Another “quick takes” on items where there is too little to say to make a complete article, but is still important enough to comment on.

The focus this time: Thought criminals will be re-educated.

First, a little mood music:

Carrying on…

The Left are hell bent on ret-conning history:

“The teaching of American history is ground zero in the left’s battle to indoctrinate students. The new AP U.S. History framework is the left’s ultimate weapon in this battle.”

A few brave souls have shown a willingness to stand up against this re-education:

“We wish to express our opposition to these modifications. The College Board’s 2014 Advanced Placement Examination shortchanges students by imposing on them an arid, fragmentary, and misleading account of American history. We favor instead a robust, vivid, and content-rich account of our unfolding national drama, warts and all, a history that is alert to all the ways we have disagreed and fallen short of our ideals, while emphasizing the ways that we remain one nation with common ideals and a shared story. . . . “Rather than issuing detailed guidelines, the College Board has in the past furnished a brief topical outline for teachers, leaving them free to choose what to emphasize. In addition, the previous AP U.S. History course featured a strong insistence on content, i.e., on the students’ acquisition of extensive factual knowledge of American history. “But with the new 2014 framework, the College Board has put forward a lengthy 134-page document which repudiates that earlier approach, centralizes control, deemphasizes content, and promotes a particular interpretation of American history. “This interpretation downplays American citizenship and American world leadership in favor of a more global and transnational perspective. The College Board has long enjoyed an effective monopoly on advanced placement testing. The changes made in the new framework expose the danger in such a monopoly. The result smacks of an “official” account of the American past. Local, state, and federal policymakers may need to explore competitive alternatives to the College Board’s current domination of advanced-placement testing. “The new framework is organized around such abstractions as ‘identity,’ ‘peopling,’ ‘work, exchange, and technology,’ and ‘human geography’ while downplaying essential subjects, such as the sources, meaning, and development of America’s ideals and political institutions, notably the Constitution. Elections, wars, diplomacy, inventions, discoveries—all these formerly central subjects tend to dissolve into the vagaries of identity-group conflict. . . . “Gone is the idea that history should provide a fund of compelling stories about exemplary people and events. No longer will students hear about America as a dynamic and exemplary nation, flawed in many respects, but whose citizens have striven through the years toward the more perfect realization of its professed ideals. “The new version of the test will effectively marginalize important ways of teaching about the American past, and force American high schools to teach U.S. history from a perspective that self-consciously seeks to de-center American history and subordinate it to a global and heavily social-scientific perspective.”

Of course, it’s not as if dissenting voices will necessarily be allowed in the future…

Tolerance is quickly being redefined as bigotry and thus “socially unjust”:

“As the scope of American law has grown, the areas of conflict between the rights of conscience and the demands of law have increased considerably. (To cite one instance, absent the demand that employers provide health coverage, the Little Sisters of the Poor would be free to purchase or not purchase whatever policy they decide is fitting.) Meanwhile, the percentage of Americans, particularly in our elite and governing classes, who hold that religions (perhaps only non-Progressive religions) are a barbarous relic of a bygone age has increased considerably. Hence they refuse to recognize the rights of conscience. “Seen from this angle, we can recognize that what is called a ‘culture war’ might be better understood as the problems that come with the creation of a postmodern religious establishment—an establishment that takes on most of the roles of the old establishments, yet defines its beliefs, conveniently, as ‘not religion.’ The result is that it feels free to impinge on the rights of conscience in the name of ‘toleration’ and ‘diversity.’ Meanwhile, since national government has taken up the police power (the authority to regulate health, safety, and morals), a power that even Alexander Hamilton denied belonged to the federal government, it exacerbates the conflict.”

Of course, if you want people to believe nonsense, you have to start them young…

Gotta teach little kids that Mother Nature is an evil “cis-het” oppressor:

“To help ‘create a classroom where students aren’t limited based on gender stereotypes,’ teachers should address classes using words like ‘friends or ‘students’ rather than girls and boys, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) advises in a new back-to-school guide. “… “The guide also advises teachers to ‘prepare for teachable moments’ linking to suggested responses for questions that might come up in class such as: ‘How can a family have two moms [dads]? Which one is the real one?’ and ‘Don’t you need a woman and a man to have a baby?'”

O brave new world, that has such people in’t!

TTFN



Tweet