Dear Lord, no! Is there no way to request that these videos be banned? They make people uncomfortable. I thought that was enough to ban them. Dear Lord in heaven. I put a heart on this, Steve, but I swear I hate this. Thanks though for sharing it. We need to know.
If they actually get used in schools, they would become subject to the regulation on instructional materials. I would argue it is age-inappropriate for anyone to be told Frederick Douglass was a gradualist or that it was okay for Columbus to enslave indigenous people because he didn’t know better.
My next Substack post is about "they didn't know better." Columbus is an example. It is teed up, with photos and captions in place, yet I didn't tie it to this! (I tied it to many things. Like the execution of Freddie Owens. Somehow not this. Perhaps that's because part of me sincerely wonders if Weaver thinks PragerU is an actual-accredited university.
Great topic! Columbus absolutely knew better. He wrote letters back to Spain about how impressed he was with indigenous culture, and only changed his tune when it became clear that dehumanizing those same people was more profitable.
Teaching students to use critical thinking skills to examine historical perspectives from available primary and secondary sources and to make informed opinions based on those sources is not indoctrination.
Restricting access to multiple perspectives and using animated historical figures to distort and misinform those perspectives IS indoctrination.
Thought I’d add here something I shared with a critic of this article on social media who felt the science content was appropriate for a state-approved resource:
Here’s an example of one “science video”: it’s a contrived narrative about a Polish girl who is “oppressed” by supporters of green energy (her family compares this oppression directly to historical actions by the Nazi Party and Polish Communist regime). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pneZc2_YCHw
It makes sense in a way that so many of the videos are focused on attacking renewable energy or responding to criticisms of nonrenewable energy, because much of the groups funding came from billionaires in the hydraulic fracturing (fracking) industry: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/04/us/politics/dennis-prager-university.html
I might have used this video in a rhetoric class when I was teaching English to discuss:
-emotional appeals and scare tactics
-slippery slope falacies
-cherry-picked data
But there isn’t a whole lot of science. It spends a few seconds with some contextless comparisons of specific renewables and coal power (something that could be interesting to get into detail about, but the video isn’t really interested) and over eight minutes on this narrative about Poland.
It also implies that it is anti-Ukrainian independence to support a reduction in coal, but again doesn’t give viewers really any context about the war in Ukraine. It reduces a complex issue to heroes and villains, and that’s what every other PragerU video I’ve watched so far does. I’m willing to see specific examples to show they’re not all like that, but don’t think the Department should have partnered with this resource.
Thank you.
I hate this.
But, thank you.
Upgrading later today.
Dear Lord, no! Is there no way to request that these videos be banned? They make people uncomfortable. I thought that was enough to ban them. Dear Lord in heaven. I put a heart on this, Steve, but I swear I hate this. Thanks though for sharing it. We need to know.
If they actually get used in schools, they would become subject to the regulation on instructional materials. I would argue it is age-inappropriate for anyone to be told Frederick Douglass was a gradualist or that it was okay for Columbus to enslave indigenous people because he didn’t know better.
My next Substack post is about "they didn't know better." Columbus is an example. It is teed up, with photos and captions in place, yet I didn't tie it to this! (I tied it to many things. Like the execution of Freddie Owens. Somehow not this. Perhaps that's because part of me sincerely wonders if Weaver thinks PragerU is an actual-accredited university.
Great topic! Columbus absolutely knew better. He wrote letters back to Spain about how impressed he was with indigenous culture, and only changed his tune when it became clear that dehumanizing those same people was more profitable.
NO. This cannot be happening.
Thanks for so clearly laying this out—Weaver has no concern for the teachers or students of this state and is a total zealot.
Thank you for this article.
Teaching students to use critical thinking skills to examine historical perspectives from available primary and secondary sources and to make informed opinions based on those sources is not indoctrination.
Restricting access to multiple perspectives and using animated historical figures to distort and misinform those perspectives IS indoctrination.
Thank you.
Thought I’d add here something I shared with a critic of this article on social media who felt the science content was appropriate for a state-approved resource:
Here’s an example of one “science video”: it’s a contrived narrative about a Polish girl who is “oppressed” by supporters of green energy (her family compares this oppression directly to historical actions by the Nazi Party and Polish Communist regime). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pneZc2_YCHw
It makes sense in a way that so many of the videos are focused on attacking renewable energy or responding to criticisms of nonrenewable energy, because much of the groups funding came from billionaires in the hydraulic fracturing (fracking) industry: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/04/us/politics/dennis-prager-university.html
I might have used this video in a rhetoric class when I was teaching English to discuss:
-emotional appeals and scare tactics
-slippery slope falacies
-cherry-picked data
But there isn’t a whole lot of science. It spends a few seconds with some contextless comparisons of specific renewables and coal power (something that could be interesting to get into detail about, but the video isn’t really interested) and over eight minutes on this narrative about Poland.
It also implies that it is anti-Ukrainian independence to support a reduction in coal, but again doesn’t give viewers really any context about the war in Ukraine. It reduces a complex issue to heroes and villains, and that’s what every other PragerU video I’ve watched so far does. I’m willing to see specific examples to show they’re not all like that, but don’t think the Department should have partnered with this resource.
Here’s a separate fact-check on several of the other climate-related articles: https://www.reuters.com/article/world/fact-check-video-presents-climate-change-statements-that-lack-key-context-idUSKBN2712BJ/