Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Am I right in feeling sqeamish about this course outline?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Wednesdays Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-21-08 07:06 PM
Original message
Am I right in feeling sqeamish about this course outline?
(Cross-posted in athiests group)

My daughter had her first day of 6th grade in a charter middle school in Oklahoma City Public Schools. She brought home this course outline, that she and I must sign and turn in by tomorrow. Is it just me, or is there some subtle proselytizing here?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
NMDemDist2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-21-08 07:10 PM
Response to Original message
1. a quick read looked OK to me
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
realisticphish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-21-08 07:10 PM
Response to Original message
2. one line
about the 10 commandments being part of our culture today. That's the only thing i saw (though the fact that the ancient israelites were important enough in a world history context to be put along side the ancient greeks, romans, and egyptians might be another dig)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hedgehog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-21-08 07:53 PM
Response to Reply #2
16. Are you denying that the Bible has an influence on English language cultures?
Whatever you believe about it's veracity, it's at least as much part of our baggage as the names of the 12 Olympian gods.

I would have said that the people of Israel believed that Moses led them out of slavery in Egypt. Again, whatever you believe, and I happen to believe there is some basis in truth here, I don't think the archaeological evidence has confirmed this event. Technically, the Exodus story falls into the same category as the Iliad and Odyssey with the proviso that we've actually found the remains of Troy.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
realisticphish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-21-08 08:12 PM
Response to Reply #16
21. whoa, dude, back off
Edited on Thu Aug-21-08 08:14 PM by realisticphish
I didn't say that. I said that (or at least suggested that), in terms of world history, the ancient israelites are no more important than many other civilizations. Why are you jumping down my throat?

Is it just because I have a quote about agnosticism in my sig?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hedgehog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-21-08 08:21 PM
Response to Reply #21
26. I didn't think a disagreement represented jumping down your throat.
I interpreted your first comment to suggest that the ancient Israelites had no influence on modern culture when compared to the Egyptians, Greeks and Romans.

I saw the dog, but I didn't really read your sig.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
realisticphish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-21-08 08:28 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. well
you turned an offhand comment into me denying that the bible had any impact on the western world

And, in fact, I think that the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, and Chinese (who, oddly, are not on the list) made a FAR greater impact on the world at large than the israelites. The bible in some ways comes from them, yes, but it was not the israelites who swept it across the world. If it had not been for the spread into Rome, it would hold the same place in history as the Mithraists and Gnostics :shrug: The bible was (and is) incredibly important, but not because of the israelites; it's because of the Romans, and later European powers
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bean fidhleir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-22-08 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #16
78. "I don't think the archaeological evidence has confirmed this event"
Quite right. The guys at Tel Aviv U. archaeo dept have said that after 70+ years of excavation they've found approximately bupkes in support of the bible's stories.

"This is what archaeologists have learned from their excavations in the Land of Israel: the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is the fact that the united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is described by the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom. And it will come as an unpleasant shock to many that the God of Israel, Jehovah, had a female consort and that the early Israelite religion adopted monotheism only in the waning period of the monarchy and not at Mount Sinai. "

http://groups.msn.com/Sequitur/herzog1.msnw
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XemaSab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-22-08 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #16
84. The syllabus says that the Bible is the history of the Israelites--
that's it's a factual document.

Do you agree that the Bible should be taught as factual in the public schools?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Iggo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-21-08 07:13 PM
Response to Original message
3. Sounds about right.
Hey, at least The Enlightenment's in there! (It's at the end, though. Guess which part they skip as they run out of time...lol.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-21-08 07:18 PM
Response to Original message
4. I wouldn't freak, my kid's honors english class started out with the Quakers and the Puritans
compare and contrast. I think she's preparing the kids on how to avoid a draft. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JustAnotherGen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-21-08 07:24 PM
Response to Original message
5. I'm answering as a Unitarian
I don't mean to bring controversy to your post - so forgive me if anyone takes it 'offensively'. . .

But I don't believe that Jesus founded Christianity. I believe Paul (Christians call him St. Paul) 'founded' it - and it was truly cemented at the Council of Nicacea 325.

So that said - I would have a hard time with my child being taught in a 'geography/history class' "Pauline Theology". But that's just me.

So yep - I see problems with it. I see a lot of problems. And why no discussion on why Christianity REALLY became the winning horse? Hell- I'd pull my child out of that school.

But as I said in my subject line - I'm a UU. It manifests itself in a belief that Arius was right, the Council was wrong - yada yada yada - that's all there is to it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
willing dwarf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-21-08 07:32 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. "Jesus was founder of Christianity" ??
And Mohammed the "founder" of Islan? I ask you.

Makes it sound like they were CEO of their corporations.

I suppose they could call it cultural geography...but really, it might be more informative to look at-- say- conditions of climate to determine what crops grew in a particular area and thus how the people of that area evolved. Or what about natural resources? Starting with religion is pretty far afield.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JustAnotherGen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-21-08 07:52 PM
Response to Reply #10
15. I would agree
Would you like me to deconstruct the happenings in Exodus?

There's a lot of Political in that story too. I'm just one UU - and as most UU's can attest . .. no two UU's think alike. But those of us came to UU by way of Christianity? Most of us believe in a HUMAN being named Yeshua (Jesus) - who was a big nose thumber, left wing winnut :pals:, who challenged, questioned - oh and btw. . . if he came back today? He'd shut Christians out for not keeping Kosher. :rofl: Seriously - if he came back? Could he even eat in the average Christian home? No, no, no, no . . .

