Since it was proposed by the Texas Education Agency earlier this year, the elementary school reading and language arts curriculum has faced strong opposition from parents, advocates and faith leaders for its heavy use of biblical teachings, which critics say could lead to the bullying and isolation of non-Christian students, undermine church-state separation and grant the state far-reaching control over how children learn about religion.
A second grade lesson called “Fighting for a Cause” notes that “slavery was wrong, but it was practiced in most nations throughout history.” It does not detail the race-based nature of slavery in America that made it distinct from other parts of the world.
Another second grade lesson covering the U.S. Civil War focuses heavily on Robert E. Lee’s “excellent abilities” as general of the Confederate Army, which fought to maintain slavery, and his desire to find “a peaceful way to end the disagreement” with the North. It does not teach that Lee enslaved people or highlight his racist views that Black people were neither intelligent nor qualified to hold political power.
Lee did do very well. Civil War history isn’t specifically my area of interest, but I don’t think that there’s another high-ranking commander who one could reasonably say used his forces more effectively in the war. He had a heavily-winning record while fighting larger forces that were better-equipped.
He was also highly-regarded in his time; he was offered command of the Union Army, and commanded the most-important Confederate military formation for much of the war.
You’ve either completely missed the point or are running for a Texas GOP seat. Maybe both.
What do you think the point is?
It’s pretty clear from the article, as well as the excerpt above. The curriculum is teaching about a history that is closely intertwined with slavery while avoiding mention of slavery. No one is contending the military expertise of Lee; teaching about his life and political legacy while expunging his racist motives is dishonest.
So you don’t object to the curriculum stating that he was an effective military leader, which is what I was quoting and responding to?
No one is claiming that’s the problem. You were taking the quote out of context. The context is the entire point: