Really Texas? What Gives?

Studying theology, and therefore history, I understand the necessary, importance, and motivations behind revisionist history. But this is just too far.

First:

There are seven members of the conservative bloc on the board, but they are often joined by one of the other three Republicans on crucial votes. There were no historians, sociologists or economists consulted at the meetings, though some members of the conservative bloc held themselves out as experts on certain topics.

Making policy decisions without consulting experts, or promoting yourself as an expert without any credentials whatsoever makes you a dilettante. I’m a little scared of turning into Jim West here, but what gives? I’m utterly amazed that anyone can read history the way they are attempting to.

Revisionist history can be held in respect when the overall society agrees with a general way of interpreting the historical data based on their ideology. The ideology, at the same time, recognizes that it purposefully glosses over specific points in order to create a polished and complete narrative. That is not what is happening here. This is willful disdain for the general and accepted interpretation of history. It would be one thing to say: “I don’t agree with the current interpretation and here is my evidence.” It is quite another to rewrite the books with your ideology with zero evidence. I expect, quite quickly, for this to get shot down (or disregarded) because it can never conform to the accepted interpretation. Nor does it have any explanatory power whatsoever to go beyond the current accepted interpretation.

To give a historical and theological dimension to this: there is no question that exilic editors created revisionist history about the golden years which preceded them. There is no question that Luke-Acts portrays Christianity in an acceptable light to the Roman Empire – despite it’s formative leader Jesus being crucified as a political insurrectionist. What none of these writers did, however, was act in a position of power to remove items from written history [i.e. not removing them in their "curriculum": their collected literary works later received as Scripture]. What these writers did do was offer new evidence and new rhetorical interpretations of older evidence.

I don’t imagine that Texas will actually affect other curriculums or the textbooks that would affect other curriculums (the articles worry, but are split over the possibility). For a long time I have looked with shame at the educational system I’ve been, and continue to be, a part of. At the graduate level, I can finally say, that the education system has a chance to make a huge difference. Sadly, not many people get that far because of the failures in the system well before this level. I feel very, very fortunate and thankful to be able to receive and use all these various tools to look at the world, and myself in the world, in such a more nuanced and powerful way.