This bill — which has already passed the Texas Senate — would drastically reduce the coverage of civil rights history in the state’s classrooms. news.bloomberglaw.com/social-justice…
This thread offers some jaw-dropping examples of what’s being left out.
Here’s a small sample of what’s being cut and what’s left behind.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is apparently one of the few topics Texas Republicans want students to read about.
OK, let’s take a look at the CRA and Texas.
The first Texas Republican Senator after Reconstruction was Sen. John Tower, elected in 1961.
He filled the seat held by LBJ, who had shepherded the 1957 & 1960 Civil Rights Acts in the Senate and later pushed for, yes, the 1964 Civil Rights Act as president.
Tower opposed it:
When it came time for the Senate to vote on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Republican Sen. John Tower voted against it, while Texas's other senator -- Ralph Yarborough, a rare liberal Southern Democrat -- voted for it.
After Sen. Yarborough voted for the Civil Rights Act, the Texas Republican running against him in the 1964 election -- George H.W. Bush -- stressed his own opposition to the bill in campaign ads and tried to use Yarborough's support for civil rights against him.
The stance Tower and Bush took against the Civil Rights Act with the larger approach of the Texas GOP.
In the House, Rep. Alger and Rep. Edgar Foreman -- the only two Texas Republicans there -- both voted against it too.
Most Dems did as well, but a handful broke ranks:
Again, the lesson here isn't that Texas Democrats were all saints and Texas Republicans were all sinners. It's that *both* parties propped up white supremacy.
And no matter how hard they try to whittle history down to a patriotically correct list of topics, that fact remains.
Greg's whole piece is a must-read, but I thought I'd expand a bit on what I said here:
The Kerner Commission -- launched by LBJ to explore the causes and consequences of the urban riots of the 1960s -- featured some high-profile Republicans, including NYC Mayor John Lindsay, Senator Edward Brooke of Massachusetts, and Representative William McCullough of Ohio.
I'm still trying to process how Carlson wrote about wanting to PUNCH A 69-YEAR-OLD MINISTER IN THE FACE because the civil rights leader had the audacity to denounce white supremacy while touring a memorial to the slave trade.
"Let's see your citations" is a pretty good rule of thumb for reporting, it turns out.
What's really remarkable about all this is how many critics of Critical Race Theory believe -- with 100% confidence -- that it was designed specifically and solely to make white kids feel bad.
Which is both insane and a deeply narcissistic & self-centered way to see the world.
Deleting this thread because I think people are right in noting that I misread the legislature's language a bit.
Though it seems what they wrote is actually worse?
I read the highlighted lines as Florida only wanting American history to deal with the founding era -- it's poorly written, and the emphasis on "the creation of a new nation" threw me -- but as others noted, the emphasis seems to be on the *principles* of the new nation.
Teaching US history just through the Declaration's principles is like assessing a 50-year marriage through the wedding vows, or maybe just the marriage proposal.
You can't just focus on the intentions. You've got to address what happened after (and before!) that big moment.
Those who liberated the Nazi extermination camps firmly believed that the horrors that happened there needed to be witnessed widely, so they would never happen again.
In early August 1945, portions of the Third US Army came upon Ohrdruf, a Nazi labor camp and a subcamp within the larger Buchenwald system.
Generals Dwight Eisenhower, Omar Bradley and George Patton toured the camp. The sights and smells of what had happened there -- torture, mutilation, murder -- were so overpowering that even a veteran soldier like Patton (on the left here at the camp) turned away and vomited.