digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

High School Student Finds Conservative Bias in U.S. Textbook

latimes.com — Throughout my life, my teachers have told me that school is a neutral environment where my classmates and I can count on teachers and textbooks to provide us with the factual and unbiased information that will equip us for life. Lately, though, I've begun to wonder whether they really mean it.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • quakerorts, on 04/28/2008, -13/+178The victors write the history. This is one reason they are constantly introducing new text books. Whoever is in charge wants to slant things in their favor.
    • azAZ09, on 04/28/2008, -1/+54Actually, money is the reason. Pushing the old versions into obsolescence artificially resurects the demand for the same stale material. That is why the college text you purchase usually says umteenth edition, and other than pagination and graphics are the only difference from as last years umteenth (-1) edition. Publishers can continue to sell the old stal editions of material.
      • Kerrigore, on 04/28/2008, -1/+14Actually, in my experience with college textbooks, there is usually differences between editions; added material, subtracted material, rewritten sections, updated material, etc. Often there will be a section at the beginning explaining what is new to that edition. I agree that it's mostly a money-making scheme, but to say that pagination and graphics are the only differences is going a bit far.
        • slezzzter, on 04/28/2008, -0/+16Especially in introductory science texts, the only thing that will change is the problem sets (new problems and changed numbering) so that students can less easily work assignments from an old edition. A friend and I agreed to pay the average cost of a 4th Ed. and 6th Ed. Intro Physics book and just photocopy the problem sets. The reading material matched word for word.
        • sonofblacula, on 04/28/2008, -0/+19My science teacher told us, and I quote, "the textbook companies can ***** themselves", as he proceeded to give us our physics I textbook in the form of a giant word document he wrote himself. All we had to do was print.
          • Jashobeam5, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1Several of my profs wrote their own books. It was a lot cheaper for students, but the profs made very little on the deal.
          • dinostabOMG, on 05/04/2008, -0/+1Ah... did you really have to print it?
        • JigoroKano, on 04/28/2008, -0/+6College textbooks are a completely different species from schoolbooks. College textbooks are written by experts and selected by experts.

          Schoolbooks are published by an oligopoly that bribes schools into buying them. You'll notice that neither of the two main authors mentioned in the article have a PhD in history.
        • Risingashes, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1Definitely it's school books that are that way.
          Economics here and all my texts were always noticeably different between additions.
        • cawpin, on 04/28/2008, -2/+1"Actually, in my experience with college textbooks, there is usually differences between editions; added material, subtracted material, rewritten sections, updated material, etc."

          I don't know what community college you went to but that ain't how it is. I had several books in college where the only difference in the book was the order some chapters were in. The authors do it to make money, that's it.
          • Kerrigore, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1I go to the University of Victoria. Maybe it's a departmental thing, as I don't take hard science, but in Philosophy, Political Science, Psychology, and Sociology, all the edition updates appeared to be reasonably substantial. Maybe I just got flukey ones.
      • robthom, on 04/28/2008, -2/+8That ***** me off that they charged me 50 each for hardback textbooks that were exactly the same as a used last edition. But even though the text was exactly the same I couldn't use the last edition because they had switched around the questions at the end of the chapter. Higher education is a ripoff unless your gonna be a doctor or something. Just another way to keep americans paying and in debt.
      • bigfrank06, on 04/28/2008, -1/+4Yeah, and those textbooks are usually terrible and have bunches of errors. The textbook business is one of the shoddiest I've ever seen. Absolutely terrible.
    • charm803, on 04/28/2008, -5/+12Like they say, winners write history!!!! I wonder one day, when Bush is long gone from office, what textbooks will say about him.....scary thought!
      • firsttube, on 04/28/2008, -8/+4What about when Bill Clinton is long gone from orifice?

        Thank you, thank you. I'll be here all week!
    • calicheese23, on 04/28/2008, -3/+4Or its because if they didn't print new editions, they can not keep making more money. Also science and history are constantly growing subjects.
      • Uranium118, on 04/28/2008, -2/+12Science I understand, if they made a new discovery, it could be worth making a new edition to update the old data but history? What could possibly change so much in Ancient Rome to make a new edition of the book.
        • jstone, on 04/28/2008, -1/+8We're always learning more about history.
        • bosssmiley, on 04/28/2008, -0/+5You'd be surprised. What's one generation's accepted truth is the next's shameful fallacy. Roman history especially is used as a mirror for contemporary concerns and indoctrination at least at far back as Livy (fl. 1st century AD).
        • Jashobeam5, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1Ever hear of Revisionist History? When was the last time you saw a textbook that explained what the first Thanksgiving really was? How about why America was founded in the first place?
          • dinostabOMG, on 05/04/2008, -0/+1Lies My Teacher Told Me by James Loewen.
    • brownsound00, on 04/28/2008, -0/+4It's true. Look at Herodotus (300 was loosely based on his writings). He was an Athenian historian, who realllly loved Sparta. So he exagurated the battle of Thermophylae (the 300 battle) in the favour of the Spartans. Because yes, there were mostly likely only the 300 Spartans there, but there was also an Allied greek army there as well.
      Moreover... alot of history from ancient greece was passed on by oral stories (same with other countries i'd assume). And obviously oral stories change over time, even though the general just is the same. Once they were all written down..they became a hoopla of different era's and information. So it's actually pretty tough to look back on history and see what is true. I don't think we can ever know what happened in the past... at a 100% certainty. (well, some events yes... but alot of them, no.)
      • haydesigner, on 04/28/2008, -3/+7"oral stories change over time"

        You mean, pretty much like every religious tome ever written.
      • MxM111, on 04/28/2008, -1/+1While you analogy is very entertaining, the thing is WE ARE NOT IN ANCIENT GREECE! We have other means of preserving history today, and we have things like scientific consensus today. Just in case if you missed that.
        • Jashobeam5, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1You mean like global warming? I hear the debate is over on that.
        • dinostabOMG, on 05/04/2008, -0/+1I don't know if you read the article, but it seems that these problems aren't as absent as you purport.
    • nick111, on 04/28/2008, -1/+7Writers write history. Publishers publish it. Readers read it.

      In the past, the victors controlled the publishers. Not any more - which is good, because media consolodation has created a particularly corrupting situation.
    • Namaha, on 04/28/2008, -0/+7Sorry to comment Hijack

      Here's a link to the Times article about the argument in his Junior year
      http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/20/nyregion/20teach ...
      • alexforcefive, on 04/28/2008, -1/+1I love that quote from the president of the school board- “We took his concerns very seriously. The result was that we have received no further complaints about such religious proselytization in our schools.”

        Well yeah, because the complaint was still ongoing at the time! Agh, I hate bureaucrats and spin-merchants
      • dinostabOMG, on 05/04/2008, -0/+1Damn, I am surprised that he is getting so little support from his classmates. They're not even in the hick part of NJ.
    • Brainmodder, on 04/28/2008, -2/+2Man am I glad to have the least biased government teacher ever.
    • rpgmaker, on 04/28/2008, -2/+26"And that, kids, is how Reagan defeated the evil empire."
      • bosssmiley, on 04/28/2008, -1/+15Does the filthy Lefty revisionist leave out the part where he burned down the Berlin Wall with his laser eye beams?
        "Reagan SMASH!"
    • brownsound00, on 04/28/2008, -4/+4I just watched the bourne ultimatum. and i was like... wow, that is ridiculous. and then i realized...its probably happening in real life.
    • spargett, on 04/28/2008, -0/+2http://www.amazon.com/Lies-My-Teacher-Told-Everyth ...
    • h4mx0r, on 04/28/2008, -1/+6He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future.
      • h4mx0r, on 04/28/2008, -0/+5Well ***** me silly, I just realized someone posted it further down below. Oh well, my comment still stands.
    • chriskzoo, on 04/28/2008, -2/+5Take away government grants, and I think you'll see how quickly the global warming activists disappear.
    • masterzman, on 04/28/2008, -1/+2zeitgeist
    • linuxpenguin, on 04/28/2008, -1/+1I know what you're saying, but that's not always true. When the Muslims took over way back when, they preserved all the books, libraries, etc. in their newly-converted cities.
      Not only that, but they don't really try to slant these things - for the most part they try to give solid information, but often times the writers' own personal bias slips out. That's normal.
      • Jashobeam5, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1I'm looking for the sarcasm tag. Did you forget it?
    • falstaff, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1Anybody who thinks textbooks are, or have ever been, neutral is walking around with blinders on.
      http://www.amazon.com/Language-Police-Pressure-Res ...
    • MxM111, on 04/28/2008, -1/+1The thing which scares me the most is that NJ is a democratic state (read - less conservative then most of the states). Imaging what is going on in the conservative states like Texas!
    • InfidelAl, on 04/28/2008, -0/+2Here's the authors response.
      http://digg.com/political_opinion/Quit_twisting_my ...
  • steven1969, on 04/28/2008, -16/+247Kudos to the kid for speaking up ... twice. No matter which side of the political fence you are on, these types of checks and balances are what make our society great. (also, his application essays to college will be a lot stronger than anything I ever had to write about during my high school years....)
    • Alegoo92, on 04/28/2008, -44/+19Yeah.. he found some "conservative bias" and I have to read Zorn's "People's History of the United States" to get into AP US? I actually agree with JimmySpaza, educational environments are not at all neutral, they are very liberal. There are of course some conservative pov's out there but most of it is liberal- from both the textbooks and teachers.
      • Terr01, on 04/28/2008, -4/+34Zorn? You mean, Zinn?