There are a lot of things with that C.V. that I'd yank my child right out of that school.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hedgehog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-21-08 07:56 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. I beg to differ:
From Luke 11:

After he had spoken, a Pharisee invited him to dine at his home. He entered and reclined at table to eat.
38
The Pharisee was amazed to see that he did not observe the prescribed washing before the meal.
39
The Lord said to him, "Oh you Pharisees! Although you cleanse the outside of the cup and the dish, inside you are filled with plunder and evil.
40
You fools! Did not the maker of the outside also make the inside?
41
But as to what is within, give alms, and behold, everything will be clean for you.
42
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JustAnotherGen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-21-08 08:32 PM
Response to Reply #17
30. I disagree
I can't find it in any of the Gnostic writings I have. ;-)

Oh - and I don't believe he was the son of God either! :rofl: Pull this finger and this Native Western New Yawker whistles Dixie too! :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hedgehog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-21-08 08:42 PM
Response to Reply #30
32. Well, you insist that Jesus would maintain strict kosher, but if you
read the Gospels carefully you'll find he repeatedly denounced those who wrote and attempted to enforce such strict rules. That has no bearing on his divinity, it's just a description of what the man's attitude was. It's one reason he got i such trouble with religious authorities.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-21-08 08:07 PM
Response to Reply #5
19. Paul would disagree.
In the 6th grade do you also want to argue that Washington is not the founder of the country? Or would you prefer a discourse on Hamiltonian proto-capitalism?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pegleg Donating Member (788 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-21-08 08:12 PM
Response to Reply #5
22. There were believers in Jesus before Paul. Paul was actually
a persecutor of Christians (as Saul of Tarsus) before his conversion. So to say Paul founded Christianity may be just partially true. Paul was the first to take the gospel to the gentiles. Up to that point christians were not much more than a Jewish sect. So it's a matter of opinion. Some say Jesus. Some Peter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JerseygirlCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-21-08 08:29 PM
Response to Reply #5
29. I thought it was interesting that the spread of Christianity is
attributed to good Roman roads, but Islam is attributed to violence. That comparison was telling to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alexander Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-21-08 07:26 PM
Response to Original message
6. Actually for 6th grade, that's pretty good.
Edited on Thu Aug-21-08 07:28 PM by Alexander
Maybe the section on Christianity could use some work, but other than that it looks fine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-21-08 07:27 PM
Response to Original message
7. personally, I think it's not the least bit subtle....
It's thoroughly ingrained, deeply enmeshed. The outline refers to god and important christian events as though they are real. It elevates them from myth to something that's just understood, and not questioned.

I know lots of folks won't agree, but I cringe whenever I see statements like "While Judea was under Roman rule, Jesus preached God's love and forgiveness" presented as facts rather than as myths.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mitchum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-21-08 08:16 PM
Response to Reply #7
24. I'm cringing right along with you, mike
Edited on Thu Aug-21-08 08:17 PM by mitchum
the presention of myth or delusion as fact is pretty damn blatant
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pegleg Donating Member (788 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-21-08 10:25 PM
Response to Reply #7
41. Don't forget that many think your opinion is myth also.
I for one am one of those people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-22-08 10:08 AM
Response to Reply #41
53. huh? I don't claim to believe in any mythical creatures, supernatural beings, etc...
...and you call my lack of belief a "myth?" Perhaps this will help:

Main Entry: myth
Pronunciation: \ˈmith\
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek mythos

(excerpted)

a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence



I'll leave you to your imaginary friends, but I'd appreciate it if you keep them out of schools.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pegleg Donating Member (788 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-22-08 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #53
54. Public schools belong to all the people, not just a select few
who care to push an agenda (regardless of the agenda). If you want the significance of religion in history to be eliminated from history, you are left with a revised history, an empty shell, and a lie. You have to tell it as it really was.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-22-08 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #54
57. so those of us who support separation of church and state...
Edited on Fri Aug-22-08 11:29 AM by mike_c
...are "a select few... pushing an agenda?" That would include the authors of the Constitution, as well. Public schools have no business making statements about "god's love" as though such a thing actually existed. In doing so, they legitimize a myth, substituting religious delusion for reality (or history, or whatever you'd like to call it).

Let's not shift this debate into historical revisionism. I don't have any problems with teaching about the role of religion in human history-- quite the opposite-- an honest and objective appraisal of religious motives and their effects on society throughout history is not only necessary, it's the best way to shine a bright light on the damage caused by a mass delusion. We should also teach *about* flat earth theory, pre-Copernicus views of the universe, vitalism, and so on, but with the recognition that like religious beliefs, these were important ideas that helped shape history, but they've been thoroughly discredited by an objective look at the reality that underlies them.

Teaching *about* religious ideas is often important. Teaching religious delusions as fact, on the other hand, does nothing more than perpetuate superstition.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pegleg Donating Member (788 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-22-08 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #57
60. I totally believe in the separation of church and state, but i think
Edited on Fri Aug-22-08 11:47 AM by pegleg
there is a conflict of translation here. That separation also includes "the free exercise thereof". That does not exclude religion from the public forum. The phrase "mass delusion" is an opinion - and a worthy one at that, but still only an opinion. And that opinion should be taught right up there with any religious opinion, buddhist, hindu, christian, or otherwise. We are also talking about a charter school here, where parents choose to send their children and are given choices about what may be taught.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bean fidhleir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-22-08 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #60
80. Sorry, but "the free exercise thereof" referred to freedom to *personally* practice
one's preferred religion (or none) without being taxed, excluded from office, kept out of certain professions, etc., all problems in Britain for different groups of believers depending on who was in power at the moment.

