T Nation

What are they teaching our kids?

I am somewhat amazed to find several liberal at this site. I had always considered T-men and liberals as two mutually exclusive groups (I consider most liberals to be less than men, never mind T-man!). It is so easy to be swayed by written words. Sure christians have been involved in some atrocities - but don’t go blaming the holocost on christianity. How did those “tolorent” moslims obtain northern africa, the middle east and spain? By force.
What happened 500 or 1000 years ago is colored by the historians experience, time and context. Look what is going on right now. In the past 30 years the “tolorent” moslims have caused a fire on the aircarft carrier Forestal, bombed a disco in France, highjacked the Achille Lauro, attacked christians in church in Sri Lanka, attacked christians in the phillipines, bombed the WTC twice, bombed isreal countless times, bombed the marine barricks in Lebanon to name a few off the top of my head. I’m sure if you took a minute you could think of more. I would say, as of this minute, they are quite intolorent of others.
You know, there is a Red Crescent just like there is a Red Cross. Yet, when there is a disaster, it is always the intolorent christians who are volunteering their time and money to help others.
Here in Mass. the catholics are taking a beating from “The Boston Globe” (Liberal w/ a capital “L”.) All negative press, yet when there is a car crash and mother and father are killed who cares for the children - Catholic Charities. I have seen hundreds of catholic and jewish owned and operated hospitals (Saint __________, Cedar Sinia, etc.). The arabs have barrels of oil money - where are the moslim hospitals?

Please excuse the spelling here. I get real fired up when I see people bashing christianity.

One other thing -
I really wanted to stay away from making a personal attack on anyone. Yet, student, you are very niave. “Christian” countries were the movers and shakers over the past 2000 years. If you read history books the topic, by and large, will be western history and western countries were predominently christian. That does not equate into persecutions occurring in countries which were predominently christian as being a causal relationship. The conquestodors, among other things, may have raped and pillaged in south america but they didn’t do so because they came from christian countries. These actions were not condoned by the christian church, never mind caused by them.
When I see a video of moslem clerics sitting w/ Bin Laden and GLOATING over the carnage at WTC, I don’t think the same can be said for them.

First of all, I hope I am not being labeled as a liberal because I don’t believe that Muslim history should be excluded from books concerning world history. Look, without the original sources, knowing that some book somewhere referred to Muslims as “tolerant” 10 times, and Christians as “persecuters”… well, that isn’t much to go on, is it? How dispersed were these statements? What period of history were they talking about? Were they referring to individual Muslims and Christians, or the groups themselves? You know, just because the liberal media contain a group of asses, does not mean that the conservative media are holy or without agenda. Yes, pay attention to your children’s education, read what they read. But don’t jump to conclusions or irrationalities out of a desparate need to defend.

This is not the type of response I think you were looking for, but I do not want to get into the whole religious issue here. As for the title of the post, “What are they teaching our kids?” In school, from elementary through highschool I was filled w/ a plethora of knowledge. When I graduated I attended Microsoft training courses and received cerification. After that, I landed a job, and then went to college.(A bit backwards I know, but at least I’m not paying for school.) Which is a good thing, bc I’d feel like I would be wasting money. I am graduating this semester from UMBC w/a BS degree in Information Systems (and a BA in Philosophy, double major.) Anyway, when I say BS, I do NOT mean Bachelor of Science, I mean Bull Shit. I do not feel like I have learned jack shit from this school. The general studies courses are nice, but also BS. All they do is reinforce what we learned throughout our earlier schooling. Even when taking advanced Math and Biology corses, I was not exposed to anything new since Highschool. The Information Systems classes, have not taught me jack that I didn’t learn from Microsoft, and if I were to attempt to do my current job based soley on what I learned from the university, I’d be up a creek. Anyway, I just wanted to express my feeling bc I spent the weekend at work, then at home writing some BS paper (20 pages of complete shit.) for a technical writing class I took in community college, but had to re-take bc it was not a 300 level course in community college. The university requires it to be a 300 level course. When I compared my old syllabus to my curent university syllabus, they were almost identical. When I told the teacher, she said I wouldn’t be learning anything new, its just a way the college makes more money. I feel like its all been BS. Besides meeting some really cool people, and attending some kick ass parties, I feel like college has been a complete waste of government money, and more importantly, my time. Wow, I’ll have a piece of paper. AND my work wants me to get my masters and possibly PHD. I’m debating long and hard about telling them no. And to think UMBC is very accredited for having one of the best technical/Information Systems programs on the east coast. Thanks for letting me vent.

