As he should. Trump has shown that he can lead a nation. DeSantis has shown that he can lead a Mickey Mouse state.
The bulk of the confederate statues are symbols erected not shortly after the civil war but during an ugly period after reconstruction when blacks were disenfranchised, segregated, and physically attacked. Those are the symbols that are being removed not censorship of history. Not allowing talking about or teaching about them or other historical events in school and books are censorship of history. With that said, IMO, they should be left alone and taught what they symbolize. An in-your-face visual reminder to Americans of what was done to blacks by our government and southern society during that period. Here is what the American Historical Association has to say about it. Recommend a full read but some snippets below. https://www.historians.org/news-and-advocacy/aha-advocacy/aha-statement-on-confederate-monuments The American Historical Association welcomes the emerging national debate about Confederate monuments. Much of this public statuary was erected without such conversations, and without any public decision-making process. Across the country, communities face decisions about the disposition of monuments and memorials, and commemoration through naming of public spaces and buildings. These decisions require not only attention to historical facts, including the circumstances under which monuments were built and spaces named, but also an understanding of what history is and why it matters to public culture. … History comprises both facts and interpretations of those facts. To remove a monument, or to change the name of a school or street, is not to erase history, but rather to alter or call attention to a previous interpretation of history. A monument is not history itself; a monument commemorates an aspect of history, representing a moment in the past when a public or private decision defined who would be honored in a community’s public spaces. Understanding the specific historical context of Confederate monuments in America is imperative to informed public debate. Historians who specialize in this period have done careful and nuanced research to understand and explain this context. Drawing on their expertise enables us to assess the original intentions of those who erected the monuments, and how the monuments have functioned as symbols over time. The bulk of the monument building took place not in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War but from the close of the 19th century into the second decade of the 20th. Commemorating not just the Confederacy but also the “Redemption” of the South after Reconstruction, this enterprise was part and parcel of the initiation of legally mandated segregation and widespread disenfranchisement across the South. Memorials to the Confederacy were intended, in part, to obscure the terrorism required to overthrow Reconstruction, and to intimidate African Americans politically and isolate them from the mainstream of public life. A reprise of commemoration during the mid-20th century coincided with the Civil Rights Movement and included a wave of renaming and the popularization of the Confederate flag as a political symbol. Events in Charlottesville and elsewhere indicate that these symbols of white supremacy are still being invoked for similar purposes. To remove such monuments is neither to “change” history nor “erase” it. What changes with such removals is what American communities decide is worthy of civic honor. Historians and others will continue to disagree about the meanings and implications of events and the appropriate commemoration of those events. The AHA encourages such discussions in publications, in other venues of scholarship and teaching, and more broadly in public culture; historical scholarship itself is a conversation rooted in evidence and disciplinary standards. We urge communities faced with decisions about monuments to draw on the expertise of historians both for understanding the facts and chronology underlying such monuments and for deriving interpretive conclusions based on evidence. We also encourage communities to remember that all memorials remain artifacts of their time and place. They should be preserved, just like any other historical document, whether in a museum or some other appropriate venue. Prior to removal they should be photographed and measured in their original contexts. These documents should accompany the memorials as part of the historical record. Americans can also learn from other countries’ approaches to these difficult issues, such as Coronation Park in Delhi, India, and Memento Park in Budapest, Hungary.
There is a big difference between celebrating history and not teaching history. Putting up a statue of someone in the public square is celebrating them so having a statue of Robert E. Lee in the town square is a celebration of Robert E. Lee. Removing that statue isn't the same as not teaching that history. As far as I know no one is talking about not teaching about the Robert E Lee or the Confederacy. IN fact if we were to teach about the history of race relations in America the Confederacy would be a big part of that.
The opinion piece is fluff. It is an attempt to ease the conscience of supporters of the bill. It talks about the opinion of the national review on curriculum and the political leanings of some of the professors as a reason why it's okay to ban the AP course. The opinion piece is a push towards censorship.
Been in work for more than a decade. https://apcentral.collegeboard.org/...s-and-exams/pilot-ap-african-american-studies Developing the Course For more than a decade, the AP Program has worked alongside colleges, universities, and secondary schools to create an AP course in African American studies. Drawing from the expertise and experience of college faculty and teachers across the country, the course is designed to offer high school students an evidence-based introduction to African American studies. The interdisciplinary course reaches into a variety of fields—literature, the arts and humanities, political science, geography, and science—to explore the vital contributions and experiences of African Americans. Course Development Timeline 2022-23 First pilot at 60 schools across the country. 2023-24 Pilot expands to hundreds of additional high schools. 2024-25 All schools can begin offering AP African American Studies. Spring 2025 First AP African American Studies Exams are administered. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP_African_American_Studies For decades, critics of College Board and advanced placement programs have argued that curricula have focused too much on Euro-centric history.[2] Between 2017 and 2020, College Board partnered with the University of Notre Dame and Tuskegee University to pre-pilot AP African American Studies in 11 selected schools.[2] In 2020, College Board reshaped some curricula among history-based AP courses to further reflect the African diaspora.[3] In 2021, College Board announced that it would be officially piloting AP African American Studies course to begin in the 2022–2023 academic year. In its first year, the course will be piloted in approximately 60 schools across the United States.[4] AP African American Studies will be the first ethnic studies course offered by College Board, and the first pilot course since 1952.[5] According to a source at College Board, topics in the pilot course will range from Queen Nzinga in northern Angola to the Harlem Renaissance and the Black Panthers.[6] Topics will also include lesser-known activists like Valerie Thomas, the African American scientist who invented the Illusion transmitter at NASA.[5] Brandi Waters, PhD, is the director of the AP African American Studies course development. She stated, "this course will offer students across the country a rigorous and inspiring introduction to African American studies."
people are so dumb these days…yeah, let’s compare knocking down a statue to banning teaching about black history Alaskan winter level IQ
As typical of DeSantis, he used the right-wing press as his mouthpiece. He released his letter to the National Review and have them be their mouthpiece with a "breaking" piece. It's funny how there is a mystery of what is the curriculum, yet it is historically inaccurate. When asked for details, repeats the usual political talking points about socialism and wokism. Red meat to the crowd that doesn't care to question beliefs pushed to them by DeSantis and other politicians - aka political indoctrination.