The idea that it meant the freedom to bring particular dogmas into the performance of one's office was precisely the opposite of the Amendment's intent.

See the actual discussions, recorded by Madison and others and still available to us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pegleg Donating Member (788 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-22-08 06:55 PM
Response to Reply #80
91. I certainly disagree. It says what it says. And allowing the recognition of religion
Edited on Fri Aug-22-08 07:32 PM by pegleg
into any public office while disallowing others would be in violation. Madison's great argument was for that of freedom of conscience, which traditional European style religious dogma forbade. He was an absolute defender of freedom of religion or more precisely freedom of conscience - unhindered by government interference. The constitution doesn't restrict the practice to public or private locations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bean fidhleir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-23-08 05:58 AM
Response to Reply #91
103. I don't think you've thought through the implications
If my religion says (as many do) that it is the only true religion, with the communicants of any other being agents of Satan, and I get myself elected to a powerful office, I can have you thrown in prison as an "enemy combatant" without the right to counsel, trial, or habeas corpus.

That was almost precisely the situation that obtained in Britain. Wrong religion? Do your practicing in jail, lose your property, your rights, everything. Because the guy in power was (mal)performing his office according to the dictates of *his* religion.

The founders were keenly aware of that problem, which is why they did not want *any* religion playing *any* part in public office. It's why people were very suspicious of JFK in 1960: if elected, would he do the bidding of Rome? He had to repeatedly promise publicly that he wouldn't. Strong non-generic religious beliefs are a big handicap for public office, because people rightly don't want any ayatollahs or talibans running things. And that includes propagandizing kids, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-22-08 11:52 AM
Response to Reply #7
62. Ummmmm, But That Is A Fact.
That's not in any way preaching that God is real or that Jesus was the son of God etc, it's merely stating the fact that Jesus did spend his life preaching such things. Are you trying to imply that Jesus, regardless of one's belief in what he was or wasn't, did try and preach about God or love?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-22-08 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #62
65. exactly so-- there is no historical consensus that "Jesus" even existed...
Edited on Fri Aug-22-08 12:23 PM by mike_c
...let alone "preached about God's love and forgiveness." Many historians either dispute his existence-- there is little or no objective evidence for it, only the assertions of christians who are utterly non-objective, mostly wrote long after 33 CE and had no personal connection with any of the events they described, and often wrote with self-serving alternative agendas-- or they question whether his actual historical role was anything like the mythos that was constructed around him. And certainly, even if he existed and was a religious figure, his "preaching" was just superstitious, delusional nonsense founded upon the notion of judgmental, invisible figures living in the sky-- an archtype that might have resonated with primitive cultures who thought "heaven, earth, and hell" were located in the sky, on the ground, and underground, but you know, we can actually SEE into the sky and under the ground these days, and there isn't any sign of either celestial cities or demons living amongst the brimstone.

Jesus might be just as mythical as an individual. There is no objective evidence to dispute that view.

on edit: I presume you meant to write: "Are you trying to imply that Jesus, regardless of one's belief in what he was or wasn't, did not try and preach about God or love?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-22-08 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #65
66. If You Want To Use That Ignorance As Your Argument So Be It.
But I consider it right up there in line with those who claim "there are many scientists who don't believe in the theory of evolution" or "there are many scientists who believe global warming doesn't exist at all" blah blah blah. Same malarkey.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-22-08 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #66
67. ah, the standard fundy response....
Edited on Fri Aug-22-08 12:32 PM by mike_c
Ideas and evidence that conflict with xtian superstitions are ignorant "malarkey," an argument that's always made with utter conviction and absolutely no evidentiary support. Which brings us full circle, back to schools teaching christian delusions as fact and objective historical discourse as questionable malarkey, if they address it at all. The xtian taliban are in no danger of losing their grip on American schools in much of Jesusland.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-22-08 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #67
69. You're Projecting.
It is you that is giving the fundy extremist response.

There is no such delusions being taught in that outline whatsoever. There was nothing but historical and well documented fact found in the outline and it is you playing the part of fundy irrational whackjob by acting like there is something to be outraged about.

