Texas board to remove Hillary Clinton from history

[Underseer]

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/edu...rs-alamo-forgets-hillary-clinton-helen-keller

Supposedly, this is in the name of "streamlining" history class, but curiously they are leaving in place things that experts suggest they remove, such as the claim that Moses wrote (inspired) the founding documents of the United States of America.

Conservatives have gone off to lulu land. They are no longer connected to reality. Now they think they are like the Egyptian pharaohs of old, removing names from history books out of pique.

 

[Rhea]

Thinly disguised fascism

 

[Patooka]

You know what? I'm amazed Hillary Clinton hasn't doubled down and started murdering orphans and raping nuns at this point. I mean, a significant portion of the populace think she's the devil regardless of what she says and does, so why not lean into that? I would have thrown my hands up and said "fuck it" and start immolating puppies long ago if this amount of unjustified vitriol was aimed at me day to day.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

And they are taking out Helen Keller too. Can't trust blind and deaf socialists.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Why was Hillary Clinton being taught in history class in the first place and what was being taught about her? That she managed to lose an election to Donald Trump? Was she vilified anyway?

 

[thebeave]

I'm confused. Aren't the libs always getting mad at conservatives for mentioning Hillary Clinton long after the 2016 election is over? Now when the conservatives don't bring her up, the liberals are mad.

 

[Underseer]

And they are taking out Helen Keller too. Can't trust blind and deaf socialists.

Fascists have a thing about handicapped people. I have no idea why.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm confused. Aren't the libs always getting mad at conservatives for mentioning Hillary Clinton long after the 2016 election is over? Now when the conservatives don't bring her up, the liberals are mad.

Obviously them stupid libtards are being total hypocrites!!!!!! [/consservolibertarian]

- - - Updated - - -

Why was Hillary Clinton being taught in history class in the first place and what was being taught about her? That she managed to lose an election to Donald Trump? Was she vilified anyway?

When I was in high school history class, we often had a "recent history" part of the course. I'm guessing you went to high school in a part of the country that couldn't afford such things?

 

[Derec]

Thinly disguised fascism

Really? It's fascism to remove a, in historical context, minor character from history curriculum?

- - - Updated - - -

And they are taking out Helen Keller too. Can't trust blind and deaf socialists.

As long as they keep Anne Frank.

- - - Updated - - -

Fascists have a thing about handicapped people. I have no idea why.

Or could it be that there is a lot of history out there and limited classroom time in which to cover it. Both Hillary and Helen Keller are historical footnotes at best.

When I was in high school history class, we often had a "recent history" part of the course. I'm guessing you went to high school in a part of the country that couldn't afford such things?

Recent events, like an election from 2 years ago is not removed enough to be considered history, recent or not.

 

[thebeave]

I think they did Hillary a personal favor, leaving her out of the history books. It can't fun when your claim to fame is being just about the worst presidential candidate in US history, who lost to an orange, pussy grabbing reality TV star con man (among many other pejoratives routinely thrown his way). I think she would just as well have the world forget about what happened in the last three years.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Hmmmm....you all are thinking too much about current events. Clinton was First Lady and there was a big scandal around that time. I forget exactly what it was about...something about some kind of job. Also, universal health care and NAFTA. Then, she was a senator for quite a few years, then ran against Obama. Then Sec of State.

Then and only then is the most recent, which is about one of those rare moments in the history of the United States that a candidate won the popular vote but lost the election...and all such rare exceptions of popular vote losing ought to be taught in a history class. It helps to give concrete examples to electoral college understanding but also, it's significant history.

To add (ETA), Clinton was also significant because she was the first woman to win a major party's nomination. So that is also significant in history.

Some day, when Trump resigns or is impeached that also will be significant, but I doubt Texas Republicans will want that in history books either.

Isn't it enough for you that they tried to remove Jefferson? Sheesh...and you're still defending them?

 

[Derec]

Isn't it enough for you that they tried to remove Jefferson? Sheesh...and you're still defending them?