From the perspective of a left wing extremist like yourself, it's fluff. For the majority of people, those who have common sense, it is not.
You have to explain why. No one is going to trust your ability to arbitrate what is common sense at face value.
The piece offers no reasoning for why it's okay to cancel the OP course related to an unbiased review of the curriculum. Why don't you explain why that isn't fluff?
"The topic descriptions sound neutral, but the readings almost uniformly consist of neo-Marxist agitation—pleas for a socialist transformation of America" Completely right of DeSantis to prevent this ideological indoctrination.
Says, the right wing National Review. The actual curriculum doesn't dictate the future action. That's the whole problem with the piece. The issue they claim that bothers them is that some people covered in the course and some of the scholars involved have progressive politics. They never quote what it is in the currículum supposedly advocates the actions they claim.
DeSantis is just pushing back in a culture war that the other side started. And with a lot of sneakiness. Trying to indoctrinate children has always been part of the communist playbook.
https://www.rfa.org/english/news/china/boost-02042021091410.html https://blogs.bu.edu/guidedhistory/russia-and-its-empires/elise-alexander/ https://www.heritage.org/education/...ur-children-are-getting-indoctrinated-leftist I’m a Former Teacher. Here’s How Your Children Are Getting Indoctrinated by Leftist Ideology. Your children are being indoctrinated. The education system designed to teach them how to think critically has been weaponized by the radical left to push an anti-American agenda. As someone who has worked in education for four years, I have seen firsthand how your children are being ensnared by the left and their teachers. I worked with kids from ages 3 to 13 and saw the brainwashing that exists at all levels of education. The left uses a combination of propaganda and suppression to push kids into the ensnaring grip of socialism and anti-patriotism. First is the propaganda. Teachers will assign work instilling the idea that the pillars of Western civilization were evil, and their memories deserve to be thrown in the trash. Here’s an example. I was helping one of my elementary school students with a homework assignment about listing famous Britons throughout history. She already had some of the more obvious ones: Shakespeare, Princess Diana, Queen Elizabeth. “Well, how about Winston Churchill?” I recommended. “Oh no, not him,” she replied. “He was a racist and didn’t think women should have rights. He wasn’t a good guy.” I was floored. It clearly wasn’t something she came up with on her own. She was just regurgitating propaganda her teacher had taught her. All sense of nuance and critical thinking about the man who saved Europe from the Nazis was gone. Churchill committed “wrongthink,” so in the bin he goes. Another way the left propagandizes is through the normalization of its views and positions as nonpolitical. The Black Lives Matter organization is a prime example of this. Many of my colleagues wore Black Lives Matter pins and apparel to school in blatant violation of school rules forbidding political statements on clothing. When I asked for a justification of the behavior, I was told it wasn’t political to support the group, it was a matter of human rights. The children would see these pins and clothes and connect radical leftist groups with basic human dignity. “How dare you question Black Lives Matter? I was taught this is a matter of human rights!” But it isn’t just a matter of actively teaching that America and the West are evil. Suppression of “wrongthink” is equally as important to the brainwashing process. The lessons I was allowed to teach also were censored. I was preparing a lesson on Thanksgiving involving Pilgrims and American Indians, with an activity centered on making paper teepees for arts and crafts. Cue the progressive panic. Other teachers at the school were incensed that a non-Indian was “appropriating” Native American culture for an activity. Of course, these teachers weren’t Indians either, they just wanted to virtue signal. The whole thing culminated in a hilarious incident where my colleagues tracked down the one teacher on staff who was one-sixty-fourths Native American and asked her if it was cultural appropriation. In her esteemed authority, it most certainly was. The school administrators pulled me aside and promptly nixed the project. The suppression extends to American religious values as well. I would try to engage my students with folk stories from around the globe to teach them world history and other cultures. Story time went on without a hitch until I decided to tell stories from the Bible. Other teachers began to complain I was preaching Christian values to the children and attempting to convert them. Keep in mind, this wasn’t a problem when I was sharing stories from other ancient cultures throughout history. Stories about ancient India and China were fine and encouraged as “sharing unheard voices.” After sharing the story of the Tower of Babel, I was told to switch back to non-Christian stories or face consequences. The young adults who today gleefully tear down statues of the Founding Fathers were incubated in our very own schools, groomed to burst from the education system and burn America down. The left argues the great men and women who built this nation are problematic and must be destroyed. Conservatives must demand an end to the indoctrination of our youth or face a new American public taught since childhood that the country shouldn’t exist.
There was no point in seeking to convert the intellectuals. For intellectuals would never be converted and would anyway always yield to the stronger, and this will always be "the man in the street." Arguments must therefore be crude, clear and forcible, and appeal to emotions and instincts, not the intellect. Truth was unimportant and entirely subordinate to tactics and psychology.
Did you believe anything that person wrote? Are you that gullible? As an aside, it was ignorant of him to use the shelters of tribes from the plains in a lesson about tribes from the Northeast. He probably didn't know better, but it would be preferable students to not be indoctinrinated with that kind of ignorance that promotes stereotypes.
