4
115

[–] axolotl__peyotl [S] 4 points 115 points (+119|-4) ago 

The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history. He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.

–George Orwell, 1984

Common Core and similar corporate-driven efforts to alter education are starting to have some serious consequences.

Rewriting history is a major part of the silent takeover that is and has been underway for some time.

The powers that be are interested in control, not in freedom. That much is understood.

As such, American history – as ugly and bloody as it has been – cannot be told. Knowledge about the U.S. Constitution, the critical Bill of Rights and the revolution for independence are inconvenient facts to the new social engineering.

Incredibly, public schools are now actually beginning to rewrite history by omitting this pivotal chapter from classrooms.

According to EAGnews.org, South Dakota – which is a Common Core state – is literally leaving it untaught:

Important topics like the Declaration of Independence, the Revolutionary War and the framing of the U.S. Constitution may simply be ignored by teachers under new history standards approved by the state’s board of education last Monday, the Argus Leader reports.

Current standards do not allow history teachers to delve into topics before the Civil War, so the new standards open up the door but don’t require teachers to cover early American history, as many would have preferred. The recently adopted history standards are set to take effect in 2016-17 school year and whittle the current standards from 117 pages to 44.

“Our current history standards do not even give an option as to whether it’s comprehensive or modern,” board president Don Kirkegaard told the news site. “It’s strictly modern.”

No, this is not hyperbole. These South Dakota schools are literally talking about leaving out lessons on the founding of the United States, to instead focus most of the school year on the last century, which can only be properly understood in the context of what has happened in the last 500 years… and beyond.

This should be alarming to everyone, whether you love America and what it stands for, or not!

The net effect of keeping kids ignorant of history is, of course, passed down the line to society who must endure “low information voters” and malleable sheep in many areas.

Already, college professors – with their own problems concerning academic standards – are complaining that students are arriving woefully ignorant and unprepared either to face history or the wider world. According to the Argus Leader:

Ben Jones, dean and associate professor of history at Dakota State University, has said he and his colleagues are “astounded by the level of ignorance” of U.S. history that they see in freshmen.

But there are other important reasons to teach high school students about our nation’s early history.

Constitutional topics are common in today’s political debate and students without a solid understanding and who do not have the appropriate level of context for these discussions are at a disadvantage. As citizens, we need to understand our rights and duties as well as appreciate how they came to be.

1
42

[–] intiraymi 1 points 42 points (+43|-1) ago 

Thanks for breaking down the article. Common Core is absolutely awful!

0
15

[–] toxicass 0 points 15 points (+15|-0) ago 

I actually left my home state because of common core. 30 years in Florida and even the private schools were adhering to it.

0
4

[–] CVravenRaven76 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Common Core is already on its way out, but who knows what awfulness they'll come up with next.

1
2

[–] Fuzzy_Dunlop 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

Regardless of your stance on Common Core, this has nothing to do with it. Common Core is only for Math and English. The fact that a Common Core state did something unrelated that is bad does not reflect on Common Core, especially considering most states are Common Core states. That is like saying "Illinois, a state with income tax, has had multiple recent governors convicted and imprisoned." Technically true but still nonsense.

0
1

[–] novictim 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Read my comment. There is more to this than what was claimed in the article. Follow the links from the article and it all boils down to loud and persistent voices of "parents"(?) at the Education Board Meetings.

6
13

[–] FiatNox 6 points 13 points (+19|-6) ago 

This seems like a pretty terrible article that quotes other terrible articles. I'm not a fan of Common Core, but as far as I know it has nothing to do with what history gets taught. It's about math, reading, and writing. This article is about state standards, not Common Core.

Moreover, if the confusing wording in this quote can be taken at face value, it sounds like the new standards are a step in the right direction:

"Current standards do not allow history teachers to delve into topics before the Civil War, so the new standards open up the door but don’t require teachers to cover early American history, as many would have preferred."

That means that the standards currently in place REQUIRED that American History was only to be taught from the Civil War onwards, whereas the NEW standards allow (but do not require) the teaching of earlier history (including the revolution and constitution).