Like I said: I find your logic and objection to be right in line with the whackos that say "evolution isn't proven. Teach creationism!" and "there are several reputable scientists that say global warming doesn't exist!!111". You're all cut of the same ignorant cloth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pegleg Donating Member (788 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-22-08 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #69
70.  The term "christian taliban" is as credible as saying "atheist taliban
Both are ridiculous statements and both are designed to insult, and both display intolerance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-22-08 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #70
71. Absolutely Correct.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-22-08 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #70
88. What ridiculous statements do you hear the "atheist taliban" making?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pegleg Donating Member (788 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-22-08 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #88
90. I'm pointing out how ridiculous the term "atheist taliban" is as well as anything taliban.
I've seen the term used here on DU a couple times along with christian taliban and it serves no purpose other than to incite.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-22-08 07:29 PM
Response to Reply #70
92. agreed-- but I make no claim of tolerance for religious delusions...
...or those who try to impose them on others. Frankly, I'm proud to be intolerant of christian moralizing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pegleg Donating Member (788 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-22-08 10:58 PM
Response to Reply #92
93. No one should tolerate any philosophy or belief system or religion
being forced upen them. And there is nothing wrong with you not tolerating someone trying to make you accept "religious delusions". But people are going to believe what they believe and they have that right and to live their lives accordingly as they see fit. They in turn must respect those who don't share their views. That's the only way a secular society can survive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spoony Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-22-08 11:31 PM
Response to Reply #67
95. You're a zealot.
Zealots have no place in education.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-23-08 12:17 AM
Response to Reply #95
99. whenever someone rejects xtian religious delusions they're "zealots..."
Edited on Sat Aug-23-08 12:31 AM by mike_c
...but folks who talk to their invisible sky friends are rational and balanced? :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spoony Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-23-08 04:53 AM
Response to Reply #99
102. No, not "whenever someone," when you do, specifically.
I mean you, as an individual. Don't crouch behind other people to deflect a point, it's most unbecoming.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-23-08 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #102
106. I have no problem with owning that one....
Edited on Sat Aug-23-08 10:29 AM by mike_c
And you've dodged the point. Let's not substitute personal attacks for discussion. So why am *I* a zealot for rejecting christian religious myths while folks who accept the reality of superstitious delusions-- that imaginary invisible talking sky friend is still the big gorilla in the mental health living room-- are somehow rational individuals?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-22-08 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #7
74. Cringing? My mouth is on the floor
I'm with you. I've never seen anything like it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bean fidhleir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-22-08 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #7
81. Agreed. I would not allow my kid to remain in that school, if that reflects the norm there
I think someone needs to examine what "geography" means, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ColbertWatcher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-21-08 07:28 PM
Response to Original message
8. Oh yes, yes indeed.
The "Rise of Christianity" section differs from "The Rise in Islam" section in that it contains very little objective statements.

#81 makes no sense: "While Judea was under Roman rule, Jesus preached God's love and forgiveness".

WTF!?

Does that second phrase follow the first?

For a geography class? According to their own definition (in #2 The study of Geography is broken down into The Five Themes of Geography: Location, Place, Human/Environment Interaction, Movement and Region)?

Now that I look at it, "The Rise of the Israelites" section, too. #50, #51 and #52 seem out of place in a geography class. Maybe an anthropology or religion class, but geography? Really?

Oh, now I see, they change the name and focus of the class in #18. By stating that only archaeologists study the "history" of the earth (as far as man is concerned), they can avoid the history of the earth (the planet) and what geophysical scientists study. According to Wikip*dia, there are two major branches of geography: human and physical.

No wonder they make the distinction and pick the one they want: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography#Physical_geograp...


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wednesdays Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-21-08 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. Well, the course is called "World Studies"
And it seems to encompass both geography and history. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ColbertWatcher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-21-08 07:51 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Pfft. My mistake.
But, it seems they spend little on the science of geography.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
csziggy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-21-08 08:43 PM
Response to Reply #12
33. For a "World Studies" class it is very superficial on areas outside
the Near East and Mediterranean area. India and China are the only other places mentioned and Israel gets more factoids than all of India? How about the rest of Asia - that is an awfully big area to ignore? Northern Europe? North and South America? Africa aside from Egypt, for frigging sake?

While the traditional American "world history" (or studies as they are calling it here) generally teaches that civilization arose in the Middle East, then spread to Egypt, Greece and Roman before the Europeans took over the helm, there were civilizations all over the world everywhere humans had spread. In today's world, children need to understand that the parochial American viewpoint is very limited and they need to be taught a more universal image of world history.

A hundred years ago, maybe not much was commonly known about history outside of the traditional restricted area, but today we should know better and children should be taught ALL of history, not that tight little segment that glorifies the Judaeo-Christian, European centric viewpoint.

Forty years years ago in high school "World History" when I asked my teacher about China, he flat out told me that the Chinese were using stones until just before Marco Polo discovered them - with the implication that Marco singlehandedly taught the Chinese how to be civilized. :rofl: After I got my jaw off the floor I realized he was a lost cause and have ever since pursued my own world studies. I am amazed that essentially the same curriculum is still being taught forty years later.

If this limited curriculum is what your child will be taught of the world, get a subscription to National Geographic, take him or her to the library, help them learn how to fill out their education of the world on their own and let them know the narrow view they are being told in school is not reality. The world is a lot bigger than that. It is not too early to teach your child how wide and amazing the world is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hedgehog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-21-08 08:47 PM
Response to Reply #33
35. I absolutely agree with you there. I think this would be the best
text book for junior high history classes:




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
csziggy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-21-08 09:01 PM
Response to Reply #12
36. You want a quick overview of "World History"
How about The History of the World in Seven Minutes: http://worldhistoryforusall.sdsu.edu/movies/flash_large...

From the site, World History for Us All, which has a curriculum. Their video puts the history of humans Western Civilization in context. Probably not the one that teacher wants, though...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wednesdays Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-21-08 09:22 PM
Response to Reply #36
38. Breathtaking!
Thanks for that. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
csziggy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-21-08 09:25 PM
Response to Reply #38
39. I was just looking for a good timeline, but that History for the Rest of Us
looks like a good curriculum.

I loved the video, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XemaSab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-22-08 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #36
87. Cool! Thanks!
:D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hootinholler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-21-08 08:12 PM
Response to Reply #8
23. #81 tripped me up too...
To be fair, didn't Mahommed preach God's love as well?

