Texas history curriculum to emphasize that slavery played 'central role' in Civil War
Source: The Hill
The Texas Board of Education voted Friday to approve several changes to the states curriculum, one of which will require history lessons to teach that slavery played a central role in starting the Civil War.
Previously, the states standards said there were three causes for the Civil War, in order: sectionalism, states rights and slavery. The new curriculum will go into effect in the 2019-2020 school year, according to NPR.
Changes to the curriculum were first proposed in September by Democrats on the board.
"What the use of 'states' rights' is doing is essentially blanketing, or skirting, the real foundational issue, which is slavery," Democratic board member Marisa Perez-Diaz said at a Tuesday board meeting.
-snip-
Read more: https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/417224-texas-education-board-now-requires-history-to-teach-that-slavery-played
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)attempts to cover up truth.
AZ8theist
(5,493 posts)Amazing what happens to "reality" when you vote out imbeciles like McLeroy....
Proud liberal 80
(4,167 posts)Its funny how states can manipulate and brainwash kids about history. I remember living in South Carolina in the 8th grade and having to take South Carolina history. You would have thought that Strom Thurman was a noble wise hero the way he was portrayed in our text book. I remember reading about him the text book and everything was so positive, but when I read between the lines I was like this dude was a racist asshole.
Yavin4
(35,445 posts)More about how he was defending South Carolinas honor from the evil federal government and Harry Truman.
Judi Lynn
(160,621 posts)As a Democrat, he had to be one of the scariest commies in the whole world!
Too bad Thurman couldn't live even far longer, and live to be a couple of hundred years old, and they could continue to roll him out every time from his hotel room, to vote for Republican legislation.
OrlandoDem2
(2,066 posts)Oh wait. Nevermind.
JohnnyRingo
(18,641 posts)Welcome to the real world, Texas. We've been expecting you.
The article mentions "sectionalism" as a previous reason. Maybe they meant secession-ism.
Quackers
(2,256 posts)Dont push them too far too fast. Let this sink in first. Well get to science eventually.
mysteryowl
(7,396 posts)old guy
(3,283 posts)zentrum
(9,865 posts)SunSeeker
(51,698 posts)True_Blue
(3,063 posts)they were caused by slave owners refusing to give up their slaves in the Free States.
When Dred Scott's owners moved to a Free State, he sued for his & his family's freedom, but the judge ruled in favor of the slave owners. That terrible ruling infuriated the Free States, which felt slavery should not be allowed in Free States. That case was a huge catalyst to the Civil War.
sakabatou
(42,174 posts)czarjak
(11,289 posts)kyburbonkid
(251 posts)It's about time the revisionist rightwing history gets corrected.
bluecollar2
(3,622 posts)The fat lady is singing and there's an ice factory in hell...
WTF happened?
SergeStorms
(19,204 posts)I smell a Supreme Court case in the air. They're destroying the right-wing world view. About time!
Takket
(21,625 posts)nice to see something going in the right direction.
cstanleytech
(26,319 posts)issue has always been complete bullshit as it came down to the ones in power in the southern states wanted to keep slavery and spread it even further.
Response to highplainsdem (Original post)
TwistOneUp This message was self-deleted by its author.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)The slave states were NOT in favor of states' when free states refused to enforce the fugitive slave act.
SweetieD
(1,660 posts)slavery and white supremacy. Yes that is the term the confederacy used "supremacy". The basis of their fight was to maintain supremacy of the white man over the black man. They said it plainly and yet their descendants 150 years later hem and haw about the reason.
malthaussen
(17,216 posts)Funny how one can read many letters from people who fought in the war and find little reference to slavery, and the importance of its preservation/elimination, and many references (on the US side) to "preserving the Union" or (on the CS side), "protecting our homes." Revisionism is all very well, and it is a useful corrective for the Confederate states to acknowledge the central role of human bondage in the conflict, but it is a distortion of history to suggest that slavery was the only cause, or a primary driving force for the majority of the men who actually fought the thing. Lincoln's Gettysburg address, which could serve as a summary of the whole thing, never mentions slavery by name. We could argue about whether the mentions of liberty and freedom are code words, but then the very fact that code words would have been necessary argues against the contention that slavery was the single cause of the war. In general, I think that monocausal explanations for something as complex as a war are overly reductionist.
-- Mal