Rookie, that’s why I didn’t go to UMBC. Though accredited, they really don’t have much to offer in the way of computer science or engineering. If you want to enter a Masters or PHD program, consider looking into College Park (or even University College). While all degree programs are general (they are teaching you to be a paraprofessional, not a technician), CP has some great stuff going on.

Thanks for the post. I have heard from many professors that I have made friends w/that college park should be my first choice. However, my federal job pays for my education and they have a “long-standing relationship/ agreement w/UMBC” that sort of keeps me locked in there. I am trying to sway my employers though. Thanks again.

Liberal media-indeed. CBS owned by Westinghouse, NBC: GE, ABC:Disney, CNN:TimeWarnerAOL, Fox:Fox Corporation. Major newspapers are owned by some corporate entity. If the media is truly liberal the media would be exposing real Liberalism instead of this psuedo-Liberalism in the form of moderate thought. If it’s not ultra conservative, religous in nature (in favor of ultra Xian beliefs) then it is branded Liberal. The truly brainedwashed are those who cannot see the forest for the trees.

You know, it always amuses me when I hear that liberalism is to blame for the degeneration in
social standards. It’s just like saying that Conservatism is against progress; both positions are crap. Then again some genius on the board stated that one can’t be a man if you’re a liberal, which certainly raises the level of debate.

There is never a right or wrong in debates like this, there are christians and muslims who deplore the actions of others who ostensibly act in the name of their shared religion.

Then again, we live in such a black or white civilisation these days you either have to be for or against something. The middle ground is now just as bad. Let’s try adn remember that the other side of the story is invested with as much self-interest as the point of view it opposes.

i am a controversial figure on the forum but i do teach elementary school and i wanted to inform you of how textbooks are chosen. Schools and districts are mandated to teach certain topics and overarching ideas set forth by their district based on state curriculum models. Back when i was in school not too long ago there were no multi-perspective books. now i am not too familiar with exactly what you are talking about… but i do know that books are primarily chosen according to what will meet the curricular standards mandated by the state… hope that helps!

Yorik, Im sorry to tell you, but the others are correct. I hate Muslims as much as anyone, but I remember from a history class in college reading about the muslims attitudes towards jews. In fact(or at least according to the text) the muslims allowed jews to live in their land without persecution as long as they payed a jew tax. This is more than you can say for the christians. But then again, as the Stormtroopers Of Death song goes, “Fuck the Middle East”!

You guys who insist that christians are persecutors better be careful. I assume you like I am in the US - christian country. Better watch out a wild band of priests doen’t track you down, knock down your door and beat you and your families!
Why don’t you try saying something anti-islamic in Iran, Kuwait, SA or Iraq? How do you think you would make out?
Other than the Inquisition, someone name me one instance in the last 1000 years when christians have physcially harmed anyone in the name of christianity.

You do realize that we are discussing history books, correct? But, if you insist, how about the numerous abortion clinic bombings?

This whole thread is a doozy, but let me see if I can remember enough about what has been posted to make some coherent points. Firstly, I think the texts as we see them today are an overreaction to the texts as they existed before. Because those who cried the loudest about the deficiencies of the old texts were most likely put in charge of the new texts, or at least had a very large hand in both writing them and giving a stamp of approval, the new texts naturally reflect their biases and the political axes they had to grind. The IBD is correct: these texts are not giving an accurate, or even a balanced, portrayal of the past because they reflect the movement to make politically correct the previous textbooks, which were equally but oppositely deficient. The current textbooks cannot say anything nice about dead white males, and cannot say anything bad about minorities (minorities meaning non-whites) – does anyone really believe that is an accurate portrayal of history? Or does anyone really believe that the previous textbooks, which portrayed Western civilization as an inexorable progress of the good, educated and just over the savage, cruel and ignorant, were a correct portrayal of history?

A balanced textbook would provide a historical picture of both the Christians and the Muslims that included both the atrocities committed and the progress made. However, you aren’t likely to see that anytime soon, as the vanguard of 60s and 70s liberals who pushed for the first changes and can’t see the positives that were contributed by Western Civilization or the problems with non-Western Civilizations are in the positions of power in terms of setting curricula, writing texts, and teaching the kiddies.