-Hoot
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ron Green Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-21-08 07:31 PM
Response to Original message
9. It all looks fine to me, except for
"B.C.," which has been widely replaced by "B.C.E." (before common era.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-23-08 01:59 AM
Response to Reply #9
100. I noticed that too. BC and AD are NOT preferred these days, rather BCE and CE.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NeedleCast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-21-08 07:47 PM
Response to Original message
11. Looks Fine to Me
Which items do you think are proselytizing?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SheilaT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-21-08 07:52 PM
Response to Original message
14. I'd send a little note to the teacher
about dating. The accepted usage (and it's been this way for a decade or more) is BCE, Before Common Era, and CE, Common Era. Quite honestly, seeing the BC and AD is a little creepy. Have you seen the text yet? What's the copyright date?

And yeah, there's a lot of not very subtle proselytizing. But it's Oklahoma City Public Schools, and with that in mind it looks almost even handed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-22-08 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #14
55. When does the "Common Era" begin, just out of curiosity? :) nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SheilaT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-22-08 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #55
68. It begins with what used to be labelled
as 1 A.D.

Given that Jews and Muslims, just to name two, have a real different year-numbering system, but everyone, including them, uses the common dating system that makes this year 2008, a couple of decades ago a consensus arose that to use B.C. and A.D. (which stand for exactly what's stated in the outline) was a bit parochial and maybe a little offensive to some groups. And so the use of B.C.E. and C. E. came into use.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-22-08 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #68
73. Right, but my point is that it's just another euphemism for the exact same concept...nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SheilaT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-22-08 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #73
77. It's also the accepted
standard anymore. And has been for quite a while.

If I saw a modern text that referred to "Negroes" I'd be wondering what cave the writer has been in for the past forty years. Likewise using B.C. and A.D. A teacher, of all people, should be aware of the change of usage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spoony Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-22-08 11:33 PM
Response to Reply #14
96. Are people here insane?
Seeing BC and AD is "creepy"? It's like I've walked into a living "liberal sterotype" exhibit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
piedmont Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-23-08 12:02 AM
Response to Reply #96
98. Yes. Yes they are. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_In_AK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-21-08 08:02 PM
Response to Original message
18. It looks fine to me.
Edited on Thu Aug-21-08 08:06 PM by Blue_In_AK
The only one I would really question is #81, which has just a twinge of subjectivity in it, I think -- well, maybe more than a twinge. But at least the course mentions the other religions in a nonjudgmental way. And you are in Oklahoma, so considering that this is probably about as objective as it's going to get.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
readmoreoften Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-21-08 08:11 PM
Response to Original message
20. I would say that you are correct. But it is very subtle. Here's some notes:
1) "The Bible" is not the recorded history of the Israelites. The Old Testament or the Torah is the recorded history of the Israelites. The New Testament is the history of Christianity and involves stories about the spread of Christianity to various locals.

2) To say that Arabs spread Islam through conquest and to fail to mention the Inquisition is telling about the teacher's attitudes.

3) What is the point of such "facts" as "Plato disapproved of democracy" and "Socrates was executed for corrupting the youth" without understanding WHY?

4) Number 54 is problematic and should be protested. The Ten Commandments contain platitudes that were long absorbed by English law and a teacher has no fucking business forcing students to memorize "facts" about where morals come from. Really? Is taking "the Lord thy God's name in vain" or "worshipping graven images" etc. really the foundation of modern moral behavior "still in our culture."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
2KS2KHonda Donating Member (508 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-21-08 08:23 PM
Response to Reply #20
27. WRT your #3, I completely missed that in my quick read...I wonder if Socratic dialog and
Platonic references belong in a 6th grade class...but you're right, if they are indeed part of the curriculum, a lot needs to be adduced. Seems like a lot of stuff for one class in one year.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bean fidhleir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-22-08 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #20
83. Even calling it the "old testament" is Christian-centric
since the Jews don't recognize that there's more than one testament, namely the Tanakh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
2KS2KHonda Donating Member (508 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-21-08 08:17 PM
Response to Original message
25. I'd accept it...if they agree to mention Alex the Great was gay.
:D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
annabanana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-21-08 08:38 PM
Response to Original message
31. I thought they started dating CE for "common era" instead of AD..
and BCE for Before Common Era. .

Also.. I believe there was monotheism in Egypt first:

During the New Kingdom, the cult of the sun god Ra became increasingly important until it evolved into the uncompromising monotheism of Pharaoh Akhenaten (Amenhotep IV, 1364-1347 B.C.). According to the cult, Ra created himself from a primeval mound in the shape of a pyramid and then created all other gods. Thus, Ra was not only the sun god, he was also the universe, having created himself from himself. Ra was invoked as Aten or the Great Disc that illuminated the world of the living and the dead. http://countrystudies.us/egypt/10.htm


There are a few other problems (using The Bible as a History book among them)... but those are the ones that jump out

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hedgehog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-21-08 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #31
34. I've often wondered about that. How do we know that the Israelites
got the notion of monotheism from the Egyptians and not the other way around? It's the winners who write the history books after all, and it's unlikely the Egyptians would want to make a big deal of a bunch of rag tag slaves who got away.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tomg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-21-08 09:11 PM
Response to Original message
37. For a 6th grade. A few minor nudges
here and there, but I wouldn't overly worry about them ( which is not meant to discount the posters concerns - they are real, but not super major). Yes, B.C.E. as opposed to B.C. Likewise, it is a little heavy on the west ( you can't do it all at once). But for a 6th grade in a charter school in Red State Territory? For any school at that age level, it looks great, particularly the section on Islam. I mean it is 6th grade. Point of reference: my wife teaches 7-8 grade English. I teach College Lit. Our son is in a Quaker school.

