Nothing says stupid conservative like attempting to force teachers to not teach what real history looks like. Real history is rough, uncomfortable and interesting. It also teaches everyone how far we have come, and why people have different points of view. Students should be allowed to marvel at the cognitive dissonance our founding fathers had when it came to their view of who deserved freedom. They should fully understand the horrors of slavery. They should know that we slaughtered a culture to live here. It should be shocking to students that it took 128 years to pass the 19th amendment from the ratification of the constitution to allow women to vote. It should equally be interesting that Colorado was the second state to allow women to vote 26 years before the 19th amendment, and that it was partially to try and attract women to move here. It should amaze kids that the Civil Rights Act was passed in their great grandparent's lifetime. They should find it heroic that people stood up to stop child labor, and get a five day work week, or get the right to vote. They should know that Colorado was built by oligarchs, and that our governors in the past used the national guard to put down protests at mines. Every kid in Colorado should know about the Ludlow Massacre and Sand Creek Massacre and what led to those tragedies. History should be exciting and relate to everyone, not whitewashed.

That "culture" you're talking about largely slaughtered itself. Slavery was ended by the Republican Party over the dead bodies of the Democrat Party. You can hate the U.S.A. all you want, but it is the greatest and freest country on earth. We should all be proud of that. I feel sorry for self-haters!

So looking at history in its complex totality instead of as a simplistic jingoist tool to means one is a self-hater, huh? The question is, why are you so invested in other people's historical achievements or their failings? In a world that isn't black and white, America can be both great and flawed. The founders can be seen as extraordinary visionaries and at the same time as hypocritical slave holders who only granted democracy to white male land owners. The country can be seen as a beacon of hope for some and an occupying force for indigenous occupants of the land.

History is complex like that. Pseudo-patriotic propaganda seems to be what you're after.

Did you expect the Constitutional Convention to create our current bed-wetting dependency society? I didn't occur to them.

No, the bed wetting society is peopled by propagandists who are afraid of the actual historical record. The bed wetting society has to be told a patriotic bed time story in order to to keep their drawers dry.

History is what it is. It doesn't need to "promote citizenship, patriotism, essentials and benefits of the free enterprise system, respect for authority and respect for individual rights" which is the stated agenda of the curriculum committee. Those ideas can stand or fall on their own without the propagandists who need to be spoon fed patriotism. Most of us can generate our own patriotism and don't need it in a tiny pre-packaged box.

This reminds me of Al Franken's analogy perfectly. Republicans love America like a 5 year old loves their mom, where mom can do no wrong and mom is perfect. Democrats love America like a 30 year old loves their mom, where mom is very appreciated and cared for but isn't perfect, and has made mistakes along the way.

I wouldn't consider myself a democrat, but in this analogy I'm very thankful that I don't have a republican's view of my country. It takes a very simplistic brain to consider complete history self-hate.

Wow - using Al "Recount Until I Win" Franken. Where did anyone - republican or otherwise - ever claim that America was "perfect"?

Did you read the description of the education the board wants US History to focus on? That's exactly what they are wanting. I'm not saying that saying as a Al Franken guy, but in all my interactions with Republicans and democrats its very accurate. If you say anything bad about American history you are a self-hater, which is exactly what happened in the comment I replied too.

Don't worry. You are a bona-fide Democrat Party man. Sorry about Franken.

Democrats = Republicans

Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation 154 years ago. I wonder whether today's Republican's would do the same, given the party's refusal to raise the minimum wage and their efforts to roll back voting rights in districts with large populations of minorities through redistricting and other tactics. No, it's the Republican party of today that we judge, not the one of the the 18th century.

The "Democratics" have been trying to repeal the emancipation of slaves ever since, overtly early on, and much more subtly ever since with ever increasing taxes, reduced choices, and making everyone property of the state. The racists and enslaver's are descendants of the original slave owners in America..

Indeed. It's funny to watch the low-information voter try to play silly Jedi mind tricks on the reality-based community, not realizing that today's Republican Party is the party of the Southern Strategy, making their flaccid attempts at pinning racism on today's Democratic Party look completely ridiculous.

