A History Book is No Place for a Historian
In general, the assumption exists that the documentation of a national history, including ours, takes place in a magical clean room, free of politics, bias and philosophy.
Not entirely true.
What you read or believe about the Civil War, for example, is not only based upon actual events but also upon the way people chose to remember those events.
If you live in Boston or Pittsburgh, we might talk about the struggle to free a nation from the legacy of human bondage and to reiterate the “united” in United States. If you live in Baton Rouge or Nashville, we might talk about a struggle to maintain states’ rights and the sad victory of an expansive Federal government.
The irony is, of course, that we’re all talking about the same thing, and that we’re all sort of right.
History does not unfold in a clean room nor does its writing.
Listening to NPR on the way home from dropping my daughter off at school, I discovered yesterday that Texas will soon be in the process of revising their textbooks.
The why of it does not surprise me, though the how is still a little difficult to digest. It is my firm belief, for example, that no matter how liberal a historian or an economist might be, they are far more qualified to pontificate on the meaning and unfolding of American history than say, a dentist.
A subscription to the History Channel does not a historian make.
I pass both an elementary school and a middle school on the way home from dropping N. off. On that particular drive yesterday, I thought about how this piece of news has transformed history (at least as it is taught in Texas) into an entity that is now a complete function of power. Power has always played a role in the teaching of history, of course, but in Texas, it is shining ever more brightly.
The most disturbing element of this issue is that the people who should be doing the revising are being dismissed because of their supposed politics.
And, really, you’re telling me that there is not one single conservative economist or historian in our entire country? This, of course, implies that anyone who reads books or decides to dedicate their life to studying economics or history must by the simple virtue of a false caricature of their colleague’s overarching politics be a Commie, America hating, atheist.
Is it just me or is this the adult version of sticking someone’s head in the toilet or pantsing them in the cafeteria?
Textbook reform seems benign, especially in light of what feels like the near cataclysmic events we’re experiencing on a global level.
Still, how many of those middle school and high school kids are going to go on to read more nuanced treatments of our national history? Very few. The majority of their knowledge will be formulated upon a corpus of knowledge that has been offered to them by their primary and secondary school textbooks.
Do people understand that these textbooks will tell our children more than just the history of our nation, but that they will, in fact, be the framework within which they define who we are as a people? These textbooks will influence how our children envision their role on this planet, not to mention perhaps even how they decide to vote when they’re old enough.
This reform is not, should not, and must not be the domain of politicians.
Whether or not I agree with these reforms is beyond the scope of my post, though I look forward to hearing your thoughts about them.
My real concern lies with the fact that no economists or historians were involved, according to the New York Times, in any of the revisions.
A group of politicians just rewrote our children’s history books.
I don’t really care whether they live on the left or the right of the spectrum.
This is an extremely dangerous turn of events.
55 Responses to A History Book is No Place for a Historian
Leave a Reply Cancel reply
-
Articles
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
-
Meta
Agreed!
GAH.
@Sybil Law, GAH, indeed.
Holy crap. That is TERRIFYING.
I can’t believe I’m going to say this, but I lived in Texas, I’d suddenly find myself doing a LOT of research on homeschooling.
@Miss Britt, Me, too.
Remember “Jericho?” Pretty darn good show canceled a few years ago chronicling a Kansas town that survived a United States destroyed by nuclear weapons. The second season concentrated on “Reconstruction,” an initiative developed by a group calling itself the Allied States of America to reform the western states. Turns out that the group was closely aligned with a private army contracting group (think Blackwater/Xe). And, sure enough, they wanted propaganda on their side.
So — in one of the episodes, the town’s school teacher is given boxes of a brand new textbook the ASA folks have handed down, instructing him to teach the new curriculum. As he leafed through it, there is a chapter heading about the downfall of America between the Second World War and 2007 when this even occurred. That moment watching the show was one of the most chilling I had seen. And your post reminded me of it.
It’s a disturbing notion — especially because, with the advent of the Internet and so many sources for what can be called “news,” there is so much unfiltered information out there which is subjective yet seen as objective. And there are many from all over the political spectrum who assume that they’ve done adequate research to become experts simply because they track with a certain news station, a website, a newspaper or a columnist. When the goal of each of these media happens to be the same: to gain viewership, readership and followers.
