When I was in college almost ALL my course humanity electives were on American History…Even took a class called Thomas Jefferson. He is by many (including myself) the BEST example of an American there ever was.
Didn’t that same Texas school board change the name of “Slave Trades” to “Atlantic triangular trade”. Trying to make believe that the Slave trade NEVER existed…
The same school board has dropped the Study of Sir Isaac Newton in favor of examining scientific advances through military technology. Isaac Newton…arguably one of the GREATEST (if not THEE Greatest) scientist/mathematician EVER. This really doesn’t surprise…since they’ve proven time and time again they believe that Science is the Devils work…and should be avoided like the plague.
And, the fallout of Texas’s dumbing-down of the history and science curricula in order to advance their ultraconservative agenda actually has very far-reaching effects outside of Texas!
Because Texas is such a populous state, they purchase a HUGE number of textbooks each year.
This causes publishers to alter their text content in order to win book orders from the state of Texas.
As a result, even if another state doesn’t want to dumb-down their curriculum, Texas-style, they may have little choice because so many texts have been dumbed- down as a result of Texas’s actions. The ultimate result of this narrow view of things by the state of Texas is that education for future generations of Americans–in all states–becomes weaker, and that is not a good thing.
Talk about catering to special interest groups!
Talk about trying to bias children toward a particular way of thinking!
I had the same problem over 20 years ago when my son was in 8th grade. He was placed in a creative writing class. He would scribble out something in fifteen or twenty minutes. One third of the words were unrecognizable because of his poor spelling. His punctuation was even worse. Yet, my son was given an “A” in the class. I took examples of his work (or non-work) to the principal of the school. I am probably the only parent on the planet that insisted his child’s grade be lowered. The creative writing teacher said that my son had wonderful ideas. I maintained that his wonderful ideas aren’t worth anything if he can’t express them. Well, the school wouldn’t lower my son’s grade. I sent him to a military academy for high school. He had teachers there that challenged him, and as a result, he has earned his bachelor’s degree, a master’s degree and is working on his doctorate.
I wanted to make a couple of points. They were, some good can come out of being forced to learn something you don’t even believe exists or is necessary to learn about. What I mean here is, if I was not forced to write about racisim and white privlidge I would never have found out about Jeffersons views in regards to slavery. Too many people view the founding fathers in the same aspect of an apostle of Jesus, they were not apostle like. We have people amoung us today just as smart and dedicated. I also wanted to point out that some ciriculum is appropriate for College but not for High School. I am not at all in favor of forcing the class I took (which was suppose to be a writing class) upon anyone, and at times in certain school districts the viewpoints expressed in this one writing class are forced up students,I don’t go for that. These “ethnic” studies classes(which is what this writing class turned out to be) can harm in the way of maintaining an “us and them” viewpoint BUT on the other hand I am not for destroying the culture of a certain group (as long as aspects of this groups culture do not harm anyone). What I mean is, I do not support mutilation of people simply because it is part of someones culture.
I was not suggesting that anyone writings should be “burned” only suggesting that you don’t have to dig very hard before you find the “heros” of the nation have some pretty offensive writings associated with their names.
Virginia was way behind most of the world in regards to supporting slavery at the time Jefferson wrote his “Notes on the State of Virginia”. The practice had recently been abolished by both France and England(England in 1807, I should check on how this compares with the date on Jefferesons “Notes on the State of Virginia”). I am pretty sure you are aware of the fallacy involved when you justify what you are doing by saying “everyone is doing it” and in the case of what Virginia was doing, everyone else was not doing it. The U.S.( at this point in time I would think “The Colonies” would be a more appropriate term) was the big hold out in this area. During Lincolns time he has been quoted as saying that if keeping slaverly maintained the Republic he would keep slavery, and if abolition kept the Republic whole then he would abolish slaverly, anything that maintained the Republic was OK with him.
In regards to Jefferesons view on “church and state” (which was a phrase he used in a letter to a Baptist church I believe). He seems to play things both ways, meaning he does not seem to be in favor of protecting the people from the church, but vigioursly working to insure that the church will survive. I have found it better when discussing “seperation of church and state” to not use this phrase as it will give “the other side” a strawman to attack your position (as the words do not appear in either the Declaration of Independance or the Constitution. It is better to refer to “the establishment clause” because the words we so often refer too start out with "Congress shall not establish…
Too many people view the founding fathers in the same aspect of an apostle of Jesus, they were not apostle like.
And that is ONE of the flaws of conservative thinking. They believe that the constitution AS written should stand without change because the founding fathers were SO infallible. It was actually the opposite. Thomas Jefferson (and others like Adams and Franklin) believed that the constitution is a changing document. Thomas Jefferson firmly believed the constitution should be thrown out and rewritten every 9 years to keep up the changing views of the time. The compromise was to create a constitution that could be amended. Many constitutions at the time could NOT be amended.
