Reading, Writing, and 'Politically Correct' Textbooks

The game is tug of war. It is a classic. If you lose, no big deal. But there is another, much more serious tug of war being played out in our nation's public schools. It revolves around textbooks. The struggle is over the ideology and words inside. Religious conservatives see the world one way. Secular liberals see it completely different.

David Barton is president of the Christian group Wallbuilders. "So many citizens just assume that the textbooks are good," Barton says, "that they were good when I went to school, they're good for my kids."

Political correctness seems to be the problem. In an effort to not offend any one group, especially when it comes to history, what happens is that the full story is not being told. Barton says key information is ignored or left out. Like with the Native American Indians.

Says Barton, "There were just some Native American tribes that were cannibalistic and that's just the way they were, and you just can't make them look good."

It is not just history. In Diane Ravitch's book, 'The Language Police," she cites numerous examples of words that are on the 'no-no' list, in just everyday conversation. For example, words like "tomboy" and "manpower" are now considered sexist.

And you can't say "old man" or "old lady" because it is demeaning to older people. And in some books, it is not Adam and Eve. It is Eve and Adam, so it can be shown that males don't take priority over females.

So how does it get to this point? First, a state asks the publisher for a textbook. The publisher then writes the book and then the sensitivity committees scrutinize it. They check to make sure no group could be offended. It then goes back to the state and it must meet their standards.

Creating a separate book for every state would cost publishers too much. So out of the 22 states that have a process for approval of textbooks, they concentrate on getting approved in the two biggest states, Texas and California. Twelve percent of all textbooks are bought in California, eight percent in Texas. That's 20 percent in just those two states.

When a textbook publisher invests $30 to $50 million to do a California or a Texas textbook, that is what they take to all the other states.

So that's why CBN News came to Texas, specifically, Longview, Texas. This is where liberals and conservatives are fighting over what should be inside these textbooks.

It is also the hometown of Mel and Norma Gabler, and the publishers know all about the Gablers. As a matter of fact, they have been called a force to be reckoned with.

Norma Gabler says, "One of the publishers told me, he said, Ms. Gabler, I'd rather face anyone in the nation but you!"

Mel is 89, Norma is 81. If a publisher wants to get published in Texas, he must get past the Gablers, a Christian couple who has been reviewing textbooks for four decades now.

Mel says, "One of the secrets of our work has been the persistency, the consistency.

And through the years, they have found lots of mistakes. Mel comments, "The student edition asks, 'How was the Korean War ended?' The teachers' edition says the police action was ended by (Harry) Truman, by using the bomb. The A-bomb! In Korea!"

The Gablers also make sure these books do not just spin history from the liberal side. Mel says our kids deserve as much. "They're the future of our nation," he says. "They're getting cheated, because they're only getting one side of practically every issue."

Mel and Norma are still active though most of the heavy lifting now is left to Neil Fry, who reads each and every book from science to history.

Because of the Gablers and others down here in the South, the conservative viewpoint wins out quite a bit. But if we leave the South and we head west, it's a much different story

In more liberal California, like Sacramento, the state Capitol, the legislature and the California Board of Education have much different textbook standards than in Texas. Some are calling them simply off the charts and it has many wondering just what's going on out here.

The California standards for evaluating social content say, "When ethnic or cultural groups are portrayed, portrayals must not depict differences in customs or lifestyles as undesirable, and must not reflect adversely on such differences."

So for example, when it comes to learning about Islam, the mistreatment of women is not highlighted. Instead, you will see numerous mentions of Muhammad's name as well as verses from the Koran.

Rae Belisle is Executive Director of the California Board of Education. CBN News asked Belisle what the response to parents is who look at the textbooks and say 'I can't believe they're teaching that'?

Belisle responds, "Yeah, I understand. I mean, I'm a parent. I have similar reactions many times."

Stephen Dreisler with the Association of American Publishers says publishers are caught in the middle. "You may not totally agree with everything they say in here," Dreisler says, "but if you want to sell textbooks in California, you have to abide by their sensitivity guidelines."

