Oklahoma Bans AP US History

[Forsher]

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.

Yes, that is correct. It is not, however, correct to read (enthusiastic) offence into that paragraph (at least, for the reason you assume). The point I am trying to make is that "Trail of Tears" is "almost romantic". It's a phrase that unambiguously exists to be emotionally evocative and for this reason, the nature of what is happening gets lost in the metaphor. This, I feel, is not desirable. For all this, however, following Wikipedia's cite note, your assessment of the term's origins is incorrect in that it was not popularised by the Choctaw. Rather a Choctwa chief's "trail of tears and death" was something journalists considered to be pithy or what have you and ran with in the form of "trail of tears". Quite a different phrase with the "and death" on, don't you think?

As to the definition? It's commonly misunderstood. Sometimes it is useful to explain things and/or justify one's points without being prompted. In theory, people will remember this before jumping at such standard practice. For reference, you can read indignation into this quite happily.

[Madiganistan]

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.

Really? Oh, wait. No...

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

I actually agree on you with this one; the history of the Native American is a glossed over travesty that deserves the emphasis it's given, if not more. But you've chosen a really cherrypicked way of looking at things-- the Cession Territory for example being one of the U.S.'s largest acquisitions of land (if not the largest-- to be honest I don't know if it's bigger than the land Jeffy bought from Nappy, and I'm too drunk to care about looking it up) is often cited as a terrible act of imperialism and a crime against humanity and La Raza and Reconquista and this and that... but Mexican irredentists in the United States forget the fact that the entire population of Mexican citizens in the Cession Territory at the time of annexation was about 30,000, the United States actually *paid* for land it won in a war (yeah, it was a pittance, but still very unusual), Mexican citizens were immediately granted the rights and privileges of U.S. citizenship if they chose to stay, and that the descendants of settlers of the Cession Territory make up less than one half of a percent of all Hispanic Estadounidenses today.

Land isn't everything innit

Because, of course, the Civil Rights Movement didn't shape an entire generation

Dawg, you forgot your "/sarcasm" tag.

[Madiganistan]

a Choctwa chief's "trail of tears and death" was something journalists considered to be pithy or what have you and ran with in the form of "trail of tears". Quite a different phrase with the "and death" on, don't you think?

Yeah, kinda kills the whole effect of the alliteration. Weird how they'd choose to go with that being writers and all.

If it was something anyone besides you found controversial, we'd know. How terrible these people are for using such an insensitive term!

Oops. I mistakenly provided an example of what an offensive use of the phrase would actually look like. You're getting your knickers in a wad over a universally acknowledged and used colloquialism for a historical event-- even within many of those Native organization sources, "Trail of Tears" and "Indian Removal" are used interchangeably, free of critique or commentary.

For reference, you can read indignation into this quite happily.

I've always found the extra bit of salt you sprinkle on your posts when you really, really quite sincerely think you're right to be quite adorable.

[New DeCapito]

History is written by the victors. This is a good example of this.

[Forsher]

a Choctwa chief's "trail of tears and death" was something journalists considered to be pithy or what have you and ran with in the form of "trail of tears". Quite a different phrase with the "and death" on, don't you think?

Yeah, kinda kills the whole effect of the alliteration. Weird how they'd choose to go with that being writers and all.

Hence "pithy or what have you". I mean, really? Don't tell me what my post already tells you.

If it was something anyone besides you found controversial, we'd know. How terrible these people are for using such an insensitive term!

And again... not my point. Wanna understand my post? Jeepers, you're making me post like you.

Oops. I mistakenly provided an example of what an offensive use of the phrase would actually look like. You're getting your knickers in a wad over a universally acknowledged and used colloquialism for a historical event-- even within many of those Native organization sources, "Trail of Tears" and "Indian Removal" are used interchangeably, free of critique or commentary.

How nice. Again, not my point. If you want to say something about my point, rather than what you imagine it to be, please consider including the entirety of my post.

