Three years ago
- Thread starter Gonz
- Start date
chcr
Too cute for words
Keep watching.
Of course if anything does go wrong, it will be all those liberals fault, huh? Naysayer, that's a new buzzword for you, Gonz, just as meaningless as all the others. This election was set up to fail, but interestingly, I doubt that the people who set it up will take the blame when it does. It is possible to spread democracy, it has been done time and again. Spreading it by coercion has never worked, and it never will.
Of course if anything does go wrong, it will be all those liberals fault, huh? Naysayer, that's a new buzzword for you, Gonz, just as meaningless as all the others. This election was set up to fail, but interestingly, I doubt that the people who set it up will take the blame when it does. It is possible to spread democracy, it has been done time and again. Spreading it by coercion has never worked, and it never will.
chcr
Too cute for words
Gonz said:Are you fucking high? We bombed Germany back to the stone age & we ended up bombing Japan back to the primordial soup age & you say that's not coercion?
That is not, however, why they became democracies. There was no coercion on the part of the Allies to accept any specific form of government, undertaking a democratic government (and note that either one is only superficially like ours) was simply the most expedient way to rebuild their countries and feed their people. East Germany, now, that was coercion. You'll note that it did not work.
Oh, and I don't get high anymore. History can be clear, you simply have to read all sides and separate the wheat from the chaff.
The wheat made it clear they had their choice of democratic goverments. The exact style is irrelevent. Do you think Marshall & friends gave them many options?
Afghanistan & Iraq do not need to place representative republics to pass muster, they just need to have a democratic open election. There are more & more democracies around the world every year & very few are like ours.
Afghanistan & Iraq do not need to place representative republics to pass muster, they just need to have a democratic open election. There are more & more democracies around the world every year & very few are like ours.
chcr
Too cute for words
Humans in general react badly to being told what to do and how to do it. Fortunately, the Allies of WWII understood this concept better than you or our administration. We got what we wanted in a way that didn't include "do it this way." Instead, we showed them how it was to their advantage to do it that way. The current method, on the other hand is: "do it this way and we swear it'll all work out okay." And you're surprised when there's resistance.Gonz said:
And if your "democratic open election" elects someone as bad as (or worse) than Hussein?
Oh, and the "more democradies in the world" part? Quite true, but those are not coerced either.
ResearchMonkey
Well-Known Member
people do not like to be told what to do; but after having lost WW2, after Desden and Nagasaki the surrenders were unconditional, they both had been "pwned". They had a choice something like what Ford used to offer "You can buy my Model-A car in any color you like, as long as it's black".
I think you have been reading some of the "new history", like "it all about sex".
I think you have been reading some of the "new history", like "it all about sex".
Quite true. Who's doing that?
The coalition freed some 30 million Afghanis and with the exception of some warlords and a few thousand terrorists, they're pleased with our action.
Iraq would be about 25 million & the unhappy belong to the previous dictators brutal political party & some more terrorists.
The problem, as I see it, is people who prefer to let bygones be bygones (no matter the cost) to taking a stand. People who wish to understand the motivations of murderers instead of simply stopping them. People more concerned with attempting to change things because it may get so & so angry or it might "create more terrorists". People whose vision gets clear when the picture is under construction yet muddies as it shows signs of long term beauty. People who would prefer to let a thousand men & women (or fifty eight thousand) die for nothing and end the conflict because they seem to believe peace is nothing more than the absence of war.
Freedom is the most important thing to have. We're doing our part to spread it.