        IMO Zinn's book definitely has a liberal streak.

        (Unlike some, I do not find that synonymous with "inaccurate".)
      • Kerrigore, on 04/28/2008, -10/+33Of course most textbooks are liberal; reality has a well-known liberal bias.
        • robthom, on 04/28/2008, -33/+7Wrong. More like liberals have a well known fantasy bias.
        • hoodedrobin, on 04/28/2008, -4/+17robthom - You mean that when you die you go to a magical place where you get to drink out of a fountain and be young again and see people with wings fly around and always be happy?

          Yet liberals are the ones with fantasies?
          • robthom, on 04/28/2008, -16/+3Sorry, I'd like to respond but I have no idea WTF your talking about. Are you hippies always on dope?
          • talonstriker, on 04/28/2008, -0/+3robthom doesn't know WTF you're talking about because he's going to a place where people have tails and carry around super-sized forks.
        • sonofblacula, on 04/28/2008, -1/+14To be fair, liberal=!atheist.
          • robthom, on 04/28/2008, -18/+1And Atheist = Godless, correct? Sounds about right to me.
            Godless hippies in a fantasy world, doped up and spouting gibberish.
          • hoodedrobin, on 04/28/2008, -3/+9God isn't a fantasy?

            If you speak to god and he speaks back you need help... You know t hat right?

            GIVE ME PROOF.
          • robthom, on 04/28/2008, -18/+2^^ I dont have to prove ***** to you. I dont give a ***** what you believe in or if your going to hell or not. I guess thats not very Christian of me but I'm not your stereotypical Christian. You can keep on living in your hippie wonderland and I'll be right here still watching you look like a fool.
          • SteveIsTheDude, on 04/28/2008, -3/+6Ummm this thread is not about Religion... I think someone is confusing this thread with the one about the atheist soldier (hoodedrobin, I believe)... Not related. Wake up.
    • Entroper, on 04/28/2008, -1/+7Indeed. I'm actually not opposed to them using textbooks like this, IF they use them as examples when teaching how to analyze a source's credibility. Unfortunately, most schools don't give a crap about teaching kids to actually think, they just want their standardized test scores to go up so they can get more funding next year. Hence they teach things like "Wikipedia is not a valid source" instead of accepting the reality that kids will and should use Wikipedia, and teaching them how to judge the accuracy of an individual article and the souces it cites. At least on Wiki they attempt to keep their articles NPOV, which is more than can be said for the textbook in question here.
      • Vician, on 04/28/2008, -0/+7I often make a point to tell them that Wikipedia is a great place to go and get familiar with a topic or idea and to generate leads to other sources of information; however, Wikipedia isn't, and never will be, an acceptable source for academic work. If you follow the sources, look up the information, and do additional work to verify it, then Wikipdia certainly helped you and if you wish to list it I have no issues with that. But, let's not fool ourselves, Wikipedia shouldn't be used other than a first stop on the road to understanding a subject and forming a valid opinion.
      • BobOki, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1Wikipedia.... Well, make your own judgment after you read this:
        http://www.nationalpost.com/todays_paper/story.htm ...
        IMO, Wikipedia is a STARTING place to give you ideas what to search for.
    • glxyjones, on 04/28/2008, -0/+3Yeah, in all honesty, when I was a senior in high school I was more concerned with hooking up with a cute girl or what I was doing Friday night. If more teenagers cared as much as this kid, the world would be a much better place.

      Kudos indeed.
    • xGORDOx, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1Yet no mention of An Inconvenient Truth being show in school s all over the country?
  • JimmySpaza, on 04/28/2008, -189/+55Never heard of a CONSERVATIVE slant to textbooks. Never seen it either. Seen and heard of tons of liberal biases in textbooks.

    I think that this kid is just quite sensitive to anything NOT liberal slanted.

    Furthermore, I can point to lots of professors who fill their classrooms with political leftwing rants and bias. This kind of stuff happens. Deal. It's not the end of the world.

    Anyway, there are very few teenagers who have any common sense and wisdom about them. They simply haven't lived long enough yet. Most don't even have a good sense of right and wrong.

    I wouldn't worry too much about this kid. We'll see how much he has to say about such things when he gets a job, pays taxes, and has a little responsibility in his life.
    • motogoat, on 04/28/2008, -33/+60Little Jimmy Spaza likes the idea of rewriting history to support his favorite losers who have helped sink this country in the past eight years. He cheers them on like some cheered on Hitler. Little Jimmy Spaza, do you have a textbook somewhere that talks about what a hero Hitler was? I'd be shocked if you didn't.
      • JimmySpaza, on 04/28/2008, -52/+17Are you delirious? Without cause, you have assumed that I support Bush and his policies. Back up your lies with an actual post of mine where I say that Bush is a great president and I cheerfully support him.

        You cannot. You are a liar. If you cannot produce such a post, then everyone will know what a liar you are.

        And invoking the name of Hitler to denigrate those with whom you disagree is so amateurish. Actually, bringing Hitler into the equation when you cannot get your way is typical leftwing blather. I expected better of you.

        Now, why should I or anyone else listen to a word that you have to say ever again?
        • TheGuruStud, on 04/28/2008, -5/+22b/c he's not you?
        • nonstop87, on 04/28/2008, -4/+10http://youtube.com/watch?v=GPgCKlD73sg
        • Parker307, on 04/28/2008, -4/+8I buried your original comment. But I dug your response here. Though lots of people start the comparisons to Hitler all the time not just liberals.
          • macweirdo42, on 04/28/2008, -4/+26You're apparently new here. Jimmyspaza is digg's biggest troll - he has never, in his entire history here, ever had anything productive to contribute. Most of us have given up on him long ago, in response to his consistent refusal to acknowledge any point of view that he didn't make up himself.
          • zeusthemoose, on 04/28/2008, -4/+12But isn't that the Neo-Con way?
      • jseres, on 04/28/2008, -15/+9Do you jerk it to pictures of Karl Marx? You commie *****. /sarcasm

        Now if you look at the above statement you realize how ludicrous your statement about Hitler was, just because a person leans toward the conservative side of things doesn't make them a fascist, just like you being a liberal doesn't make you a communist. Jimmy is right in that a lot of Academia has a liberal spin on issues, however you are also right that there is some conservative spin. In the end what we need is educational material that is neutral and unbiased, and it is our responsibility to make sure we get it.
        • zeusthemoose, on 04/28/2008, -4/+12Well, in all fairness, it is very appropriate to label a individual who time and time again displays the classic traits of a Neo-Con as a fascist.
          • JimmySpaza, on 04/28/2008, -15/+3You do realize that fascism is more about an economic government policy than anything else?
          • zeusthemoose, on 04/28/2008, -2/+10Very true, as fascism originally held socialist economic principals. However, what you fail to see is that in order to enforce those socialist ideals, they resorted to authoritarian nationalism. The neo-cons, and a large number of conservative individuals, are attempting to enforce their economic and social beliefs upon others with authoritarian nationalism (examples can be provided upon request). What is even more hilarious is that while they originally held free market beliefs, they are warping into true fascists. Hell, just take a look at Bush's spending record and tell me that he isn't slowly turning into a socialist.
          • pintomp3, on 04/28/2008, -1/+9"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." Benito Mussolini
          • talonstriker, on 04/28/2008, -0/+2"You do realize that fascism is more about an economic government policy than anything else?"
            Isn't that the same w/ communism? Yet you neocons don't mind screaming that liberals (no matter how moderate) are turning the country Red.
          • JimmySpaza, on 04/28/2008, -4/+1"Hell, just take a look at Bush's spending record and tell me that he isn't slowly turning into a socialist."

            True. Why do you think that I don't vote Republican anymore? I used to think that Republicans were the tolerable lesser of two evils. Now, I think that both political parties are almost as bad as each other.
        • JimmySpaza, on 04/28/2008, -4/+1@talonstriker

          "Isn't that the same w/ communism? Yet you neocons don't mind screaming that liberals (no matter how moderate) are turning the country Red."

          I would view myself simply as conservative. I am very much different than President Bush, and he is called a neocon, so...

          Liberal ideas do push the economic policies of America towards communism. Communism is where no one really owns anything themselves. Government controls and regulates everything for the common good. Ownership is outdated and replaced with guardianship, if anything...guardianship as the government dictates and allows.

