HA! Good one right there! That came from Evan Smith of the
Texas Tribune, who was
interviewed by Chuck Todd this morning on the MSNBC show
The Daily Rundown. Thanks to a Google News search of "Conservapedia", which led to
this Newsbusters blog post by Scott Whitlock. (Whitlock's post was cross-posted to
the MRC main website too.)
As Whitlock noted, here's the full Q&A:
TODD: So, is this, essentially, education by Wikipedia? I mean, because, Wikipedia is sort of, whatever the accepted, you know, when a majority, it seems, accept what the version of a story that might have happened?
SMITH: It might be education by Conservapedia. I'm not sure that Wikipedia has the same political bent that a lot of these changes do. But, the reality is these changes have been put in for now. You have a lame duck series of members who after January are not going to be on the board and the people replacing talk about reopening this debate. And, of course, the Democratic candidate for governor, should he get elected in a red state is also talking about the possibility of trying to undue these changes.
Conservapedia is the conservative version of Wikipedia that was created by one of Phyllis Schlafly's sons who believed that Wikipedia exhibited too much liberal bias (or reality as Stephen Colbert put it). Conservapedia creator Andrew Schlafly criticized Wikipedia's article about the US Democratic Party as an "attempt to legitimize the modern Democratic Party by going back to Thomas Jefferson." Conservapedia
reveres Republicans and demonizes Democrats in its articles, like the Texas Board wants to. Andrew Schlafly is also a
self-styled homeschool US history instructor whose classes are full of...er you come up with the word.
Notice the mirror right there?
And for an organization that devotes itself to "media research" as its name implies and whose founder L. Brent Bozell III has a degree in history, MRC has no qualms defending the Texas Board's insult to academia.
Whitlock links to
this article by Brent Baker. Baker criticized ABC and NBC for pushing "left-wing talking points" in reports regarding the Texas Board of Education's history standards. Apparently, Dan Harris of ABC acted "more of a prosecutor than a journalist" simply because he asked:
- What do you say to people who say that you are, in essence, imposing your political and religious views on school children?
- If the Founding Fathers really wanted this to be a Christian nation, why is there no mention of Christianity or Jesus in the Constitution?
What these conservatives failed to do though was to cite solid evidence to debunk these news reports. Although Baker
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704133804575197723035341114.html">cites a Wall Street editorial that defends the curriculum: "The board did not excise Thomas Jefferson, downplay constitutional religious freedom, or minimize the role of women and minorities. On the contrary, the curriculum is replete with specific references to Jefferson, religious freedom, the civil rights movement, and the achievements and struggles of women and minorities..."
Hmm, I wonder if the author of that editorial counts Phyllis Schlafly and her Eagle Forum as an accomplishment of women.
How about I counter that editorial with
another editorial from the site Beyondchron.org:
The new curriculum all-but-ignores any criticism of Senator Joe McCarthy, who ruined the lives and careers of countless people suspected of being communists. In fact, it vindicates him. It also proposes that the Civil War was fought over states’ rights, not slavery.
It deletes any mention of activist César Chávez (and no doubt Harvey Milk), but adds former President Ronald Reagan (who ignored the AIDS epidemic and allowed countless numbers of people to die) to a list of “great Americans,” citing his “leadership in restoring national confidence following Jimmy Carter’s presidency.”
The new curriculum mandates that students study conservative individuals and organizations, such as anti-feminist and anti-gay activist Phyllis Schlafly, the Moral Majority and the National Rifle Association - but not progressive ones.
To add insult to injury, the board of “education” proposes that separation of church and state is a myth, and that America is a Christian nation.
The Washington Post also
reports:
The new standards say that the McCarthyism of the 1950s was later vindicated -- something most historians deny -- draw an equivalency between Jefferson Davis's and Abraham Lincoln's inaugural addresses, say that international institutions such as the United Nations imperil American sovereignty, and include a long list of Confederate officials about whom students must learn.
So I think that what Baker dismisses as "left-wing talking points" do have connections to reality.
Oh, by the way, Virginia (the homestate of the MRC and its employees) recognises Confederate History Month now that a Republican is governor.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
