Texas GOP Pushes to Whitewash American History for Schoolchildren

[Frodo]

The Lost Cause strikes again:

Texas Pushes to Obscure the State’s History of Slavery and Racism

[Big Abraham]

Mr. Ramos questioned how the Texas Revolution, a six-month rebellion that concluded in the spring of 1836, could be associated with patriotism and freedom when the state’s new Constitution explicitly legalized slavery seven years after Mexico had abolished it.

Because a majority of the people in a given area rebelling against its authoritarian rulers and establishing a sovereign nation is inherently patriotic and free? Also, the idea that the men of the Texas Revolution were all fighting for slavery is an even greater denial of history than the idea that none of them were slaveholders. Have none of these people ever heard of Davy Crockett?

[Progressive Pessimist]

To be fair, this is nothing new for Texas' education system. They're just septupling down.

[Suburbia]

To be fair, this is nothing new for Texas' education system. They're just septupling down.

[T'Chenka]

This takes me back to the days of pastafarianism.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Mr. Ramos questioned how the Texas Revolution, a six-month rebellion that concluded in the spring of 1836, could be associated with patriotism and freedom when the state’s new Constitution explicitly legalized slavery seven years after Mexico had abolished it.

Because a majority of the people in a given area rebelling against its authoritarian rulers and establishing a sovereign nation is inherently patriotic and free? Also, the idea that the men of the Texas Revolution were all fighting for slavery is an even greater denial of history than the idea that none of them were slaveholders. Have none of these people ever heard of Davy Crockett?

Wow.


Just.... wow.


In 1920, the non-Mexican, immigrant population of Texas was around two thousand. Sounds like you're saying that "patriotism" consists of moving onto a piece of land (illegally, if need be) and then, shortly thereafter, telling its legal claimants that it's yours now. It also looks a lot like you are denying the personhood of Mexicans, Native Americans, and slaves - and I don't think you even realize you're doing it.  (And that's all without getting into how Coahuila and Texas were a single state until 1835... in which American immigrants were a minority.)
 
And as for Texas and slavery, here are a few excerpts from the Texas Constitution of 1836:

All free white persons who shall emigrate to this Republic, and who shall, after a residence of six months, make oath before some competent authority that he intends to reside permanently in the same, and shall swear to support this Constitution, and that he will bear true allegiance to the Republic of Texas, shall be entitled to all the privileges of citizenship.

All persons, (Africans, the descendants of Africans, and Indians excepted,) who were residing in Texas on the day of the Declaration of Independence, shall be considered citizens of the Republic, and entitled to all the privileges of such.

All persons of color who were slaves for life previous to their emigration to Texas, and who are now held in bondage, shall remain in the like state of servitude, provide the said slave shall be the bona fide property of the person so holding said slave as aforesaid. Congress shall pass no laws to prohibit emigrants from the United States of America from bringing their slaves into the Republic with them, and holding them by the same tenure by which such slaves were held in the United States; nor shall Congress have power to emancipate slaves; nor shall any slave-holder be allowed to emancipate his or her slave or slaves, without the consent of Congress, unless he or she shall send his or her slave or slaves without the limits of the Republic. No free person of African descent, either in whole or in part, shall be permitted to reside permanently in the Republic, without the consent of Congress, and the importation or admission of Africans or negroes into this Republic, excepting from the United States of America, is forever prohibited, and declared to be piracy.

How little has changed in almost two centuries. The government of Mexico was certainly flawed, and Santa Anna was no champion of democracy. But that does not justify attempts to whitewash (nearly literally) the history of Texas, or any history. The United States of America has done a lot of good in spite of our historical flaws. Refusing to understand the very real lessons of history in favor of some feel-good fantasyland will not lead to better future.

[DrScholl]

Remember that most textbooks in the south used to romanticize slavery and portray slaves as happy and loving their owners. Conservatives have always used the education manipulate the future electorate through culture. They claim that removing the stars and bars and confederate statues is erasing history when they are the ones actual manipulate history.

[Big Abraham]

In 1920, the non-Mexican, immigrant population of Texas was around two thousand. Sounds like you're saying that "patriotism" consists of moving onto a piece of land (illegally, if need be) and then, shortly thereafter, telling its legal claimants that it's yours now.

