IMO that is the most egregious offense.
Goldwater kicked off the party realingments which most modern GOP folks have 0 clue about.
Not knowing the history of the parties is why they can convince themselves they are still the Party of Lincoln. Which is of course why he is getting cut.
She’s also significant because of the twenty-year, witch-hunt that cost the taxpayers tens-of-millions of dollars without ever obtaining one single indictment(let alone, conviction). I mean, I’m trying to think of another person the government did that to… ever. Anybody?
Hey Texas- please succede. For real. Im tired of putting up with your backwards historial lies and dumbing down of America. The only thing bigger in Texas is the level of grand ignorance.
Signed,
-The rest of us who actually live in America and are fucking tired of your bullshit
You know you’re just giving Hillary another reason to run for President in 2020, don’t you, Texas BOE?
I’m not saying those and other things aren’t part of history - but HS history is very abbreviated that touches on highlights generally. Though I would agree that perhaps they should tell more lesser known stories. Clinton isn’t alone in other “firsts” not mentioned, nor heads of state who served.
Quick - who was the first woman in space? Heck who was the first man in space (I expect more BBers to know that answer, but Americans as a whole don’t) Who was Kennedy’s Secretary of State? Who was Nixon’s first lady? Even if you know all these answers, how much time in HS was dedicated to these people?
She is still a significant figure that should be covered… and politicians should not be in charge of the kind of history HS students get. they are making political decisions that actively cover up important historical events. This is Stalin level historical erasures.
The Texas board is erasing history. This is utter bullshit.
Feeling the urge to photoshop dean rusk in a wig and a space helmet. Cuz if that was all one person they’d be in a history book
There is always going to be people you can’t fit in. One can argue this person or that person should be included, that’s fine. It isn’t erasing history. You can pick up any history books that covers a myriad of events that lacks others. You know you can’t include everything. Their omission isn’t erasing history. If they banned book that ever mentioned Hillary or whatever event. that is erasing history.
The part of the article to get more riled up over is:
Softening the language on slavery being the cause of the Civil War.
Typical Southern revisionism is waaaaay more egregious than omission of someone one feels is important. I’d prefer my kid didn’t learn about something than learn something wrong. We can always learn more later down the road.
It was the 60s. Fair chance there is a photo of him like that.
So a current historical figure that WAS THE FIRST WOMAN TO RUN ON A MAJOR PARTIES TICKET!!! doesn’t qualify? Should we ignore the entire feminist movement from the 1840s to today, too? Or are women just not important enough to include in US history…
Again, POLITICIANS SHOULD NOT BE MAKING THESE DECISIONS. Period. Historians should.
And yes, I feel like I’m in a position to point out that the decisions being made here are not good ones or ones that give an accurate picture of the past. I do hold a PhD in modern American history, after all.
Future erasure after Texas is washed away in a Cat10 hurricane named Hillary.
I think what mindysan33 is trying to tell you (and I think should be fairly obvious) is that Hillary should be included precisely for her relevance w.r.t. a very important modern value (equality). History isn’t just a set of events that happened, it is curated to reflect the type of society we want to live in (e.g., one that doesn’t enslave a sub-population; one that doesn’t give preferential treatment toward persons of certain race, gender, etc. I mean this is all implied in the constitution, for crissakes). This is exactly why we need to ensure we talk about the civil war was primarily about slavery, because civil and human rights are paramount to what it means to live in a society that learns from its mistakes rather than apologizing for them. This is also why we need to talk about Hillary: because we need more women in leadership positions. The Texas school board has shown again and again that its values are contaminated by racism, sexism, and other ideals meant to maintain hegemonies.
In 2050 Texas the wretched denizens who scrape up the means of survival near one of the few functioning wells chant, their faces twisted into hateful sneers, “lo crup lo crup”. The oldest leaders nod in satisfaction and toss soda bottles full of corn into the crowd.
I’d say if there is a section dedicated to feminist history, there are many more important and influential women to include. Again, I think one could make a case of Clinton’s inclusion, but there are most likely even more influential women not included - mostly because of lack of space and how shallow HS history is (it has been 25 years, but I do remember we really touched on the basics.)
It’s the board of education, which while elected, is comprised mostly of educators. I skimmed through just the women and all of them seem to have education background or in a couple cases at least relevant degrees or experience. The board is actually 8 women vs 7 men, including the chair, FWIW.
https://tea.texas.gov/About_TEA/Leadership/State_Board_of_Education/Board_Members/SBOE_Members/
The one weird thing about Texas is this: their curriculum is state wide. Most states the curriculum is at a more local level.