Perhaps, I am arguing, that when you live in a country where this thread can exist, it's not a good idea to use a neat phrase rather than an out and out term in history lessons. Like for instance, what I wrote here:

Yes, that is correct. It is not, however, correct to read (enthusiastic) offence into that paragraph (at least, for the reason you assume). The point I am trying to make is that "Trail of Tears" is "almost romantic". It's a phrase that unambiguously exists to be emotionally evocative and for this reason, the nature of what is happening gets lost in the metaphor. This, I feel, is not desirable.

I am surprised that Indian Removal is used "free of critique or commentary".

For reference, you can read indignation into this quite happily.

I've always found the extra bit of salt you sprinkle on your posts when you really, really quite sincerely think you're right to be quite adorable.

I'm sorry, who are you? That is to say, who were you? Where I say "post like you" I refer entirely to this bit. Looking at your sig, you seem to have a greater familiarity with me than your timeline would suggest... Haha, I'm getting paranoid in my, er, unold age...

[Bunkeranlage]

Sounds a lot like Japan omitting the Rape of Nanjing from their textbooks, does it not?

[Madiganistan]

Perhaps, I am arguing, that when you live in a country where this thread can exist, it's not a good idea to use a neat phrase rather than an out and out term in history lessons. Like for instance, what I wrote here:

Yes, that is correct. It is not, however, correct to read (enthusiastic) offence into that paragraph (at least, for the reason you assume). The point I am trying to make is that "Trail of Tears" is "almost romantic". It's a phrase that unambiguously exists to be emotionally evocative and for this reason, the nature of what is happening gets lost in the metaphor. This, I feel, is not desirable.

"Trail of Tears" is what it's known as to its contemporaries and to history. It evokes an immediate understanding of the tragedy involved and has (AGAIN) entered the American cultural lexicon. The sections of history classes that focus on the "Trail of Tears" aren't peppered with romantic language and a lofty narrative that dehumanizes the event-- everyone knows. Especially if you're from Oklahoma, the state whose very existence is the final dump Congress took on the Natives whom wanted to assimilate into the country Jackson and his ideological ilk refused to let them be a part of.

I know there's no way for you to understand this at anything more than face value, since du kommst aus neuseeland and all, but just trust that I have a bit of anecdotal experience on how this chapter is taught and re-taught in American history courses throughout a student's academic career.

I am surprised that Indian Removal is used "free of critique or commentary".

Again, super proud of you for being so willing to sign on to the cause of people of color, but you'd do well to know that it's described as such because of the titular "Indian Removal Act" that initiated the relocation of the Civilized Tribes-- the fact that the fate of those whom resisted was only one-upped in absolute horror and suffering by the fate of those who tried to cooperate makes the phrase "Indian Removal" almost grotesquely ironic-- "removal" is something we do to pests, not people.

You're getting really highfalutin about the semantics of an issue you know literally nothing about.

I'm sorry, who are you? That is to say, who were you? Where I say "post like you" I refer entirely to this bit. Looking at your sig, you seem to have a greater familiarity with me than your timeline would suggest... Haha, I'm getting paranoid in my, er, unold age...

You wouldn't remember me as my presence here has been sporadic and none of my old accounts ever hit more than like 300 posts. We've gotten into a bit of tit-for-tat before, and you've always given off the impression that you think you're very wise for your age.

[Forsher]

The problem is, it gets imposed at a state level. Which doesn't fuck over the students in other states but does in whatever backwater state that the Republicans happen to control.

Sure, but in the meantime, Rhode Island is immune from the pernicious influence of the anti-intellectuals in Oklahoma.

So, abandon the poor sods in Oklahoma?

I actually recall my own experience in the AP program revolving around my teacher's educated guesses on what the test's emphasis might be based on trends in the exam's content of the past decade or so-- if Common Core hinders the teacher's ability to exercise individual judgement in determining lesson plans and connecting with students in a constructive way, then Advanced Placement is downright sabotage.

In my experience, the better exams are those that you can't turn up for and know what you'll be writing for specifically. Take, for instance, Scholarship history. You're given a vague topic (for my cohort it was "the importance of different historians' opinions") and you're only going to find out what you're writing about when you turn up. For a better example, NZQA makes the people who write the questions for NCEA exams (at least with English) come up with less predictable ones to avoid the problem of memorised essays (which, obviously, defeat the point of an exam).