Now, with that said, there is a great difference between a syllabus and what gets done, and between what the material is and how it is handled.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-21-08 11:36 PM
Response to Reply #37
43. Amen.. Most teachers "run out of time" and end up skipping a LOT
and unless the teachers dwell on one particularly religious area for an inordinately long period of time, I would not worry all that much.. and you can always monitor the homework closely to see how closely it resembles the syllabus
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MorningGlow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-21-08 09:38 PM
Response to Original message
40. That's a lot of religion for a world studies course
I'm not sure how I feel about that. :D (When I was in school, we were forced to memorize lists of imports and exports, so I suppose this is a leap forward!)

Speaking as a priestess of Isis, I object to the notion that pyramids were tombs. Some later ones were, but the Great Pyramids never contained bodies of pharaohs.

Oh--and speaking as a former Catholic, Jesus didn't found Christianity. He was a Jew and said "DON'T follow me--think for yourselves." It was the folks who came after who founded Christianity and proclaimed him divine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
otherlander Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-21-08 11:09 PM
Response to Original message
42. Line 28: the word "hero" is subjective.
Line 44: I thought the pyramids were built by Hebrew slaves?

Other than that, it looks okay to me. What did you think was wrong with it?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Godhumor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-22-08 02:15 AM
Response to Reply #42
47. Pretty widely accepted that slave labor was not extensively used in constructing the pyramids
They were built by farmers when they couldn't farm due to flooding, dry spells, etc, for the most part. Slaves tended to be too valuable and expensive to be used up in the construction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-21-08 11:46 PM
Response to Original message
44. (shrug) It's 6th grade. Pretty much nothing learned in school is true....
until you get to graduate school anyway. This doesn't seem especially egregious, at a quick glance - though GGS it definitely isn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Evoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-22-08 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #44
58. That's absoluttely true...history is the only subject that has to be completely relearned in college
It's lies and myths and useless factoids. My friend, a grad student in history, says that until you start reading primary sources and understanding how history is written, you don't "get" history. The influence of leaders or "heroes" are often given to much focus, and the societies they lived in and the events that shaped them, too little.

A great book..I read about half of it. Lies My Teacher Told Me By James W. Loewen.

A synopsis from a review:

According to James W. Loewen in Lies My Teacher Told Me, American students enter college less knowledgeable about their own history than any other subject. American history is the least liked and worst remembered subject in American curricula. Loewen argues that history is the only subject one has to unlearn in college because high school presents inaccurate information to students. Who is to blame? Despite the indicting title, James Loewen does not appear to be blaming only teachers for student ignorance. Loewen blames textbooks, publishers, and instructors for students knowing too little accurate information, too much inaccurate information, and not caring about any information.

Loewen states the main cause for students’ lack of awareness is textbooks. Written to meet strict requirements of page length, design, and content, it has become practically impossible to write a history textbook that is interesting and acceptable to a national audience. Loewen proves that between authors, publishers, school boards, approval boards, and undereducated/overworked teachers, American textbooks have become a parade of uncontroversial, boring bites of information to be memorized and then quickly forgotten.

snip

The amount of suspense left out of current textbooks was not as surprising as the outright lies that went in! Following textbook-like time order, Loewen focuses on several major events/people in our history that are inaccurately portrayed: Columbus, Thanksgiving, slavery, Lincoln, and the Vietnam War to name a few. Columbus, for example, still leaves Spain to prove the world round, though his contemporaries knew the world was round! What a pointless excursion. Loewen says Columbus’s real purpose for leaving Spain (other than discovery) is always left unclear. I think the closest I heard in school was, “he was looking for the Indies.” No one tells students Columbus was looking for gold and slaves, just what he took from the new world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CK_John Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-22-08 12:00 AM
Response to Original message
45. Very ambitious outline, reminds me of the nuns of 1950. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Art_from_Ark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-22-08 12:06 AM
Response to Original message
46. A few comments
The part about the Israelites would be better left for Sunday school.

Every part of the earth receives "direct" rays from the sun. The tropics of Cancer and Capricorn are the northern and southern limits, respectively, to the area where the sun can appear directly overhead in the sky at some time during the year.

Latitude has some effect on climate zones, seasons, average daily temperatures, crops, transportation, etc., but so do altitude, continentality, proximity to warm or cold ocean currents, proximity to mountains, the jet stream/prevailing winds, and so on. This is why London, England and Winnepeg, Manitoba, Canada, which are at roughly the same latitude, have such strikingly different winter climates. Or why Tokyo, Japan has little if any snow during the winter, but you can head practically due west of Tokyo and wind up in a region in Japan that gets sizable accumulations of snow almost every year.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Godhumor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-22-08 02:20 AM
Response to Original message
48. As a former social studies and world geo. teacher
That looks like a very good syllabus for 6th graders. It is, in fact similar, to many of the same units I taught in world geo and global studies for the high school levels (To be fair, we started with a pretty in-depth unit on the physcal geography of the planet before moving into cultural/human geography.).