So did the Democrats, sort of.
Dems in Jefferson's home state change name of Jefferson-Jackson dinner

That said, 3rd president of the United States, author of Declaration of Independence, etc. is a lot more significant historically than a First Lady who failed twice to get elected president.

As Lloyd Betnsen might have said: "You mam are no Thomas Jefferson".

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Isn't it enough for you that they tried to remove Jefferson? Sheesh...and you're still defending them?

So did the Democrats, sort of.
Dems in Jefferson's home state change name of Jefferson-Jackson dinner

And? Who cares.

 

[untermensche]

US Secretary of States that run for president that also were a US Senator and were also the First Lady are extremely rate.

 

[Derec]

US Secretary of States that run for president that also were a US Senator and were also the First Lady are extremely rate.

Reality TV stars who get major party nomination are also rare. That doesn't mean that Trump would have belonged in history books had he (as was expected) lost to Hillary.

 

[Derec]

And? Who cares.

Just trying to point out that attempted erasing of Jefferson is a bipartisan affair.

 

[untermensche]

US Secretary of States that run for president that also were a US Senator and were also the First Lady are extremely rate.

Reality TV stars who get major party nomination are also rare. That doesn't mean that Trump would have belonged in history books had he (as was expected) lost to Hillary.

Again.

First Lady:

US Senator:

Secretary of State:

Presidential Candidate:

This is an incredible resume and Hillary is a rare historical figure.

Trump is an historical figure too.

It is a shame his absolute incompetence will not be remembered.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

And? Who cares.

Just trying to point out that attempted erasing of Jefferson is a bipartisan affair.

No, it isn't. One is removing President Jefferson from a history class. Another is simply renaming a dinner that is an annual, current dinner.

Let's look at this another way. Let's suppose you came from country X where you had a birth certificate. Let's suppose you then moved to country Y and became a citizen. As part of that, you had to renounce your citizenship to country X, which you willingly did. Now doing so doesn't not erase anything that happened in history. You just changed your status in life. Now, if also you went and destroyed your birth certificate in country X and had that government destroy records of your birth, now you've gone and tried to change history.

See one is about current life and what kind of status you may want to live with or project and the other is about pretending things in the past did not happen by not allowing opportunities for people to find out.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

US Secretary of States that run for president that also were a US Senator and were also the First Lady are extremely rate.

Reality TV stars who get major party nomination are also rare. That doesn't mean that Trump would have belonged in history books had he (as was expected) lost to Hillary.

Again.

First Lady:

US Senator:

Secretary of State:

Presidential Candidate:

This is an incredible resume and Hillary is a rare historical figure.

Trump is an historical figure too.

It is a shame his absolute incompetence will not be remembered.

It is an impressive resume, along with a big dose of nepotism mixed in. But in my view it is too contemporary and not notable enough for history books, unless they are awfully niche.

 

[Derec]

First Lady:

US Senator:

Secretary of State:

Presidential Candidate:

This is an incredible resume and Hillary is a rare historical figure.

People don't usually put their marriage on their resumes. Full sixteen years of this resume is basically "wife".
And much of the rest of her resume is due largely to who she is married to. I think Hillary is the most overrated woman in America, except possibly for Beyonce.

Trump is an historical figure too.

There are a lot of historical figures. The question is, are they significant enough for a general high school history curriculum. I think Hillary is too recent to be history, and by the time she is removed enough from current events she will not be significant enough for a general history class. I mean, Dewey is only remembered because of the newspaper headline and he was a governor of then largest state in the Union.

It is a shame his absolute incompetence will not be remembered.

Let us hope so. That would mean his administration ended up not screwing up very badly.

 

[untermensche]

Again.

First Lady:

US Senator:

Secretary of State:

Presidential Candidate:

This is an incredible resume and Hillary is a rare historical figure.

Trump is an historical figure too.

It is a shame his absolute incompetence will not be remembered.

It is an impressive resume, along with a big dose of nepotism mixed in. But in my view it is too contemporary and not notable enough for history books, unless they are awfully niche.

She was hurt by Bill.

It is a singular resume.

Incredible resume.

She is a historical figure and an inspiration.

To deny it is to be blinded by partisanship.