Belisle admits outside groups are pushing their agendas. "I think that there is a push to have different focuses, because if you can get your social agenda into public school, that's quite a positive force, and so that's always the tug of war."

So who is writing all of these so-called controversial books? Well, one of them happens to be Gary Nash. He's professor of history at UCLA. Some of his critics say he is distorting history and in the process getting the history of our country all wrong.

Nash was asked if he looked at himself as pro-American, and he replied, "Oh yes. Very much so."

"I don't know of any historians who want to be historians in order to trash America," he says. "No. I would say they want to be historians to improve America."

But his critics say his books spout a philosophy of multiculturalism, that America was formed from a blending of Indian, West African and European cultures. One of his books says, "In time, this cultural exchange would form the foundation for a new nation, the United States of America."

"It's an attempt to be honest and balanced about the different contributions and sacrifices these groups have made," says Nash.

But critics say Nash downplays how America is a product of mostly British influences and that the predominant religion was Christianity.

CBN News asked Nash, "Do you consider yourself more from the liberal side of writing textbooks? He replied, "Well, I'm a liberal in politics, sure."

And Nash says it can be hard to distance your politics from your writing. "There's no way that that can be completely 100 percent dissociated from the way you present American history or German history or Chinese history."

Barton says when writing history, those writing these textbooks might want to look at how the Bible does it.

"When you get the story of David, you get all of it," says Barton. "You get his victories, his failures, you get his murder, his screwed-up family. You get the good, the bad, the ugly."

But as for the textbooks today, what can parents do? How about showing up at a school board meeting?

Belisle says, "If you don't go there, then you have no idea what's going on in your school, no idea what your children are being taught. You just have to be diligent. That's all there is to it."

Dreisler remarks, "Woody Allen used to say, 'The world is run by the people who show up."

And in this tug of war, that is a philosophy that both liberals and conservatives can agree on.

NOTE: Parents who are concerned about what their school may be teaching children should contact their local school board and find out when they meet. Then they should attend board meetings on a monthly basis to keep informed of current teaching materials and practices.

Political Correctness: The Scourge of Our Times

Agustin Blazquez with the collaboration of Jaums Sutton Monday, April 8, 2002

Does anyone know the origins of Political Correctness? Who originally developed it and what was its purpose?

I looked it up. It was developed at the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt, Germany, which was founded in 1923 and came to be known as the "Frankfurt School." It was a group of thinkers who pulled together to find a solution to the biggest problem facing the implementers of communism in Russia.

The problem? Why wasn't communism spreading? Their answer? Because Western Civilization was in its way.

What was the problem with Western Civilization? Its belief in the individual, that an individual could develop valid ideas. At the root of communism was the theory that all valid ideas come from the effect of the social group of the masses. The individual is nothing.

And they believed that the only way for communism to advance was to help (or force, if necessary) Western Civilization to destroy itself. How to do that? Undermine its foundations by chipping away at the rights of those annoying individuals.

One way to do that? Change their speech and thought patterns by spreading the idea that vocalizing your beliefs is disrespectful to others and must be avoided to make up for past inequities and injustices.

And call it something that sounds positive: "Political Correctness." Inspired by the brand new communist technique, Mao, in the 1930s, wrote an article on the "correct" handling of contradictions among the people. "Sensitive training" – sound familiar? – and speech codes were born.

In 1935, after Hitler came to power, the Frankfurt School moved to New York City, where they continued their work by translating Marxism from economic to cultural terms using Sigmund Freud's psychological conditioning mechanisms to get Americans to buy into Political Correctness. In 1941, they moved to California to spread their wings.

But Political Correctness remains just what it was intended to be: a sophisticated and dangerous form of censorship and oppression, imposed upon the citizenry with the ultimate goal of manipulating, brainwashing and destroying our society.

PC Cuba

My first conscious exposure to Political Correctness was in 1959 – the first year of Castro's revolution in Cuba – while attending an indoctrination session at a neighborhood elementary school in Havana. There I learned for the first time of the claimed superiority of life in the Soviet Union vs. the U.S.