Overall, I'm impressed by what the teacher/school/district (pick what's appropriate) put together.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Norrin Radd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-22-08 02:42 AM
Response to Original message
49. You should be uncomfortable.
There is nothing in there about "global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of pirates since the 1800s."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wednesdays Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-22-08 06:49 AM
Response to Reply #49
51. That was so funny
I forgot to add the rofl icon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eshfemme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-22-08 04:24 AM
Response to Original message
50. I don't mean to sound elitist or anything but most elementary schools whitewash history to the point
Edited on Fri Aug-22-08 04:34 AM by eshfemme
where it's really just lying. At a quick glance, your daughter's course outline is not as bad as it could be but it definitely reflects the values of the white, Protestant Christian majority culture. I don't think that it is overtly pushing anything but just a reflection of the general bias that America has.

Things I want to note:
-The BC and AD stuff listed is pretty standard and you have to give credit that it is noted that this is for "the Western world."
-The Roman stuff tends to gloss over some of the nastier aspects of their history but that is understandable. I did have to laugh about the reference to Julius Caesar as a hero though. This lionizing of the Roman culture is pretty standard for America and the Western world though.
-Most of the stuff listed is laymen's knowledge that is generally accepted as truth although the accuracy of that "truth" could be hotly debated by scholars and experts but this is also standard practice because you still need a basic starting point before you can elaborate on the details. I mean a lot of the myths we are taught in school, even when we know they're not accurate, are still accepted as generally true such as: Christopher Columbus discovered America, Benjamin Franklin discovered electricity, Thanksgiving day is to celebrate the peace between the Pilgrims and the Native Americans, etc.
-The religion stuff is biased towards a Christian view though... so some objectivity is warranted when it comes to learning about the ancient cultures.

I personally believe that a subject like World Studies is better suited for high school or junior high-- my elementary school focused on the basics such as reading, writing and math, which was a stronger foundation to work off for me in high school and junior high. If you don't mind my saying so, you probably should be doing some supplementary work with your kid if you are worried about the quality of the school's education. Although by average American standards, it seems adequate.

What would make this superior is if the interrelation between the various civilizations were analyzed but since this is an elementary school course, I can understand why it's not more sophisticated. But it's a bit weird how Geography is lumped in with what is essentially Social Studies for the Ancient World. For me, Geography is more scientific since it goes into the various geographic features, cartography and the like, which deserves its own course. For it to be lumped in with Ancient Civilizations is a bit weird.

EDIT: Sorry, the high school I went to was a combination of junior high and high school so for me, I jumped from elementary to high school. I have edited to reflect that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dorian Gray Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-22-08 07:30 AM
Response to Original message
52. I think it looks pretty inclusive
about all the formatitive influences on our culture.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coventina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-22-08 11:18 AM
Response to Original message
56. Well, it's not up to modern scholarship standards.
"BC" & "AD" are no longer used in academia.
It's BCE & CE now, standing for "Before Common Era" & "Common Era" although it's really the same system.

Also, it's incorrect to call the Bible the history of the Hebrew people. The Christians used the Hebrew Scriptures as part of their Bible, as the Old Testament. But it's rather insulting to Jewish people to affix Christian teminology onto their cultural creation. When referring to the Old Testament from a Hebrew/Jewish perspective you should say "Hebrew Scriptures".

There might be more, but those two things leapt out at me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gormy Cuss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-22-08 11:35 AM
Response to Original message
59. There are some odd points , such as item 51
The Bible is not the recorded history of the Israelites. The New Testament is about Christianity. It would have been cleaner to state that portions of the Bible record the early history of the Israelites.

some other minor points:
Point 52 uses Hebrews rather than Israelites. Confusing shift, since no other group changes names during the ancient phase. Mentioning that Israelites were also called Hebrews or Jews makes sense, but calling the group Israelites in some bullet points and Hebrews in this one just seems off.

Jesus's role as founder is first in the Christian bullets, but Mohammed is mentioned after a remark about geography. It would seem easier to use a parallel construction especially since the first bullet under Islam is about Arab culture, not Islam. The guide also doesn't point out that followers of Islam are called Muslim but the fact that Israelites are called the Hebrews or Jews was important enough for that section. And Israelites have become Jews in # 87.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-22-08 11:50 AM
Response to Original message
61. No, You're Not. There Was Nothing But Facts In There And I'm Amazed Someone Could Feel 'Squeamish'
about it.

Do you want your daughter to be ignorant of the existence of religions or their histories, in a fact based manner? C'mon now. This is ridiculous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-22-08 11:57 AM
Response to Original message
63. 84 & 88 are rather interesting.
84 says that Christianity spread because people were able to travel easily.
88 says Islam spread because the Arabs engaged in "conquest, preaching, and trade"

Umm.... and Christianity didn't? Nope, no bias there whatsoever. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elehhhhna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-22-08 12:10 PM
Response to Original message
64. all I see is the A..D. & B.C. thing's been redefined --
BC is now BCE, which I think means "Before the Common Era".

Otherwise looks pretty comprehensive!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
freestyle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-22-08 02:48 PM
Response to Original message
72. 33 is incomplete. 80 is just wrong.
The Byzantine empire eventually fell as well, and it makes it sound like Constantine's Christianity helped them hang around longer.