I’m spiraling a bit off topic here, and I apologize for that. This phenomenon worries me. Yet it focuses me to be that much more in tune to the curriculum being taught to my son.
Great post.
@shiny, Great post? Great comment!! I never saw Jericho, and your mention is the first I’ve heard of it. I’ll have to check it out.
Did you see the part in the article about WWII internment camps? They’re going to revise it to include that Italians and Germans were also present so as not to make the internments appear so racially motivated. I suppose it doesn’t matter that they were in a very distinct minority. Sigh.
Sadly, I think politicians have been re-writing our history books for a long, long time now.
The argument against the separation of church and state and the changes that are being made in history books because of it (which seems to be part of the impetus for change in Texas, according to that article) is especially frightening to me. I don’t want to get into it here, so I won’t.
I’ll just go over there and repeatedly bash my head against the wall instead.
@B.E. Earl, You feel free to “get into it over here” any time you like. Or bash your head against a wall. You know, whatever works.
Watching how difficult it is for politicians to come up with a health care bill, it seems unlikely they will be successful rewriting history books!
I highly disagree with what they are doing. Historians should write history books. Shouldn’t politicians have something better to do??
@Alecia @ Hoobing Family Adventures, Unfortunately, they have been successful. The textbooks have been officially revised. Raging. Success. Le Sigh.
What’s going to happen is that America is about to fall further back in science and math while its skewered notion of its own history will keep it maintaining the self-delusion of American Exceptionalism.
Meanwhile the rest of the world is already striving for the 21st century and we will refuse to recognize it. This will not be comfortable.
And it is impossible to get an answer about WHY people think “socialism” is bad because you can’t pin anyone down long enough to define it.
It’s the cataclysm waiting for us. It is well-intentioned, because these people truly feel they are doing the right thing.
I leave the known destination of “good intentions” to you.
@RW, I find it seriously frightening that these people, despite their intentions, fail to realize that ascribing to a vision of “perfection” regarding our past is destined to contribute to an even lower intellect level of a mass scale. The real crime of, say, slavery, is not learning from it. They don’t seem to get that.
@Faiqa, stem cell research during the Bush years was the tip of the iceberg. But can you imagine the end product of an education based on these narrow precepts?
The best people we’ll have will enter the worldwide science dialog thinking that cavemen existed at the same time as the dinosaurs and – because if the Earth is only 6000 years old – we’ve got the speed of light totally wrong and therefore Mars is as far away from here as a serious balloon ride. Andrew Jackson – who instituted the diaspora of all native peoples east of the Mississippi by force was simply just a plain-spoken Palin-type populist. And the Gulf of Tonkin incident wasn’t a mistake made by an overwrought naval commander (which it was) that allowed us to legally engage North Viet Nam.
I’m glad I’ll be dead by then. Seriously.
Don’t even get my started. There is defintely a relationship between the current government and the textbook companies. In fact, the states all have requirements that make school districts adopt a new program every 5-7 years. In a district like mine with 10 schools, one adoption is about a million dollars. That is just for one subject matter. This past year we were required to adopt a new math series. Now, unless I am mistaken, multiplication facts haven’t changed over the last seven years, so the one I had been using (when I used it) was fun. Our new series SUCKS and we paid a million bucks for it all the while laying off teachers. The only group who benefited from this adoption is the textbook company. Now of course, history and science textbooks need to be up to date as things do change.
It doesn’t surprise me that this is happening to the the history books. Textbook companies create adoption by state in order to address each state’s standards (even though they really don’t). Therefore it is written based on what the state requires. Texas is a pretty conservative state and therefore their textbooks are going to be conservative in order to reach its constituency.
Education is one entity that should least be influenced by government and politicians however it is one that is affected the most.
OK, I’m getting off my soapbox now. Can you tell it’s been a rough year.
@Kimberly, It’s important for someone to occupy that soapbox, don’t feel like you have to vacate… And, wow, about that math curriculum revision. Another great reason why politicians should just let *teachers* decide how to run schools.
