Texas Boards of Education publish separate racist history textbooks.

[HonestJoe]

OK, and ah . . . so what? . . . but . . . what is wrong with these edits not being historically valid. As before I asked you to be specific as to what is historical and what is not. Not enough, the issue of the thread is the extreme racist edits by Texas.

I'VE NOT SAID ANYTHING ABOUT HISTORICAL VALIDITY!

You opened the thread stating that Texas had the textbooks edited and that those edits were due to a racist political agenda. You later also said that those edits rendered the texts factually false. I pointed out that California has also required edits. I never made any other assertions and explicitly stated that I'm not stating any of the edits by either state were right or wrong (because I don't know).

I was asking why you focused exclusively on Texas when the article spoke equally about two states. You could have made a positive argument as to why you think the changes required by Texas were somehow worse than the changes required by California but you didn't try to do that. I get the feeling you had a predetermined answer looking for a question. That doesn't make the answer wrong but it does mean it needs justifying.

 

[shunyadragon]

I'VE NOT SAID ANYTHING ABOUT HISTORICAL VALIDITY!

I agred to that, and that is the problem, which makes your argument mute and irrelevant.

You opened the thread stating that Texas had the textbooks edited and that those edits were due to a racist political agenda. You later also said that those edits rendered the texts factually false. I pointed out that California has also required edits. I never made any other assertions and explicitly stated that I'm not stating any of the edits by either state were right or wrong (because I don't know).

You have failed to demonstrate that the California edits were factually false, and the article demonstrated that the Texas edits were factually false.

I was asking why you focused exclusively on Texas when the article spoke equally about two states. You could have made a positive argument as to why you think the changes required by Texas were somehow worse than the changes required by California but you didn't try to do that. I get the feeling you had a predetermined answer looking for a question. That doesn't make the answer wrong but it does mean it needs justifying.

. . . . because the Texas edits were factually false, and you failed to refute that..

 

[shunyadragon]

Yeah, if you're talking about the 1970's and 80's. I'm not and that was abundantly clear via context.

Actually the shift was over a little longer period of time with the Dixiecrats slowly grew to vote as a block. This evolved into the Conservative Republican 'no compromise' block.

And you're right, I think the modern Republican party is far more liberal leaning than it has been in the past.

Actually no, the Republican Party has become progressively more conservative since World War II, and more appealing to Southern Democrats. I grew up in a politically active moderate Republican family with an uncle that was a congressman, a Republican in a dominantly liberal district in Maryland. Progressively over time there became no place for moderates in the Republican Party, and at present I am independent. The combination of the extreme right and the religious oriented conservatives dominate the party. Most of Trump's cabinet is conservative evangelical Republicans including Pence, and by the way reject the science of evolution.

Secondly, I think the Democrats have changed too... You know like forgetting the workers they were courting and leaving minority cities to burn. Now all they seem to care about is free stuff and illegal immigrants...

In either case, as parties, I don't find either's platform especially compelling -- I just think the Republicans are moving in a direction that will do less damage.

Your political agenda is being revealed.

The far right affiliating with the Republicans at all is a relatively modern association -- it really happened when the progressives started getting regressive (from a moderate view...)

That depends on a closer look at history the Party of the South has been historically affiliated with the far right.

The Democrats were the Party of the Ku Klux Klan and Slavery - Fact or Myth? happened a lot earlier.

In the post Civil War period possibly true.

 

[HonestJoe]

You have failed to demonstrate that the California edits were factually false, and the article demonstrated that the Texas edits were factually false.

I never said they were. I questioned your exclusive focus on Texas in the context of an article about both Texas and California. You're asserting that the Texas changes were factually false or racist and, if only by implication, that none of the Californian ones were. It is for you to support your assertions, not me to refute them.

 

[Mindmaster]

Your political agenda is being revealed.

No agenda, I think the Dems are simply the worst choice in relation to Reps currently. But, they're all politicians and come with all the baggage that the term means, lol.

The reality is both parties give less than a single damn about anyone, but themselves even though sometimes they want something I want. I've voted either way mostly on whichever candidate sounded the least likely to take the whole country to crazy town. I very rarely vote straight ticket, but I did on the last election because I just completely reject the Dems and anything they're rambling about presently. (I'm not down with climate change BS, the need to politicize and pander to identities, or open borders.)