Jesus Christ was not the founder of Christianity. No one called themselves Christians until well after the Ascencion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenPartyVoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-22-08 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #72
76. Perhaps "basis" or "main influence" is a better choice?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenPartyVoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-22-08 03:11 PM
Response to Original message
75. It seems more or less okay. Any areas you feel uncertain about, make sure your kiddo knows what
Edited on Fri Aug-22-08 03:12 PM by GreenPartyVoter
_you_ think about them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-22-08 03:36 PM
Response to Original message
79. I see three flaws.
a) the americas have a history too.
b) the culture of most the worlds population was formed by religions which are not mentioned.
c) the israelites and their history are no more interesting than the phonecians, byzantines or ottomans. At a minimum, some mention of the mongol empire might be in order, since nearly 1% of the worlds population is descended from Ghengis Khan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XemaSab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-22-08 03:54 PM
Response to Original message
82. Seems pretty Jesus-centered to me
I understand your hesitations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bean fidhleir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-22-08 04:10 PM
Response to Original message
85. I find that syllabus to be unacceptably loaded. I wouldn't want my kid to be taught
by anyone to whom that syllabus is acceptable. No syllabus is perfect, but that one is much more flawed than most. Others in the thread have already called out some of the many problems it has, so I won't repeat them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SmileyRose Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-22-08 04:24 PM
Response to Original message
86. I am a Christian and that seems too Christian oriented to me.
Certainly our own society is based on Judeo/Christian themes, but in a WORLD studies class I would like to see them concentrate more on how our Judeo/Christian society is the minority in a world sense, and how we fit into the world at large.

I would also think a charter school would know by now scientists have not used AD and BC for decades but instead use CE and BCE for " common era" and "before the common era".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-22-08 05:05 PM
Response to Original message
89. Let's see.
1. Bit of an oversimplification. But no biggee.

2-7. Course specific. Nothing objectionable.

18. More oversimplification.

20-23. Antiquated use of B.C. and A.D. Strong indicators of bias.

29. Overlooks a hell of a lot of bloodshed, including in Judea which is later cited.

35. Unless of course, you're a woman, slave, or foreigner. An attempt to project modern American values, IMO.

44. True, but first mention of polytheism despite discussion of Greeks, Romans, and Mesopotamians.

47. They also conquered all of Egypt, which is strangely left out given they cited the Nubians at all.

50. I was under the impression that the Zoroastrians predates that. And Hinduism is arguable.

51. The Old Testament is the religious text of the Hebrews, not a historical text. The New Testament isn't Jewish at all.

52. Clear proselytizing.

53. No historical evidence. Likely proselytizing.

54. In the context of Hammurabi's code, and Justinian code, not terrible. Given the proselytizing, questionable.

56. I wasn't aware that mountains had anything to do with ancient greek civilization. No idea what they're on about.

60. Excuse to show "300" in class? No mention of other city-states.

80. Untrue. Christianity wasn't a religion until Jesus's death.

81. Proselytizing. Clearly.

83. Likely proselytizing. Romans persecuted all sorts of people.

84. It spread throughout the Roman empire because Constantine converted. Then spread thanks to forced conversions.

90. Alchemy. Proper chemistry was much, much later.

96. Columbus wasn't in the culture spreading business. You could make the claim, sort of, against the later conquistadors. Not so much Columbus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-22-08 11:18 PM
Response to Original message
94. Jesus did not found Xianity. Others did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
a la izquierda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-22-08 11:43 PM
Response to Original message
97. Uhhh, I'm a historian. I will pick on one particular issue.
With a few exceptions, historians do NOT use archaeologists' findings to study and write about people and events of the past. The exceptions are ethnohistorians, typically working on the histories of indigenous groups and some historians who work on material culture. I work on indigenous peoples in Mexico and my work is heavily influenced by archaeology, ethnology and anthropology. But it's not that way for everyone. My friends who are regular old US historians would die laughing at that. They would fail out of grad school if required to use archaeology in order to write dissertations/books.


Okay, I'm being nitpicky. I do not doubt the impact of religion on world cultures, but this curriculum is biased on the west, and I don't mean on the Americas. Strange, considering while Europe wallowed in the misery of the Dark Ages, killing each other and such, massive, impressive cultures rose in Mexico (Teotihuacan, Tikal, Palenque, etc, etc).


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lorien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-23-08 02:09 AM
Response to Original message
101. Moses lead the Israelites out of slavery from Egypt?
that belongs in a Sunday school Bible study, not a world history course.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ima_sinnic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-23-08 06:13 AM
Response to Original message
104. ? is Africa still "the dark continent"? and what about South America and Asia?
the idea that "the world" is just Europe, Greece, and Rome is outdated and parochial. I still feel cheated, 40 years later, in being taught nothing about African history, as though an entire continent didn't even exist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NuttyFluffers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-23-08 06:29 AM
Response to Original message
105. a bit clunky in phrasing, and not exactly questions i'd choose, but good enough for 6th grade.
Edited on Sat Aug-23-08 06:32 AM by NuttyFluffers
i'd probably say "Torah, the Hebrew Scriptures, as ethno-history" instead of "Bible as history" (or maybe even "mythology" but that could get dicey) but then that's rather excessive middling phrasing for 6th grade. and there's a few other questions i'd rather tighten up or focus on different main points. but on the whole it's a good synopsis for 6th grade children to get a grasp of major ideas of various religions that shape the world as we know it.

some of the wording could be read as worrying. but overall, unless i'm deliberately out looking for bias even in the face of context, it's not that bad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Apr 20th 2014, 01:52 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC