I don't know if this has been posted. Why the right hates history and the Oklahoma bill

[Maraya1969]

that proves how serious they are.

I've posted 2 links. One one the general position of conservatives wanting people to stay stupid AS REGARDS HISTORY and the first one about an actual bill in Oklahoma that is actively trying to do that.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/20/opinion/sutter-oklahoma-ap-history/

By John D. Sutter

"An education committee in my home state -- a place with plenty of historical blemishes and oodles of modern-day screw-ups -- actually approved a bill that would rewrite advanced placement U.S. History classes, potentially eliminating them. The cause? They paint America in too negative a light."

Here are the words of Dan Fisher, republican state senate:

"In essence, we have a new emphasis on what is bad about America," Fisher said in a committee hearing, according to a CNN report. "The new framework (that has been in effect in the 2014-15 school year) trades an emphasis on America's founding principles of constitutional government in favor of robust analyses of gender and racial oppression and class ethnicity and the lives of marginalized people, where the emphasis on instruction is of America as a nation of oppressors and exploiters."

Fisher's bill, as it was proposed, bars state money from going to AP U.S. history courses, according to CNN. It also requires the replacement class to cover a number of "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."

Oh, and speeches by Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.


http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/20/opinion/sutter-oklahoma-ap-history/

==========================================================

WHY THE RIGHT HATES HISTORY


Sure, the war on education helps Republican lawmakers destroy unions and slash government spending, but it’s our history of progressive change that makes Conservatives hate accurate depictions of our past.

Just think about Social Security, The New Deal, freeing the slaves, or child labor laws… all represent great turning points in our nation that progressives made possible. The fact is, our entire history – from our revolution to healthcare reform – is filled with progressive accomplishments, and it’s hard to sell the Conservative brand to people who know that history.

Many of the today’s biggest political issues, like our privacy rights, would not even be up for debate today had it not been for the attack on education. If more Americans had had a strong understanding of our history, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney would have never been able to pull off the Patriot Act. And, we wouldn’t be discussing the Orwellian government spy agencies like the NSA in this day and age.




http://www.salon.com/2015/02/26/why_the_right_hates_american_history_partner/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

[Maraya1969]

1. Kicking for the morning crowd

[el_bryanto]

2. I love history; that said I don't think a knowledge of history as a panacea

History is open to interpretation; were it not, there would be no need for historians. Rather I think it points to a larger anti-intellectualism on the part of Conservatives, which is the real problem. History teaches complexity and suggests that you need to look at issues from all sides to understand them. Ideologues (of which there are a lot on the right) stress simple answers to complex problems.

While I would applaud history teaching more about what was good in the new deals - the WPA and the TVA for example - I'd be most interested in history teaching that emphasizes how to study history; how to come to an understanding of it.

Bryant

[Maraya1969]

3. The facts of history is not subject to interpretation. For example when some conservatives

say the civil war was a result of northern aggression. Looking at the facts, the writings, the declaration of war etc would prove this wrong - right?

[el_bryanto]

4. It would prove them wrong to you and me

As I find their argument that simply electing Lincoln was a declaration of war insulting; but they do have their own narrative. It mixes some historical facts and some assumptions and some statements taken out of context, but it's there.

And once you start questioning them on this assertion, Neo Confederates are likely to retreat to the safe ground of "The North didn't enter the war to end slavery."

Bryant