamic world at that point!

Nothing has changed, Oklahoma's just being dumb.

As for the Islam thing, I think it's an attempt to begin to educate people about Islam, since it's becoming increasingly relevant in world affairs and most Americans are utterly ignorant when it comes to Muslim history. So, the goal is probably admirable. But I will agree that section is odd and probably misplaced - America was not really influenced by Islam all that much.

[Wisconsin9]

Well, I agree that a lot of our US history classes, not just AP History, focus on the severe negatives of the United States. History class is nothing but a guilt trip for everyone, because "In the 1500's, 1600's, and 1700's, your ancestors did this, and this is why you are bad."" with just about everyone.

Although it is good that we're cancelling out the negatives and bringing more positives into the AP history classes in Oklahoma, I really, really hope that they're not going to pretended that all of the bad things in our country never happened. It's not going to be good if they cancel the bad out and act like our history was 100 percent clean.

My history class was mostly about American industry and who did what and what happened where. And some stuff about TR (Teddy Roosevelt). We also discussed the Civil War a little, but my teacher never condemned the US.

The anti-intellectual movement in this nation is gaining steam. Not only are they anti-critical thinking, they're anti-factual information if said information does not comply with a specific nationalistic narrative. The danger that this poses to future generations cannot be overstated.

Patriotism based upon half-truths and lies is not solid patriotism any more than love based upon the impression that you get on a first date is real and lasting love. Real patriotism involves facing uncomfortable truths, acknowledging them, and still seeing that which is good and noble within a nation. Real patriotism involves seeing what needs fixing, and working to fix it. Real patriotism is hard. It involves work. A lazy and superficial course that only serves to whitewash history will only create lazy and superficial "patriots" with no real knowledge of the nation they claim to love.

You are a model for all nationalists to emulate.

Really? That seems more like patriotism to me. I think of nationalism more as the, "We are so great that this horrible thing doesn't actually make us any noticeably less great" style thing.

[Sebastianbourg]

Absolutely brilliant if you ask me.

[The Carlisle]

Admitting we performed genocide against the native americans is UnAmurikan!