Even more hilariously, where were all these wonderful Republicans who were carrying the civil rights banner hiding out while their party was carrying out all the cryptoracist tactics aimed at Obama: claiming they need to see the "real" birth certificate, saying that he's a secret Muslim, implying he is somehow inept because of teleprompters, etc...why does the GOP propaganda channel, oops, I mean "Fox News" look like one gigantic ode to the Aggrieved White Man?

Anyway, it's obvious to anyone with a brain that is engaged that between now and Lincoln, the two parties swapped positions on civil rights.

You must have gone to public school. You obviously don't know that the Democrat Party virulently opposed the Civil Rights Act. Only Democrats believe that minorities are too stupid and lazy to register to vote. Funny how many are able to sign up for welfare, being so helpless and all.. It's also important to Democrats that non-citizens be able to vote and that ballots become the new junk mail. Elbridge Gerry was a Democratic-Republican. BOTH parties LOVE to make "districts".

But aren't we talking about a labor action holding students and parents HOSTAGE to the hysterics of the teachers' Union?

I don't see where this is hating the U.S.A.. I appreciate that you know that the Republicans of yore that felt that the betterment of the whole trumped state's rights, freed the slaves. But, it is hardly self hate to know history the way it was. Would you rather we just teach people that George Washington descended from the heavens with two scrolls that were the constitution and bill of rights?

Remember, the conservatives are so emotional and so adamant about "winning", that they advocated against teaching children critical thinking skills.

So, do you think they are going to advocate teaching actual history?

Vastly more indians were killed by other indians than by the white-eyes. Self-hating is not history. You dwell on every victimization you can imagine. I marvel at our founding and our noble history.

"They should know that we slaughtered a culture to live here."
Who is we?

Don't get all offended by using the rhetorical we, I use it when referencing our country's history, because of the collective we that created it.

Don't get offended by a simple question. An entire culture was slaughtered. We had nothing to do with it. Just like we had nothing to do with slavery.

We didn't commit the acts but we have everything to do with the aftermath of all of those events. And our culture's forefathers were responsible for those. Saying "we had nothing to do with it" is putting a distance between the events and the effects that shouldn't be there.

You have advantages and privileges because of those atrocities. To say "we had nothing to do with them" is ignoring those benefits.

You didn't commit the atrocities of slavery, but if you're white, you've been riding those coat tails ever since, while claiming no responsibility to attempt to change things for the better. Not atone for them, not pay reparations, but to destroy those after affects that still disadvantage people of color and provide privilege to whites.

Excellent reply, but you're probably talking to a wall.

I'm used to it. Talking to conservatives is worse than talking to a wall. At least a wall echo's back what you're saying as if it understands.

Conservatives stick their fingers in their ears and sing la-la-la whenever they're presented with anything that disagrees with their prejudices of life.

You haven't been talking to a wall, you have been talking to a mirror. Your rehearsed talking points lack any real substance. I would disagree and state that whites have not ridden the coat tails, rather they have been walking on eggshells for the last several decades primarily due to 200 years of liberal propaganda. European liberals brought slavery into the Americas. Liberals stole the land from the indigenous tribes. Liberals created the Jim Crow law in the south. Liberals fought against civil rights. Liberals created the welfare state that has replaced pride and hope with mediocre government subsidies. Your'e right in the fact that there are some that need to account for the atrocities that took place in this country. But do not ask Conservatives to share in that guilt. Conservatism began with Lincoln in the U.S. Show me a liberal pointing his/her finger at a racist, and I will show you a racist pointing his/her finger.

No, I mentioned historical context here in the U.S. I revealed a pattern of historical events that took place that have left scars on our nations history. And I revealed a consistent pattern of liberal ideology and behavior here in the U.S. since our founding. And I did so through a detailed timeline that spans over 200 years. Never mentioned the world or other nations other than where liberalism came from. Are you reading my posts estebianico ?

Thumbs up. Keep on going.