Oh, one more thing…I love your point about these books most likely being the kids’ one and only history read which surely will mold their understanding as an adult. So true and so sad.
As a former middle school history teacher, I’d like to point out something you didn’t say. The largest markets for textbooks are California and Texas. The other states get what has been approved by one of these two states for the most part. California had its last adoption in 2006 if I am not mistaken so they are not due for a few more years.
I have some ideas of what the Texas books will look like. Until this last adoption in California, the textbook for sixth grade history — world history — contained a chapter on ancient Israel that was about 90% biblical passages. I used it as a teaching moment to once more discuss the difference between primary and secondary sources. I have no problem in discussing religion as it applies to a group of people in history and how it may have defined their actions but I don’t think that a religious text in it’s own should be the sole source of information in a history class.
@Kailyn, Yes, that was in the article, about the influential nature of California and Texas, thank you for bringing it up. Also, this issue of Israel being taught about in context to the Bible is seriously disturbing. Mostly, because it completely overrides the very real modern history of not only Israel, but of the Palestinian people.
I’m with Earl. Separation of church and state is a major point of contention for me. I don’t care what you believe in, as long as you don’t push it on me legally or financially. I stumbled across a site while looking for a particular Jefferson quote, and the comments ate outstanding! http://thinkprogress.org/2010/03/12/texas-education-board-cuts-thomas-jefferson-out-of-its-textbooks/
Here’s a couple samples, “Lets trade. Mexico gets Texas and we get Baja California.Cabo is so much nicer than College Station.” “The Texas Board of Education building a bridge to the 16th century!”
@RebTurtle, I liked this take on it, too (linked it on Facebook, sorry if it’s a repeat for you):
http://disgrasian.com/2010/03/7399/
@Faiqa, Great find!
“History is written by the victors.”
Were the founding fathers committed to a purely secular government, especially considering that the US was settled by a religious group fleeing persecution in their own country? I don’t know, but what I do know is that there are more liberals writing history books than conservatives.
I’m not saying I agree with the decision – I think that politicians are the wrong people for just about every job except human boat anchor – but what I am saying is that I don’t necessarily believe that “history as we know it” is a factual series of events.
@SciFi Dad, “I don’t necessarily believe that “history as we know it” is a factual series of events.”
The question is how do we know that, empirically and where do we get the information that leads us to that kind of conclusion. I don’t know the answer, just blabbing. But it is sort of like folks who say “the news media isn’t covering the truth” – one wants to ask “how do you know that and where did you find out what the truth was?” Invariably the answer is that they read it in the paper or heard it on TV.
In history, as a subject, there are what are known as “generalists” – the most prominent and respected of which was someone like Will Durant. I think generalist education in the lower grades is the answer. Let the upper levels deal with the specialized areas and engage in the debate over “what is.” Kids need to know THAT we declared independence from Britain, save the WHY (and the debate about what constitutes the why) for later when they are more developed.
Fourth graders, for example, don’t need to hear the debate about whether or not the Founding Fathers were Deists or not, in my op.
@RW,
“The question is how do we know that, empirically and where do we get the information that leads us to that kind of conclusion.”
I don’t know the answer either. I know that from looking at modern media that there are biases in the writing, even when the publication is presented as factual (as opposed to columnist/opinion/editorial). Look at how Fox News reports compared to CNN or (if you have access) CBC: same facts, different stories.
I agree though, that generalist education is the answer for younger children. I also think that when the “why” question starts getting explored, that alternative viewpoints need to be presented to the students. As Fitzgerald once said, “The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.”
@SciFi Dad, I very often find myself believing in two opposing ideas at the same time. Unfortunately I usually end up laying helpless in a miasma of the spit I blubbered all over my shirt. Good morning there’s a picture.
As to Fox/CNN I think a better example would be to compare Fox/MSNBC, in which case what we have in both cases are “advocacy reporting”. That is a poison no matter which end of the spectrum it comes from and a big part of the reason we’re so polarized.
I think a reasonable person can hear a report and judge for themselves, though, whether or not something just seemed a bit skewered or not. But I hesitate to call foul on everyone, because the funny thing is that when President Clinton was goofing off with cigars and orifices, liberals were ranting all over the place about how the three major networks were pillorying their guy / then when a constant stream of ridiculous faux pas were created by President Bush the Younger the reactionaries were ranting about how the three major networks were pillorying theirs.