That said, there should be some way of narrowing things down so that one doesn't have to review an entire year's worth or work. For instance, having thematic questions. In this way the candidate can choose their theme and study topics relevant to that... without knowing anything about what the question will specifically ask for.

In other words, it sounds more like there's a bit too much, shall we say, looseness at play here. The idea is right but the implementation is wrong.

Although, of course, I would disagree with the idea that the exam is testing knowledge of some chronological span. I am, after all, used to a system where the same question, testing the same things will generate answers from more than a dozen different topics as unrelated as the Waikato War and the French Revolution.

Perhaps, I am arguing, that when you live in a country where this thread can exist, it's not a good idea to use a neat phrase rather than an out and out term in history lessons. Like for instance, what I wrote here:

"Trail of Tears" is what it's known as to its contemporaries and to history. It evokes an immediate understanding of the tragedy involved

Obviously, I disagree.

and has (AGAIN) entered the American cultural lexicon.

.
Not necessarily a good thing.

The sections of history classes that focus on the "Trail of Tears" aren't peppered with romantic language and a lofty narrative that dehumanizes the event-- everyone knows. Especially if you're from Oklahoma, the state whose very existence is the final dump Congress took on the Natives whom wanted to assimilate into the country Jackson and his ideological ilk refused to let them be a part of.

That's excellent to hear.

I know there's no way for you to understand this at anything more than face value, since du kommst aus neuseeland and all, but just trust that I have a bit of anecdotal experience on how this chapter is taught and re-taught in American history courses throughout a student's academic career.

I have no problems trusting people. I do have problems resurrecting my memory of German. However, I am fairly certain that should be Neuseeland.

I am surprised that Indian Removal is used "free of critique or commentary".

Again, super proud of you for being so willing to sign on to the cause of people of color, but you'd do well to know that it's described as such because of the titular "Indian Removal Act" that initiated the relocation of the Civilized Tribes-- the fact that the fate of those whom resisted was only one-upped in absolute horror and suffering by the fate of those who tried to cooperate makes the phrase "Indian Removal" almost grotesquely ironic-- "removal" is something we do to pests, not people.

I am not convinced by your repeated argument that it is appropriate to continue using terminology from the past in the present under the justification of "It's what they used then". If you're referencing the Act in its fullness that is fine. However, that is very different. Your argument is to suggest the ongoing relevance of "the Native" or "Kingite and Queenite". This is not true.

You're getting really highfalutin about the semantics of an issue you know literally nothing about.

In the case of the Act, that would be correct. I am indeed entirely unfamiliar with it. Which is in contrast to Trail of Tears in my initial post.

While I cannot speak of the use of Indian to describe native Americans in the US, it is not the term used here. Hence my surprise. There is no, as you are so keen to see, taking offence for others.

I'm sorry, who are you? That is to say, who were you? Where I say "post like you" I refer entirely to this bit. Looking at your sig, you seem to have a greater familiarity with me than your timeline would suggest... Haha, I'm getting paranoid in my, er, unold age...

You wouldn't remember me as my presence here has been sporadic and none of my old accounts ever hit more than like 300 posts. We've gotten into a bit of tit-for-tat before, and you've always given off the impression that you think you're very wise for your age.

Try me. I have an excellent memory for the trivial. Just don't ask me to remember anything important. Failing that, thereis always the search function.

And I am exceedingly wise. Not very. Do try and remember that.

[The Confederacy of Nationalism]

Unpatriotic and negative?

The purpose of history is to tell the truth, regardless of what it is.

The victor's truth

[Bunkeranlage]

Unpatriotic and negative?

The purpose of history is to tell the truth, regardless of what it is.

The victor's truth

But even if America was the victor of numerous conflicts, does it mean that their covering up of the truth is justifiable?

To quote Bertrand Russell:

"When you are studying any matter or considering any philosophy, ask yourself only what are the facts and what is the truth that the facts bear out. Never let yourself be diverted either by what you wish to believe or by what you think would have beneficent social effects if it were believed, but look only and solely at what are the facts."