          A look at wealth redistribution programs such as welfare, medicaid, medicare, food stamps, etc. shows money being taken from some and given to others...as the government deems necessary. This is not charity because it is forced. And it is liberals, moderates, and even some "conservatives" who promote or agree to these policies.
      • Vash_aka_TK, on 04/28/2008, -0/+11You can't see the bias because it is of that of which you've been immersed in. You think it's the norm but have been so ignorant to even see if it has a right wing bias as well. Hell I'm a liberal and I can see when there's liberal bias but I can sure as hell see when there is conservative bias as well.
      • mikesbaker, on 04/28/2008, -1/+2ahh goodwins law at it again
    • PeppermintPig, on 04/28/2008, -10/+24I find that very hard to believe.
    • Cgeoffrion, on 04/28/2008, -12/+27errr, what world do you live in man?
      • macweirdo42, on 04/28/2008, -6/+24He lives in Spazaworld, in fact. Hey Jimmy, where ya been, I was starting to miss your insane ranting.
      • JimmySpaza, on 04/28/2008, -24/+4Can't debate, I see. Just whine, huh? Oh well. Have a blessed day. :-)
        • macweirdo42, on 04/28/2008, -4/+19Yes, Jimmy, you can't debate, because nothing you have ever said in your entire history on digg has had even the remotest connection with reality. Frankly, I'm just amazed you can speak English, given how completely and utterly out of touch you are.
      • dan222555, on 04/28/2008, -13/+4The real one it seems. Not the liberal land of Oz you reside in.
    • Turambar, on 04/28/2008, -21/+93reality has a well known liberal bias
      • JimmySpaza, on 04/28/2008, -52/+8Nah. Reality has a proven conservative bias. Only liberals still think that their ways are best...and usually abandon their own ideas when they have to get a job and pay taxes...and get older.
        • elipabst, on 04/28/2008, -2/+34STAY THE COURSE JIMMY! STAY THE COURSE!
        • Turambar, on 04/28/2008, -4/+19it's funny because you think you're better than me
          • JimmySpaza, on 04/28/2008, -26/+3Not better, just better off. I shed my liberal ways a long time ago. And I realized that God exists and got rid of that ludicrous atheistic outlook I used to have.
          • Turambar, on 04/28/2008, -2/+16ah, re-deluded yourself.

            probably the root of all your new problems
          • sonofblacula, on 04/28/2008, -3/+12Why doesn't God heal amputees?
          • talonstriker, on 04/28/2008, -1/+3"got rid of ludicrous atheistic outlook"
            Holy ***** is that possible? I've always thought that once an athiest, always an athiest.
          • Lyk4n, on 04/28/2008, -1/+3Prove to me Jesus of Nazareth is the son of the one true God (let alone that a god exists at all) and that he is worth worshiping and I'll believe. BTW you can't prove your god exists with his bible, it would be a logical fallacy..
          • JimmySpaza, on 04/28/2008, -4/+1@ sonofblacula

            "Why doesn't God heal amputees?"

            I don't know. Why not ask Him? You might find the answer in the Bible. There are accounts detailing people going through struggles with answers why God allows such things.

            Maybe the answer is simply because we're not in Heaven yet.

            @ Lyk4n

            "Prove to me Jesus of Nazareth is the son of the one true God (let alone that a god exists at all) and that he is worth worshiping and I'll believe. BTW you can't prove your god exists with his bible, it would be a logical fallacy.."

            Without using the Bible? Without showing how the Bible must have a supernatural origin because of its prophecies that came true, some of which are science-based?

            OK. Call out to Jesus to show you that He's really God. Seriously. Tonight, go somewhere quiet away from everyone else...and pray. Don't be coy or disrespectful. Be serious. Ask God to show you something in the next few days that will point you toward Jesus. Now, be ready.

            "Call unto me, and I will answer thee, and shew thee great and mighty things, which thou knowest not." - Jeremiah 33:3

            "And it shall come to pass, that before they call, I will answer; and while they are yet speaking, I will hear." - Isaiah 65:24

            It may well be that God is already starting to answer you.
          • nblsavage, on 04/28/2008, -1/+5Or maybe, just maybe, God doesn't exist. Seems like a simple enough answer to me.
          • Lyk4n, on 04/28/2008, -1/+4In my youth I called out to Jesus, I felt odd being the only child who didn't believe in god in my small town, I felt broken. Nothing ever happened. There is no room for faith in me, I am filled with curiosity and a questioning nature that religion cannot fill.
        • zeusthemoose, on 04/28/2008, -2/+14Keep on playing that violin spaza!!!
        • futebol87, on 04/28/2008, -1/+5That was a Colbert - whether you're right or left, that was funny
        • InnerRayg, on 04/28/2008, -1/+3Eh, tell that to the 1930s I say.
      • SQLserver, on 04/28/2008, -3/+1THANK YOU.
    • dbs1221, on 04/28/2008, -7/+85Why do textbooks never talk about how Susan B Anthony was a prominent socialist or how Helen Keller is praised in textbooks but they never talk about how she was attacked by the government for her opposition to war and her strong socialist views.

      Or how textbooks rarely talk about the dozens of military interventions and campaigns over the last century in south and central America.
      • Terr01, on 04/28/2008, -3/+42And Rosa Parks? She was "just some lady who finally had had enough".

        Inspiring, but insipid, given that she was hardly just some jane-doe off the street but had actually worked for civil rights organizations...
        • thirdcoastborn, on 04/28/2008, -1/+18most people don't know that.
        • MixMastaKooz, on 04/28/2008, -0/+8Does that make what she did not inspiring or her direct action less courageous? She was a black woman who sat in the white section of a bus. It doesn't matter if she planned it or not: she called the white supremacist assholes out and sparked a revolution. I bet none of us have the cohones to do that...
          • Terr01, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1Not my point at all. If anything, textbooks give her too little credit personally in order to inflate the actual event as something more than it was.

            Imagine if we applied the same lens to some other figure, perhaps Neil Armstrong. "He was the first man to walk on the moon, because he was brave enough to sign up for the job."

            Forget the thousands of hours of training, education, flying in the navy, flying risky test planes. No, he was just in the right place at the right time and romantic magic happened and the world became a better place! Whee!
        • dbs1221, on 04/28/2008, -0/+3Not to mention people never talk about the trolley boycotts in Harlem more than twenty years before the Montgomery bus boycott or the , thats right Civil rights weren't limit to the 60s and and the south, nobody talks about sundown towns where blacks were persecuted for being out after sundown well into the 2nd half of the 20th century in towns and cities in every state not just the south. Nobody talks about how in Springfield Illinois, the capital of the Land of Lincoln, in 1908 after a black man was accused of and arrested for raping a white woman "white residents burned many homes and businesses belonging to the city's African-American citizens in retaliation. Much of the eastern part of Springfield, at the time, was on fire during the riot. The violence eventually culminated with the lynching of two black Springfield residents."

          And other civil rights and movements are completely unmentioned, Cesar Chavez in California is almost never mentioned in US History text books nor are most earlier labor movements w/ the exception of the Haymarket and Pullman Riots.

          or that the Irish were often subject to hate crimes in the north and the south and were often treated worse than blacks. That if a slave owner needed some really dangerous job done they would hire an Irishman because if he died he had no family in America to demand payment or complain as opposed to a slave which they payed alot of money for and couldn't be sold or do work if badly injured or dead.

          Textbooks don't talk about the history of the Chinese in America, their abuse, the fact that the reason they settled so heavily in San Fransisco and NYC isn't because they were ports but because they weren't legally allowed to live in most other cities.

          Nobody mentions that in the civil war there were draft riots in NYC and they had to bring troops up from Gettysburg to quell it, that you could pay your way out of the draft.

          There is little or no mention that the south side of Chicago was placed under martial law (illegal unless there is a threat of rebellion) and prisoners were tortured at Andersonville (though not to the same extent or infamy as at Fort Andrews in the south).

          There is no mention of the Alien an Sedition acts, nobody mentions that Andrew Jackson against the order of the high courts forced the migration of the Cherikee,

          Nobody mentions that under General Ulysses S Grant's General Order #11 Jews were expelled from the entire Jewish population from the Department of Tennessee (Tennessee, Mississippi, and Kentucky)

