I went back 12 pages....looks like no one has discussed this yet...

so.... 

Texas wants to change textbooks and, essentially rewrite history.

It seems they want to eliminate figures like Thomas Jefferson, Thurgood Marshall, and Caesar Chavez.

And downplay the importance of "reformers like Upton Sinclair, Susan B. Anthony, Ida B. Wells and W.E.B. DuBois  because modern historians are “obsessed with oppression.â€�


Apparently McCarthy-ism was a good thing so they want give it better representation.

There will be a new emphasis on conservative figures, like Phyllis Schlaffley.

Students will also study Abraham Lincoln’s and Jefferson Davis’s inaugural addresses, as if they had equal historical weight.



let the debate begin...

So I admit... I had to look up Phyllis Schlaffley and OMG what a  :-X

from her wiki page

Schlafly became the most visible and effective opponent of the Equal Rights Amendment during the 1970s as the organizer of the "Stop the ERA" movement, widely credited with stopping it from achieving ratification by its legislative deadline. "STOP" is also a recursive acronym for "Stop Taking our Privileges", because Schlafly argues the amendment, if passed and ratified, would take away privileges enjoyed by American women, including "dependent wife" benefits under Social Security and exemption from Selective Service registration



That last line kills me... take away our rights to be a dependent wife givemeafudgeingbreak...  ::)

I went back 12 pages....looks like no one has discussed this yet...

so.... 

Texas wants to change textbooks and, essentially rewrite history.

It seems they want to eliminate figures like Thomas Jefferson, Thurgood Marshall, and Caesar Chavez.

And downplay the importance of "reformers like Upton Sinclair, Susan B. Anthony, Ida B. Wells and W.E.B. DuBois  because modern historians are “obsessed with oppression.â€�


Apparently McCarthy-ism was a good thing so they want give it better representation.

There will be a new emphasis on conservative figures, like Phyllis Schlaffley.

Students will also study Abraham Lincoln’s and Jefferson Davis’s inaugural addresses, as if they had equal historical weight.



let the debate begin...


I thought we had... but maybe because these same people keep pulling the same crap each year.

this latest round is because even the Texans have had enough of their BS and voted them out.  Most of this took place in a lame-duck session.

The religious right have long made a habit of stuffing school-boards with their members in a covert fashion.  They certainly don't run on these religious issues but they let all their followers know who to vote for and run a well funded regular campaign.  Once they have an elected majority then the fun begins until they're voted out.

So I admit... I had to look up Phyllis Schlaffley and OMG what a  :-X

from her wiki page

Schlafly became the most visible and effective opponent of the Equal Rights Amendment during the 1970s as the organizer of the "Stop the ERA" movement, widely credited with stopping it from achieving ratification by its legislative deadline. "STOP" is also a recursive acronym for "Stop Taking our Privileges", because Schlafly argues the amendment, if passed and ratified, would take away privileges enjoyed by American women, including "dependent wife" benefits under Social Security and exemption from Selective Service registration



That last line kills me... take away our rights to be a dependent wife givemeafudgeingbreak...  ::)


She's kind of like a female equivalent of Uncle Ruckus character on the Boondocks, or a gay Republican.  I knew I recognized the name, but couldn't remember why.  She's a real piece of work.

Don't mess with Texas.







In fact, don't even visit.  Austin is the only decent city there.

Unfortunately, I lived in Texas for seven LLLLLLOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGG years.  8-P




Cat

Actually, Snoz, it has been covered.

http://www.inthe00s.com/index.php?topic=40125.0

Students will also study Abraham Lincoln’s and Jefferson Davis’s inaugural addresses, as if they had equal historical weight.


They want to "rewrite history" by studying more of it?  It seems you're arguing they'd be better served only reading Lincoln's address.

While Lincoln is the one with his image carved on Mt. Rushmore, there is no doubt that Davis was an important historical figure.  Especially in the south, which is where Texas, you know, is located and all.

They want to "rewrite history" by studying more of it?  It seems you're arguing they'd be better served only reading Lincoln's address.

While Lincoln is the one with his image carved on Mt. Rushmore, there is no doubt that Davis was an important historical figure.  Especially in the south, which is where Texas, you know, is located and all.


I can agree with that.  The McCarthyist bit was pretty frightening though.

Any true supporter of smaller government would definitely NOT defend McCarthy and his friends during the Red Scare.  Those were dark times for America.