There I also learned that the word "compañero" (filtered version of the communist "comrade" – Fidel was denying his communist preferences) was the correct way to refer to the other members of the new Cuban society-in-the-making.

Mr., Mrs. and Miss were no longer acceptable, and their further use could reveal that you were not a Fidelista. Since repression and violations of human rights came roaring in right behind Castro's sweep down from the mountains in 1959, objection or rejection of Fidel Castro's revolution would (and still will) land you in a lot of trouble. You could easily lose your life in those summary executions at La Cabaña prison under the direction of Che Guevara.

But don't worry about Che. Che was later transformed and cleansed by the masters of Political Correctness. His likeness became a revered icon of the far left, with T-shirts and posters still adorning the campuses of America.

The same techniques were used to cleanse one of today's "heroes," Mumia Abu-Jamal (even if he was convicted, by overwhelming evidence, of killing a cop).

And under the pervasive guidance of Political Correctness that took hold from elementary school to university, from the media to the arts, from the country fields to factories and offices, Cubans learned to say what it was safe to say. Always in line with the overpowering state. Always following the dictums of the only political party left: the Communist Party.

The self-censorship resulting from Political Correctness easily trampled freedom of speech. Political Correctness has succeeded in Cuba by creating a uniform political discourse that has lasted for 43 years.

Political Correctness has given the state (Castro) complete control of speech. That is the main reason why the U.S. media cannot extract the truth of what Cubans really feel when they interview regular citizens and deceptively present their comments as valid to the American public.

The same was true in the former Soviet Union and the former satellite countries. The same continues in the remaining communist world.

It's nothing new. The U.S. media must know that, so why don't they openly report that fact instead of misleading the public? Perhaps that is the reason why the American people are so uneducated about the Cuban tragedy and acted regrettably during the Elian Gonzalez affair.

The PC U.S.

With profound dismay, I have seen how the scourge of Political Correctness has taken hold in the U.S. It is very well entrenched in our educational system, at scientific, religious and community levels, the media, the workplace and even our government.

It is changing the American society from within, and the citizens of this nation are increasingly censoring themselves and losing their freedom of speech out of fear of Political Correctness repression.

It is the nature of Western Civilization to be civilized – respectful of others and concerned with correcting injustices. We don't need Political Correctness to make us think we are not civilized on our own and must have our thoughts and words restricted.

In December 2001, in Kensington, Md., an annual firefighters Santa Claus festivity to light the Christmas tree was objected to by two families. The city council, in the name of Political Correctness, voted to ban Santa from the parade. Fortunately, due to citizen outcry, the decision was reversed in the end and many people protested by dressing up as Santa.

Logically and respectfully, how can one person's benign icon be objectionable to the point of banishment? Offer to add other people's icons. Make it a broader celebration. That's the Perfectly Correct American way. The rulers of Political Correctness reach absurd levels when they refer to the betrayal of America by the spies Julius and Ethel Rosenberg – executed in 1953 – as "non-traditional patriotism"!

We see shameful situations created in our schools and universities in America that have fallen prey to Political Correctness. Some professors, students and publications are being attacked for expressing a point of view that differs from that imposed by a fanatical far left, under the guise of Political Correctness.

In schools and workplaces we see that "diversity" has degenerated into reverse discrimination, where often the less qualified are admitted and the incompetent cannot be fired. We have seen characters like Rev. Jesse Jackson shamelessly blackmailing and threatening to boycott entire corporations if they don't hire those selected by him or simply make "donations" to his organizations.

The Double Standard Emerges

Our Constitution requires the separation of church and state, which has always discouraged our public education system from teaching religion. However, in December 2001, while Christmas cards, symbols and decorations were being objected to for the first time in American public schools in Georgia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Minnesota and Oregon, in an elementary school in Texas, a girl was allowed to give to her classmates an overview and show a video about her Muslim religion.

And in January 2002, a public middle school in San Luis Obispo, Calif., had its students pretend to be warriors fighting for Islam. Another school near Oakland, Calif., also encouraged 125 seventh-grade students to dress up in Muslim robes for a three-week course on Islam.

