Politically Correct Council wants to Destroy Textbook

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The book repeats a view of Mexicans as indolent, then fails to challenge the falsehood, the report says. It quotes a passage: “Stereotypically, Mexicans were viewed as lazy compared to European or American workers. Industrialists were very driven, competitive men who were always on the clock and continually concerned about efficiency.

“They were used to their workers putting in a full day’s work, quietly and obediently, and respecting rules, authority and property. In contrast, Mexican laborers were not reared to put in a full day’s work so vigorously. There was a cultural attitude of ‘mañana,’ or ‘tomorrow’, when it came to high-gear production. It was also traditional to skip work on Mondays, and drinking on the job could be a problem.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/07/mexican-heritage-textbook-texas-offensive-stereotypes

Sheesh. White people can't say anything anymore without politically correct people trying to stop them.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

[YOUTUBE]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2AB9zPfXqQQ [/YOUTUBE]

 

[zorq]

The book repeats a view of Mexicans as indolent, then fails to challenge the falsehood, the report says. It quotes a passage: “Stereotypically, Mexicans were viewed as lazy compared to European or American workers. Industrialists were very driven, competitive men who were always on the clock and continually concerned about efficiency.

“They were used to their workers putting in a full day’s work, quietly and obediently, and respecting rules, authority and property. In contrast, Mexican laborers were not reared to put in a full day’s work so vigorously. There was a cultural attitude of ‘mañana,’ or ‘tomorrow’, when it came to high-gear production. It was also traditional to skip work on Mondays, and drinking on the job could be a problem.”

I don't have a problem with this statement existing in a history book, provided the prejudices mentioned actually existed at the time. Show me the sources and this is fine.

Other quotes out of the book mentioned in the article remind me of the way Fox News reports bogus stories to inject their biased opinions.

Shortly afterwards, the report adds, the book claims that some people worry “that Spanish-speaking communities could, over time, become more connected to the world of Mexico rather than to the United States, threatening the stability of the country”.

Sure Some people worry about that, but should we care about those people and their opinion? The answer to this question might exist in the book and the context of the book might make this appropriate, but really some people think that sasquatch are real and want to make friends with them. They are entitled to their opinion but it doesn't necessarily belong in a book on forest management.

My verdict? -undecided-

Sometimes academics write in such a dry way that lay people don't catch on that they are relaying facts and not opinions. When the facts presented are unpleasant, lay people can mistake them for insults and take offence.

Did that happen here? I don't know. Context matters.

 

[Playball40]

Disgusting. Replace the word "Mexican" with anything else: Ginger, blue-eyed, etc., and see how it is received.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I don't have a problem with this statement existing in a history book, provided the prejudices mentioned actually existed at the time. Show me the sources and this is fine.

I have a problem at a minimum of how it is worded. Someone can take those seemingly factual statements to be an explanation as to how the stereotypes developed. So, the author may be saying, for example, that Mexicans drinking on the job helped to make a stereotype.

 

[thebeave]

The book repeats a view of Mexicans as indolent, then fails to challenge the falsehood, the report says. It quotes a passage: “Stereotypically, Mexicans were viewed as lazy compared to European or American workers. Industrialists were very driven, competitive men who were always on the clock and continually concerned about efficiency.

“They were used to their workers putting in a full day’s work, quietly and obediently, and respecting rules, authority and property. In contrast, Mexican laborers were not reared to put in a full day’s work so vigorously. There was a cultural attitude of ‘mañana,’ or ‘tomorrow’, when it came to high-gear production. It was also traditional to skip work on Mondays, and drinking on the job could be a problem.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/07/mexican-heritage-textbook-texas-offensive-stereotypes

Sheesh. White people can't say anything anymore without politically correct people trying to stop them.

If that's the way Mexicans were viewed by whites back then (and there is evidence to back it up) and that attitude is relevant to the way history played out, then it's reasonable to include it in the textbook. Otherwise, you will have a sanitized PC History textbook saying things like, "White employers preferred not to hire the Mexicans because....reasons. Moving along now to chapter 7..."

History textbooks, documentaries, etc are full of references to white people being mean black slave owners, which is an idea that many whites feel offended or ashamed about. Should we scrub all that history because some white people are offended?