Angry Again
Banned
Gonz said:
Published on Thursday, October 7, 2004 by CommonDreams.org
Afghan Elections: US Solution to a US Problem
by Jim Ingalls and Sonali Kolhatkar
Afghanistan will undergo the first presidential elections in the country's history on October 9, 2004. As if surprised by the fact that Afghans could want a voice in their country's future, George W. Bush touted the fact that over 10 million Afghans registered to vote as "a resounding endorsement for democracy." The real surprise is that, despite rampant anti-election violence and threats of violence, so many people were brave enough to register. This certainly indicates that Afghans are desperate for a chance to control their own lives. But, even though many will risk their lives to vote, the majority of Afghans played no part in decisionmaking regarding the schedule and structure of the elections, and will not benefit from the results. This election process was imposed by the United States to solve "Afghan problems" as defined by the United States. In reality, the problems facing Afghans are the results of decisions made in Washington in the 1980s and 1990s.
Test for Bush, Not for Afghans
To the Bush administration and media pundits, presidential elections in Afghanistan will bring the country closer to being a "democracy," where people decide their own fate. Business Week describes the elections as a "first test" of Bush's claim that Afghanistan and Iraq "are on the path to democracy." In a Washington Post opinion piece, Andrew Reynolds of the University of North Carolina similarly described the elections as a "Test for Afghan Democracy." In this view, any failure of the process will be caused by a lack of readiness of Afghanistan and its people for "democracy," not a failure of external players to fulfill their responsibilities to the country. What is being tested is solely the capacity of Afghans to embrace democracy. Few media outlets have dared to blame the United States for the more egregious fraud of imposing early elections on a still war-ravaged country where Northern Alliance warlords legitimized by Washington will continue to hold real power, regardless of who wins the vote. If the Afghan elections fail, Afghans will be blamed and Afghans will continue to suffer, seemingly as a result of their own actions.
Another point rarely mentioned is that elections do not equal democracy. J. Alexander Thier, a former legal adviser to Afghanistan's Constitutional and Judicial Reform Commissions, is one of the few commentators who dares to utter the simple fact: "Elections themselves are only a small part of democracy." In Thier's opinion, "Effective government service, protection of individual rights, accountability - these are the true fruits of democracy. Holding elections without the rule of law can undermine democracy by sparking violence, sowing cynicism and allowing undemocratic forces to become entrenched." Elections are merely "the end product of a successful democracy." Regardless of who wins the elections and by what means, civil society in Afghanistan is at the moment anything but democratic. Foreign influence, particularly US influence, has ensured that insecurity, warlordism, and a severely curtailed media are entrenched features of the political landscape.
In reality the Afghan presidential elections will be a test not of "Afghan democracy," but of Bush's ability to impose his political order on a country. An editorial in Newsday holds that, "Historic elections in Afghanistan and Iraq are key goals of U.S. foreign policy, especially for President George W. Bush, who is campaigning on his determination that they be held on schedule." Reynolds says the elections will be "a watershed moment, equal in importance to the post-Sept. 11 ousting of the Taliban." Since the warlords that now run most of the country are as bad as or worse than the Taliban, the ousting of the Taliban was more a watershed for Washington than for the Afghan people. Similarly, the Afghan elections are really a benchmark for Bush's foreign policy.
Reynolds says, "A legitimately elected administration in Kabul would not just be good for the Afghans; it would be much more likely to carry out the reforms the United States so keenly wants." It is clear that the only outcome that would be considered "legitimate" by the US is a win by the incumbent transitional President, Hamid Karzai. While there are 18 candidates running, the US media have focused almost exclusively on Karzai, frequently dubbed "the favorite" in news reports. For the Bush administration it is imperative that their hand picked and well-trained candidate wins. Not only will the anticipated victory of Karzai cement the current order of US influence, it will signal a victory for the "war on terror" as Bush defines it. Reynolds says, "Karzai's victory...would shine a ray of hope on an otherwise gloomy series of U.S. foreign policy misadventures."