[Costa Fierro]

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

Conservative inconsistency strikes again.

No. It's just ordinary hypocrisy. "Patriotism" and "American exceptionalism" is basically the same as whatever the Chinese had planned for the people the Hong Kong.

Besides, being a patriot is about recognizing the problems your country has and saying "hey, this isn't working, we should fix this so we can become great again".

[Chestaan]

The only think that's unpatriotic is lying about what your country did in order to make it look better. If you love your country so much you should at least want a true history of it to be told, warts and all.

[The Confederacy of Nationalism]

The victor's truth

But even if America was the victor of numerous conflicts, does it mean that their covering up of the truth is justifiable?

To quote Bertrand Russell:

"When you are studying any matter or considering any philosophy, ask yourself only what are the facts and what is the truth that the facts bear out. Never let yourself be diverted either by what you wish to believe or by what you think would have beneficent social effects if it were believed, but look only and solely at what are the facts."

No, it is not justifiable, but that isn't going to stop them, Oklahoma has the right to ban whatever course it pleases.

[Bunkeranlage]

No, it is not justifiable, but that isn't going to stop them, Oklahoma has the right to ban whatever course it pleases.

Fair enough, I respect the state's decision. It's to their own [long term] detriment, however.

[Costa Fierro]

No, it is not justifiable, but that isn't going to stop them, Oklahoma has the right to ban whatever course it pleases.

Right to do =/= right thing to do.

[The Confederacy of Nationalism]

The only think that's unpatriotic is lying about what your country did in order to make it look better. If you love your country so much you should at least want a true history of it to be told, warts and all.

Aye, you can't fix a problem without first knowing what the problem is.

[AiliailiA]

Firstly my opinion: the bill is stupid. If it passes and is signed by the Governor it would defund the AP US History course in the next school year (it would take effect July 1 this year).

The stated intention of the bill is to replace the AP course with a course designed and tested differently (Oklahomanly?) and it directs the state board thus. Three million dollars and change would be spent for that purpose. It specifically states that a curriculum for US History would be acceptable if it was the 2013-2014 curriculum recycled ... but with the reading list and a test designed in-state.

I'm quoting the bill later in this post. Check out the reading list.

Colleges in any other state probably won't recognize OK's "alternative AP course" and test results, at least at first, so students who take them in the future risk not getting credits.

The sensible way to opt the state out of AP courses (for US history, or any other subject) would be to develop an alternative, offer it alongside AP courses for a few years ... then IF, and ONLY IF, the alternative state qualification becomes widely accepted by colleges the way AP results are, THEN eliminate the AP course.

I don't think even that is a good idea for Oklahoma. Perhaps a substantial state like Texas could develop its own system of AP-like courses and testing, and by the number of HS graduates they have, have their state standard quickly accepted by colleges and state universities elsewhere. But Oklahoma? They would have to spend a lot (on the scale of their small state education budget) to develop a sufficient standard for relative few students. Even if they did spend that and meet or exceeded the AP standards it's still quite likely that students in the future who took an "Oklahoma advanced placement" course would find it doesn't get them credits at their college of choice.

One more comment on the bill, before I finish. It is drafted as an "emergency" bill, because Oklahoma law requires that new legislation not take effect until 90 days after adjournment of the Legislature (and yes, that is retarded). Emergency bills however can go into effect as soon as they are signed by the Governor (if they are signed, and an emergency bill also requires 2/3 vote in both chambers). According to Rep. Fisher, the cessation of APUSH anti-American propaganda in schools is "immediately necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health and safety" and should go into effect on July 1 2015. NS does not have an emoticon for how I feel about that.