I appreciate your appeal to authority, and am not trying to discount it. I am just trying to make the point that unlike college history, and course that focus on certain topics or times in history, High School (at least in my experience) was largely very generalized. And I really like history and took extra classes, some which concentrated on more specific things. But none of them were as in depth as college classes I took or books I’ve read on the side.
While I agree there are reasons to include her, there are also reasons not to. I can appreciate your points about her relevance, and maybe 10+ years down the line I will be more inclined to agree with you. It is sorta odd we are debating about something that JUST happened and is sorta still going on for a history book. While I agree her “first” for the nomination is important, other than a line mentioning this and possibly serving as Secretary of State, what else would one delve into and how deep? Would the various scandals also be included?
Though one thing to keep in mind, even if not mentioned in a history book, her recent accomplishments are largly common knowledge and will still inspire some regardless.
There shouldn’t be a separate section for “the girls”. Political history should include all relevant people and events, and not be a listing of just men approved by white evangelicals.
How about we stop ghettoizing women and others as some specialized field when it comes to k-12 education? How about we be fully inclusive in how we write our textbooks, instead of assuming that it’s only elite white men who make history, because they are not. This is the problem.
Not all of them, no… And having a degree in education isn’t the same has being a historian. how about they let people in each specific field make recommendations about what should be included or not, instead of making clear political decisions in fields that they aren’t themselves experts.
[ETA] There is ONE who did social studies… None the less, my point is that political actors shouldn’t be in a position to make curriculum choices, but instead should be left up to people in the field to make. Would you be supportive of religious conservatives being put in charge of a science curriculum, in order to downplay or ignore evolution, an important scientific theory? I’m unsure why history deserves less objective treatment as science?
Then don’t? It’s incredible tiresome to have to say “hey, I have a phd in this field and might know something about it,” over and again here. People seem to think that a general interest in history is the same thing as actually having a degree in history, when it’s not.
It’s not like the AHA and other historical organizations haven’t weighed in on this, if you need more credible authorities here. Standards are often in part set by people with phds in history, and this has happened for a reason, because much like other fields, we tend to be in the best position to figure out how to synthesize large amounts of historical debates and arguments in an effective way. Given that since the 60s, more historians have been studying people who have generally been ignored, it makes sense to include those people in K-12 curriculum.
I agree there shouldn’t be a separate section per se in a general history book. My comments was to counter the idea that “Should we ignore the entire feminist movement from the 1840s to today?”. This sorta implied a specific lesson on feminist history, but I agree that it should be mixed in chronologically with the rest of the lessons, i.e. the suffrage movement, women entering the work force en masse from WWII, the equal rights movement, etc. as well as including women who were active/contributed to specific topics being covered.
But at the same time there are not only whole classes dedicated just to this specific history as well as majors.
I completely agree there are lot more interesting and important historical figures than just white men.
Sharing my view on the issues isn’t meant to discredit yours. I’ve tried to acknowledge the points that her accomplishments are valid reasons for inclusions. I’m sharing why one might exclude them. I don’t think you’re wrong for wanting her included.
Though I do disagree that the exclusion is trying to “…erase Hillary Clinton from history” as the headline suggests. That is the infamous BB hyperbole again 
YMMV.
I am a little taken aback that I have to point out that the fact they are trying to exclude her is proof that a “feminist history” lesson would never be allowed by Texas school boards.
In this endeavor I’d rather Texas fail. 
#NotAllTexans
If you’re talking about in the field of history in general, there are plenty of great reasons for having discrete fields of history, including the fact that prior to the 60s, entire classes of people were systemically ignored in the field. Letting those experts shape K-12 curriculum will help to correct that, because they are going to write a narrative that will be more inclusive.
Again, I don’t see anyone on that board that has the sort of expertise to make those judgements. An education degree most certainly is relevant, and as such they should help to shape HOW material is introduced, but that doesn’t mean that they should decide WHAT material should be included.
Given that most people’s history education ends with the survey in HS, it has practically the same effect. Their historical education is not well served by ignoring specific historical figures that have a measure impact on what’s happening this very moment. The nature of the 2016 election warrants her inclusion, if nothing else.
The current President of the United States brings her up every chance he gets.
Considering that many people on both sides have attributed his win to the public’s feelings on Hillary then it seems like kids should at least have some idea of who she is and what she’s done.