Joe McCarthy was just looking out for your liberty and Phyllis Schlafly is a beacon of empowerment for women!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/11/bs.gif

I am sooooooo glad that I didn't go to that school.

::)

Right now, I feel like breaking out a certain Pink Floyd tune.

Oh, what the hell....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_bvT-DGcWw

Actually, Snoz, it has been covered.

http://www.inthe00s.com/index.php?topic=40125.0


don't know how I missed it... I went back 12 pages and did a CTL+F for the word texas  and nothing came up.

They want to "rewrite history" by studying more of it?  It seems you're arguing they'd be better served only reading Lincoln's address.

While Lincoln is the one with his image carved on Mt. Rushmore, there is no doubt that Davis was an important historical figure.  Especially in the south, which is where Texas, you know, is located and all.


I'm not saying that reading Davis' speech isn't a good idea (by the way that particular line was a quote from a website not my own statement) but, a lot of what I read seems to want to put emphasis on the confederacy and downplay the existence of slavery.  If that's true then that's a very bad thing.

Here's another quote I read It wasn't slavery – it was 'the Atlantic triangular trade', according to the conservatives on the Texas education board


Plus- they aren't studying more of it. By taking out people like W.E.B. DuBois while putting in the president of the confederacy it sends a pretty clear message about their intent.

Plus- they aren't studying more of it. By taking out people like W.E.B. DuBois while putting in the president of the confederacy it sends a pretty clear message about their intent.


Jefferson Davis needs to be in the textbooks.  So do DuBois and Booker T. Washington. 

I'm very sad to see how America cannot man up and admit it has a problem with racism.  It's like they say in the 12-step programs,  the first step is to admit you have a problem.  If you can't make the first step, you can't fix the problem.

The real elephant in the room is classism.  If there's something America wants to talk about less than race, it's class.  They didn't murder MLK until he started talking about the class divide.

:\'(

They didn't murder MLK until he started talking about the class divide.

:\'(


and Malcom X

and Malcom X


So Barack Obama takes the Wall Street money and keeps his mouth shut about classism.
::)

So Barack Obama takes the Wall Street money and keeps his mouth shut about classism.
::)


He treads a fine line, or ends up in a box at Arlington. It is a cloud that hangs everyday.

He treads a fine line, or ends up in a box at Arlington. It is a cloud that hangs everyday.


I don't know about the box at Arlington, but I remember the Gates at Cambridge!
;)

Well, that's redistribution of wealth!

You're damn right it is!  Everybody from FDR through Lyndon Johnson seemed to understand you can't have a cabal of ultra-rich families calling all the shots.  Democracy can't survive like that!

::)

AAAARRRGGGGG!!!!!

Some one gave me that "well I'm not for redistribution of wealth" line.  I kept calm enough to explain that there has already been a redistribution of wealth, and there is a difference between redistribution and " a days work for a days pay"(with accompanying benefits)

AAAARRRGGGGG!!!!!

Some one gave me that "well I'm not for redistribution of wealth" line.  I kept calm enough to explain that there has already been a redistribution of wealth, and there is a difference between redistribution and " a days work for a days pay"(with accompanying benefits)




The funniest thing about the "redistribution of wealth" idea is that the market itself already does it.  Capital accumulation in a capitalism naturally gathers at the top.

So the only feasible counter to it is to have a social safety net.

The funniest thing about the "redistribution of wealth" idea is that the market itself already does it.  Capital accumulation in a capitalism naturally gathers at the top.

So the only feasible counter to it is to have a social safety net.


With capital accumulation and no social safety net, you get something that looks like Dickensian London, which is what we seem to be aiming for.
::)

With capital accumulation and no social safety net, you get something that looks like Dickensian London, which is what we seem to be aiming for.
::)


Well, most of the world seems to be aiming for that...  other than the regions that already have reached that, of course.

Globalization may slowly rise the standard of living for the poorest of the poor, but it also has a nasty habit of destroying the middle class that is already present.

Well, most of the world seems to be aiming for that...  other than the regions that already have reached that, of course.

Globalization may slowly rise the standard of living for the poorest of the poor, but it also has a nasty habit of destroying the middle class that is already present.