That is ridiculous. History was made by the people involved at the time. Nobody else. I don't have privileges based on the slaughter of native Americans or slavery. I owe that to to my great grand parents who took the chance at a better life in the early 1900's.
Yes I'm white, so what, that doesn't mean I'm descended from slave owners nor have I been riding any slave owners coat tails. In a land of 300 million they are basically non-existent.
You want atonement based on race. Regardless of individual roots. That is warped thinking. Speaking of atonement and reparations, how many white men died in the civil war? Get out of here.
History happened and can be taught as history but using the word "we" is not history.

So you have never utter the phrase "If it wasn't for us, they would be speaking German"?

I find it odd that you are using a sweeping generalization about the "we" concept. How many high school graduates fully understand the facts about slavery. Does public education teach students that less than 1% of Americans actually owned slaves. Were they taught that Muslims played a significant role in the North Atlantic Slave Trade. Were they taught that ten times more slaves were sold in Central and South America by the Spanish and Dutch. Were they taught that slavery was rooted in this country 100 years prior to the signing of the Declaration of Independence by the British. Were they taught that millions of Irish emigrants were indentured servants and treated in many regards worse than African slaves. No they weren't. The school Board is not requesting that history lessons be dissolved. They are requesting that history be taught accurately without the use of dogmatic and slanted textbooks designed to create feelings of guilt. If your premise is the "truth" then shouldn't students be taught about the atrocities and genocide that occur every day in Africa by young militant barbaric black men. Based on your comments, people should be forced to account for the actions of other people of the same race, regardless of their involvement.

I didn't mention a word about slavery elsewhere. i referred to the truths about slavery in the U.S.. Your comment tells me you received a public education and thus have no idea what I was talking about. Hence why changes need to be made.

" Were they taught that ten times more slaves were sold in Central and South America by the Spanish and Dutch."
-You an hour ago.

This was mentioned because these slaves were being hunted or bartered for by Muslim slave traders and then sold into slavery and transported to Central and South America at the exact same time that they were being shipped to North America all through the North Atlantic Slave Trade. it was all part of the same slave trade during the same period. The difference is, our kids are not being taught this. They are taught that the U.S. was founded on the backs of slaves. That the U.S. is guilty and Americans were greedy and racist. Fact is the U.S. was founded on the backs of American Settlers. The wealthy British land owners used slaves to build their plantations. For every acre of land that was sowed by slaves in the U.S., thousands more were sowed by the hardworking settlers that came here to be free from iron fisted Monarchs. Slavery was an atrocity and should be part of all academic studies. It should be taught that the U.S. did not establish slavery here. The founders were building a country at the exact same time that they were trying to tear down 100 years of British decorum and rule. Slavery should not be the defining point of American History or the founding of this country. I am all for restructuring how history is taught in Jeffco. We can no longer cherry pick the facts of history through biased texts to brainwash children.

You said "I didn't mention a word about slavery elsewhere."
And then, you told estebanico that "Your comment tells me you received a public education and thus have no
idea what I was talking about. Hence why changes need to be made."

You totally mentioned "slavery elsewhere" and yammering on and on doesn't change that.

I stated several absolute facts about slavery in the U.S. that are never taught in K-12 academics. estebanico replied with a red herring that dismissed my point altogether. You followed with the same red herring and have digressed in order to win a insignificant argument. you win I guess.

My "bizarre and selective History" is nothing more than imputing facts that are never taught. I was talking about slavery in the U.S. You seem to think that these facts are from a different time or place. If you had learned a great deal, you would have immediately realized I was speaking about U.S. history and would never have gone off on your rant. You choose to ignore what you find irrelevant. But in order to understand anything, you need to read. And you wont find it in public education text books.

estebanico. How were slaves transported to the U.S.? Would it be the North Atlantic Slave Trade? Who were the primary players in the North Atlantic Slave Trade. Would it be Arab Muslims? In that same trade, were slaves also transported to central and south America? These were all factual and significant points about slavery in the U.S. You responded with a red herring. You apparently did not have any knowledge about the North Atlantic slave trade or how slaves were brought to the U.S. So you assumed I was talking about slavery elsewhere and replied with a red herring. There is nothing selective about any of my posting. I simply stated that a ton of the story has been left out of history books. Now reply with a Straw man. If you are forced to use fallacy in your argument, please try to do so sparingly. Touchy????Angry????