I assume you mean 1820. Anyway, you are obviously severely misinformed about the history of Texas. The "Old Three Hundred" that moved with Stephen Austin into the region were invited by the Spanish (later Mexican) government in an attempt to populate the sparsely populated frontier. Mexico had actively encouraged immigration and wanted to increase settler number by enacting the General Law of 1824 which enabled all heads of household, regardless of race, religion or immigrant status, to acquire land in Mexico, which they purchased.

It also looks a lot like you are denying the personhood of Mexicans, Native Americans, and slaves - and I don't think you even realize you're doing it.

Yay! Declarative statements are fun! Since you've provided no evidence or reasoning to back up your incendiary assertion, I'll join the fun. You sir, are clearly denying the personhood of white Texans, and persons named Big Abraham. Tsk tsk.

(And that's all without getting into how Coahuila and Texas were a single state until 1835... in which American immigrants were a minority.)

Ok, and? The American immigrants were not a minority in Tejas, the place which, you know, actually revolted and won their independence.

And as for Texas and slavery, here are a few excerpts from the Texas Constitution of 1836

Yeah I never actually denied that slavery existed in the Republic of Texas, and was constitutionally sanctioned (as it was in the United States, mind you). What I claimed is that not all Texians owned slaves, and that "fighting for slavery" was not their main cause. Is reading comprehension not your strong suit?

How little has changed in almost two centuries. The government of Mexico was certainly flawed, and Santa Anna was no champion of democracy.

"Certainly flawed" and "no champion of democracy" certainly are "whitewashed" ways to describe a bloodthirsty authoritarian government.

But that does not justify attempts to whitewash (nearly literally) the history of Texas, or any history. The United States of America has done a lot of good in spite of our historical flaws. Refusing to understand the very real lessons of history in favor of some feel-good fantasyland will not lead to better future.

No one said you can't teach the "very real lessons of history," whatever that means to you. That doesn't mean teaching an inaccurate view of the Texas Revolution, which this article is positing and you are apparently endorsing. And it sounds like you're too busy moral posturing over there to come up with any concrete examples of what "feel-good fantasyland" you're even talking about.

[S019]

Why are people arguing with the Confederate apologist?


Anyways, this is clearly extremely bad and Confederate apologism is racist (sane, normal)

[Big Abraham]

Why are people arguing with the Confederate apologist?

When have I defended Confederates?

[Nightcore Nationalist]

Yet again, the dishonest press deliberately and falsely equate being anti-CRT/1619 to "denying racism/slavery".  Many such cases.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Slavery was not the 'main cause' of the Texas Revolution. It was just another rebellion against the centralizing Mexican government, one that happened to be led by slavers (because, surprise surprise, they were the elite in the area). Only real reason the rebellion in Texas is well known today is that it was successful, unlike most of the other Mexican regional rebellions.
You can't just graft some Civil War-style narrative on the Texas Revolution and expect it to fit.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Why are people arguing with the Confederate apologist?


Anyways, this is clearly extremely bad and Confederate apologism is racist (sane, normal)

Sam Houston, the first president of the Republic of Texas, was a staunch unionist and even tried, unsuccessfully, to stop Texas from leaving the Union. Clearly to act like there was a strong, ultra-strong link between the Texas Revolution and the Confederacy is deeply disengenous and lazy history that I subscribed to until a few years ago.
The Texas Revolution was strongly driven by internal Mexican affairs such as the attempts at centralization of power by the Mexican government, and the Confederates seceding was strongly driven by internal American affairs (which is a fancy way of saying slavery). Makes sense, no?

Turns out history is complicated. You are parroting what are largely nonsensical narratives that show up in the press because they want clicks and sales. It's not jazzy to talk in-depth as to what drove Sam Houston to rebel against Mexico City, and about the specifics of Santa Ana and the broader context of Mexican power struggles in the 1820s and 1830s. It's much easier to push the "it's mainly about slavery!" line. Doesn't matter what the truth is. Truth, a fair bit of the time, doesn't really sell.

Can you please think for yourself on this issue?

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Remember that most textbooks in the south used to romanticize slavery and portray slaves as happy and loving their owners. Conservatives have always used the education manipulate the future electorate through culture. They claim that removing the stars and bars and confederate statues is erasing history when they are the ones actual manipulate history.

Conservatives have very little influence on the teaching of history in America.

[Hindsight was 2020]

While to say the Texas Revolution was driven by slavery is a unfair reading of the political situations driving the revolution at the time it’s equally disingenuous to ignore that slavery was a big factor in why “the elites” driving the revolution wanted to get out of Mexico

[Samof94]

Remember that most textbooks in the south used to romanticize slavery and portray slaves as happy and loving their owners. Conservatives have always used the education manipulate the future electorate through culture. They claim that removing the stars and bars and confederate statues is erasing history when they are the ones actual manipulate history.