Women are Pawns in Election
The Bush administration constantly calls attention to the fact that 4 million of those who registered to vote in Afghanistan were women. Just as the "liberation" of Afghan women was used to justify the bombing of Afghanistan three years ago, women's participation in US imposed election is again used to justify the US approach. While the administration deals in broad statistics to paint a rosy picture, a closer look reveals that the Afghan political environment, controlled by US-backed warlords and a US-backed president, remains extremely hostile to women. Women comprise 60% of the population but only 43% of registered voters. Additionally, sharp differences in literacy between men and women put women at a huge disadvantage. Only 10% of Afghan women can read and write. While school attendance of girls has increased to about 50% nationwide, it is too early to affect women voters. Furthermore, under Karzai's presidency, married women were banned from attending schools in late 2003.
While much mileage has been squeezed out of the notion that the US "liberated" Afghan women, only one dollar out of every $5,000 ($112,500 out of $650 million) of US financial aid sent to Afghanistan in 2002 was actually given to women's organizations. In 2003, according to Ritu Sharma, Executive Director of the Women's Edge Coalition, that amount was reduced to $90,000. At the same time, women have increasingly been the targets of violence. New studies by groups like Amnesty International reveal that sexual violence has surged since the fall of the Taliban, and there has been a sharp rise in incidents of women's self-immolation in Western Afghanistan. Amnesty International has documented an escalation in the number of girls and young women abducted and forced into marriage, with collusion from the state (those who resist are often imprisoned).
US policy has empowered extreme fundamentalists who have further extended women's oppression in a traditionally ultra-conservative society. In a public opinion survey conducted in Afghanistan this July by the Asia Foundation, 72% of respondents said that men should advise women on their voting choices and 87% of all Afghans interviewed said women would need their husband's permission to vote. On International Women's Day this year, Hamid Karzai only encouraged such attitudes. He implored men to allow their wives and sisters to register to vote, assuring them, "later, you can control who she votes for, but please, let her go [to register]." Most of the candidates running against Karzai have mentioned rights for women in some form or another as part of their campaign platforms. While this is obligatory in post-Taliban Afghanistan, it is little more than lip service. Latif Pedram, a candidate who went slightly further than others by suggesting that polygamy was unfair to women, was barred from the election and investigated by the Justice Ministry for "blasphemy".
Just like the Afghan constitution signed earlier this year, which gives equal rights to women on paper, this election will probably have little bearing on the reality of Afghan women's lives. Denied an education and underrepresented in voter rolls, with little control over the patriarchal justice system and sexist family attitudes, women are once more simply pawns within the US-designed Afghan political structure.
Warlords: Now a Problem for Bush
A recent countrywide survey of Afghans by the International Republican Institute found that "over 60 percent cited security as their primary concern, followed by reconstruction and economic development." According to 65% of respondents, "warlords and local commanders are the main sources of instability in the country." While most women may need the permission of their husbands to vote, their choices will be extremely limited, since most Afghans are being intimidated by US backed warlords into voting for them. According to Brad Adams, Asia Director at Human Rights Watch, "Many voters in rural areas say the [warlord] militias have already told them how to vote, and that they're afraid of disobeying them." The intimidation tactics of Abdul Rashid Dostum and others are no secret.
But the wider context of the warlords' power is rarely mentioned. As part of Bush's "War on Terror," the US made deals with Northern Alliance warlords in his crusade against the Taliban. Warlords were appointed to high-level government posts and allowed to regain regional power. As many factions fought one another for regional dominance, the US actively denied the expansion of the International Security Assistance Force from Kabul to the rest of the country, thereby closing a crucial window of opportunity to undermine the warlords early on. One should hardly be surprised at the current situation, a natural outcome of US policy over the last three years.
