Texas board of education tries to erase Hillary Clinton from history

i’m with you on that,

allow me to quote myself from above –


I’ve cleaned a lot of personal attacks and other passive-aggressive slights from this topic.

As a reminder: We do not have a policy that only those most qualified are permitted to give an opinion here (no matter how awesome they may be!). Everyone is entitled to post within the guidelines here, including providing their credentials if they so wish. Readers can make their own decisions on what information to consider based on that information and the substance of said opinion.

At the same time, I will point out that we are extremely lucky to have an incredible number of experienced, trained, learned, or qualified posters in a plethora of subjects and experiences here. I would ask that posters keep that in mind and consider these facts when formulating your responses. There’s a good chance there’s someone here who knows as much or more about a subject than you here. If your ultimate goal is to share, learn, and grow, then considering the responses of others and treating all members (and their opinions) with an appropriate level of respect before replying is without a doubt one of the best ways to both raise the level of discourse, and your own quality of knowledge or opinion.



This isn’t “one crappy textbook”, this is “the standards for the state which dictates what textbooks every kid in the country gets.” If it’s not needed for textbooks in Texas, and the textbook is so full of stuff Texas does decide it needs, guess what’s not going in that textbook for anyone in the country?

just to satisfy my curiosity here, anyone know how Texas came to define textbooks nationwide rather than California, the more populous state?


because textbooks for the texas market pretty much automatically pull in the other deep south states which gives them even more clout than their population would indicate.


Agreed. Fire them all for their stupidity.


Respectfully, I did not “swoop in” to back anyone up, per se, but rather to defend common decency.

Meaning? Did I accuse you of “swooping in”? I was making a sarcastic comment aimed at people who don’t believe a woman being the first to do something is historically notable. My sarcasm wasn’t aimed at you, but at them.


Ah, my apologies. I was reading too far into the above statement. Thank you for clarifying!


Speaking as a transplanted Texan, sometime Austinite, I’m with you.

Some of us have given up on public education and yeah, I do hand out a fair number of Howard Zinn’s books to student-age humans who I estimate may not take offense.

In all fairness, Texas doesn’t have exclusive rights to idiocy when it comes to state boards of education.


Sure it does. But it’s bizarre that so many people are opposed to allowing that they have already secured a place in history because they got into those positions of power. When should the fact they were from a historically oppressed group be a necessary requirement for historical inclusion?

I am not saying don’t discuss their race or gender. I’m saying people can be important regardless of such. By all means, we should talk about their origins and struggles. But if that’s the key reason we think they should be studied, that seems to imply they aren’t deserving of historical significance otherwise. Rather unkind.

All to true. But I’m suggesting that there’s an argument to be made to include studying Hillary that doesn’t rely on her being a woman. It’s not as easy an argument. But it would be more to her credit. Her being a woman should be the cherry on top, not the sundae.

I wish there was a way to erase Hillary Clinton from history, among many others. Alas, there is not, which makes this a clear abuse of power, especially considering she is such a recent part of history.

The Texas Board of Education; stoat, hard-wearing and handy.

Because they broke a previous barrier? Or should we ignore that, since it’s not “real” history to you?

Again, breaking a previous barrier matters. You do realize that women have historically been disenfranchised in various ways, and that a woman nearly getting to the highest office in the land is indeed remarkable right? Or again, is that not REAL history, because women?

Changing society to be more inclusive and representative is real history and it matters. It illustrates change over time, and it illustrates how individuals and groups of people together change institutions over time. You don’t get to decide that’s insignificant just because it’s women doing that.


For the 2017-2018 school year, there are 5,399,682 students enrolled in Texas public schools. The paperback edition is $6.53 on Amazon, but kids really need hardcover textbooks (if for no reason then to up-cycle paper grocery bags into book covers), so that’s $23.63. So, it’s only $127,594,485.66.
Seeing as how Texas is still saving billions in its rainy day fund after slashing education funding more than 5 years ago, and continuing to cut the education budget, I think they could find the damn money themselves.


You continue to misunderstand my argument. Maybe intentionally, but hopefully not.

If I accept your reasoning, Hillary should be studied because she’s a woman. That would imply that if she were not a woman, she would not be worthy of study. Is that what people really think? That her being a woman is a necessary requirement for her being included in history? Wasn’t running for the highest office in the land enough? It’s not REAL history unless it was a woman?

The fact that she is a woman is bonus material. By all means, it’s important, adds context, says a lot about changing institutions. But I think it’s kinda cruel to say to someone “You did a lot, but really you’re not that interesting. But hey, you’re . That makes you interesting.”

An argument I would accept, but I haven’t seen anyone make, is that with limited textbook space, a woman presidential candidate is likely more deserving of space than the typical candidate.

Because women have been historical disenfranchised in the political realm. Not just because she exists as a woman. There is literally nothing historically remarkable about me, just because I’m a woman. If I became the first woman to do something notable, I would be.

No, it doesn’t. It points to the fact that she was one of the women who overcame a barrier (built on the work of women previous to her). She also faced a fair amount of hostility based on her willingness to be more than just a wife and mother.

For white dudes who do that all the time, no. For a major party to nominate a woman, which they’d not done before, it is.

Because WOMEN HAD HISTORICALLY NOT DONE THAT, YES, IT’S HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT. Just like Thatcher being Britains first women PM, or Golda Meir in Israel,… etc. They are notable in being women who pushed back against an incredibly patriarchal power structure to land in places of political power. It’s remarkable because they refused to “stay in their place” and accept being considered less than men.

That’s what history in part is, institutions, how they shape our lives, and how they can and are changed. She contributed to that change.

Wow. I’m saying that her existing as a woman is remarkable, I’m saying the fact that she was the first woman to be the nominee for a major party is what is remarkable, despite all the misogynistic BS leveled at her over the years. I’m saying that she worked hard and was talented to get where she was. I’m saying that because there are still plenty of people who routinely dismiss and diminish women, it’s historically significant.

But you’re entirely ignoring literally everything I said, so I’m sure you’ll ignore this too.

Dude. That’s precisely what the fuck I actually said. She was a first, she represents other women who are still seeking to get into what is still a boy’s club, despite the very real barriers being imposed by our society.


You know Rosa Parks wasn’t the first person to sit down in a bus right?
She wasn’t even the first woman.

Sometimes the context of who is doing it and when, in itself, makes an action of historical importance.

I was watching the news with my 8 Yr old daughter the morning we were watching Trump win the electoral college and she said “you mean they’ve never had a woman president? That’s no accident.”


This topic has meandered far away from “Is Hillary Relevant” into some sort of bizarro-world version of itself where the question became “Is she relevant only because she is a woman?”

Given the history of political power in the US, you almost think they should title her section “Look how far she got, despite being a woman!”.

May our grandchildren wonder why the hell we cared so much about skin colour and gender.