And it’s definitely no better in college than in K-12. I had to endure a politically correct indoctrination class (I had my choice of Mexican-American history, Black-American History, or Asian-American history, which at UC San Diego translated into How Whitey Screwed the Mexicans, Blacks, and Asians, respectively – at least I had my choice for which brainwashing I was to get…) before I was allowed to take a single other U.S. History class. Additionally, many of the other classes were taught by Marxist refugees who idolized Che Guevera, longed for a return of protesting students taking over the campus, and had found the last refuge for their rejected theories within the ivory tower of academia – mostly because with the tenure system no one could get rid of them even though their ideas were hopelessly dated and tilted toward hating America.

The main thing to realize is that you can’t simply leave it to the education profession to educate your children. If you really want your kids to gain a balanced perspective not controlled by the politics of whoever is in charge of the curricula at the time, you have to take an active hand in teaching them yourself. And if you happen to be of the perspective that history can be accurately portrayed in a one-side-was-always-evil-and-one-side-was-always-good manner I suggest you broaden your own education by reading a good deal more, including from historians and reports contemporary to the times in which you are interested, from both sides.

Oh yeah – to whoever it was that claimed there couldn’t be a liberal media bias because the media networks are owned by corporations: Get a grip. Corporations care about their own interests, not the interests of any given political party – that’s why they back legislation that protects their own bottom lines, and why they give money to both political parties by the truckload. That’s why different corporations back different political parties on different issues. That’s why Microsoft’s large-scale competitors (Oracle, Sun, etc.) were the biggest supporters of the justice department’s anti-trust suit against Microsoft. The political leanings of reporters and editors are not important to corporate owners insomuch as they do not affect the corporate bottom line. Even if they did care, do you really think that in a competitive market enconomy Jack Welch and the G.E. BOD had nothing better to do with their time than to sit around and edit the copy of NBC reporters for political content?

The most credible evidence I have seen that there is indeed a liberal media bias was the survey of reporters conducted after the Clinton/Dole presidential race, where over 90% of the reporters surveyed reported voting for Clinton – meaning 10% or fewer (the thing I saw didn’t say how many of the rest voted for the Green party or the American Communist Party) voted for the Republican candidate. That seems a far better indication of potential bias than does the ownership of the networks. The other evidence is secondary, but equally persuasive – Fox’s cable news channel grew enormously because it filled a niche that was unfilled before its arrival on the scene: a television news network with a more conservative outlook. It was so successful that the other networks have had to move rightward to attempt to capture back lost viewership.

Specster wrote “someone name me one instance in the last 1000 years when christians have physcially harmed anyone in the name of christianity.”
****Other than the Inquisition: The suppression of the Albigensian Heresy. The Crusades - all eight of them. The SPanish entry into South America, The Catholic supression of the Huegenots in Southern France circa late 16th Century. Catholics vs Protestants in England 16th Century. The supression of science by the church from the year dot included lumineries such as Gallileo [ recant or be toasted]. I could go on, but you only asked for one example…and note I am not using personality cults like JOnestown which were ostensibly christian initially, or even something like the Branch Dividians. We’ll also ignore 400+ years of “missionary work”.

I think the point is is that there has never been, in history, a major religion that has been so incredibly focused on hate and violence. Sure Christianity had its black eye’s but it was a lesser sin of greed rather that pure unadulterated hate, that inspired them. I see islam as a religion of hate, people can say what they want, but actions speak louder than words. And thier actions are violent and hateful.

‘their actions’? Radical fundamentalist Muslims make up less than 10% of the faith and you are judging and entire religion on them? Open your eyes, radical fundamentalist Christians are JUST as bad. No, they don’t tend to fly planes into buildings, but abortion doctors are people too. And I am sorry to say, the Catholic Church has committed FAR more atrocites than the Islamic faith. All religions have directions in their holy book to convert non-belivers (or kill them) Go read your Old Testament. Every textbook is biased towards western culture, go look who invented the printing press… Gutenburg? Um…no the chinese were printing and had paper long before the westerners. History is written by the ‘winners’, and the ‘under dog’ writes the complete opposite. Which is true? NEITHER.

For the record, I do NOT hate Muslims. In general, I have as much respect for them as I do Christians, Hindus, Taoists, or Wiccans for that matter. Please do not lump me in any hate category. Hate requires too much energy for me to expend.

In addition to Investors, the Wall Street Journal has an excellent editorial page. Also, check out Capitalismmagazine.com as an alternative to the liberal-left media.

Michelle, find me the quote in the Bible where it says to convert non-believers “or kill them.”