When their actions only affected the lives of ordinary Afghans, warlords were not a problem for Bush. Only now is Washington beginning to hold some of the warlords at arms length, as their presence reflects badly on the carefully staged demonstration of "democracy" via elections. Even worse, a warlord may become president, thwarting the carefully planned outcome. Yunus Qanooni of the Northern Alliance is seen as a major challenger to Karzai. If Karzai doesn't win, Afghanistan could spiral out of US control. To preserve control, or at least validate the propaganda that Afghanistan is a victory for the US "war on terror," the Bush administration is actively lobbying Karzai's opponents to not run. According to the Los Angeles Times, thirteen of the 18 candidates, including Qanooni, have complained about interference from Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. Ambassador. Khalilzad has reportedly "requested" candidates to withdraw from the race, attempting to bribe them with a position in the cabinet. Senior staff members of several candidates were described as "angry over what many Afghans see as foreign interference that could undermine the shaky foundations of a democracy the U.S. promised to build." Likely Scenarios
Post election Afghanistan will look very much as it does today, if not worse. If Karzai wins with the backing of some or all Northern Alliance factions, their leaders will be awarded high-level positions, further entrenching and legitimizing them. If Karzai wins without enough support from his opponent warlords, the losing parties may attack the central government, reverting the country to civil war. If Karzai loses, the warlords might form an alliance government, a horrible thought to contemplate considering the 1992-1996 "coalition government" of many of the same factions. In the latter two scenarios, it is not clear whether the US would intervene and re-install Karzai as President (as it has done in Iraq with Prime Minister Iyad Allawi), or allow Afghanistan to fester and implode (as it did in the early 1990s). What is certain is that none of these scenarios will lead to peace or real democracy.
To read the longer version of this article, please visit www.loveandsubversion.net.
Jim Ingalls and Sonali Kolhatkar are Co-Directors of the Afghan Women's Mission, a US-based non-profit organization that works in solidarity with the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA). Jim is a staff scientist at the Spitzer Science Center, California Institute of Technology. Sonali is the host and co-producer of Uprising, a daily public affairs program on KPFK Pacifica Radio. Together they have published many articles on Afghanistan and are working on their first book about US policy in Afghanistan.
Angry Again
Banned
Booklet That Upset Mrs. Cheney Is History
The Department of Education destroys 300,000 parent guides to remove references to national standards.
Lynne Cheney
By Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar and Jean Merl, Times Staff Writers
WASHINGTON — The Education Department this summer destroyed more than 300,000 copies of a booklet designed for parents to help their children learn history after the office of Vice President Dick Cheney's wife complained that it mentioned the National Standards for History, which she has long opposed.
In June, during a routine update, the Education Department began distributing a new edition of a 10-year-old how-to guide called "Helping Your Child Learn History." Aimed at parents of children from preschool through fifth grade, the 73-page booklet presented an assortment of advice, including taking children to museums and visiting historical sites.
The booklet included several brief references to the National Standards for History, which were developed at UCLA in the mid-1990s with federal support. Created by scholars and educators to help school officials design better history courses, they are voluntary benchmarks, not mandatory requirements.
At the time, Lynne Cheney, the wife of now-Vice President Cheney, led a vociferous campaign complaining that the standards were not positive enough about America's achievements and paid too little attention to figures such as Gen. Robert E. Lee, Paul Revere and Thomas Edison.
At one point in the initial controversy, Cheney denounced the standards as "politicized history."
In response to the criticism, the UCLA standards were heavily revised, most critics were mollified and the controversy faded — but not for Cheney and her staff.
"Helping Your Child Learn History" is not unique. The Education Department produces a series of similar booklets on topics such as science, geography, reading and math. The booklets are designed to encourage parents to get involved in their children's education. Often, they contain passing references to the kinds of curriculum standards that scholars and educators have developed in recent years to improve school courses. More than 9 million copies of such booklets have been distributed.
Seldom have the booklets sparked controversy. That changed this summer.
As the wife of the vice president, Cheney has no executive position in the federal government. But when her office spotted the references to the National Standards for History in the new edition of the history booklet, her staff communicated its displeasure to the Education Department.
Subsequently, the department decided it was necessary to kill the new edition and reprint it with references to the standards removed. Though about 61,000 copies of "Helping Your Child Learn History" had been distributed, the remaining 300,000-plus copies were destroyed. Asked about the decision, one department official said they had been "recycled."