          I can list plenty more but the list is already pretty long.
      • PopcornDave, on 04/28/2008, -1/+19Really, your first mistake is thinking that schools are actually interested in teaching. Granted there are some good teachers out there that do still care, but unfortunately they're few and far between. What you have to remember is that today's teachers are the ones that went through school in the last 10-20 years and education was starting to go downhill then.
        The ***** about everybody needing to go to college is dearly costing more than anybody seems to realize. I was listening to someone on the radio today saying how if we needed to gear up for a war we're screwed because we don't have the manufacturing plants that we used to have. Besides that, we don't have the people with the skills to run or work in them like we used to have. There didn't used to be the same apparent disgust for the blue collar job that there is today - and maybe that's just the coasts and not middle America, I don't know. But when you kill wood shop, auto shop and things of that nature, you're killing the people you're trying to educate. Not everybody is college bound and trying to teach a kid who's going to excel at working with his hands and trying to teach him science and a foreign language is pretty much a waste of time. To see where this is all going all you have to do is to look at the problems Europe is having with Eastern European workings coming in and doing the plumbing and electrical work that everybody seems to be too good for today.
        Bottom line is that today schools are really nothing more than day care centers. They're not interested in teaching, they're interested in keeping people in line as a lesson for later life. Free thinking doesn't seem to be encouraged anymore. And that's just damn sad. Hopefully someone can prove me wrong on that, because I'd sure like to be encouraged.
        • Lyk4n, on 04/28/2008, -8/+2Exactly! Why would a ditch digger ever need to read Ernest Hemingway! ....Right?! .... Right?
          Shut up you deuce..
          • PopcornDave, on 04/28/2008, -1/+9Well then let me counter that with this: Why is fiction by people that are long dead looked upon more favorably by English teachers than current fiction? And your need to resort to me as excrement shows your level of education. Or are you a professional gambler and calling me a playing card?
            And to answer your question, no ditch digger ever needs to read Hemingway, Fitzgerald or anything else *unless they want to* because it's not going to help them one iota on digging a ***** ditch.
            Now if you'd have asked why a fisherman would need to read Hemingway, well maybe...
        • sonofblacula, on 04/28/2008, -4/+10No really, why would a ditch digger need to read Hemingway? Please enlighten me with your treatise on the importance of Hemingway in ditch digging. i would ***** LOVE to know why I, as a biochemistry major who has been into science since childhood, was forced to take 4 levels of English in high school as well as debate, team sports, and ***** art. My school didn't even offer physics with calculus. If someone wants to be a scientist, they shouldn't have to make pottery. And if someone wants to ***** fix cars, they shouldn't have to analyze Kafka. Stop being an elitist *****.
        • MixMastaKooz, on 04/28/2008, -2/+8It's a shame that people don't want to be well rounded individuals and well read. A ditch digger and biochemist should only know how to do their job? That's a sad life. To experience art, literature, and music is the celebration of the human mind: engaging in these activities exercises your mind as much as a variety physical activities exercises your muscle.
        • Lyk4n, on 04/28/2008, -3/+2They want a caste system. They are elitist scum..
          • PopcornDave, on 04/28/2008, -1/+2Sorry, try again. If a kid doesn't want to go to college, then why push them there? If their interests lie within the trades then why not encourage their dreams rather than tll them that their dream aren't good enough?
          • coyote1284, on 04/28/2008, -0/+2Thank Ford I'm a Beta, I don't have to think as hard as Alphas and I'm not as dumb as Epsilons and Deltas. Now it's time to take my Soma.
          • Gambit89, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1Popcorn, I'm only beginning to put thoughts together, since (I think) the answer is not a communicable (able to be put into words, verbal), but more an emotional argument (even that term doesn't "fit"...)

            Coming from what Jimmy said:
            "We'll see how much he has to say about such things when he gets a job, pays taxes, and has a little responsibility in his life."
            So, "us parents know that to *succeed in life*, you have to *work hard*. That means *going to school* and *getting a good JOB*... if they can do it, *why can't you*?"

            I notice for me that the words in between the *asterisks* instantly evoke some emotions, which ... [my thoughts end here, so my parents use these words since they *work*].

            A little bit of mob mentality too, since "look at that person's kid, she's top out of high school, and got a scholarship so she doesn't pay, it's free money. Who DOESN'T want free money? She's a *TOP STUDENT, NUMBER ONE*... she's a good kid and will have money"...

            This is only part of the reason why we push children to "college success" though...
        • coyote1284, on 04/28/2008, -0/+2@MixMasta
          I think the argument is that Literature should not be a mandatory course, that no courses should be. I don't think anyone is saying that a ditch digger and biochemist should NEVER read classic literature, but rather that it should not be forced upon anyone. It should be up to the individual to take interest in the arts, not force-fed.
        • SpencerMc, on 04/28/2008, -0/+4@MixMastaKooz

          There's a difference between having the opportunity to do something and being forced to do something. While I agree that elementary and middle schools should teach all subjects in order for people to get a taste of everything and be able to make an informed decision regarding what they're good at and what they aren't, but by the time you get to high school there should not be required classes (maybe a few that teach life skills that everyone will need at some point but are too advanced to be taught in middle school, I can't think of any off the top of my head); a student should be free to chart their own curriculum, deciding what they want to learn and don't.
        • Gambit89, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1@PopcornDave, et. al.

          "On Education: Division of Labor: Divide and Conquer"
          http://www.noogenesis.com/game_theory/division_of_ ...

          You might find this interesting...
      • Xios117, on 04/28/2008, -0/+2...
        Sir, I'm going to have to ask you to leave the internet; you're just too ***** stupid.
    • macweirdo42, on 04/28/2008, -12/+58It's okay everyone, Jimmy's just bitter because no textbook has yet acknowledged Ronald Reagan as the One True Son of God.
    • lhbaker, on 04/28/2008, -13/+48Jesus was a Liberal.
      • lostarchitect, on 04/28/2008, -2/+13or at least a nice guy.
      • JimmySpaza, on 04/28/2008, -31/+9Doubtful.

        Jesus had his disciples carry weapons...liberals generally want to ban weapons.

        Jesus believed in an absolute, objective moral code from God...liberals tend to use their own feelings to tell them what to do.

        Jesus reaffirmed moral laws that said a man who shall not work shall not eat...liberals feel bad when they don't give handouts.

        Jesus believed that love of money was the root of all kinds of evil...liberals love to use money to try to make problems go away, especially through government programs.

        Jesus loved the sinner but condemned the sin...liberals, well, you get the idea. :-)
        • macweirdo42, on 04/28/2008, -7/+24Get what idea? You just make up ***** and expect us to accept it. LMAO Jimmy, I swear to God, you truly are priceless.
        • jetboyterp, on 04/28/2008, -27/+6Mr.Spaza, kudos. Of course, the libs and diggerals will give you, as they give me, the thumbs down. Just have fun, and watch the lefties do what they always do. It's so fun.
          • nonstop87, on 04/28/2008, -4/+10If you know your going to get buried why do you do it/why are you even here?
          • JimmySpaza, on 04/28/2008, -18/+3@nonstop87

            Perhaps, like most conservatives, jetboyterp does not get his self-worth from what others think of him, like you liberals do.
          • sonofblacula, on 04/28/2008, -2/+14Perhaps, like most conservatives, you're an IRL troll who feeds off of the misery and anger of those around you. Just look at Ann Coulter.
        • sonofblacula, on 04/28/2008, -4/+10Jesus never ***** existed as is shown by his total absence from historical record...liberals generally do exist.
          • quill, on 04/28/2008, -0/+3I'm an atheist, but saying - flat out - "Jesus never ***** existed" without any citations supporting your argument isn't really going to win you any prizes. Someone could show you some of the (admittedly circumstantial) evidence that said he might have existed.

            I can't believe people are digging you up. The fact that this argument is getting diggs is indicative of the bias that people (on both sides!) have in these online arguments. Stop blindly cheering for your team and actually give some thought to your arguments and how you did. I'm probably *on your team*, but I will be digging you down.
          • AegisC, on 04/28/2008, -1/+2@guill: That's actually a rarely-seen-on-digg intelligent comment. You are correct, to toss all of the people (not just Jesus) mentioned in the NT out the window is to throw all study of classical antiquity out the window as well. Jesus does get metioned outside the Bible (although those that do were writing a few decades later) and that fact that some jewish intinerant teacher from backwater whereever who only had around 3 years of active ministry was so influental to the point that our very calendar is based on his life, is nothing to sneeze at. Saying that he never existed in light of all this is SO lame. Everyone who diggs you down would fail their ancient history class.
        • brufleth, on 04/28/2008, -2/+6I like that you just claimed that Jesus didn't believe in helping the poor. That's rich. Which specific religion do you base this on because I'd like to hear the Christian preacher that can say something like that with a straight face.
        • wolfboy2883, on 04/28/2008, -1/+4Jimmy, you need to read the Gospels. Jesus believed in compassion and forgiveness, not brutality and wrath. Before you give my religion such a bad name, you need to do your homework.
        • lastoftheidiots, on 04/28/2008, -0/+2Let's see here... "He who takes the sword shall perish by the sword." Then there was the parable about the groups of workers coming in at different times of the day and getting the same wage.... "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's. Give unto God what is God's." Dunno Jimmy, your argument's kinda breaking down around you.

          Disclaimer: I knew I probably screwed up the wording, but you get the idea.
      • nicksauce, on 04/28/2008, -8/+17Jesus probably never existed.
        • JimmySpaza, on 04/28/2008, -18/+3Ooopppsss...

          http://www.carm.org/bible/extrabiblical_accounts.h ...
          http://www.rationalchristianity.net/jesus_extrabib ...
          http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=2192
          • Lyk4n, on 04/28/2008, -3/+4Steady the course!
          • sonofblacula, on 04/28/2008, -2/+12If you bothered to actually fact check those sources or learn anything at all about your own religion, you would know that the entries from Josephus are fabricated and that all of them are full of factual inaccuracies that, when you put two and two together, tell us that THEY ARE ALL FABRICATED. Later Christian apologists hijacked the good names of ancient historians for their own uses, as Christians still do today. Go watch the new Ben Stein flick and tell me that Christians are honest and accurate in their data collection and reporting. I dare you.
          • AceKicker, on 04/29/2008, -2/+1Watched it... They are honest and accurate in their data collection and reporting.
            Now, go explain how they lied and deceived people... i dare you.
        • KingWilson, on 04/28/2008, -3/+3sry thats retarded. no matter what you believe, evidence that an extremely influential jewish man named Jesus lived around 2 millennia ago is in so many ***** historical documents. not to say he was holy or rose from the dead but c'mon. propagating that jesus was a myth is twisted and the Atheists that revert to that argument make it seem like there just looking for reasons to discredit christianity no matter their credibility.
          • quill, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1Counterargument: Jesus was not a rare name at the time. Showing that an influence person named Jesus existed doesn't prove that the "biblical" Jesus existed. Alternatively, maybe there was a "real" Jesus, but half the stuff he is attributed with saying could have come from other people, or been inserted after the fact.