1
4

[–] Schnazz 1 points 4 points (+5|-1) ago 

How would not requiring the American revolution to be taught a step in the right direction? Where else around they learn about the bill of rights

0
0

[–] owyn_merrilin 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

And I'd like to see what standards they're referencing. Here in Florida, the way it works is US history before the civil war is taught in eighth grade, and then US history after the civil war is covered in 11th, with the option of having all of US history (well, really everything through World War II, because an entire extra course worth of material has now happened since the end of World War II; I always got the feeling that this overall structure hadn't really been updated since the Cold War was a current event rather than a piece of history) covered more in depth and with most of the censorship dropped by taking AP US history instead.

Source: Certified in Florida Social Studies teacher, although I'm currently back in school for an engineering degree and hope to avoid ever having to teach again.

0
0

[–] novictim 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

"This article is about state standards"

Bingo! Its just like Kansas or Oklahoma deciding not to teach evolution or have Huckleberry Finn. The problem is the pressure groups in the state, not the Federal Standards.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
3

[–] sp00kygh0st 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Common core is fucking awful. Maybe we should spend less time learning about the holocaust and more time learning about our own country

0
2

[–] AssaultMonkey 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Well put. Another huge problem with not learning your history is that you're doomed to repeat your mistakes. The whole advancement of human civilization depends on future generations learning from those who came before. Neglecting teaching history is detrimental to our species on a whole.

2
51

[–] axolotl__peyotl [S] 2 points 51 points (+53|-2) ago 

No American Revolution either.

Can't have those pesky kids learning that you have to fight for your rights...and that when you do you might even win...

1
13

[–] bozarkin 1 points 13 points (+14|-1) ago 

The extreme left and right are both in on this.

The left is happy with teaching more about oppression and repayment due to guilt that needs to be inherited by the next generation .

The right is happy with these kids never learning the secular basis of the constitution and the appreciation of enlightenment ideals by practically all founding fathers, so they can go on pretending this is "Christian nation".

Jefferson weeps.

0
3

[–] im_the_dude_man 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Yes, they'll have to learn how to fight for their rights from the Beastie Boys now.

0
0

[–] clubberlang 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

ummmmmmmmm dont you mean party for your right to fight? lets get it on.

0
0

[–] JackBadass 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I guess if you're a bunch of 18th century farmers with muskets fighting an enemy not in their homeland who line up rank and file with bright red coats, you might win. Standing up to government forces today the same way? Yeah, have fun bleeding to death.

0
0

[–] Subtenko 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

:( I cant remember some of the stuff I've learned in history. But dang it would be favorite subject if I had the outlook I have now. I'd be so interactive in that class, though I'd probably have clashing views on debatable topics lol.

Would be interesting to be a history teacher, but I'd probably get pissed over the stuff thats possibly changed or the stuff that I couldn't cover.

0
46

[–] pray_the_gay_away 0 points 46 points (+46|-0) ago 

"Are you some kind of constitutionalist?!"

2
18

[–] axolotl__peyotl [S] 2 points 18 points (+20|-2) ago 

Too bad our president isn't a constitutional scholar, then he'd be able to make things right.

0
25

[–] toxicass 0 points 25 points (+25|-0) ago 

They don't study the constitution to adhere to it, they study it find holes in it. To beat it

1
11

[–] green_man 1 points 11 points (+12|-1) ago 

Knowing the constitution and believing in it are two different things. I think this pretty much sums up Obamas knowledge on the constitution...

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”

― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

0
0

[–] clubberlang 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

he was and is after all a lawyer

0
0

[–] Longbow 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Too bad our president isn't a constitutional scholar wasn't bought and paid for, then he'd be able to make things right.

FTFY ;-)

2
31

[–] BoiseNTheHood 2 points 31 points (+33|-2) ago 

The Constitution doesn't fit the big-government agenda. I'm surprised it took this long for it to start being ignored in history class.

2
7

[–] Totenglocke 2 points 7 points (+9|-2) ago 

Well the AP US history books have long claimed that the Second Amendment only allows for the government to have guns.