 

[shunyadragon]

No agenda, I think the Dems are simply the worst choice in relation to Reps currently. But, they're all politicians and come with all the baggage that the term means, lol.

Your responses reflect an agenda.

The reality is both parties give less than a single damn about anyone, but themselves even though sometimes they want something I want. I've voted either way mostly on whichever candidate sounded the least likely to take the whole country to crazy town. I very rarely vote straight ticket, but I did on the last election because I just completely reject the Dems and anything they're rambling about presently.

Reflects your agenda in bold. This reflects an extreme partisine agenda.

(I'm not down with climate change BS, the need to politicize and pander to identities, or open borders.)

Does not make sense, please clarify.

Reread the reference:

Two States. Eight Textbooks. Two American Stories.

California notes the suburban dream of the 1950s was inaccessible to many African-Americans.

McGraw-Hill, “United States History Since 1877,” Texas, P. 436

Texas does not.

California and Texas textbooks sometimes offer different explanations for white backlash to black advancement after the Civil War, from Reconstruction to housing discrimination in the 20th century.

Southern whites resisted Reconstruction, according to a McGraw-Hill textbook, because they “did not want African-Americans to have more rights.” But the Texas edition offers an additional reason: Reforms cost money, and that meant higher taxes.

Whole paragraphs on redlining and restrictive deeds appear only in the California editions of textbooks, partly as a result of different state standards. Texas’ social studies guidelines do not mention housing discrimination at all.

These are important issues in USA history, and Texas exclude them and made a dishonest statement: "Texas edition offers an additional reason: Reforms cost money, and that meant higher taxes." which is blatantly false. If you understood academic history 'exclusion' of historical events is a dishonest way to record history. This is most definitely a 'WHITE' wash.

 

[shunyadragon]

I never said they were. I questioned your exclusive focus on Texas in the context of an article about both Texas and California. You're asserting that the Texas changes were factually false or racist and, if only by implication, that none of the Californian ones were. It is for you to support your assertions, not me to refute them.

That is because the Texas edits were indeed factually false by extreme exclusion of specifically any reference to the racist history, and making blatantly false statements such as "Reforms cost money, and that meant higher taxes."

Nowhere in the article did it cite where California made false revisions.

 

[Mindmaster]

Reflects your agenda in bold. This reflects an extreme partisine agenda.

To those at the the poles of the political spectrum somewhere in the middle might seem extreme. That doesn't bother me, lol. However, I was also very clear that voting Rep for me was presently the only choice but not the choice I always make. I like some of Andrew Yang's positions on blockchain voting and a few others. (it's very resistant to fraud and mobile app voting would get a much more accurate vote -- though I digress at universal basic income or even entertaining reparations.)

These are important issues in USA history, and Texas exclude them and made a dishonest statement: "Texas edition offers an additional reason: Reforms cost money, and that meant higher taxes." which is blatantly false. If you understood academic history 'exclusion' of historical events is a dishonest way to record history. This is most definitely a 'WHITE' wash.

No, it's not... It's a subjective analysis of a situation and not fact in either case. One take is that it is inequality that is causing the issue -- the other is that the local government couldn't handle the burden. They're both BS reasons -- money talks and discrimination wasn't as big of a problem as you'd think... It was far more likely that someone wasn't meeting some financial desire of the seller/renter and it had little to do with race. Now, if you'd address a real problem of that time it would be something like addressing the fact that minorities typically had lower incomes (mostly blue collar jobs) which prohibited their renting or purchasing in various areas. That's not so much the case any more -- there isn't really a race/income correlation per Se; at least race isn't the thing stopping you. If you have the same qualifications/skills you're probably making the same money or at least in the ballpark with anyone else doing the same job.

Let's face it regardless of the reason (race or otherwise) housing discrimination was happening every day up until about the mid-1970s and still happens now though it is less overt. The only real difference from now and then is if you want to keep a certain family from purchasing a property or renting you have to come up with better bs reasons, lol. Ultimately, all these transactions are contingent on the seller/landlord accepting your offer and there is nothing that mandates that they have to. If they don't like _anything_ about you that's enough for them to drop the deal, so to speak.

Anyway, all of this is an attempt to insert a narrative or progressive ideology into your text book though at least the Texas assertion is easier to prove. We can look at government financials and analyze whether there is truth to the claim. It's really not my wheelhouse, but it could be researched... The claim that housing discrimination is or was ever rampant in modern times is hogwash though -- it did happen in a few cases, but it's an overwhelming minority in regard to the amount of renting and purchasing that happens. It's on the level of being constantly panicked about being struck by lightning, digging up the <100 cases that recently happened, parading them around, and explaining why we need to build Faraday cages around our houses.

