Why not?
The College Board is the company that sets standards for the Advanced Placement (AP) courses in the United States. They've come under fire in recent years from conservatives who want to change all of the negative sounding stuff in American history ... like Ronald Reagan wasn't Jesus the Christ and slavery was kinda an understandable mistake based in mistake-land where you don't talk about it because it makes me feel uncomfortable.
Good news, conservative white supremacists!
Passages that previously cited racial attitudes, stereotyping, and white superiority in early American history have been rewritten or deleted, and some passages that previously implicated early European colonists in racism and aiding in destructive Native American warfare have been softened and replaced with more passive language.
The word “bellicose,” where it was used in the prior edition (p. 79) to refer to President Reagan’s rhetoric, was also removed. That passage was pointed out specifically by conservative critics of the the prior framework. A section on American identity has also been amended to include “American exceptionalism” (p. 11).
Here is an example of Ronald Reagan's dulcet, diplomatic tones concerning the
former Soviet Union—from actual history land:
The truth is that a freeze now would be a very dangerous fraud, for that is merely the illusion of peace. The reality is that we must find peace through strength.
I would agree to a freeze if only we could freeze the Soviets' global desires. A freeze at current levels of weapons would remove any incentive for the Soviets to negotiate seriously in Geneva and virtually end our chances to achieve the major arms reductions which we have proposed. Instead, they would achieve their objectives through the freeze.
He then went on to coin the term "evil empire" for the USSR—super diplomatic. Not warlike. At. All.
How about slavery?
The 2014 version stated: “Many Europeans developed a belief in white superiority to justify their subjugation of Africans and American Indians, using several different rationales.” By 2015, we read that interracial interaction in the colonial and antebellum years spurred “evolving religious, cultural, and racial justifications for [their] subjugation.”
The revisers of this idiocy released a
statement:
Every statement in the 2015 edition has been examined with great care based on the historical record and the principled feedback the College Board received. The result is a clearer and more balanced approach to the teaching of American history that remains faithful to the requirements that colleges and universities set for academic credit. The new edition has been embraced by educators, including AP U.S. History teachers who reviewed it at the recent AP Annual Conference.
Here's a Google translation of the above statement for you: "We are about making money and having places like Texas and
Oklahoma try to sign laws into affect banning our AP courses loses us money."
The most insidious changes are so appropriate today it's frightening:
In describing the racial and cultural landscape of America from 1800 to 1848, the old document states that, “Many white Americans in the South asserted their regional identity through pride in the institution of slavery, insisting that the federal government should defend that institution.” (p. 50)
The new document removes the language of “pride” in slavery, replacing it with a gentler argument: “Antislavery efforts increased in the North, while in the South, although the majority of Southerners owned no slaves, most leaders argued that slavery was part of the Southern way of life.” (p. 51)
I'm going to take a walk around the block to get some fresh air. For what's it's worth I was just reading in a newly released textbook that carbon monoxide is just misunderstood oxygen so I shouldn't give it such a hard time and let it into my lungs. You can read more depressing examples over at
Newsweek.