Oldschool, you might want to go back and edit your piece as it is riddled with errors and typos. Look for the red underline in your text which is a heads up for spelling mistakes. This piece looks like it was composed in a tavern, which doesn’t help your point. Please tell me you didn’t have to go to school to know Jefferson owned slaves…
I had to go to school to find out he wrote a paper to the people of Virginia explaining why slavery was justified. Have you ever read Jeffersons notes on the State of Virginia? As I remember there were about 12 chapters or verses and it was the 4th or 5th that dealt with his views on slavery. I suppose you came to know all you know about Jefferson by watching the History Channel? as Glenn Beck never mentions this piece of work by Jefferson.
I am not writing with any “see I proved my point” in mind. You can take away any amount of points you want for spelling errors. Historical accuracy, I tried to keep events in line, have I gotten (or more out of sync?)
“As I remember there were about 12 chapters or verses and it was the 4th or 5th that dealt with his views on slavery.” Score one for community college. Chapters or verses? The document in question is divided into Queries and slavery is addressed in the 13th and 14th Queries. In these Queries Jefferson argued that slaves should be educated, emancipated, and returned to Africa, much like Lincoln almost 80 years later. Ever wonder how the country of Liberia got its name? What’s the History Channel? Who’s Glenn Beck?
Much better spelling this time out. Hair of the dog?
Still struggling to figure this out, though:
“Historical accuracy, I tried to keep events in line, have I gotten (or more out of sync?)”
Odd that in a thread where it is argued that correcting ones spelling and grammar is non productive you do just that.
The only complaint you have is my spelling? I can deal with that.
It is in Querrie 14 that Jefferson made and “anguished attempt the justify and explain American chattel slavery” and also where he tried to explain the real distinctions nature has made between those of cacausian and African decent. Nice try Thomas, but I would not expect more from a man that wrote “all men are created equal” as long as they are white that is.
It appears to me that the problem is not the use of shorthand per se, but its use when unrelated to the purpose it was intended to achieve- speed. Railroad telegraph operators, hams, and other radio operators had to use shorthand to send messages quickly, because, in many cases, life and property were at stake. The current generation merely adopted these methods to suit the fast-paced modern world, and who can blame them for that?
However, humans tend to be creatures of habit and continue habits when no longer appropriate- often innocently. At risk of groans and sighs, I bring up the oft-told story of the new housewife who cuts off the end of the roast because her grandmother’s pan was too small.
What these kids need is someone to politely tell them (if not I, who? If not now, when?) that clear articulation, not speed, is an important value of this forum, and that they are to write accordingly.
I fall on both sides of this issue. I, too, am annoyed and often confused by the ‘newspeak’ text-style posts. That said, I’ve noticed that even the most careful among you (us?) commit some grammatical errors when complaining about the deterioration of written English. Proofread the above post and you’ll find a couple. It’s typical of most critiquing others’ grammar. (I’m sure this post has at least one or two.)
I’m no grammar-nanny. I’m gonna[sic] use ‘gonna’ because it’s the way I speak. I understand that it’s equivalent to ‘going to’. I use single quotes where doubles are most proper, because it’s my style. It conveys the intent and is easier to type. I wouldn’t do it on my resume’…
I guess my point is, to check your own side of the fence carefully before you complain about the mess in your neighbor’s yard.
We all must learn to clearly articulate our meaning. You don’t seem to understand that it’s not an issue of intelligence. A functional illiterate could still design complex electronics. Whether he could get his designs implemented is another story, but a high degree of literacy–beyond mere functionality–is not required. Intelligence is.
In fact your reply above is full of them. It’s not important. It succinctly conveys your intended meaning. I share many of the peeves in this thread, but it’s important to remember that there are levels of formality in written expression. It’s even more important to use each appropriately for the intended audience. I’m the ‘ellipsis king’. There’s one or more in every online post under my name.
I wouldn’t put them in my resume’.
That’s the point. As my daughter’s 7th grade English teacher said; you have to learn the rules before you’re allowed to break them…for whatever reason (creative expression, emphasis, brevity etc).
I mentioned my daughter’s 7th grade English teacher in another reply to this thread. I was gratified that she required strict adherence to grammar and spelling in her class. Her justification (as if she needed one) was that; ‘one needed to learn the rules before they could properly judge when to break them.’
That is such a great philosophy of teaching language, in my opinion. Great writing often doesn’t follow the rules, for many reasons. Those are rife, but include brevity, impact or simply the intended audience. Once we know what is proper, we can CHOOSE our style based on our audience.
Hopefully the feedback we receive will be based on content, not our degree of slavish adherence to rules in a book. All the proper grammar in the world is useless if you have nothing interesting to say. Even good ideas can be obscured in stilted–but otherwise proper–English.
Speaking of embarrassing errors, below is a picture of a replica of Michelangelo’s [b]David[/b] in Buffalo, NY. If you look closely at the attached picture, you will see on the base of the statue where it lists the artist as “Michael Angelo.” It’s covered with a plaque now, listing the artist as “Michelangelo”. I think it had more personality the old way.