            There are undeniably some contradictions between historical records and some information about Jesus in the bible. [citation needed]

            That being said, I'm an atheist who likes to think that the biblical Jesus really did exist. He was a guy that said, "Hey guys, don't be dicks. Treat other nice, okay?" And I can get behind that without needing him to be the son of God.
          • AegisC, on 04/28/2008, -2/+0That's true, it could have come from others (it did as Jesus did not write the Bible himself). But I believe that the details left in... e.g. the disgraceful death of a common criminal on a cross as well as his followers being portrayed as cowards and dullards attest to generally accurate descriptions of a lot of the people surrounding the events. I honestly don't see the sinister corrupt conspiracy of changing texts to control people in the NT writings.
    • munen123, on 04/28/2008, -20/+40jimmyspaza the dumbest poster on digg
      • Parker307, on 04/28/2008, -11/+13this is called an ad hominem attack
        • macweirdo42, on 04/28/2008, -5/+16This is Jimmyspaza we're dealing with. Logic doesn't work with him - he's apparently developed an immunity.
        • nicksauce, on 04/28/2008, -5/+22Ad hominem attack - The idea that someone's ideas are invalid because of something irrelevant about them. Example: Christopher Hitchens is an alcoholic therefore ideas on religion cannot be valid.

          Insult - Observing and pointing out, based on evidence, that there is something negative about someone. Example: JimmySpaza is the dumbest poster on digg.
      • talonstriker, on 04/28/2008, -1/+3please, you've never seen vileputrid? Atleast Spaza seems to have the capacity to think, whereas the other fellow seems have a cavity under his skull.
        • bsmang, on 04/28/2008, -1/+1Nope, haven't seen vileputrid. Can't imagine 'em being any less a thinker though. But I guess anything's possible.
    • chi1thook, on 04/28/2008, -26/+13It's the LA times they're so radically left that they consider moderate liberal as conservative
    • kufu91, on 04/28/2008, -1/+10theres a difference between a biased point of view and purposeful factual errors intended to mislead. yeah, textbooks rarely take business' side but that doesn't put them on the same footing as a teacher that claims dinosaurs were on the ark.
    • kayala, on 04/28/2008, -6/+19I'm so tired of the "teenagers don't know anything and they'll inherit our prejudices and hatreds once they get a job and pay taxes." I have a job, I pay taxes, I'm a teenager. I'm damn well-informed and I'm sick of the ad hominem nonsense suggesting that somehow since I evidently don't contribute to society (a lie) I can't have a respected opinion about the world I live in. ***** that *****, man.
      • sonofblacula, on 04/28/2008, -1/+6Don't feel bad, kid. Old people just hate you young folks because part of them remembers what its like before the world crushes your soul and indoctrinates you. They're like zombies - they hate the living because they want what they no longer have. Or something.
        • coyote1284, on 04/28/2008, -0/+2Hey, don't insult zombies like that. Zombies didn't ask to become reanimated flesh-eaters, they don't hate the living, they just seek nourisment like anyone else. *sponsored by PETU*
      • Zarchon, on 04/28/2008, -4/+5I have seen many generations of kids spout the same thing you just said. I felt the same way when I was your age. The truth is the majority of people like you WILL change the way they think about teenagers having a well informed opinion. This is because the truth is teenage opinion is 99% crap. It doesn't matter which side of the fence you are on. A broken watch is right 2 times a day and even if your opinion is the correct one it has no life experience to give it weight. Sorry, that is reality and I feel safe in saying that you will most likely agree with me when you grow up.
        • Midoc, on 04/28/2008, -3/+5I'm sorry, but that's a hefty load of bull you're spewing there sir.
        • kayala, on 04/30/2008, -0/+3So at what magic age do I suddenly gain a respectable opinion?
    • robthom, on 04/28/2008, -19/+5I agree. Most colleges aren't stinking liberal toiletbowls because of all the conservative thought in the textbooks. They're liberal indoctrination centers staffed by flakey professional students with perverted agendas, who are the selfsame ones who choose which textbooks to use in their classes. Its not that hard to figure.
      The author of the article is just a smart ass jewish kid showing off by talking in circles. He barely said anything in 12 or so paragraphs.
      • klco, on 04/28/2008, -0/+12nice antisemitism there...
        • robthom, on 04/28/2008, -12/+2What did I say that was anti-semitic? Smart-ass? Lol.
        • sonofblacula, on 04/28/2008, -1/+9You assumed he was a Jew. when his last name is LaClair? Because all liberals are Jews, eh mein freund?
          • robthom, on 04/28/2008, -10/+1I assumed he was a jew because he's from jersey and french people dont shovel ***** that well. And since you mention it yes all jews are liberal affiliated unless they're names are michael medved or ben stein.
            But you on the otherhand have me confused, what are you some kind of black german like milli vanilli?
          • SteveIsTheDude, on 04/28/2008, -0/+7Not so. Lots of Jews are Republicans. I met some just the other day, I said, "So, are you guys going for Obama or Clinton" and they said, "Our family always votes Republican".
          • robthom, on 04/28/2008, -9/+1There are always exceptions to any rule. I bet you could find a jew who's converted to islam if you look hard enough. I was making a generalization that I still stand by. But your correct that I should have said ALMOST all jews.
          • Dragular, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1Countdown to ZOG-related conspiracy theory in five... four... three...
          • orangefly, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1i had no idea milli vanilli were black germans....
          • OralCavity, on 04/28/2008, -0/+2robthom, you are a moron. 90% of the neo-conservative movement was headed by Jewish people. please take your head out of your arse and stick it into an oven.
      • aprestia, on 04/28/2008, -0/+4Hateful slurs aside, you're both wrong, because you're equating COLLEGE bias with HIGH SCHOOL bias. Are our nation's college's overwhelmingly liberal? Yes, of course. Are there still conservative colleges, though? Absolutely - and therein lies the difference. You pick your college, you DON'T pick your highschool, therefore we need to be more sensitive about these things in that setting.
    • whodoes, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1It would have been great if you had , while arguing against the author's position, actually argued against at least one of his... POSITIONS. did you even read the article before you shot that off ?
    • NikoKun, on 04/28/2008, -0/+4haha you fail Jimmy... Ignorant liberal basher...
    • mGARANDEUR1, on 04/28/2008, -2/+1Fair enough. There is no denying that colleges everywhere have an obvious liberal bias.
    • twertyto, on 04/28/2008, -4/+2JimmySpaza, sorry your getting dugg down so much for simply stating certain facts and your own personal experiences while the guy underneath you, who invokes Hilter and is condescending, is dugg up.
    • evodude, on 04/28/2008, -1/+2I can never decide: are you a troll, or are you really that stupid?
    • gilzow, on 04/28/2008, -0/+2I'm digging you down, not because of your opinion but because you either did not read the article, or simply chose to ignore what you read. The "kid" did not object to a conservative bias; he objected, in this particular instance, to outright inaccuracies in a textbook. Specifically, "The text contains a statement, repeated three times, that students may not pray in public schools." and "a photograph of students holding hands and praying outside a school. The caption reads: 'The Supreme Court will not let this happen inside a public school.'" Completely FALSE statements should never be allowed past a textbook editors desk, let alone make it all the way to publishing.

      Students are allowed to pray in school. There is absolutely NOTHING that can stop them from doing so. The Supreme Court has never stated that students are not allowed to pray in school. What is not allowed is school sponsored prayer, or forcing students to pray.

      And yes, I am older, have a job, and many MANY responsibilities (in fact, I believe I have begun my mid-life crisis) and if my children were to come home with that same textbook, or tell me that their teacher spent classroom time to tell them that "...they "belong in hell" if they reject Jesus as their savior, that evolution and the Big Bang are ridiculous and unscientific theories, and that there were dinosaurs on Noah's Ark. " I would be in the principle's office the next day, and at the next school board meeting, demanding to know why a text book with false information was being used in the classroom, and why a teacher was using class time to promote his/her personal religious beliefs.

      • InfidelAl, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1The kid lied.
        http://digg.com/political_opinion/Quit_twisting_my ...
        As I said above, this doesn't adress the teacher promoting his/her religious beliefs, but it does take away from the kids credibility.
        • gilzow, on 05/01/2008, -0/+0You must have failed to read the article that is referenced in the link your provided, as its author states:

          "It's true that a sloppily written photo caption was taken out of the 11th edition". So even he admits that the caption WAS in place as Mr. LaClair stated. So then there is the question of the statement repeated three times. Without a copy of that specific edition of the textbook, neither of us can truly comment on it.