Should we protect the feelings of some races, but not others? Isn't that a racist philosophy?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/07/mexican-heritage-textbook-texas-offensive-stereotypes

Sheesh. White people can't say anything anymore without politically correct people trying to stop them.

If that's the way Mexicans were viewed by whites back then (and there is evidence to back it up) and that attitude is relevant to the way history played out, then it's reasonable to include it in the textbook. Otherwise, you will have a sanitized PC History textbook saying things like, "White employers preferred not to hire the Mexicans because....reasons. Moving along now to chapter 7..."

History textbooks, documentaries, etc are full of references to white people being mean black slave owners, which is an idea that many whites feel offended or ashamed about. Should we scrub all that history because some white people are offended?

Should we protect the feelings of some races, but not others? Isn't that a racist philosophy?

I already addressed this point in my last post.

 

[untermensche]

Isn't the real "political correctness" the removal of science, like evolution, from textbooks?

 

[thebeave]

If that's the way Mexicans were viewed by whites back then (and there is evidence to back it up) and that attitude is relevant to the way history played out, then it's reasonable to include it in the textbook. Otherwise, you will have a sanitized PC History textbook saying things like, "White employers preferred not to hire the Mexicans because....reasons. Moving along now to chapter 7..."

History textbooks, documentaries, etc are full of references to white people being mean black slave owners, which is an idea that many whites feel offended or ashamed about. Should we scrub all that history because some white people are offended?

Should we protect the feelings of some races, but not others? Isn't that a racist philosophy?

I already addressed this point in my last post.

So, where do YOU stand with regard to how the textbooks are currently worded? Change them? Leave as is? "Destroy" as the PV Council wants to do? In the OP, you sorta give the impression that you side with the "PC Council", but now I'm not really sure.

 

[Jarhyn]

One of the problems of text books is that by definition, they are used in the education of minds not fully formed. That means that regardless of how factual they are, presenting it the wrong way will lead to hasty conclusions and a failure to properly understand the implications of facts. I'm very much of the belief that we ought not represent fiction as fact, and due to the lesser mental capacity of the young and uneducated being taught, a higher standard is to be expected in the clarity of presentation of that which is fact and that which is fiction.

It would be all well and good if the book made it clear that the real reason that Mexicans were not preferred was because like today, people tended to be xenophobic and thus racist against Mexican culture and persons, and that this was not helped by the fact that SOME Mexicans unfortunately fit the stereotype and we're used to demean not just those people who failed to work well, but to demean everyone of that already-disliked group. If the point of history classes is to learn from our past mistakes, it is good to recognize that they were in fact mistakes within the text. The text presented, however, does not seem to recognize the mistake of employers to use population trends to evaluate individuals without respect to the actual individual.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I already addressed this point in my last post.

So, where do YOU stand with regard to how the textbooks are currently worded? Change them? Leave as is? "Destroy" as the PV Council wants to do?

I base my informed opinions on access to evidence. At this point in time, I do not have 100% or even 10% access to the alleged 141 errors. With the limited information I have, the text needs to be AT LEAST edited. If it is true that the 141 alleged errors are egregious and validly labeled as errors, then I'd be for further options such as refunding schools the costs of these terrible text books and destroying them.

In the OP, you sorta give the impression that you side with the "PC Council", but now I'm not really sure.

I don't find the "PC Council" to be unreasonable given that they have analyzed the contents of the book. What I do find to be unreasonable is hysteria about political correctness. Thus, the op.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I don't find the "PC Council" to be unreasonable. What I do find to be unreasonable is hysteria about political correctness. Thus, the op.

http://host.madison.com/ct/news/loc...cle_30179cc8-c5d4-548f-8507-06acdebc35cc.html

Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester, Tuesday marked the start of the school year by lamenting the “plague of political correctness” at the UW that he said stifles free speech and risks damaging “the minds of tomorrow.”

 

[KeepTalking]

I already addressed this point in my last post.

So, where do YOU stand with regard to how the textbooks are currently worded? Change them? Leave as is? "Destroy" as the PV Council wants to do? In the OP, you sorta give the impression that you side with the "PC Council", but now I'm not really sure.

For the record, if one reads the linked article, it should be apparent that no one mentioned in the article is advocating the destruction of this book, or any other. The issue is about whether or not to adopt the textbook for use in Texas public schools. You fell for Don2's tongue-in-cheek hyperbole, and failed to actually read the relevant information on which the OP was based. Congratulations!

 

[zorq]

One of the problems of text books is that by definition, they are used in the education of minds not fully formed. That means that regardless of how factual they are, presenting it the wrong way will lead to hasty conclusions and a failure to properly understand the implications of facts. I'm very much of the belief that we ought not represent fiction as fact, and due to the lesser mental capacity of the young and uneducated being taught, a higher standard is to be expected in the clarity of presentation of that which is fact and that which is fiction.

It would be all well and good if the book made it clear that the real reason that Mexicans were not preferred was because like today, people tended to be xenophobic and thus racist against Mexican culture and persons, and that this was not helped by the fact that SOME Mexicans unfortunately fit the stereotype and we're used to demean not just those people who failed to work well, but to demean everyone of that already-disliked group. If the point of history classes is to learn from our past mistakes, it is good to recognize that they were in fact mistakes within the text. The text presented, however, does not seem to recognize the mistake of employers to use population trends to evaluate individuals without respect to the actual individual.

Have you considered the possibility (without additional information) that the book is being overly generous to 19th - early 20th century Mexican culture and people in the region specified? What if the Mexican culture really WAS lazy and drunken in that area and a diligent, productive, Mexican Worker was hard to find? Can you say 100% certainty that "good" Mexican workers weren't hard to find in the specified region at the time? In this case, the authors would be actually probably be injecting a liberal bias by only reporting the opinions of the employers at the time and not the actual disappointing work tendencies prevalent throughout the Mexican Workforce.

There's a reason I mentioned that I need to see the sources to make a decision on this text book. Facts and context are important. If it's a fact and it's relevant to the subject it can be put in a text book. You don't have to explain the difference between a fact and an opinion every time you mention one or the other. You don't have to highlight and deconstruct every logical fallacy, absurdity or hypocrisy committed by people of the past either. As I understand it, this is a book focusing on Mexican culture and history, not logic, and ethics.

Also, sometimes you only report the facts that are available. If there is no good evidence pointing to the objective quality of Mexican employees but there is good evidence pointing to a consensus of opinion from employers, then can you guess which one is more likely to show up in a text book? When you don't know if the prejudices of the employers were justified or not, it's a bad idea to strike off on a tangent prematurely damning them or conversely absolving them.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The problem is that a lot of textbooks written for states like Texas are right winged bullshit, far right PC crap. This is what a lot of far right wingers here in Texas want for our text books and some publishers are eager to accomodate them.

Meanwhile the self same right wingers complain that Mexican workers are taking all the jobs. There is a service stations, convenience store 2 blocks from me where every morning, it's crowded with Mexicans going to work. Construction, plumbing, electrical contractors and more. No laziness here.

Texas has been plagued with offers of science text books that leave out evolution with a few vague hand waves. That is the sort of crap that goes on here in Texas. Our history books downplayed Thomas Jefferson. He says bad things about religion. And they try to "balance" history by including the ravings of Phyllis Schafly. The shamelessness here in Texas over text books is amazing. This more of the same.

 

[Jarhyn]

One of the problems of text books is that by definition, they are used in the education of minds not fully formed. That means that regardless of how factual they are, presenting it the wrong way will lead to hasty conclusions and a failure to properly understand the implications of facts. I'm very much of the belief that we ought not represent fiction as fact, and due to the lesser mental capacity of the young and uneducated being taught, a higher standard is to be expected in the clarity of presentation of that which is fact and that which is fiction.

It would be all well and good if the book made it clear that the real reason that Mexicans were not preferred was because like today, people tended to be xenophobic and thus racist against Mexican culture and persons, and that this was not helped by the fact that SOME Mexicans unfortunately fit the stereotype and we're used to demean not just those people who failed to work well, but to demean everyone of that already-disliked group. If the point of history classes is to learn from our past mistakes, it is good to recognize that they were in fact mistakes within the text. The text presented, however, does not seem to recognize the mistake of employers to use population trends to evaluate individuals without respect to the actual individual.

Have you considered the possibility (without additional information) that the book is being overly generous to 19th - early 20th century Mexican culture and people in the region specified? What if the Mexican culture really WAS lazy and drunken in that area and a diligent, productive, Mexican Worker was hard to find? Can you say 100% certainty that "good" Mexican workers weren't hard to find in the specified region at the time? In this case, the authors would be actually probably be injecting a liberal bias by only reporting the opinions of the employers at the time and not the actual disappointing work tendencies prevalent throughout the Mexican Workforce.

There's a reason I mentioned that I need to see the sources to make a decision on this text book. Facts and context are important. If it's a fact and it's relevant to the subject it can be put in a text book. You don't have to explain the difference between a fact and an opinion every time you mention one or the other. You don't have to highlight and deconstruct every logical fallacy, absurdity or hypocrisy committed by people of the past either. As I understand it, this is a book focusing on Mexican culture and history, not logic, and ethics.

Also, sometimes you only report the facts that are available. If there is no good evidence pointing to the objective quality of Mexican employees but there is good evidence pointing to a consensus of opinion from employers, then can you guess which one is more likely to show up in a text book? When you don't know if the prejudices of the employers were justified or not, it's a bad idea to strike off on a tangent prematurely damning them or conversely absolving them.

It is well established that at that turn of century, racist attitudes were virulent. Similarly debased were people of Irish, African, and native descent.

Seeing people the world over, and understanding that humnas don't really change, that only our technology has changed, it becomes clear that the simplest explanation is the one we see today, and through the very representations of that day and age of people of non-european descent: of vast misrepresentation, mistrust, and xenophobia.

I've been reading heavily of books of the era recently. One thing that is pervasive in that day and age is the idea that people are chained to their race and ancestry; that if some Mexicans are lazy, that they all must be.

I find it unlikely, nigh on preposterous, that employers could be selectively immune from the toxic racism that allowed people to see 'chinamen' and Mexicans and 'negroes and mulattoes' as inferior by birth.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There's another factor to keep in mind here: The Mexican concept of Siesta.

It's not a matter of not wanting to do a full day's work, but that they come from a culture where you take a long break during the hot part of the day and do your work in cooler hours. This looks lazy to those of us from cooler climates where that doesn't make sense.

 

[ronburgundy]

I don't find the "PC Council" to be unreasonable given that they have analyzed the contents of the book. What I do find to be unreasonable is hysteria about political correctness. Thus, the op.

More accurately, you find yourself incapable of giving a rational argument against real instances on this board where people have pointed to PC excesses. So, you invent your own strawman anti-PC complaint that you can then mock as though it was an argument from the people whose real arguments you are incapable of responding to. Thus, the op.

It's a tired blend of a strawman and false equivocation. 2 fallacies in one OP. Give yourself a stuffed teddy bear for a prize.

 

[arkirk]

What if a textbook had to have some educational purpose. Racist prejudice is not an educational purpose. If all the people can attend public school, we should not have books that promote racist prejudice. We also don't need books on "intelligent design" in a biology classroom.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I don't find the "PC Council" to be unreasonable given that they have analyzed the contents of the book. What I do find to be unreasonable is hysteria about political correctness. Thus, the op.

More accurately, ...

No, it's not more accurately.

...you find yourself incapable of giving a rational argument against real instances on this board where people have pointed to PC excesses.

Anecdotal evidence and/or following hysteria of pc "examples" doesn't mean there is an epidemic or that there is not hysteria.

So, you invent your own strawman anti-PC complaint

No, I just started something out of virtually nothing like many of the so-called PC issues.

...that you can then mock as though it was an argument from the people whose real arguments you are incapable of responding to.

Since I have responded to such arguments, your untrue assertion is disproved.

Thus, the op.

Thus the op either went over your head or you are providing cover for right-wingers.

It's a tired blend of a strawman and false equivocation. 2 fallacies in one OP. Give yourself a stuffed teddy bear for a prize.

I'm tired of your bloviating and not getting obvious points. Don't give yourself a prize until you actually earn it.