In many cases, by my observation, it depends on whether or not your guy (generic “your”) is the target. I have a gored ox theory. The media is perceived through the filter of whoever’s ox is being gored at the moment.
@SciFi Dad, Well, this is a good point. I don’t think the “founding fathers” envisioned secularism as we did today. I don’t know that they could have conceived of an absence of the divine in any capacity, actually. That said, taking the mental limitations that their time period imposed upon them, I believe that they were as secular as they could possibly be. Especially, Thomas Jefferson. Who, in this round of reforms, is sort of a straw man.
And, yes, history is written by the victors, however, people who study the writing of history from a professional standpoint are educated to understand that they bring their own biases and cultural experience to that writing. It’s, IMO, impossible to eliminate bias, HOWEVER a person who has not been educated in the professional sense regarding the writing of history is woefully unaware of this bias and how it can creep into the subtext of their perspective.
RW and SciFi Dad bring up excellent arguments.
This Texas thing is downright scary though. A cross-section of historians should be doing this, not whoever these people are.
@Finn, And the fact that they lack the self-awareness of that they possess this unabashed sense of *hubris* is even more scary.
Yes, I just used the word hubris.
I was all on a toot until I got caught up in RW and SciFi Dad’s discourse, at which point I switched gears to being very very glad that smart, informed and passionate people exist in our world.
@Nanna, Heh. Just when I forget the fact that you’re old enough to be my mom, you use a phrase like “all on a toot.”
These books had it coming. They had too few pictures and unhappy endings.
@muskrat, Sure, sure, I guess we’ll finally get through to you when they go after Dr. Seuss. You ever read “The Sneetches”? If THAT’S not communist propaganda, I don’t know what is.
@Faiqa, “The Sneetches” communist?! Dude, that’s capitalism at its finest! It’s amazing that it doesn’t end with a mob chasing down the machine dude.
Also, the individualism expressed doesn’t strike me as communist, though a bit of thought has me wondering if that is just my own Texas-education bias.
The good teachers will introduce secondary sources and none of this will really matter. That’s what I think.
@Avitable, I must admit some shock here because for once I agree with you. After I wrote my comment, I remembered that I and many teachers whom I know do not merely rely upon the state-approved textbook. For two years I participated in a federally funded program that wanted teachers to use sources beyond the text to teach history.
@Kailyn,
I disagree that it doesn’t matter. It does matter and, honestly, I think trying to circumvent the heart of the problem is admirable but it also lessens the severity of what I view to be a transgression of everything that an education is supposed to be about.
I would agree with you both, except… about five years ago, I took some courses on Middle Eastern history. While I was taking this course, I was alerted to a site by another student where one could go and “complain” about a professor’s liberal bias. This site, which was made by a man who is a leading conservative that at the time appeared regularly on a certain news network known for its conservative leanings, encouraged students to post about how they felt their education was being compromised by the liberal leaning curriculum of their teachers.
His promise was that he would take action on behalf of these poor, little students whose education was being compromised by their hippie teachers. I was too disgusted by the whole thing to investigate what specific action he planned on taking.
I was further shocked to find the name of of one of MY professors on there. Now, what is interesting about this is that despite being friends with this professor and having socialized with them outside of their classroom, their party affiliation was never made explicit to me by them. Nor, at any time in class did this professor mention their personal politics. I mean, I GUESSED, but I was never really sure.
I can only ascertain that because this professor chose to present certain topics in a light that is unappealing to conservatives that s/he made the list.
The interesting part of this is that what she was teaching was the truth, complete and unbiased as is humanly possible. It just happened to make the government of the United States look pretty bad or, at the very best, fumbling.
(As a slightly unrelated side note, when I went to order the recommended reading from Amazon, I was informed that purchase of two of the books would likely put me on a security watch list. I ordered them, anyway.)
Now, I don’t think it’s comparing apples to oranges by assuming that this could easily happen in a public high school. And while high school students are notorious for complaining about their teachers, I’m concerned that the political nature of these reforms will give those complaints more credit than they deserve and an audience that mistakenly takes them too seriously.
These textbook reforms are a slippery slope. If you can even begin to discuss underplaying the role of Thomas Jefferson in the history of the United States, then what is to stop you from admonishing a teacher who chooses to add books to a curriculum.
If TJ isn’t safe, nobody is safe, as far as I’m concerned.
@Faiqa, While I’m as bothered (scared) by the actions of the Texas Board of Education as the next person, I do feel the need to point out that it was my impression that TJ was being removed from a section on philosophy more than history (though in a historical context). I strongly suspect that he would still be mentioned in the actual history of the founding of country.
Of course, you said “underplaying” so perhaps my observation is completely out of place.
@Avitable, This relies heavily on there being an abundance of good, unbiased teachers in the state of Texas. Not that I’m against teachers in any way, but the white Christian conservative is the majority demographic there. Then again, the second largest is probably the Latino liberal, so it all might work out after all.
@Avitable, Overly simplistic. What percentage of teachers constitute “good” ones? What happens to the students of the rest? Since federal money is more and more tied to test results – unless NCLB gets drastically changed – what do we do with the corresponding test material that comes with the textbook? What do we think about teachers who are “teaching to the test” in this case? Early grade school is not a rarefied academic symposium where advanced study and more in-depth materials are either available or amongst a small school’s dwindling resources.
I’m with you, that just doesn’t seem right.
@The Urban Cowboy, Thanks… I love hearing “I’m with you.”
@Faiqa, Team Faiqa!!!
(Oh Glorious Buffy, did I just use a Twilight pop culture reference? Stake me in the heart now!)
@B.E. Earl, Let me tell you something. Long before there was EVER a “Team Jacob/Edward” there was Team Spike/Team Angel. Just more proof that Stephanie Meyer is a hack.
OK, since you don’t mind me “getting into it here”, here’s a little quote from one of those Texas politicians in the article:
“I reject the notion by the left of a constitutional separation of church and state,” said David Bradley, a conservative from Beaumont who works in real estate. “I have $1,000 for the charity of your choice if you can find it in the Constitution.”
I hate this argument. I hate that folks who swear that our founding fathers had a Christian Nation in mind when they drafted the Constitution always bring this up. I’ll tell you what, I’d give him $1,000 if he can find any mention of God, Jesus or the Bible in the Constitution. How about that? Because he’s not gonna be able to do it. In fact, the only reference to religion in the entire document is in Article VI which states:
“no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
Any reasonable person, and I know I’m asking for a lot, would see the lack of any Christian context in the Constitution and the inclusion of the above line as the framers way of separating Church and State even if they never used those exact words.
And when it came time to amend the Constitution, the very First Amendment reads:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
Seems pretty clear to me.
Then there is the (kinda obscure) Treaty of Tripoli from 1797. It was prepared during the Washington administration, enacted during the Adams presidency and written, in part, by Thomas Jefferson. Those are some of our “founding fathers”, right? Well this treaty, in Article 11 has this little gem:
“As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion…”
Big deal…it’s only a treaty with a bunch of pirates, right? Well this language and the treaty was ratified unanimously by Congress. And…whoa…There’s that tricky Constitution again which states very specifically in the Supremacy Clause:
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;”
All of these quotes are from language drafted by our founding fathers. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights seem pretty clear to me. But David Bradley, a conservative from Beaumont, would disagree. Because his faith tells him so. Sorry, I’m just assuming there. Since there isn’t anything specifically in these documents that supports his claims, then it has to be faith.
Which is fine. Just keep it out of our government. Because that’s what it seems that our founding fathers really wanted. Strictly from the language in the Constitution, that is.
PS – This guy’s argument is usually followed by “Well, the Pledge of Allegiance has the words ‘Under God’ in it, and our nation’s motto is ‘In God We Trust’. Explain that!” Those are true. But those also happened in the 1940′s and 1950′s and I don’t think Truman or Eisenhower could ever be classified as founding fathers. I guess “E Pluribus Unum” wasn’t good enough for some people, even though it represents the ideal of our country (“Out of Many, One”) pretty well. Sigh.