          Though I do find it amusing how the author tries to paint the grossly inaccurate caption as "sloppily written", as though it were a common mistake.
    • inajeep, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1Don't feed da troll.
    • ClosedCaption, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1Poor Republicans....Must they ALWAYS play the victim? Seriously, no one plays the victim more or has more krazy conspiracies than the republican / conservative.
  • tehbored, on 04/28/2008, -52/+7Israel: The brand new country that everyone is going to love!

    Yes, I know that quote was barely relevant.
    • minnymoo, on 04/28/2008, -0/+17barely? just keep off digg.
    • solidus636, on 04/28/2008, -0/+9So why the heck did you quote it?
      • tehbored, on 04/28/2008, -10/+3Because Family Guy is hilarious. Well OK, not always, but sometimes.
        • thirdcoastborn, on 04/28/2008, -13/+2family guy is one of the stupidest shows in the world. nothing funny about it.
        • al11588, on 04/28/2008, -10/+0ur a fagbag for saying it isnt funny.
        • zeusthemoose, on 04/28/2008, -4/+2Ur a fag for calling him a fag.
    • h0merg0mez, on 04/28/2008, -2/+7Yeahhhh. Ya blew it.
  • whatthefu, on 04/28/2008, -7/+49Whoa. I had this same textbook and I remembered seeing some fishy statements in regards to modern history, but I didn't think much of it at the time. Damn.
    • ZenMojo, on 04/28/2008, -0/+15That was my textbook in Texas I believe. Our teacher was an A.B.D. so she made us read supplementary material to erase the *****.
    • Worldchrisis, on 04/28/2008, -0/+6Yea I used that book too in AP US Government, I didn't really read it thoroughly enough to detect bias though. That book was so dense I doubt any kids were paying enough attention to be indoctrinated by it.
    • urazn13, on 04/28/2008, -2/+10I have this exact book right now. Page 511, "Church and State"
      see the pic for yourself: http://i32.tinypic.com/2u7amp4.jpg
    • Crazyviolinist, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1I remember this textbook so well. My class and the teacher protested to the administration not to use it for AP U.S. Government, saying that it was biased and was almost worthless as a textbook. We seriously considered almost switching the textbook to Jon Stewart's "America: The Book." Turns out I learned a heck of a lot more from Stewart than I did from Wilson.
  • slvrbullet87, on 04/28/2008, -81/+33Guess it balences out the liberal teachers who are in front of the class.
    • Alegoo92, on 04/28/2008, -6/+21No, that won't do at all.
    • tufftugg, on 04/28/2008, -12/+25 Some one had to teach you Conservatives about the real world.
      • JimmySpaza, on 04/28/2008, -26/+6How would liberal teachers tell anyone about the real world? Most of them have never been in it. Most of them have never held down a job of any consequence.

        Those liberals who cannot do, teach...which means 99% of them.
        • Arcan, on 04/28/2008, -2/+21Teaching? NOT a job of any consequence?! Giving your children the basic skills and knowledge they will need to function and contribute as a member of our, or any, society?
          Bravo, Jimmy. Just when everyone thinks you may have hit bedrock-stupid, you keep drilling and continue surprise us all. Bravo.
          Please do not breed.
          • JimmySpaza, on 04/28/2008, -20/+2If a teacher is not doing his/her job, then he/she is actually do more harm than good.

            I'm talking about a job of consequence where they learn about the real world. You cannot learn about the real world merely by reading books and sitting in a classroom.

            Why do you think that 99% of employers train their employees, even ones with college degrees? Because high school and colleges don't teach real world material in a real world applicable way.

            Hands-on training and field experience trumps classroom time every single time.

            And you know, I'm sure, of teachers who have done nothing other than teach, right?
          • govsucks, on 04/28/2008, -3/+1Yeah, cause the American School system under the guidance of the leftist teachers union is pumping out children that can read at a college level. /Sarcasm
        • fixty, on 04/28/2008, -1/+3Taylor Mali has something to say about that Jimmy:
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpog1_NFd2Q
        • 3tcp, on 04/28/2008, -1/+1People who work for the government tend to be more liberal than those who don't because there the contrast highlights the inefficiencies of government. Also, most government jobs are unionized and unions are in tight with the democrats.
    • Pake, on 04/28/2008, -18/+11I understand why people are digging down slvrbullet87, because Digg is a very liberal site, however what he is saying is somewhat true. Teachers are mostly liberals (excluding most economic professors who tend to be conservatives) and there has to be some balancing factors. Obviously we wish that all news, books, teachers, and what-not would be unbias, but that is impossible. You can't sit there and have a 100% liberal teacher teaching from a 100% liberal book and assume you are getting an unbias point of view and just because it re-enforces your own beliefs doesn't make it always true. Heck, just look at the number of articles on Digg labeled "inaccurate" because someone found some small quote or whatever, had a bias on the subject, and wrote up something. You'll still find people who'll believe it's the truth, even the majority can point to other sources showing it's not.
      • rpebble, on 04/28/2008, -5/+12*Professors* are mostly liberal. This goes along with the fact that as a general trend, people who are more educated are more liberal. This article is about high school teachers...who are only as liberal as the area they are teaching in.
        • JimmySpaza, on 04/28/2008, -20/+3No, people who are more highly educated AND still work in colleges and schools tend to be more liberal.

          People who are simply higher educated tend to run the gamut.

          Of course, poor people on welfare, medicaid, medicare, and other government handouts tend to vote for the more liberal candidates? Does that mean that freeloaders tend to be liberal? Please.

          And what the heck does "who are only as liberal as the area they are teaching in" mean? Are you saying that some subjects are inherently liberal?
          • rpebble, on 04/28/2008, -3/+8No, I mean geographically. High school teachers have the same political slant as the rest of the people in the areas they live in. In other words, your generalization that high school teachers were more liberal was false.
          • brufleth, on 04/28/2008, -3/+3I like how you based that all on nothing.
          • 3tcp, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1Teachers unions are very powerful and teachers are usually very devoted union members. They are generally more liberal than their geographic area because they support their union.
        • InnerRayg, on 04/28/2008, -0/+8I'd like to think that people who are highly educated realize that putting a Liberal or Conservative label on something does not devalue it and is just a distraction from a legitimate question.
        • Pake, on 04/28/2008, -8/+4"people who are more educated are more liberal."
          Not true, unless you only count blue collar workers and neglect white collar workers. Most white collar workers (CEOs, etc.) with educations tend to be more conservative, because instead of voting based on society, they vote based on economics.
          • rpebble, on 04/28/2008, -3/+5How many CEOs do you know?
          • Pake, on 04/28/2008, -3/+4My family is good friends with Roger Penske and also you can look up which candidate they support quite easily: http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/index.asp
          • brufleth, on 04/28/2008, -1/+4They vote on greed not economics. If you had taken an econ class you'd know that at least recently it has been the republican party that makes poor economic decisions (cutting taxes, giving rebates, increasing spending, etc).
          • 3tcp, on 04/28/2008, -0/+2They do not vote on greed. If you had taken more than 'a' econ class you'd know that democratic policies have a major negative impact on the economy in a number of ways.
            You are correct that republicans have abandoned fiscal responsibility and economic conservatism since 9/11, this can partly account for the popularity of certain unconventional candidates in the 2008 election. They've ***** a lot of people off. Still, the budget deficits that republicans have been running create national debt, democrats typically create entitlement programs that are essentially commitments on future spending (social security, medicare). The end result is the same high future taxation to pay for excessive vote-buying of partisan politics today.
        • sonofblacula, on 04/28/2008, -3/+9By area they are teaching in, he meant geographically. Also, you forgot that doctors and scientists tend to be liberals, and fat lazy and useless douchebag CEOs and stock traders tend to be conservative to further line their pockets. God I hate empty suits. See Jimmy, I can be a condescending prick too.
      • Rsulliv1, on 04/28/2008, -4/+9A. ) It's incredible how many right-winged people are on Digg. I'd argue that there are more right-leaning fanatics than left-leaning. I'll deem a fanatic as someone who's train of thought doesn't contain any logic or anything more than media bites.

        B. ) Two wrongs don't make a right. Eye for an eye doesn't work out, remember the bible? I thought that most right-leaning conservatives were Christian...
        • Pake, on 04/28/2008, -7/+5A) Take 1 days worth of articles and the associated comments and there's no way in hell there are more right-leaning people than left on Digg. I mean crap, we're discussing an article that has obvious liberal bias...

          B) I agree, two wrongs don't make a right, but one wrong and no other option is not right either. The best way to open up people's eyes is to give them two different sides and show them nothing is either black or white, but shades of gray. As for the bible, I've never read it since I determined my atheistic part long ago.
          • Rsulliv1, on 04/28/2008, -4/+6A. ) Please read the article. I don't see where the author argues that the slant should be changed. He says that the slant needs to be removed. If there is scientific dissent, then present both sides of the argument and allow the reader to interpret. Do not lead them on with your agenda... I don't want to regurgitate the entire article for you, so please go and read it.