There's just not enough cheap oil left for the Thomas Friedman utopia.  Globalization only serves to make the poor poor, the rich rich, and stirs up a lot of resentment among people.  If we're going to have a Pax Americana in the year 2100, we're going to have to go out and physically take over the world, like the Romans did.  I don't mean some resource-bargaining scheme among the political class, I mean exerting our literal will.  The Romans held down the civilized world for five centuries without fossil fuels or atomic weapons.  Good thing too, what if Caligula had the Bomb?  Now you know what living in the U.S. in 1987 felt like!  The first thing we gotta do if we're gonna be like the Romans is get rid of that candyass U.S. Constitution! 

"Do as I say or I'll cut your throat!"
--Maximus Nautius

When the fossil fuels spigot goes slack,
Shall inherit the Earth he with huge sacks!
8)

Well, globalization has successfully created a middle class in China.  There obviously are a lot of poor people still living there, but things have improved there quite a bit.

Not all countries respond the same way to globalization, but the ones with economically progressive policies tend to adapt best to the market.  China is one of them.

Of course, again, the same process also damages the middle class in prosperous nations.  It's a redistribution of wealth (and jobs), so to speak.

Unfortunately, conservatives don't seem to mind this particular version of wealth redistribution.

Well, globalization has successfully created a middle class in China.  There obviously are a lot of poor people still living there, but things have improved there quite a bit.

Not all countries respond the same way to globalization, but the ones with economically progressive policies tend to adapt best to the market.  China is one of them.

Of course, again, the same process also damages the middle class in prosperous nations.  It's a redistribution of wealth (and jobs), so to speak.

Unfortunately, conservatives don't seem to mind this particular version of wealth redistribution.


That "middle class" might be a hundred million or so, in reality.  China has 1.2 billion people!

That "middle class" might be a hundred million or so, in reality.  China has 1.2 billion people!



Probably...  But, depending on your definition of middle class, ours is relatively small as well.

If we go by Forbes's definition of the middle class, the majority of America is lower class.

Probably...  But, depending on your definition of middle class, ours is relatively small as well.

If we go by Forbes's definition of the middle class, the majority of America is lower class.


If you ask a working or lower class person what class they are they will tell you middle class.  They don't even know where they are on the food chain.  When they here no new taxes to the top earners they think that means them even if they are making $10 bucks an hour. 

If you ask a working or lower class person what class they are they will tell you middle class.  They don't even know where they are on the food chain.  When they here no new taxes to the top earners they think that means them even if they are making $10 bucks an hour. 


"America is a classless society!"

--Bob Dole

:P

"America is a classless society!"

--Bob Dole

:P



There are a lot of people who have no class. 



Cat

If you ask a working or lower class person what class they are they will tell you middle class.  They don't even know where they are on the food chain.  When they here no new taxes to the top earners they think that means them even if they are making $10 bucks an hour. 


That is unfortunately true, but I think Forbes has the right idea.  They divide the public by share of income rather than by proportion of population.  When viewing things that way, the middle class doesn't start until the top 10% of earners.  The vast majority of the public is lower class.

Granted, there is still a big difference between upper lower and living at or below the poverty line.

Many years ago, as  a grad student in Sociology, I worked on a project with one of my profs about occupational safety issues.  We also asked people about their perception of class.  As others have said, most claimed to be middle class until we added working class to the options, then they mostly said working class.  It  all depends on how you phrase the question.

Many years ago, as  a grad student in Sociology, I worked on a project with one of my profs about occupational safety issues.  We also asked people about their perception of class.  As others have said, most claimed to be middle class until we added working class to the options, then they mostly said working class.  It  all depends on how you phrase the question.


Once people here the criteria for working, middle, upper(and then the stratospheric) class they begin to understand.  The problem is that the majority of people now listen to the news and when they say "middle class" they do think that they are middle class.  No one has explained it to them, and it is something that definitely not taught in school. 

Once people here the criteria for working, middle, upper(and then the stratospheric) class they begin to understand.  The problem is that the majority of people now listen to the news and when they say "middle class" they do think that they are middle class.  No one has explained it to them, and it is something that definitely not taught in school. 


That depends on the school, but you're right in terms of high school, mostly.  This goes to the conversation we were having about bias in the schools. 

It depends on how you define class.  Background versus income/wealth.  My background is what you might call "upper middle class."  I am working class at best when I am able to work at all!  However, I have the ancestral memory and acculturation of wealth and privilege, which in reality, ended with my grandparents' generation on both sides of the family.  That's why the class divide is not a wall but a window.  I might have an easier time of things if I couldn't see through to the other side.
::)