New Nationalized History Curriculum Eliminate Founding Fathers, Teaches Country Built on Hate

Looks like the Obamaites are once again attempting to tech our children that the U.S. is an evil country with new nationalized “history” standards for our schools that eliminate the founding fathers and focuses only on a relentlessly negative interpretation of the birth of the country.

I am late to this story, I know (it is impossible to cover everything, certainly), but this one is egregious, so I just had to hit it. Still, it is of a piece with the way the left is attempting to destroy this country by tearing it down in the eyes of our youth so that they grow up with the left’s preconceived notion that this country is evil.

Late last moth documents were uncovered that reveals they way that College Board authors have redesigned the AP U.S. History (APUSH) Framework from a previous five-page, cursory outline that leaves a lot of what is to be taught to teachers and school districts to a massive 98-page document describing in minute detail what is to be taught and more importantly what isn’t to be taught.

The College Board, the administers of advanced placement (AP) courses and tests, is unveiling the new scheme for AP U.S. history which is to be given to 450,000 students who take these history classes across the nation.

Peter Wood, president of the National Association of Scholars, says the new AP U.S. history framework is “a briefing document on progressive and leftist views of the American past” that “weaves together a vaguely Marxist or at least materialist reading of the key events with the whole litany of identity group grievances.”

The first warning sign with this new scheme s that the College Board will not disclose (or hasn’t thus far, in any case) exactly who the authors of this new framework are. The whole campaign is anonymous, a very worrisome sign.

But even worse is what the framework contains… or rather what it doesn’t. There is no mention of any of the founders but George Washington, and then only his farewell address is briefly mentioned.

This is significant because the farewell address is constantly misconstrued as if the idea that we should “avoid entangling foreign alliances” is a “founding principle.” But it is absolutely not a founding principle.

Anyway, the subject matter also claims that the U.S. was founded on a corrupt and evil “rigid racial hierarchy” and then entirely omits the fact that religious diversity not only existed at the founding, but was specifically fostered by our founding laws and principles.

It goes on to claim that Manifest Destiny was really just a mission “built on a belief in white racial superiority and a sense of American cultural superiority.”

By the time it gets to WWII, the country is portrayed strictly through the lens of Japanese internment. But does note, of course, that the only way the country was saved from the Great Depression was through F.D.R.’s big government programs.

Above is but a tiny bit of the outrageous content of this “school” curriculum meant as leftist social engineering.

For info on how to fight this, visit THIS POST by Shane Vander Hart.

CDC Refusing to Divulge Where 6 Patients Tested for Ebola are in the US
Illinois Has Coolest July on Record, Cool Summer Leaves New Yorkers With ‘Disorders’
  • sshiell

    Sounds like Oliver Stone’s abhorrent “Untold History of the United States” is the basis for this. And if so, it is Revisionist History on Steroids – with little or nothing to do with the facts and everything to do with an agenda. And that agenda is to teach “America is Evil” to the young minds it hopes to reach.

  • GarandFan

    Just more of that ‘modern, progressive’ education. And most people don’t have a clue.

  • Brucehenry

    World Net Daily and the Heartland Institute? Really?

    Larry Fucking Krieger, nutjob par excellence? Really?

    Linking to your own opinion piece as “proof” that Washington’s warning was “not a founding principle”? Really?

    • Retired military

      Obama can refer to himself 50 or so times in a 30 min speech. Warner referencing him own article one time in the years he has been writing here is small stuff.

      • And positively minimalist as compared to certain of our leftards in the self refferential sense…

    • jim_m

      It wasn’t a founding principle. It was an isolated statement whose sentiment cannot be found repeated by anyone in the constitutional convention. Unless you are prepared to show us quotations from Jefferson, Adams, and Madison affirming Washington’s statement, I don’t think you should be complaining about Warner’s assertion.

      • Brucehenry

        Not arguing with the assertion, only with using his own opinion piece as a cite.

  • Commander_Chico

    Yeah, I looked through the source document, and it has a “progressive” bias.

    But non-intervention is a founding principle, enunciated by Washington and Adams.

    • Retired military

      “But non-intervention is a founding principle, enunciated by Washington and Adams”

      Do you mean non intervention by the govt? In the school system?

      If so you are so totally fucking clueless it is unbelieveable that you even had the absolute gall to post that.

      Schools cant hold bake sales anymore because of Michelle.

      Schools have to bend to union rules which are enforced by dem politicians.

      The govt approves textbooks and decides where the federal dollars go if schools don’t fall in line with their regulations.

      and you may want to look here

      to find out what some the founders thought of the bible in school (something I am sure you are totally against)

      ANother link

      In fact I think it was either Adams or Jefferson that had the federal govt pay for bibles to be used in public schools
      Once again you open your mouth and spew bullshit.