Here is the bill:

1st Session of the 55th Legislature (2015)

HOUSE BILL 1380 By: Fisher


AS INTRODUCED

<StartFT>An Act relating to schools; directing the State Board of Education to adopt a certain United States History program and assessment; requiring United States History courses to include the study of certain documents; listing the documents; amending 70 O.S. 2011, Section 1210.703, which relates to financial incentives awarded to schools under the Oklahoma Advanced Placement Incentive Program; prohibiting the awarding of grants or expenditure of money for any Advanced Placement United States History course until certain conditions are met; providing for codification; providing an effective date; and declaring an emergency.<EndFT>





BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA:
SECTION 1. NEW LAW A new section of law to be codified in the Oklahoma Statutes as Section 11-103.12 of Title 70, unless there is created a duplication in numbering, reads as follows:
A. By the 2015-2016 school year, the State Board of Education shall identify and adopt a United States History program and corresponding test which school districts shall offer in lieu of the Advanced Placement United States History course and test. The program and test shall not contradict or conflict with the subject matter standards for United States History adopted by the Board.
B. Any United States History course offered in schools in the state, including Honors and Advanced Placement courses shall include as part of the primary instruction the appropriate grade-level study of the following foundational and historical documents:
1. Organic documents from the pre-Colonial, Colonial, Revolutionary, Federalist and post-Federalist eras of the United States;
2. The major principles in the Federalist Papers;
3. The writings, speeches, documents and proclamations of the Founders and Presidents of the United States;
4. Founding documents of the United States that contributed to the foundation or maintenance of the representative form of limited government, the free-market economic system and American exceptionalism;
5. Objects of historical significance that have formed and influenced the United States legal or governmental system and that exemplify the development of the rule of law including, but not limited to, the Magna Carta, the Mecklenburg Declaration, the Ten Commandments and the Justinian Code;
6. United States Supreme Court decisions;
7. Acts of the United States Congress, including the published text of the Congressional Record;
8. United States treaties;
9. Other documents, writings, speeches, proclamations and recordings related to the history, heritage and foundation of the United States, including but not limited to:
a. the Declaration of Independence,
b. the United States Constitution and its amendments,
c. the Mayflower Compact,
d. the Bill of Rights,
e. the Articles of Confederation,
f. the Virginia Plan,
g. the Northwest Ordinance,
h. the national motto,
i. the national anthem,
j. the sermon known as "A Model of Christian Charity" by John Winthrop,
k. the sermon known as "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" by Jonathan Edwards,
l. the Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death speech made by Patrick Henry,
m. the letter known as "Remember the Ladies" by Abigail Adams,
n. the writing titled "Common Sense, Section III: Thoughts on the Present State of American Affairs" by Thomas Paine,
o. the essay "Federalist No. 10" by James Madison,
p. the Farewell Address made by George Washington,
q. the Monroe Doctrine statement made by James Monroe,
r. the complete overview of the book titled "Democracy in America" by Alexis de Tocqueville,
s. the document known as the "Declaration of Sentiments" by Elizabeth Cady Stanton,
t. the Independence Day speech made by Frederick Douglass at Rochester, New York,
u. the House Divided speech made by Abraham Lincoln,
v. the Gettysburg Address made by Abraham Lincoln,
w. the Second Inaugural address made by Abraham Lincoln,
x. the surrender speech made by Chief Joseph,
y. the poem titled "The New Colossus" by Emma Lazarus,
z. the article titled "The Gospel of Wealth" by Andrew Carnegie,
aa. the essay titled "The Significance of the Frontier in American History" by Frederick Jackson Turner,
bb. the Atlanta Compromise speech made by Booker T. Washington,
cc. the Cross of Gold speech made by William Jennings Bryan,
dd. the Roosevelt Corollary made by Theodore Roosevelt,
ee. the New Nationalism speech made by Theodore Roosevelt,
ff. the Peace Without Victory speech made by Woodrow Wilson,
gg. the First Inaugural address made by Franklin D. Roosevelt,
hh. portions of the book titled "The Grapes of Wrath" written by John Steinbeck,