The Times obtained a copy of the booklet as originally printed.
A new version of the booklet, the basis for the version that is being printed, is on the Education Department's website. It has been edited to remove references to the standards.
For example, a clause in the foreword was removed that suggested President Bush supported instruction based on teaching standards that had been developed for various academic subjects.
Also missing from the department's Internet version is a suggestion that parents ask whether their children's curriculum incorporates the National Standards for History. An Internet address for the standards in a list of more than a dozen websites for parents was also removed, as well as a footnote elsewhere in the text that shows where to find more information about the history standards.
When The Times initially approached the Education Department to inquire about the booklets, the department issued a statement saying it had taken the unusual action because of "mistakes, including typos and incomplete information."
Later, Susan Aspey, the department's press secretary, admitted that typographical errors were not the reason. Asked about the role of Cheney's office, Aspey responded:
"The decision was ours to stop distribution and reprint. Both offices were on parallel tracks and obviously neither of us were pleased that the final document was not the accurate reflection of policy that was approved originally."
A representative for Cheney said her office did not order the destruction of the booklets. "Unequivocally, [neither] Mrs. Cheney nor her staff insisted on having the history publication recalled," said spokeswoman Maria Miller. "And that's just the bottom line."
However, neither department officials nor Cheney's office would discuss the episode in detail. Both refused to allow interviews with the staffers involved.
Individuals with knowledge of the events said complaints from Cheney's office moved the Education Department to act. The individuals spoke on condition of anonymity.
Retired UCLA professor Gary Nash, co-chairman of the effort to develop the National Standards for History, said he found the decision to destroy the booklets after Cheney's office complained "extremely troubling."
"That's a pretty god-awful example of spending the taxpayers' money and also a pretty god-awful example of interference — intellectual interference," Nash said. "If that's not Big Brother or Big Sister, I don't know what is."
According to Michelle M. Herczog, a consultant in history and social sciences for the Los Angeles County Office of Education, the standards have become a resource for many states in developing curriculum guidelines. They are also used to develop textbooks.
"Why the U.S. Department of Education would take that out of a federal document for parents is just beyond me," said Herczog, who was not involved in the development of the standards.
The answer is that, from their inception, the American history guidelines have been caught in an ideological feud.
Cheney led the charge on the original UCLA draft. In a widely read opinion piece published in 1994, she complained that "We are a better people than the National Standards indicate, and our children deserve to know it."
The standards contained repeated references to the Ku Klux Klan and to Sen. Joseph McCarthy, the anti-Communist demagogue of the 1950s, she said. And she noted that Harriet Tubman, the escaped slave who helped run the Underground Railroad, was mentioned six times.
But Revere, Lee, the Wright brothers and other prominent figures went unmentioned, she said.
Such complaints led to revision of the standards.
Recently, when the department decided to update "Helping Your Child Learn History," Cheney's office became involved because of her long-standing interest in American history.
Cheney is prominently quoted in the booklet as a "noted author and wife of the vice president." Two books on history that she wrote for children are mentioned in the booklet.
The acknowledgments also credit her office for helping with the guide, which cost $110,360 to print, Aspey said.
As head of the National Endowment for the Humanities under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush, Cheney approved some of the funding for the National Standards for History project, but she also issued a blistering critique of social science education, which is listed as a resource in the booklet.
The history booklet was first published in 1993. Having made education reform a centerpiece of its domestic agenda, the current administration decided to update the series.
As the Education Department prepared the new edition, Cheney's office reviewed drafts and provided materials but the second lady was not personally involved, an aide said.
The references to the National History Standards were added at the Education Department after Cheney's office signed off on an initial draft that did not mention them. Aspey said it was apparently done for consistency, because such standards were referred to in the department's other guidebooks for parents.