0
8

[–] CaptainRex 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

Really? What are your sources?

1
5

[–] 2258586? 1 points 5 points (+6|-1) ago 

Activist teachers unions are more inclined to ignore the Constitution no matter who's in the White House.

0
0

[–] novictim 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

This is a product of pressure groups and parents in the State. Read my comment.

[–] [deleted] 3 points -1 points (+2|-3) ago 

[Deleted]

0
0

[–] novictim 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Realize that the Education Board in South Dakota made this decision and it was due to PUBLIC voices at the school curriculum meetings.

Parents and Pressure Groups made this awful choice.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 14 points (+14|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
1

[–] MaMaPyCb 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

course then comes the issue of teaching real history or the "grand narrative" which is pretty much nothing more than a myth.

0
1

[–] 80sProduct 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

especially omitting the destruction of the indians and focusing on white destiny or some bullshit

2
0

[–] refugee610 2 points 0 points (+2|-2) ago 

I remember K-12. We covered early US history repeatedly. We don't go any further in depth past about 7th grade, it's just repetition after that. High schools will never give a proper in-depth look at the founding of our nation so I see no problem with finding a better use for the time. It's not like they're cutting it entirely, they're just not repeating it again.

0
5

[–] Salnax 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

Are you referring to how many schools spend eight years reviewing everything from Columbus to the Declaration of Independence?

I understand the repetition position, but even then some stuff across the 1800's and beyond requires a review of the Constitution and similar documents to make any sense.

[–] [deleted] 3 points 10 points (+13|-3) ago 

[Deleted]

2
2

[–] RunsWithScissors 2 points 2 points (+4|-2) ago 

Finally someone who actually understands what CC is opining. I love all the people here bitching about Obama. Because he controls state school boards.

Some CC states have other standards that are great, some have other standards that are really, really shitty.

Ironic, given that the alleged purpose of CC was to make an "A" or a "C" the same in every district.

1
8

[–] Ralesblasband 1 points 8 points (+9|-1) ago  (edited ago)

I poked around a bit and found the document that all of the hysteria is based on. And I don't see what the problem is, at all.

http://doe.sd.gov/ContentStandards/documents/SocialStd.pdf

They relevant portion is at pages 38-39. It looks like high schools are being given the choice of multiple course formats for teaching courses on U.S. History, and that some focus on different aspects of it. And it also looks like the course standards were prepared and approved by history teachers throughout the state. As far as I can tell, it seems that this simply allows for a choice of what the teachers and students are most interested in covering, and allows multiple choices of course formats to satisfy the high school graduation requirements. Nothing I can see divorces the Constitution from ANY of the course structures that the state has approved. Nor does it appear that the various requirements don't include any coverage of early American history -- even the comprehensive and modern ones are still framed within the rubric of overall American history.

The other thing to consider is that early American history is covered repeatedly and well before high school in the standards anyway. Personally, given the depth and extent of fact and nuance that can be conveyed in specialized courses instead of survey courses, I'm all in favor of choice on what to study. Or, in simpler terms: I'd rather you learn a lot about what you're interested in that a general survey of a lot of bullshit. And, really, let's face it: trying to teach the Constitution in depth is probably wasted on people who aren't interested in it, anyway. Hell, when I was in law school I'd say probably 10% of the student body truly understood what drove it and what drives its interpretation in practice.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
1

[–] Ralesblasband 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

No, translated would be more along the lines of not everyone needs to know everything about everything, and most teachers aren't qualified to do more than hand a copy of the Constitution to their students. Suggesting that someone can learn anything more than generalities in history at the high school level is the height of hubris.

1
6

[–] Crashmarik 1 points 6 points (+7|-1) ago 

Usually ignored by the supreme court as well.

No surprise teachers decided to follow suit.

0
0

[–] novictim 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

You labelled the wrong target. See my posts.

It was loud pressure groups/"parents" that demanded this dumbed-down curriculum. The question is who the fuck these folks really represented.

I have never gone to a School Board Meeting or State Conference on education. I'm guilty in this regard.

load more comments ▼ (31 remaining)