            B. ) Two wrongs don't make a right.
          • Pake, on 04/28/2008, -1/+1Rsulliv, you apparently aren't comprehending what I'm saying. Your original A discusses the slant on Digg, which is actually left. Your new A discusses the article, which is a left sided bias describing the need to remove the right sided bias.

            B) We've determined that already, but I sure as hell would still rather have 2 wrongs on opposite sides so that the bias is perceivable rather than 1 bias side and assume it's the correct facts.
        • 3tcp, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1What you deem 'conservative' is simply the rational people trying to balance out the tendency on digg towards inaccurate stories that demonize republicans. The 'right-wing' of digg are mostly independent moderates who go out of their way to point it out whenever the liberals start freaking out about articles that are false.
          Inaccurate articles with a conservative bias rarely make the front page and when they do it's usually from a site like thinkprogress that is already pointing out how full of ***** it is.
          • Rsulliv1, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1There's no problem there, but there are a lot of comments from conservative/right-wing fanatics ( as well as liberal/left-wing). I don't argue with what you're saying, but any fanatic rant is counter-productive. I think that there are quite a bit of right-wing fanatic comments on digg.

            For instance, someone saying that they would rather perpetuate agendas in the educational system because they perceive the opposite side of the political fence doing the same thing... that's not logical to me. I believe that we should work towards the point of this article and call-out stuff like this in our schools. Kids need to be a bit older before they can make these types of decisions. We can't have teachers going against facts just to push their agenda. Obviously, that's an ideal situation, but to argue against it doesn't make sense to me.
    • 5urr3al5am, on 04/28/2008, -30/+6teachers are liberal because they don't actually do work.. this is one of the major reasons the school system has continued to go down over the years
      • JimmySpaza, on 04/28/2008, -23/+2Exactly.
        • Rsulliv1, on 04/28/2008, -4/+12I wish there was a feature that would count the number of blocks a commenter gets. If more than 90% of digg users block someone, then that person shouldn't be able to comment until someone has a talk with them. :)
          • 5urr3al5am, on 04/28/2008, -2/+2LOL you're a communist/liberal
          • OralCavity, on 04/28/2008, -1/+3being annoyed that someone is spamming and article and providing specious, faulty and completely biased information is different than wanting to censor that person.
          • 5urr3al5am, on 04/28/2008, -2/+1I don't think you know what a spammer is? They don't reply to people's actual posts, they just blanket discussions with form-letter like posts -- nice try donkey!!!
      • InnerRayg, on 04/28/2008, -2/+17So Liberals don't do work. I can't think of anything that could possibly be fallacious about that statement.

        Hey, did you know that Conservatives are all inbreds? It's true, I used the same source you did for your statement.
        • 5urr3al5am, on 04/28/2008, -4/+1its funny what you chose to refute and argue ... very telling
          • InnerRayg, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1...Should I not argue against fallacious attacks? Do you want me to say the school system has not been degrading? I agree it has, but I have some more sound theories for it.
      • 5urr3al5am, on 04/28/2008, -2/+1When.. then why is the school system getting worse and worse over the years? is that because of Bush?
        • OralCavity, on 04/28/2008, -1/+3No Child Left Behind is a horrible policy based on good principles that was completely underfunded and left schools out to dry. Schools were having plenty of problems before Bush, but he certainly did nothing to help, when he could have done a LOT more.
        • 5urr3al5am, on 04/28/2008, -1/+1Thats a debated topic. Depends on who you ask, ie if you ask a stubborn tenured teacher, then yes, it probably is somehow 'unjust' and 'horrible'.

          Highlights from Wikipedia:
          * More progress was made by nine-year-olds in reading in the last five years than in the previous 28 years combined.
          * America's nine-year-olds posted the best scores in reading (since 1971) and math (since 1973) in the history of the report. America's 13-year-olds earned the highest math scores the test ever recorded.
          * Reading and math scores for African American and Hispanic nine-year-olds reached an all-time high.
          * Achievement gaps in reading and math between white and African American nine-year-olds and between white and Hispanic nine-year-olds are at an all-time low.
          * Forty-three states and the District of Columbia either improved academically or held steady in all categories (fourth- and eighth-grade reading and fourth- and eighth-grade math).
          • OralCavity, on 04/29/2008, -1/+1since you feel comfortable with the veracity and bias of wikipedia, you should review it's large list of criticisms http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_child_left_behind# ...
            the list includes:
            * Incentives against low-performing students (which is sorta... leaving children behind lulz)
            * Narrow curriculum
            * Narrow definition of research
            * Funding
            * Limitations on local control
            ...and more!

            btw, what you have posted is marked as needing actual citations for it's verification, while the criticisms have citations.
    • santaliqueur, on 04/28/2008, -5/+8Digg him down, but the overwhelming majority of teachers are liberal.
      • rpebble, on 04/28/2008, -3/+4Which is exactly why there is such a strong push from them to put stickers on science books saying the scientists have been making ***** up for the past 100 years... All I'm saying is it depends on where you live.
        • santaliqueur, on 04/28/2008, -6/+4"Making ***** up"? With accusations like that, you need to post links and real sources. You don't get to throw a grenade into the room like that and expect to run out without answering for yourself.
          • rpebble, on 04/28/2008, -1/+1...The stickers are stupid. I wasn't making an accusation, scientists *haven't* been "making ***** up", that was the point of my post. Read.Think.Type.
      • neogoblin, on 04/28/2008, -2/+10Education and knowledge make people more liberal because they are more informed.
      • OralCavity, on 04/28/2008, -0/+2Reality has a well known liberal bias. Teachers teach reality. What does that tell you?
    • 3tcp, on 04/28/2008, -2/+1Teachers are 'liberal' because they're pawns for their unions, which always go liberal. The liberalness of teachers extends mostly to unions=good so democrats=good and republicans=bad. I have a lot of union members in my family and their democratic party membership isn't a sign of agreement with democratic positions, just the one that gives their union power.
    • ClosedCaption, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1Its easy to say most teachdonters are liberal because you can never measure such an absurd charge, but you can measure the amount of conservative bias in a book. Now that its been uncovered here comes the unfounded "everyones a liberal" victim speak from the poor downtrodden republicans. lol
  • radiantarchon, on 04/28/2008, -65/+28you found a conservative textbook. that must be a rare gem there. So far i have not run into anything but crummy liberal textbooks. and a few inconsistently neutral textbooks ( a really conservative chapter followed by a really liberal chapter).
    • eir574, on 04/28/2008, -3/+41So, do you support a double standard? A liberal bias is bad, but a conservative bias is good?
      • Alegoo92, on 04/28/2008, -24/+4No- it's just so digg-ish to get all up in arms when this "high school student finds conservative bias" in his textbook.
        This is really just picking as much as possible on conservatives, because as a student in pennsyvlania I know without question that overwhelming majority of my political/history education has been given with a (not so modest) liberal slant.
    • heartattack805, on 04/28/2008, -8/+17Look pal, just leave the textbooks and education to liberals. Problem solved.
      • slvrbullet87, on 04/28/2008, -4/+12Because kids should think that the new deal was the most briliant plan ever?
        • Kerrigore, on 04/28/2008, -3/+5You mean it wasn't?
        • zeusthemoose, on 04/28/2008, -3/+9Actually, it was. Its what got us out of the depression afterall.
          • AgarwaenUmarth, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1Or it continued the damned thing and the economy only really recovered after WWII.
        • InnerRayg, on 04/28/2008, -0/+2Come now Zeus, it's silly to think that just because every time a laissez faire approach to market is taken government regulation has to imposed soon after thanks to impending economic collapse or recession that this might be some kind of indicator of what the market needs.
          • AgarwaenUmarth, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1You do realize that the Federal Reserve was created only a decade before the most crushing depression the nation knew since Reconstruction?
        • slvrbullet87, on 04/28/2008, -0/+2@ Zeus and Kerri
          Giving people money and inventing Social security didnt work to get us out of the depression. Selling planes and tanks to England did.
          BTW thank you for proving my point that the education given by modern teachers has a liberal slant
          • Kerrigore, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1Can you quote a source on this, or are you just blathering?
        • SpencerMc, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1Everything I've ever read with actual figures points to the fact that the economy was already on its way back up prior to the beginning of World War I.
          • Kerrigore, on 04/28/2008, -0/+2We're talking about World War II, but OK.
      • JimmySpaza, on 04/28/2008, -14/+4Actually, if you look at the level of true education that most students have, you would have to give liberals a D or D+ for their efforts. Way to go, libs. Time for conservative teachers to move in and fix the problems using logic and common sense, not feelings and emotions.
        • nblsavage, on 04/28/2008, -3/+15If you are pro logic and common sense then why did you post a link below about some jerk complaining because textbooks left out religion? Religion has nothing to do with logic and is completely based on feelings.
          • JimmySpaza, on 04/28/2008, -13/+2Those textbooks in question purposefully left out the religious beliefs of Christopher Columbus which were instrumental in his wanting to journey across the Atlantic Ocean. The textbooks talked about WHY Columbus wanted to sail, but they lied and left out the primary reasons...because they were religious in nature.