    • warnertoddhuston

      Uh, no, not really. We were engaged in Europe since day one, so this “non-intervention” claim is so much stuff. In fact early party lines often came down on whether you were a Francophile of a Anglophile.

      • Retired military

        Well if Chico meant nonintervention in other countries he is still a dumbass who doesnt know squat about history.

        In March 1785, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to London to negotiate with Tripoli’s envoy, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman (or Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). When they enquired “concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury”, the ambassador replied:

        “Immediately prior to Jefferson’s inauguration in 1801, Congress passed naval legislation that, among other things, provided for six frigates that ‘shall be officered and manned as the President of the United States may direct.’ … In the event of a declaration of war on the United States by the Barbary powers, these ships were to ‘protect our commerce & chastise their insolence—by sinking, burning or destroying their ships & Vessels wherever you shall find them.'”[24] On Jefferson’s inauguration as president in 1801, Yusuf Karamanli, the Pasha (or Bashaw) of Tripoli, demanded $225,000 from the new administration. (In 1800, Federal revenues totaled a little over $10 million.) Putting his long-held beliefs into practice, Jefferson refused the demand. Consequently, on 10 May 1801, the Pasha declared war on the U.S., not through any formal written documents but in the customary Barbary manner of cutting down the flagstaff in front of the U.S. Consulate.[25] Algiers and Tunis did not follow their ally in Tripoli.

        In response, “Jefferson sent a small force to the area to protect American ships and citizens against potential aggression, but insisted that he was ‘unauthorized by the Constitution, without the sanction of Congress, to go beyond the line of defense.'” He told Congress: “I communicate [to you] all material information on this subject, that in the exercise of this important function confided by the Constitution to the Legislature exclusively their judgment may form itself on a knowledge and consideration of every circumstance of weight.”[24] Although Congress never voted on a formal declaration of war, they did authorize the President to instruct the commanders of armed American vessels to seize all vessels and goods of the Pasha of Tripoli “and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify.” The American squadron joined a Swedish flotilla under Rudolf Cederström in blockading Tripoli, the Swedes having been at war with the Tripolitans since 1800.[26]

        • Commander_Chico

          Defending your commerce is not intervention.

          • jim_m

            It is when you are using military force to force passage of your commerce through foreign waters half way across the globe. It is when you are using military force to avoid paying what some might characterize as a tariff imposed by a foreign nation.

          • Commander_Chico

            you are the only one who would characterize piracy on the high seas as a tariff, not “some.”

          • jim_m

            Just seeing things from the viewpoint of the opposition. Aren’t you bleeding heart liberals always telling us that we need to understand why they hate us? Why is it that you say we need to understand that when you guys seem to be the only ones who are incapable of such understanding?

        • Brucehenry

          Protecting our shipping from pirates is not “intervention” in another country. It’s self-defense. We didn’t depose the Pasha and install a friendly government, now did we?

          • jim_m

            Monroe Doctrine. Enough said. The founders were not opposed to foreign entanglements as a rule. You can argue all you want but you are being ignorant and counterfactual.

          • jim_m

            Protecting our shipping from pirates in the sovereign waters of a foreign nation is.

      • Commander_Chico

        I did not know you were a neocon, Warner. Diplomatic engagement is not intervention or “entangling alliances.”

        • Retired military

          Whereas the fact that you are a flaming idiot was plain to see from day one.
          And Washington had no problems with intervening with other countries. He was against setting up permanent alliances with other countries. Not the same thing.

        • warnertoddhuston

          I am not reflexively against “Neocons” like many libertarians are. They had some good ideas. But I always keep in mind most of the early founders of the movement came from the 50s/60s radical leftists. So, they have some of that ideology still undergirding their ideas. I am not an isolationist. But I am not a full blown interventionist, either. I think there is a logical way to make choices when they need to be made without being held to the extremes either way.

          • Brucehenry

            Because God forbid anyone accuse Warner Todd Huston of extremism.

          • Thank you so much for sharing so much of the obviously scarce resource of what you seem to think is wisdom.

    • jim_m

      Yeah, because when founding father James Monroe declared that the US had an interest in the affairs of other nations in the western hemisphere (and in stemming European influence) he was saying something so out of step with the nation that it has never been followed and is a mere footnote in US history. Seriously, who ever heard of t he Monroe Doctrine? It’s not like Teddy Roosevelt used it as an excuse to intervene in Latin America. Oh wait…

      • You strew pearls of wisdom before swines…

        • jim_m

          Well, let’s face facts – Chico probably believes that the US is part of Latin America and that being involved there is not a ‘foreign entanglement’ because rightfully the US should be part of Mexico. He’s been spending too much time at MEChA meetings

          • Commander_Chico

            ¡Aztlán vive!

  • Walter_Cronanty

    Seems like Bill Ayers, you know, Obama’s neighbor, has become de facto Secretary of Education. Who knew?