A group blog to promote discussion, debate and insight into the history, particularly religious, of America's founding. Any observations, questions, or comments relating to the blog's theme are welcomed.
Chris,While perusing the Texas Standards, I saw that many of the conservative excesses had been ironed out in the final version. At least the one on HS US History I looked at. Two things jumped out at me. One was mention of missionaries in 1920 and the other was no Jefferson in the founding but the addition of Muhlenberg. I immediately cringed because I had never heard of this guy, even though I have a degree in History education and read a ton of it, and that usually reeks of a "homeschool" interpolation of some kind.I did not read through all of what you said in your post because I have had a long day in court but if this is one of the things that is in there I have a huge problem with it. If a minister that influenced the founding needs to be mentioned it is most certainly Mayhew. Putting Muhlenberg in there in Evangelical crap. With that stated, this whole thing was blown way out of purportion. The standards were almost exactly the same as others I have seen. Especially in the really important things. A lot of what got axed were multicultural interpolations that should have been taken out.I believe whole heartedly in making the history relevant to the kids you teach and their culture. But there is a genuine way of doing this and bringing out the warts of America and there is a fake way of doing this and dissing America.The way Columbus is taught now is absurd. John(?) Elliot, who is a premiminent scholar on Spain in the Exploration Age gives the picture of a Renaissance influenced merchant and cosmopolitian that attended Salamanca(a later scholastic university that taught a great deal about human equality and rights) and was overun by his Castilian counter parts that were brutes. This is just one glaring example of what I am talking about the other way.
With all that above stated, I think the homeschool like interpolations gotta go. Those textbooks always gave me the creeps. I do not want to see that angle get into public school cirriculum. I think the stuff Mark David Hall talks about is more important to bring into the cirriculum than anything that Barton talks about.
The striking thing was how often "ordinary people" was deleted and "patriots and good citizens" put in. Basically, the philosophy was less "social studies" and more history.http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index2.aspx?id=3643Jefferson appears unchanged from before in the 5th grade curriculum, along with the addition of John and Sam Adams and more questionable addition, the Sons of Liberty. However, Nathan Hale was moved back from the early grades to here.As for Muhlenberg, it certainly seems he was given undue importance. However, there are tons or marginal figures in there too who are even less important. Muhlenberg doesn't seem that big a deal.On the other hand, there was surely a bit of horsetrading going on: John Smith is out; Jose Antonio Navarro is in. Abagail Adams, MLK, and WEB DuBois also appear earlier than Jefferson or Muhlenberg.For those keeping score since the early hysteria, Anne Hutchinson survived the cut.
"Basically, the philosophy was less "social studies" and more history'Not a bad thing. I just think they do themselves a disservice by pulling crap like the Muhlenberg thing.
Hey guys ...Just to let you know, those of use who googled Alice Baldwin and got the impression that she was a legitimate and respected historian were absolutely correct. Her book that I ordered just arrived, and am finding it to be very interesting and extremely well researched. I still need to read the whole thing from cover to cover, but in glancing at the parts that Barton is likely to have turned into his thing about the 27 grievances in the DoI being nothing more than a listing of sermons, what I'm finding is that what Baldwin was talking about was actually the sermons about the "unalienable rights" that the churches should have -- in other words, the right for churches to govern themselves as they chose to. Naturally, some of the points made by the clergy in regard to the rights of churches are very similar to the "unalienable rights" of the colonists that the DoI said were being infringed upon. If this is all that Barton is basing his claim on, then he is grossly exaggerating of what Baldwin actually wrote, but, like I said, I still need to finish reading the entire book.And, BTW, Baldwin does also point out the ministers who were preaching against independence, which, as I said on the other thread, is the biggest part of the actual history that Barton selectively omits from the story.More to come after I finish reading the book ...
Hey guys ...Just to let you know, those of use who googled Alice Baldwin and got the impression that she was a legitimate and respected historian were absolutely correct.So in other words, what we've learned for certain is that Keith Olbermann was being an ignorant hack when he shouted, ""You are worthless, Alice Baldwin!"We look forward to his correction and apology to the legacy of one of America's pioneering female historians.;-)Unless he meant Alec Baldwin, then nevermind.Heheh.
Regarding the Texas standards, I'd have no objection to Muhlenberg being included -- if the reason was that he was a Revolutionary War army general, and was being used as an example to highlight the regiments made up of immigrants who fought in the Revolution, but, for some reason, I strongly suspect that this is not the reason he's being included.
"but, for some reason, I strongly suspect that this is not the reason he's being included."I agree but all the other crap from the politically correct side needs to come out too for the same reason.
Post a Comment