An Alabama history textbook said slavery was a form of social security and that slave owners treated slaves well.

[GP270watch]

Remember that most textbooks in the south used to romanticize slavery and portray slaves as happy and loving their owners. Conservatives have always used the education manipulate the future electorate through culture. They claim that removing the stars and bars and confederate statues is erasing history when they are the ones actual manipulate history.

An Alabama history textbook said slavery was a form of social security and that slave owners treated slaves well.

 Everything is projection with the right. They know that they've lied about American history, that's why they see the most meager attempts to begin to correct the record as such a serious threat.

[HisGrace]

As others have said, slavery was not a significant cause of the Texas Revolution. Slavery had been nominally illegal for six years in Mexico because they wanted an alliance with France and banned it to get their approval. But the ban was laxly enforced, as evidenced by plenty of people in Texas still keeping slaves at the time. Meanwhile, the war broke out within a year of Santa Anna dissolving the Mexican constitution and congress to effectively rule as a dictator. You do the math on which one had the more direct effect. As another person pointed out, there were rebellions all over Mexico but the Texas one is just more notable because they won and joined the United States later.

There's no reason to lump this in with the American Civil War, they were two separate events 30 years apart with completely different causes.  Just because the Civil War was primarily caused by slavery does not mean every 19th century conflict was.

Not surprisingly the left is jumping on this though given they've recently entered into a competition with the right in the junk history department.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Remember that most textbooks in the south used to romanticize slavery and portray slaves as happy and loving their owners. Conservatives have always used the education manipulate the future electorate through culture. They claim that removing the stars and bars and confederate statues is erasing history when they are the ones actual manipulate history.

An Alabama history textbook said slavery was a form of social security and that slave owners treated slaves well.

 Everything is projection with the right. They know that they've lied about American history, that's why they see the most meager attempts to begin to correct the record as such a serious threat.

The difference is that very few history teachers are teaching right-wing lies.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Remember that most textbooks in the south used to romanticize slavery and portray slaves as happy and loving their owners. Conservatives have always used the education manipulate the future electorate through culture. They claim that removing the stars and bars and confederate statues is erasing history when they are the ones actual manipulate history.

An Alabama history textbook said slavery was a form of social security and that slave owners treated slaves well.

 Everything is projection with the right. They know that they've lied about American history, that's why they see the most meager attempts to begin to correct the record as such a serious threat.

The difference is that very few history teachers are teaching right-wing lies.

Wouldn't necessarily go that far, but it's clear that in America, left-wing lies are more often taught than right-wing ones in context of the schools.

[Big Abraham]

Remember that most textbooks in the south used to romanticize slavery and portray slaves as happy and loving their owners. Conservatives have always used the education manipulate the future electorate through culture. They claim that removing the stars and bars and confederate statues is erasing history when they are the ones actual manipulate history.

An Alabama history textbook said slavery was a form of social security and that slave owners treated slaves well.

 Everything is projection with the right. They know that they've lied about American history, that's why they see the most meager attempts to begin to correct the record as such a serious threat.

The difference is that very few history teachers are teaching right-wing lies.

Wouldn't necessarily go that far, but it's clear that in America, left-wing lies are more often taught than right-wing ones in context of the schools.

For the most part, public schools seem to conform to the prevailing politics of the community. I grew up in the suburbs of Portland, a notoriously "progressive" city, and so in most of the history classes I took beyond elementary school I had to endure constant guilt-tripping over how much white people made blacks and Indians suffer. In rural conservative areas, I would imagine you get more of the "shining city on a hill" type rhetoric, extolling the virtues of great god-fearing patriots. In either case, lies and ideology are placed above historical truth.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Remember that most textbooks in the south used to romanticize slavery and portray slaves as happy and loving their owners. Conservatives have always used the education manipulate the future electorate through culture. They claim that removing the stars and bars and confederate statues is erasing history when they are the ones actual manipulate history.

An Alabama history textbook said slavery was a form of social security and that slave owners treated slaves well.

 Everything is projection with the right. They know that they've lied about American history, that's why they see the most meager attempts to begin to correct the record as such a serious threat.

The difference is that very few history teachers are teaching right-wing lies.