Aspey said mention of the standards implied official approval. "We don't endorse National Standards for History, and the document that was printed is not an accurate reflection of the policy of the government right now," she said.
New York University educator Diane Ravitch, who launched the "Helping Your Child Learn" series of publications as a former high-ranking Education Department official, said it was a mistake to suggest that the history standards were a template for the country.
Nonetheless, Ravitch said, "I would have had a hard time recalling [the booklet], because I think the recall makes a big issue of something nobody would have paid attention to otherwise."
The Department of Education destroys 300,000 parent guides to remove references to national standards.
Lynne Cheney
By Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar and Jean Merl, Times Staff Writers
WASHINGTON — The Education Department this summer destroyed more than 300,000 copies of a booklet designed for parents to help their children learn history after the office of Vice President Dick Cheney's wife complained that it mentioned the National Standards for History, which she has long opposed.
In June, during a routine update, the Education Department began distributing a new edition of a 10-year-old how-to guide called "Helping Your Child Learn History." Aimed at parents of children from preschool through fifth grade, the 73-page booklet presented an assortment of advice, including taking children to museums and visiting historical sites.
The booklet included several brief references to the National Standards for History, which were developed at UCLA in the mid-1990s with federal support. Created by scholars and educators to help school officials design better history courses, they are voluntary benchmarks, not mandatory requirements.
At the time, Lynne Cheney, the wife of now-Vice President Cheney, led a vociferous campaign complaining that the standards were not positive enough about America's achievements and paid too little attention to figures such as Gen. Robert E. Lee, Paul Revere and Thomas Edison.
At one point in the initial controversy, Cheney denounced the standards as "politicized history."
In response to the criticism, the UCLA standards were heavily revised, most critics were mollified and the controversy faded — but not for Cheney and her staff.
"Helping Your Child Learn History" is not unique. The Education Department produces a series of similar booklets on topics such as science, geography, reading and math. The booklets are designed to encourage parents to get involved in their children's education. Often, they contain passing references to the kinds of curriculum standards that scholars and educators have developed in recent years to improve school courses. More than 9 million copies of such booklets have been distributed.
Seldom have the booklets sparked controversy. That changed this summer.
As the wife of the vice president, Cheney has no executive position in the federal government. But when her office spotted the references to the National Standards for History in the new edition of the history booklet, her staff communicated its displeasure to the Education Department.
Subsequently, the department decided it was necessary to kill the new edition and reprint it with references to the standards removed. Though about 61,000 copies of "Helping Your Child Learn History" had been distributed, the remaining 300,000-plus copies were destroyed. Asked about the decision, one department official said they had been "recycled."
The Times obtained a copy of the booklet as originally printed.
A new version of the booklet, the basis for the version that is being printed, is on the Education Department's website. It has been edited to remove references to the standards.
For example, a clause in the foreword was removed that suggested President Bush supported instruction based on teaching standards that had been developed for various academic subjects.
Also missing from the department's Internet version is a suggestion that parents ask whether their children's curriculum incorporates the National Standards for History. An Internet address for the standards in a list of more than a dozen websites for parents was also removed, as well as a footnote elsewhere in the text that shows where to find more information about the history standards.
When The Times initially approached the Education Department to inquire about the booklets, the department issued a statement saying it had taken the unusual action because of "mistakes, including typos and incomplete information."
Later, Susan Aspey, the department's press secretary, admitted that typographical errors were not the reason. Asked about the role of Cheney's office, Aspey responded:
"The decision was ours to stop distribution and reprint. Both offices were on parallel tracks and obviously neither of us were pleased that the final document was not the accurate reflection of policy that was approved originally."
A representative for Cheney said her office did not order the destruction of the booklets. "Unequivocally, [neither] Mrs. Cheney nor her staff insisted on having the history publication recalled," said spokeswoman Maria Miller. "And that's just the bottom line."