ii. the Four Freedoms speech made by Franklin D. Roosevelt,
jj. the Day of Infamy speech made by Franklin D. Roosevelt,
kk. the article titled "The Sources of Soviet Conduct" by George Kennan,
ll. the address that became known as the Truman Doctrine made by Harry S. Truman,
mm. the Address on Little Rock, Arkansas made by Dwight Eisenhower,
nn. the Farewell Address made by Dwight Eisenhower,
oo. the Inaugural address made by John F. Kennedy,
pp. the Decision to Go to the Moon speech made by John F. Kennedy,
qq. the letter known as the "Letter from Birmingham Jail" written by Martin Luther King, Jr.,
rr. the I Have a Dream speech made by Martin Luther King, Jr.,
ss. the Ballot or the Bullet speech made by Malcolm X,
tt. the Great Society speech made by Lyndon B. Johnson,
uu. the American Promise speech made by Lyndon B. Johnson,
vv. the First Inaugural address made by Ronald Reagan,
ww. the 40th Anniversary of D-Day speech made by Ronald Reagan,
xx. the Remarks at the Brandenburg Gate speech made by Ronald Reagan, and
yy. the Address to the Nation speech made by George W. Bush on September 11, 2001.
SECTION 2. AMENDATORY 70 O.S. 2011, Section 1210.703, is amended to read as follows:
Section 1210.703 A. Contingent upon the provision of appropriated funds designated for the Oklahoma Advanced Placement Incentive Program, the State Board of Education is hereby authorized to award schools:
1. A one-time equipment and/or instructional materials grant for the purpose of providing an advanced placement course, based on criteria established by the Department. Schools which receive the grants shall:
a. offer the advanced placement courses beginning the school year following receipt of the grant,
b. provide the College Board training within one (1) year of the grant award, including at least a one-week summer institute. Teachers shall be encouraged to attend annual follow-up training, and
c. make available advanced placement examinations to all students taking the course for which a grant has been awarded;
2. Additional grants to school sites demonstrating successful implementation, as defined by the State Board of Education, of the courses for which the first grants were awarded. Schools may qualify for additional grants a minimum of four (4) years after receiving a grant award;
3. Subsidized training for advanced placement courses, preadvanced placement courses, or International Baccalaureate courses in a form, manner and time prescribed by the Department;
4. One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) for each score of three or better on an advanced placement test or four or better on an International Baccalaureate examination; provided, these funds shall be used for the purpose of Advanced Placement Program development;
5. For those students who demonstrate financial need as defined by the College Board or the International Baccalaureate Organization, a share of the advanced placement or International Baccalaureate test fee;
6. For those students who take more than one advanced placement or International Baccalaureate test in one (1) year, a share of the advanced placement test or International Baccalaureate fee in a manner prescribed by the Board; and
7. Grants for the purpose of developing an advanced placement vertical team based on criteria established by the Board.
B. Upon completion of the test, the State Department of Education shall obtain from the College Board and the International Baccalaureate Organization a list of students in Oklahoma who scored a three or higher on the advanced placement test or a four or higher on the International Baccalaureate test. Financial incentives for schools provided in this section shall be awarded at the beginning of the next school year following the school year in which the test was taken.
C. Any new expenditure authorized pursuant to Section 1210.701 et seq. of this title shall be contingent upon the availability of funds.
D. Beginning with the 2015-2016 school year, the Board shall not award any grants to school districts or make any expenditure of state funds as authorized pursuant to this section for equipment, instructional materials, course development, professional development or training, examination awards or examination scholarships for the Advanced Placement United States History course until the College Board changes the framework for the course and reverts back to the course framework and examination that were used prior to the 2014-2015 school year.
SECTION 3. This act shall become effective July 1, 2015.
SECTION 4. It being immediately necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health and safety, an emergency is hereby declared to exist, by reason whereof this act shall take effect and be in full force from and after its passage and approval.