            THAT is unwarranted bias, and it must be exposed.

            And religion, at least Christianity, is based on logic and science...and not emotions and feelings. I take it that you're not Christian nor have much of a clue about Christianity...otherwise you would have known this.

            Whatever. Between this and your laughable use of a faked fossil to support evolutionary theory...you're just not having a good day, are you?
          • nonstop87, on 04/28/2008, -0/+13Please Jimmy show me where science is used in the Bible or for that matter why it should be valid.
          • Kerrigore, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1"And religion, at least Christianity, is based on logic and science...and not emotions and feelings"

            You just lost all credibility. Obviously a troll.
        • zeusthemoose, on 04/28/2008, -0/+3Hehe come November I am going to be laughing my ass off :)
    • dbs1221, on 04/28/2008, -5/+24What liberal bias have you found in text books?
      apologetics about the genocide of Native Americans, slavery, womens' suffrage...
      • JimmySpaza, on 04/28/2008, -18/+2Just a little something to whet your whistle.

        http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2001/summer ...
        • nblsavage, on 04/28/2008, -3/+17You mean that people dare to publish textbooks without religious twaddle in them? I'm shocked I tell you, shocked!
          • JimmySpaza, on 04/28/2008, -14/+1Religion was the primary reason Columbus left for the New World. The textbook in question deliberately left this out because of bias against anything religious.

            This is wrong. Apparently, you think that censorship and control of information is a good thing at times.
          • InnerRayg, on 04/28/2008, -0/+10I'm pretty sure the textbook also deliberately left out the fact that Columbus never set foot on the American continent, and was responsible for the murder of entire tribes in the pacific islands, hundreds of thousands laid dead at his hands and he smugly reaped the profits without a blink of the eye. So there, we're even.
          • dbs1221, on 04/28/2008, -0/+9OMG Jimmy you couldn't be more wrong

            1: Columbus wasn't looking for the New World he was looking for a new route India and the Orient because the Almohads prevented trade across land and going around africa was dangerous and took a long time

            2: If the only things religious about Columbus's journey are that is was sponsored by the Catholic Kings, and that many speculate that much of the crew and perhaps Columbus himself were Jews fleeing from the inquisition.
        • dbs1221, on 04/28/2008, -0/+9Hate to break it to you but for starters, that isn't a text book,

          and in my text books and history classes we talked about religion, specifically the great awakening, and the movements it gave birth to, many of them ... wait for it .... LIBERAL!!!!!! (for their time)
    • nblsavage, on 04/28/2008, -6/+24That's how the cons work, they claim a "liberal" bias but NEVER back it up with anything that has come within hailing distance of a fact.
    • Parker307, on 04/28/2008, -1/+13My 8th grade math book was very liberal.
      • 5urr3al5am, on 04/28/2008, -8/+3the math must have been alllll about calculating the cost of the incentive programs in the government and how they keep going up each year.. and when the percent in increase plateaus the liberals cry bloody murder /sic
      • jstone, on 04/28/2008, -2/+8Yes, claiming that Pi is 3.141592653589etcetc and not 3.
  • PeppermintPig, on 04/28/2008, -6/+116There is all kinds of slant. Both conservative and socialist versions of history intermeshed, with a common pro-state thread. Even then, they leave out all the interesting bits that make sense and humanize the god-like figures of our past.

    Did you know: Churchill was a fan of Mussolini, once referring to him as "the greatest living legislator"?? I wonder if they teach that in your textbooks.

    /The More You Know!
    • GoneFishing, on 04/28/2008, -0/+10Textbooks are for reading, the real teaching lies in the hands of the teachers to interpret.
      • akilleen, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1I would say the teaching lies in the hands of the teachers to teach students how to interpret.
    • rpebble, on 04/28/2008, -1/+6Dugg for the more you know.
    • whereiseljefe, on 04/28/2008, -0/+5Good post until the un-politically correct fact. I will not have you challenging my world view, sir!

      *dugg for the more you know as well*
    • skav, on 04/28/2008, -1/+8Churchill was complicated and surprising - google "Zionism versus Bolshevism" to find some of his writings about a worldwide Jewish conspiracy. It's debated all over what his intentions were, etc, but just reading some of the stuff he wrote is really surprising and fun.
    • MixMastaKooz, on 04/28/2008, -0/+5Congrats! We know that history is complicated, nuanced, and not black and white. But why do we treat the present with simple, black and white analysis? I think a liberal education (not politically liberal) with a focus on critical thinking would help that...
    • kelmaster1, on 04/28/2008, -1/+13Did you know:

      The reason for our involvement in WWI was the sinking of the Lusitania that killed American passengers. The Lusitania was actually an armed auxiliary battle cruiser of the British Admiral Fleet, which at the time was smuggling weapons and contraband from the US. The German embassy even posted warnings in the US papers urging American's not to board the Lusitania, as Germany and Britain were at war and warships transporting contraband were to be destroyed. The US state department suppressed the information and only a small print in the back pages in the New York Times came out. It seemed that the US was an untapped resource in terms of international War Bonds and war is a very profitable business for bankers. Hmm,isn't that the about the same time the Fed was created?

      Just search up Lusitania and Morgan; it's pretty amazing how little people know of this even though there is substantial evidence, which is factual documentation as well as personal accounts from those who were involved. Oh and what's even more fascinating? The first lord of Admiralty ordered the destroyer accompanying the Lusitania to abandon her as they entered hostile waters. Who was the admiral? Winston Churchill!

      How many times must history be doomed to repeat itself, by which I mean false pretenses for war. It will never end.
      • Chiliap2, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1The fed was created in 1913 before World War 1 had even started.
        • kelmaster1, on 04/29/2008, -0/+0well, yes you're right, but the establishment of the Fed allowed this to happen. War Bonds don't come from real money, they're basically notes that are given by the "banks" to the Government to pay for war expenses. The government in turn pays back the loan with interest (which is a ***** of money when the "loan" is in billions of dollars) with fiat money, and an increase in the money supply results in the depreciation of the dollar thus causing inflation. The process is more complex than this but its generally the same principle.
    • evilesttoast, on 04/28/2008, -0/+4Know more stuff!
    • slabdigger, on 04/28/2008, -0/+4"There is all kinds of slant. Both conservative and socialist versions of history intermeshed, with a common pro-state thread."
      It's been a while since i read a history textbook - can you tell me more about the Socialist version of history that you have found in your textbooks? Is there a chapter on the great international workers revolutions of the 1910s? How many pages were dedicated to the decades of the US labor movement starting after the civil war? Was there a paragraph about where the Weekend came from? Did you learn all about the IWW?
      I sure didn't.
      • PeppermintPig, on 04/28/2008, -1/+3Oh, to be sure, much of it isn't from the self identifying socialists or respective nations, as the US has had a particularly long record of being anti-communist *.

        However, the US has its own history of socialism, but with anything else they do, it is cloaked in good intentions and wrapped in a US flag**.One such item is Social Security, with a name so obviously mirroring its functionality which was implemented by FDR. The socialism in textbooks doesn't appear by name, but hides in plain sight and is often connected to state interests. Many people don't think wealth redistribution is a big deal because all the programs claim to do good, but it's no less socialism, and these programs get a great deal of attention, as opposed to the scant documentation of the history of labor and unions which is vastly underreported.

        I agree, school textbooks are vastly skewed, but they generally must be to some extent if they're meant to document major events of the nation and they often insufficiently cover civil movements. And that's where much of the problem lies: While covering national issues, there's a hypocritical bias in favor of the government, even when elements of it would be feuding with itself. There would always be some 'correct' side, typically those who succeeded in the conflict, with the most obvious example being the US Civil War, but ask the common person what it was about and the answer is typically Slavery, with absolutely no mention of the economic situation.

        *Even though such sentiments have been too often simple-minded 'us vs them' positions with little consideration as to what actually constitutes socialism and communism outside of the factions that professed it outright.

        ** Insomuch that government is involved in interests of war, welfare, social behavior and control of the money supply, we could just as well call this fascism with hints of socialism and conservative authoritarianism. Again, it's a matter of distinguishing socialism as advocated by non-government organizations versus state promoted socialism.
    • TimHasAnAfro, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1Churchill also thought that Indians were "a beastly people, with a beastly religion." I bet you won't be reading that.

      I'm talking about Indians from India, of course, not Native Americans.
  • Zarokima, on 04/28/2008, -12/+37The worst part is that so many students actually believe that ***** (the stuff he pointed out and valiantly fought against).
    • Kzoo, on 04/28/2008, -0/+0Probably because we aren't taught when we're public school students to question what we -are- taught (or in some cases we're explicitly taught not to question), it's always 'this is how it is/was', without even the possibility of other facts being hinted at.
    • mirunit, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1It goes both ways. Personally I did not see this sort of stuff during High School.
  • UltramegaOK, on 04/28/2008, -12/+204Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past. - 1984

    /obligatory
  • monkblues, on 04/28/2008, -95/+10Wow Mathew, you really sound like a whiny little punk.
    Did you ever stop to think maybe the problem is you?
    Also, your teachers statements abo