@B.E. Earl, As further explanation to what the argument that “usually follows” is; there is a law establishing a motto, but a motto is not a law.
Also, as a Quaker, I’m cautioned not to make or take an oath of any kind. It is legal for me, because of my membership in the RSoF, to simply answer the question “will you tell the truth?” in a court of law in lieu of having to place a hand on the Bible, lift a hand, or agree to swear to tell the truth. A lie on the stand is still a lie, and if I tell a lie after saying I will tell the truth the weight of the law is just the same on me.
Several Presidents did not take the oath of office swearing on the Bible, and the Pledge of Allegiance – which I am also exempt from saying – had the words “under God” added to the original by lobbyists.
You go earl.
@B.E. Earl, Nice. I love how lawmakers were so scared of Communism that they felt that injecting religious references to the pledge and money would somehow cast a holy talisman upon the public to protect them from critical thinking. Sadly, it actually worked to a large and disappointing degree.
@RebTurtle, I hear ya. Actually the “In God We Trust” began appearing on our money back during the Civil War. An era of increased religious fervor. It’s been there (on and off thru 1938) ever since, but only became the official motto of the country in the mid 50′s. But your larger point remains valid.
@B.E. Earl, This whole comment thread is a verifiable thing of beauty. Thanks for posting.
I totally agree! These politicians have started down a road that I fear will lead to even bigger problems like burning books!
OK, you get way too many comments for me to read through, sorry. Whether it’s been said yet or not, here’s mine. heh
My real concern lies with the fact that no economists or historians were involved
SO true. Cannot even believe that it’s happening, much less *how* it’s happening. I will say this though. After seeing some of the teachers I had that skipped around through the books, gave their own interpretation…and also with the internet so ‘handy’ now…maybe there’s still hope?
Or Texas could always secede like it’s been threatening to.
How did I not end my italics there? Can I fix it? Can you?
sheesh
One of the problems with the situation is that a lot of real historians walked out of the process out of frustration. Also, the change hasn’t actually happened yet; the board is making the rec, and then the legislature has to vote on it. Believe me, millions of Texans are freaking out about it, and it’s not a done deal. Of course, the whole thing is horrifying and absurd, to put it mildly. I am glad I don’t have a kid in public school in Texas. However, it’s not that different from the Florida rule that makes it impossible to get a job teaching history if you’re not a coach. They have it in Texas, too, and many other states. This is a good example of how people need to take responsibility for what their kids learn outside the classroom. As you and I both know, however, most people don’t encourage their kids to read, have conversations with them about history, or give a shit in general about what they are studying. They give them happy meals and video games and take them to church for their “history” lesson. In that environment, I’m cynical about how much relevance what they learn in any context in school has anyway. I’m a jaded historian, you see ;P
Well stated. I share your thoughts exactly.
Unfortunately, all history books are heavily biased. For example, our history books teach us that the U.S. were the main role in defeating Germany in WWII, when in fact, it was Russia who made the war-winning move. Our history books also, quite conveniently, don’t mention American Nazis or, quite often, fails to mention the Japanese-American concentration camps.
In most cases, our history books were written to make us look like heroes, no matter what.
I find this just as scary as history being written by politicians. Sometimes, I wonder what the real, absolute truth is, as even the historian with the most pure intent is likely to skew it, because it all depends on how that historian remembers something.
I can remember writing philosophical papers in college on what truth is and how to find the truth in things. I’m pretty sure I came to the conclusion that each person has their own truth, but I’d like to dig up that paper and share it with you. It’s mindbending, if you think about it hard enough. Kind of like religion and the “How did we get here?” question.
I’m usually pretty good at telling BS from fact, but it still stuns me that our history books teach our children that Columbus found America first, when years later we find out that he was far from the first to find it. Hell, we still celebrate Columbus Day. These half truths astound me. How are we able to discern them when they are drilled into our heads for over a decade while we are in school?
It makes me want to look into home schooling for my kids, but how can I be responsible for teaching them the truth when I can’t even be sure myself?
“Is it just me or is this the adult version of sticking someone’s head in the toilet or pantsing them in the cafeteria?”
WATCH ROBIN HOOD 2010 ONLINE