This arbitrary double standard was applied in the name of Political Correctness following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

According to Ellen Sorokin's "No Founding Fathers?" published by the Washington Times on its front page on Jan. 28, 2002, even our Founding Fathers have fallen victim to the travesty. The article says of the New Jersey Department of Education's history standards, "The latest revisions to the state standards have disappointed educators across the country, who said the board's exclusion of the Founding Fathers' names is 'Political Correctness to the nth degree.' "

Sorokin points out that "the standards specifically note that students should identify slavery, the Holocaust and modern Iraq as examples in which 'people have behaved in cruel and inhumane ways.' " Conveniently, communism is absent from that short list.

In another article by Sorokin, published by the Washington Times on March 10, "Report Blames Anti-Americanism on College Teachers," she presents two examples of upcoming courses for next spring and fall. They are " 'The Sexuality of Terrorism' at University of California at Hayward; and 'Terrorism and the Politics of Knowledge' at UCLA, a class that, according to its course description, examines 'America's record of imperialistic adventurism.' " Recently, a historic photograph of the New York firefighters raising the American flag over the ruins of the World Trade Center was going to be made into a sculpture as a memorial.

But history's revisionists used Political Correctness to dictate that other minority faces replace some of the faces in the historical photograph! Fortunately, in the end that didn't fly either, due to the outcry of firefighters and the public.

The Goal of the PC Dictators

For people with the background and firsthand experience of living inside a totalitarian communist society, the tilt and goal of the dictators of Political Correctness in America are obvious.

The beneficiaries in the end will be the fanatic believers in the totalitarian state, who, in spite of the dismal failure of communism and the 100 million people exterminated pursuing that criminal system, have not given up. Political and religious fanatics, as demonstrated by the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and the subsequent war in Afghanistan, are extremely dangerous in today's world.

All citizens who cherish liberty must reject the scourge of Political Correctness. Freedom of speech must be preserved in America if we are to continue to be free. Let's say it: Castro is not a 'president,' as the U.S. media's Political Correctness calls him. Castro has not been democratically elected to anything in Cuba. The correct word to define him is 'tyrant.' He is not just a 'leader,' as the U.S. media also calls him. He is more of a criminal Mafioso-type character.

Why criminal? Because he has caused the deaths of more than 100,000 Cubans. Thousands have died through his support of guerrillas in Central and South America. Thousands of blacks were killed by Castro's soldiers in Africa. Castro in the 1980s introduced the use of bacteriological weapons to kill blacks in Angola.

How many thousands have died in America as a result of his drug trafficking into the U.S.? How many thousands have died all over the world due to terrorists trained in Castro's Cuba? Former Soviet colonel Ken Alibek, who defected to America, was once in charge of the Soviet Union's production of biological weapons. In Alibek's 1999 book, "Biohazard," he revealed that with the help of the Soviet Union, in the 1980s Cuba created laboratories to produce chemical and bacteriological weapons of mass destruction – just 90 miles from U.S. shores.

The information about Castro's involvement with bacteriological weapons also comes from various independent sources. We must not forget either that Cuba is on the U.S. State Department's list of terrorist nations.

Why Mafioso? Well, Castro is like an untouchable godfather, surrounded by bodyguards and thugs and a private army of about 40,000 soldiers for his personal protection (roughly the size of the entire army of Cuba prior to 1959). He stole foreign and national properties in Cuba. He has become one of the richest men in the world, according to Forbes magazine. He has created a despotic and corrupt elite to exploit the Cuban people and keep himself in power. He has made the Cuban people hostages and slaves of his corrupt regime.

The U.S. media do not call Al Capone "the former leader" of the Italian Mafia. Why the double standard with Fidel and other far-left regimes? The answer can be traced to where the sympathies lie – with the elite dictating Political Correctness in America.

It's one thing is to be educated, considerate, polite and have good manners, and another to be forced to self-censor and say things that are totally incorrect in order to comply with the arbitrary dictums of a deceiving and fanatical far-left agenda.

Let's preserve our freedom and say NO to the scourge of Political Correctness.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.