Tea Party Groups Issue Demand for Revisionist History

Tennessee Tea Party Groups Issue Demand On How Textbooks Portray 'Minority Experience In History'

A coalition of Tennessee Tea Party groups has formulated a list of "demands" focused on the state's educational curriculum and political agenda that they want the state's legislature to heed this session.

As far as their educational concerns, the panel writes that they want to "compel the teaching of students in Tennessee the truth regarding the history of our nation and the nature of its government," a failure that they claimed had been brought about by "neglect and outright ill will," The Memphis Commercial Appeal reports.

Hal Rounds, spokesman for the group, recently claimed at news conference that there was "an awful lot of made-up criticism about, for instance, the Founders intruding on the Indians or having slaves or being hypocrites in one way or another."

As a result, the Tea Party organizations argue, there should be "no portrayal of minority experience in the history which actually occurred shall obscure the experience or contributions of the Founding Fathers, or the majority of citizens, including those who reached positions of leadership."

"The thing we need to focus on about the Founders is that, given the social structure of their time, they were revolutionaries who brought liberty into a world where it hadn't existed, to everybody -- not all equally instantly -- and it was their progress that we need to look at," Rounds explained of his interpretation of the legacy of the Founding Fathers.

The issue of revising curriculums to teach history in a manner that encourages the glossing over of the uglier factors of the past has popped up in other states over the past year.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/1 ... 08508.html


You can't make this stuff up... The wingnuts are on the march, using TEXAS as the template for revisionist history....

God help us all... :bash :bash :Koolaid: :Koolaid: :VeryScared: :VeryScared:

Just asking, because I've already been burned once today by a post that seemingly most people here knew was a joke - is this a joke?

No... Did you click on the link?

I love the part about: "....who brought liberty into a world where it hadn't existed, to everybody -- not all equally instantly --"

I guess they still don't want to talk about that pesky "3/5 of a person" rule, and the 14th Amendment... It's so embarrassing to have to acknowledge that...unless, of course, you're Glenn Beck, and then you just invent a new justification.

So, this Teapublican group wants to exclude anything negative concerning the founding fathers. In addition, they think it is a lie that the same founding fathers had slaves or intruded on the American Indian nation?

LadyJazzer wrote: No... Did you click on the link?

I love the part about: "....who brought liberty into a world where it hadn't existed, to everybody -- not all equally instantly --"

I guess they still don't want to talk about that pesky "3/5 of a person" rule, and the 14th Amendment... It's so embarrassing to have to acknowledge that...unless, of course, you're Glenn Beck, and then you just invent a new justification.

Did you notice that when the Constitution was read in the US House recently, they didn't read the whole thing? The left out the unsavory parts, like the 3/5 rule.

Scruffy wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote: No... Did you click on the link?

I love the part about: "....who brought liberty into a world where it hadn't existed, to everybody -- not all equally instantly --"

I guess they still don't want to talk about that pesky "3/5 of a person" rule, and the 14th Amendment... It's so embarrassing to have to acknowledge that...unless, of course, you're Glenn Beck, and then you just invent a new justification.

Did you notice that when the Constitution was read in the US House recently, they didn't read the whole thing? The left out the unsavory parts, like the 3/5 rule.

Yeah... I thought it was funny that they read the 21st Amendment (Repeal of Prohibition), but DIDN'T read the 18th Amendment (which established Prohibition in the first place). Kind of hard to explain that Government intrusion into private behaviors....

I may be wrong, but I thought the intent was to read the current Constitution.

Why would you expect them to read things which are no longer part of the Constitution?

jf1acai wrote: I may be wrong, but I thought the intent was to read the current Constitution.

Why would you expect them to read things which are no longer part of the Constitution?

It's sort of like the Texas Tea Party wanting to exclude facts of the founding fathers from education. History is about understanding the context around situations and decisions that were made. The same could be said for reading the entire Constitution, that by reading the prohibition amendment, we can remember and learn from past mistakes.

I agree if the intent was to study Constitutional history. But not if the intent, as I understand it, was so they would know what the Constitution is today.

Then why would you read the Amendment that repealed it? If, by your logic, the 18th wasn't "part of the Constitution", then why would you read an Amendment that repeals something that doesn't exist?