Its like teaching a blind man to see.....

Europeans were highly prone to the many diseases present along the West African coast such as Malaria, dysentery and yellow fever.
Attempts to make a base in Africa for any amount of time would have left them open to severe ill health and seriously threatened their lives.
In this environment, the Europeans were very rarely able to get the upper hand, so they were usually very much junior partners to the African rulers, merchants and middlemen who were already established in the slave trade along the West African coast.
African empires that had been established before the coming of the white man, such as Dahomey and Ashanti (located in modern day Benin and Ghana) were able to use the slave ports at Ouidah and Elmina to make massive profits and become extremely powerful thanks to the trade in their fellow Africans.
African slave traders discouraged Europeans from entering into the interior of Africa because they themselves wanted to supply the slaves and thus maximise their profits.
The European slavers were happy to go along with this because it was much cheaper, and held less risk of disease, than attempting to find the resources to capture the many slaves they needed themselves.
It was much easier to give the Africans guns with which they could fight the wars between themselves that ensured such a rich supply of slaves.

Arab Muslims had 1400 years of experience enslaving and selling African into slavery They were the hunters and it was much safer and cheaper for the British, Dutch, Spanish, French, and Portugese to take this route despite what Hollywood has taught you.

Seriously????? For hundreds of years prior to the British colonization of North America, Muslims castrated African men and sold African women as sex slaves to Arab men. You have spent the last several hours educating yourself on a topic via internet you had no idea or opinion about prior. Muslims played a significant role in that slave trade. The Arab slave trade was the practice of slavery in the Arab world, mainly in Western Asia, North Africa, Southeast Africa, the Horn of Africa and certain parts of Europe (such as Iberia and Sicily) during the era of the Arab conquests. European and American historians assert that between the 8th and 19th century, 10 to 18 million people were bought by Arab slave traders and taken from Africa across the Red Sea, Indian Ocean, and Sahara desert. The term Arab when used in historical documents often represented an ethnic term, as many of the "Arab" slave traders, such as Tippu Tip and others, were physically indistinguishable from the "Africans" whom they bought and sold. But spend a little time reading Transformations in Slavery: A History of Slavery in Africa (African Studies)
Paul E. Lovejoy Published by Cambridge University or Slavery in the Arab World Paperback –April 21, 1998 by Murray Gordon. You might come out of that little bubble you call reality. I do not focus on the topic as much as I focus on the nonexistence of the teaching of it. Children today are taught that American ships pulled up with guns blazing and enslaved Africans from village to village. I have 2 kids in AP classes in high school. So I have 1st hand knowledge of the BS taught..You have absolutely no idea the brutality of slavery and the millions of Africans enslaved prior to the colonization of the Americas. But that is not my point. This is a significant factor in the history of slavery in the U.S. So back to square 1. If I ask 50 high school graduates about the history of slavery....I would get little or no answer to the reality of how it came, where it came from, who was involved, and why. So now were back to the beginning. I made comment, and you made a ridiculously ignorant cresponse. Read back and swallow what you offered.

SOME of our culture's forefathers were responsible for those. If you knew your history, you would know that the abolitionist movement was alive and well at the time of this country's founding.

We are not, and have never been, a country of angels. As we speak, we have a significant segment of our society who supports a party whose crowning achievement is the death of 66 million unborn babies since Roe v Wade. And with all of the problems of the world before us today, they want to make the upcoming election about mitigating that issue when the GOP hasn't even brought it up.

And according to polls, 57% of our population is willing to stand by and watch the slaughter and genocide in Iraq an not lift a finger to stop it.

I'm not seeing that a whole of of progress has been made in the character of our people in the past 225 years.

Rethink your idea of what creates the disadvantage for people of color. Who is forcing them to have fatherless children, not take advantage of a free education and constantly kill each other?

I guess you'll be paying your reparations then.