Wouldn't necessarily go that far, but it's clear that in America, left-wing lies are more often taught than right-wing ones in context of the schools.

For the most part, public schools seem to conform to the prevailing politics of the community. I grew up in the suburbs of Portland, a notoriously "progressive" city, and so in most of the history classes I took beyond elementary school I had to endure constant guilt-tripping over how much white people made blacks and Indians suffer. In rural conservative areas, I would imagine you get more of the "shining city on a hill" type rhetoric, extolling the virtues of great god-fearing patriots. In either case, lies and ideology are placed above historical truth.

That certainly aligns with what I expected from those places. I suppose we now have confirmation.

[Samof94]

Remember that most textbooks in the south used to romanticize slavery and portray slaves as happy and loving their owners. Conservatives have always used the education manipulate the future electorate through culture. They claim that removing the stars and bars and confederate statues is erasing history when they are the ones actual manipulate history.

An Alabama history textbook said slavery was a form of social security and that slave owners treated slaves well.

 Everything is projection with the right. They know that they've lied about American history, that's why they see the most meager attempts to begin to correct the record as such a serious threat.

The Japanese far right is even worse and is trying to do the same kind of projection.

[GP270watch]

Remember that most textbooks in the south used to romanticize slavery and portray slaves as happy and loving their owners. Conservatives have always used the education manipulate the future electorate through culture. They claim that removing the stars and bars and confederate statues is erasing history when they are the ones actual manipulate history.

An Alabama history textbook said slavery was a form of social security and that slave owners treated slaves well.

 Everything is projection with the right. They know that they've lied about American history, that's why they see the most meager attempts to begin to correct the record as such a serious threat.

The difference is that very few history teachers are teaching right-wing lies.

Wouldn't necessarily go that far, but it's clear that in America, left-wing lies are more often taught than right-wing ones in context of the schools.

For the most part, public schools seem to conform to the prevailing politics of the community. I grew up in the suburbs of Portland, a notoriously "progressive" city, and so in most of the history classes I took beyond elementary school I had to endure constant guilt-tripping over how much white people made blacks and Indians suffer. In rural conservative areas, I would imagine you get more of the "shining city on a hill" type rhetoric, extolling the virtues of great god-fearing patriots. In either case, lies and ideology are placed above historical truth.

 I call B.S. on this, what exactly was in your history curriculum that was guilt tripping whites about? Explain an example or cite something, reference a textbook because I don't believe you and would like to actually see an example of this.


 

[Big Abraham]

Remember that most textbooks in the south used to romanticize slavery and portray slaves as happy and loving their owners. Conservatives have always used the education manipulate the future electorate through culture. They claim that removing the stars and bars and confederate statues is erasing history when they are the ones actual manipulate history.

An Alabama history textbook said slavery was a form of social security and that slave owners treated slaves well.

 Everything is projection with the right. They know that they've lied about American history, that's why they see the most meager attempts to begin to correct the record as such a serious threat.

The difference is that very few history teachers are teaching right-wing lies.

Wouldn't necessarily go that far, but it's clear that in America, left-wing lies are more often taught than right-wing ones in context of the schools.

For the most part, public schools seem to conform to the prevailing politics of the community. I grew up in the suburbs of Portland, a notoriously "progressive" city, and so in most of the history classes I took beyond elementary school I had to endure constant guilt-tripping over how much white people made blacks and Indians suffer. In rural conservative areas, I would imagine you get more of the "shining city on a hill" type rhetoric, extolling the virtues of great god-fearing patriots. In either case, lies and ideology are placed above historical truth.

 I call B.S. on this, what exactly was in your history curriculum that was guilt tripping whites about? Explain an example or cite something, reference a textbook because I don't believe you and would like to actually see an example of this.


 

It's the same typical nonsense you get in some universities about how the wealth of America, and that of white people in particular, is essentially due only to slavery and Native genocide, how everything was taken from them and they were given scraps in return, and of course naturally being a suburban Portland school with 95+ percent white students this is likely going to generate a great deal of shame. It wasn't an explicit part of the curriculum to "guilt trip whites," it was more of the manner in which it was conveyed. It was in public high school where I first came into contact with concepts like "white privilege," which I remember being taught as a fact to the students by my English teacher. I don't have any textbooks to cite, I can only cite my personal experience, which you are free to disbelieve for whatever reason, but a simple online search will reveal that many other people, especially of the recent generation, had similar experiences in public school, especially if they grew up in a liberal area as I did