However, neither department officials nor Cheney's office would discuss the episode in detail. Both refused to allow interviews with the staffers involved.
Individuals with knowledge of the events said complaints from Cheney's office moved the Education Department to act. The individuals spoke on condition of anonymity.
Retired UCLA professor Gary Nash, co-chairman of the effort to develop the National Standards for History, said he found the decision to destroy the booklets after Cheney's office complained "extremely troubling."
"That's a pretty god-awful example of spending the taxpayers' money and also a pretty god-awful example of interference — intellectual interference," Nash said. "If that's not Big Brother or Big Sister, I don't know what is."
According to Michelle M. Herczog, a consultant in history and social sciences for the Los Angeles County Office of Education, the standards have become a resource for many states in developing curriculum guidelines. They are also used to develop textbooks.
"Why the U.S. Department of Education would take that out of a federal document for parents is just beyond me," said Herczog, who was not involved in the development of the standards.
The answer is that, from their inception, the American history guidelines have been caught in an ideological feud.
Cheney led the charge on the original UCLA draft. In a widely read opinion piece published in 1994, she complained that "We are a better people than the National Standards indicate, and our children deserve to know it."
The standards contained repeated references to the Ku Klux Klan and to Sen. Joseph McCarthy, the anti-Communist demagogue of the 1950s, she said. And she noted that Harriet Tubman, the escaped slave who helped run the Underground Railroad, was mentioned six times.
But Revere, Lee, the Wright brothers and other prominent figures went unmentioned, she said.
Such complaints led to revision of the standards.
Recently, when the department decided to update "Helping Your Child Learn History," Cheney's office became involved because of her long-standing interest in American history.
Cheney is prominently quoted in the booklet as a "noted author and wife of the vice president." Two books on history that she wrote for children are mentioned in the booklet.
The acknowledgments also credit her office for helping with the guide, which cost $110,360 to print, Aspey said.
As head of the National Endowment for the Humanities under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush, Cheney approved some of the funding for the National Standards for History project, but she also issued a blistering critique of social science education, which is listed as a resource in the booklet.
The history booklet was first published in 1993. Having made education reform a centerpiece of its domestic agenda, the current administration decided to update the series.
As the Education Department prepared the new edition, Cheney's office reviewed drafts and provided materials but the second lady was not personally involved, an aide said.
The references to the National History Standards were added at the Education Department after Cheney's office signed off on an initial draft that did not mention them. Aspey said it was apparently done for consistency, because such standards were referred to in the department's other guidebooks for parents.
Aspey said mention of the standards implied official approval. "We don't endorse National Standards for History, and the document that was printed is not an accurate reflection of the policy of the government right now," she said.
New York University educator Diane Ravitch, who launched the "Helping Your Child Learn" series of publications as a former high-ranking Education Department official, said it was a mistake to suggest that the history standards were a template for the country.
Nonetheless, Ravitch said, "I would have had a hard time recalling [the booklet], because I think the recall makes a big issue of something nobody would have paid attention to otherwise."
chcr
Too cute for words
Gonz said:
Clearly, you don't understand how history gets written. Read a British history of WWII sometime. Read a history of WWII from the perspective of a holocaust survivor. Point of view is everything in history. History is hardly a collection of facts. It is a story of what has happened. Where you're standing when something happens can make the story very different. Listen to two different people describe a wreck sometime.
ResearchMonkey
Well-Known Member
you're right there chcr.
Have you read some the American hating versions of history, even more dilluted from the facts based subjective sensitivities of what-ever the screwed up agenda is thwey promote.
Have you read some the American hating versions of history, even more dilluted from the facts based subjective sensitivities of what-ever the screwed up agenda is thwey promote.
Now see, that explains why you're so confused. History is the chronologically recorded information of events preserved for use by future generations. It takes time to verify these facts.
The story is an attempt at explanation of those events. They can be written on the fly.
Facts & records can't be altered easily. Stories can be.