55-1-6139 KB 01/19/15

HB 1380 in .doc format

[The Huskar Social Union]

Unpatriotic and negative?

The purpose of history is to tell the truth, regardless of what it is.

This.

Fuck your overzealous patriotism, History should be taught for the way it was, not clouded over to make your nation look better, the negative has to be covered just as much as the positive.

As a big history fan this is particularly annoying for me.

[Benuty]

There is nothing patriotic about history, besides teaching civic mythology is not in the best interests of the education system.

[AiliailiA]

History is not just "the way it was". It is continually being revised and rediscovered. Primary sources are found, or sources previously believed are proven to be fake, or previously discredited sources are found to be authentic. And of course, new techniques in the examination of relics overturn some beliefs too.

For one example, it is very likely but not certain that Japan did declare war on the US before attacking Pearl Harbor. Numerous Japanese and one US source (primary sources, government records) suggest this.

A US history course with FDR's "day of infamy" speech as a primary source would certainly lead students to conclude that Japan attacked the US without warning (ie, without a declaration of war). And maybe Japan did, but there is enough doubt that it should be mentioned in an advanced history course.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

My problem with the bill is that it botches historical survey to a very condensed set of knock-knock statements.

That's not only stupid, it's fucking retarded.

[Madiganistan]

History is not just "the way it was". It is continually being revised and rediscovered. Primary sources are found, or sources previously believed are proven to be fake, or previously discredited sources are found to be authentic. And of course, new techniques in the examination of relics overturn some beliefs too.

For one example, it is very likely but not certain that Japan did declare war on the US before attacking Pearl Harbor. Numerous Japanese and one US source (primary sources, government records) suggest this.

A US history course with FDR's "day of infamy" speech as a primary source would certainly lead students to conclude that Japan attacked the US without warning (ie, without a declaration of war). And maybe Japan did, but there is enough doubt that it should be mentioned in an advanced history course.

Numerous DPRK government sources suggest that Kim Jong-il was born at Mount Paekdu, where a double rainbow hailed His coming.
wow really maeks u think...

I'd be incredibly interested to read your sources to this. It's pretty universally understood that the attack was *supposed* to be clandestine, that was the whole point of a preventative strike against a fleet that could be battle-ready even in a matter of hours. I've heard before that Yamamoto was pretty insistent on not attacking until a declaration of war had been delivered, but this seems to contradict an investigation by the son of a Japanese counselor to the U.S. whom grew up to become a historian, which reveals that the military was quite hard at work to ensure that the attack remained a secret, and for good strategic reasons.

This sounds more like an issue of concern for Japanese history than for American-- what defined the American narrative is the speech and the way it reflected a swiftly developed fervor that not only propelled the United States as a major power-broker in the war, but manifested itself in conscious individual Nipponophobia, particularly in Hawaii where three ethnically Japanese U.S. resident actually *did* rush to the aid of a stranded Japanese pilot immediately following the attack in a highly publicized incident that probably fueled the extent of racial hatred toward the Japanese during the time, the West Coast states.

I mean, the suggestion that the government knew about the attack in advance is probably a more deserving candidate for inclusion in U.S. textbooks; even despite the fact that that's also universally rejected by anyone with proper credentials to be expressing an opinion on that thing, at least it can debatably have been said to have had an impact on American society in the form of propelling conspiracy culture.

[Lantrus]

My problem with the bill is that it botches historical survey to a very condensed set of knock-knock statements.

That's not only stupid, it's fucking retarded.

Willfully retarded, too. They try so hard to look like fucking morons, it's even worse than simply being an idiot.

[The Orson Empire]

This is why I think the federal government should be in charge of education, and not the individual states.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

What blind arrogance.

First off, as many have pointed out - history happens. The supposed 'sins of our fathers' are not ours. And if we want to avoid recommitting them, we probably ought to have a solid idea on what happened, why, and the circumstances surrounding it all. Just a thought.

Second off, if one truly wants to be patriotic, one ought to be able to own up to the history of one's nation - good or bad - and be willing to push to continue making it a better place than it was previously, no? Not to bury at all costs any indication that a nation may have at some point done something 'wrong' or distasteful, or at worst, even downright evil. As mentioned above - things done before our time were not done by us. But it behooves us to acknowledge things done, and avoid doing them in the future, if they were wrong. And to learn from mistakes. And strive to build a better society.

What the hell else is the point of history otherwise? To sit around and point fingers? To bawl about 'the good old days' while we circle the drain? To blame others while not putting any effort into improving our situation ourselves?

... Damn. That went scary places. I could swear that shit goes on today. Go fig. -_- (But yes, this is a stupid bill, and those pushing it forward should feel stupid. As punishment, they ought to be placed in a room and be forced to watch the Twilight series on loop for a week. At least. Or would that be 'cruel and unusual punishment?)