 

[shunyadragon]

To those at the the poles of the political spectrum somewhere in the middle might seem extreme. That doesn't bother me, lol. However, I was also very clear that voting Rep for me was presently the only choice but not the choice I always make. I like some of Andrew Yang's positions on blockchain voting and a few others. (it's very resistant to fraud and mobile app voting would get a much more accurate vote -- though I digress at universal basic income or even entertaining reparations.).

You made your extreme political view in the bold of the previous post, and in other posts..

No, it's not... It's a subjective analysis of a situation and not fact in either case. One take is that it is inequality that is causing the issue -- the other is that the local government couldn't handle the burden.

No, we are talking about the facts of history of racism. The exclusion of blacks from housing is factual history. Actually the local governments were not heavily involved with the decisions of who got the loans, especially the GI bill loans in these developments. It was the Federal Agency bureaucracy and the banks that made the decisions. The blacks were excluded from GI bill home loans up to the 70's and 80s. The banks did it to protect their investment. Actually blacks were mostly excluded from federal Farm loans up until the 1990s.

If you believe in the involvement of local governments please document this. So far all you have presented is vague stuff (?), and avoided the substance of the article, which is only the tip of the iceberg.

It is not a coincidence that Almost all the edits by Texas involved deleting and editing racism.

As documented slavery DID NOT end with the Civil War in post #38..

 

[Mindmaster]

You made your extreme political view in the bold of the previous post, and in other posts..

You've made it abundantly clear that you're not capable of absorbing the information. That's fine, but pardon me if I conserve oxygen.

 

[shunyadragon]

You've made it abundantly clear that you're not capable of absorbing the information. That's fine, but pardon me if I conserve oxygen.

Try breathing into a paper bag.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

History textbooks used in Texas were edited to support a racist antebellum political agenda.

The following is a classic example. Others are cited in the article cited.


Two States. Eight Textbooks. Two American Stories.

California notes the suburban dream of the 1950s was inaccessible to many African-Americans.

McGraw-Hill, “United States History Since 1877,” Texas, P. 436

Texas does not.

California and Texas textbooks sometimes offer different explanations for white backlash to black advancement after the Civil War, from Reconstruction to housing discrimination in the 20th century.

Southern whites resisted Reconstruction, according to a McGraw-Hill textbook, because they “did not want African-Americans to have more rights.” But the Texas edition offers an additional reason: Reforms cost money, and that meant higher taxes.

Whole paragraphs on redlining and restrictive deeds appear only in the California editions of textbooks, partly as a result of different state standards. Texas’ social studies guidelines do not mention housing discrimination at all.

Thanks for posting this.

I unfortunately cannot read the entire article due to a paywall, but based on your summary, this Texan is saddened.

I hope you had a reflective Martin Luther King Jr. Day.

I would be interested to hear more about the time period that you mentioned, which you said you partly lived through.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I look forward to the resident Texan traitor/loser enthusiast stopping by for his apologetic take.

This resident Texan doesn't!

 

[ecco]

Excluding a statement of fact doesn’t make the remaining text false though. If I change the phrase “I have a red apple” to “I have an apple”, it’s still true.

Really?

All Muslim people worship Allah.
Let's omit just one word and see if it's still true.
All people worship Allah.

It all depends on context and people who intentionally omit a word here and there to alter facts are very well aware of that.

 

[HonestJoe]

It all depends on context and people who intentionally omit a word here and there to alter facts are very well aware of that.

We were talking about excluding entire statements of fact rather than individual words in that context, so my example probably wasn't perfect. Maybe "I have an apple and I have a banana" to "I have an apple" is closer to what we're discussing.

Anyway, I wasn't defending the edits, only the automatic assumptions about their impact and motives.

 

[shunyadragon]

Thanks for posting this.

I unfortunately cannot read the entire article due to a paywall, but based on your summary, this Texan is saddened.

I hope you had a reflective Martin Luther King Jr. Day.

I would be interested to hear more about the time period that you mentioned, which you said you partly lived through.

As far as the Martin Luther Day I marched in the parade and sang in the choir. I also am on the board of the Northern Orange County MLK Commitee.