This is a sub-bullet under key concept 1.3:

 

Many Europeans developed a belief in white superiority to justifytheir subjugation of Africans and American Indians, using severaldifferent rationales.

Under 2.2:

 

By supplying American Indian allies with deadlier weapons andalcohol and by rewarding Indian military actions, Europeanshelped increase the intensity and destructiveness of AmericanIndian warfare.

..."the belief that America had a mission to spread democracy and new technology across the continent," as he put it.

 

But, she's pulling a telegraph wire. And look at that gleam of democracy spreading in those people's eyes!

 

And instead of discussing the "the valor or heroism of American soldiers" during World War II, the course outline mentions U.S. internment camps and moral questions raised by the dropping of the atomic bomb.

 

I think it is very important to discuss "the valor or heroism of American soldiers." Without them, wars aren't won. However, there were moral questions about the atomic bomb that were raised then, so why shouldn't those discussions happen now? And they should be related to relevant events today.

 

And as for internment camps, I'm 33 years old and I'm not sure we ever talked about them in my high school history classes (late 1990s). I make it a point to discuss it with my groups today. Why wouldn't you talk about it? It happened.

Since this is in Oklahoma and they are complaining about painting the U.S. In a negative way, what is their view on The Trail of Tears?

God forbid we should have a negative view of some of our country's history. Can't wait to read the re-writes where they put a positive spin on the slave trade. I'm ready for a happy ending this time.

 

Slave trade? I believe you meant "opportunistic agriculturalists" or "the foundation of American industrialism."

 

If you don't like those, you could always just use direct quotes from John Calhoun!

I believe the problem the lawmakers have with the course may not be just with the description of how the course is set up, but the underlying political correctness of how it may be graded. For example, how should the dropping of the atomic bomb be viewed? For those who are younger, they may view the dropping of the bomb as something so horrible, that we should have not used it. On the other side those who older, especially those of the WWII era, will support its use. Military planners predicted that conventional fighting would allow the war to continue until late 1946. There would be 1 million Americans killed or wounded and millions of Japanese as well. President Truman believed fewer lives would be lost by using the atomic bombs. If Truman had not ordered their use and allowed the war to come to a conventional conclusion and the public found out that their loved ones could have been saved, what would the backlash been like? I truly believe there may be some graders who mark down such a response.

I believe the problem the lawmakers have with the course may not be just with the description of how the course is set up, but the underlying political correctness of how it may be graded. For example, how should the dropping of the atomic bomb be viewed? For those who are younger, they may view the dropping of the bomb as something so horrible, that we should have not used it. On the other side those who older, especially those of the WWII era, will support its use. Military planners predicted that conventional fighting would allow the war to continue until late 1946. There would be 1 million Americans killed or wounded and millions of Japanese as well. President Truman believed fewer lives would be lost by using the atomic bombs. If Truman had not ordered their use and allowed the war to come to a conventional conclusion and the public found out that their loved ones could have been saved, what would the backlash been like? I truly believe there may be some graders who mark down such a response.

 

And what's wrong with that?

And what's wrong with that?

 

If you are saying grading it down is OK, then that would be historically wrong. Those who lived at that time and suffered the loss of loved ones or the potential loss of loved ones, would have supported it. History shows that dropping the bomb, while horrible, cost fewer lives based on predictions.

 

If the student added that after seeing horrible devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, combined with the more powerful atomic weapons of today, we should do our best to see that such weapons are never used again. Or they could point to the fact that the USA and the USSR never came to nuclear blows because they saw the devastation of the two atomic bombs dropped on Japan. That would be a good use of using the past to try to make a better future.

If you are saying grading it down is OK, then that would be historically wrong. Those who lived at that time and suffered the loss of loved ones or the potential loss of loved ones, would have supported it. History shows that dropping the bomb, while horrible, cost fewer lives based on predictions.

 

If the student added that after seeing horrible devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, combined with the more powerful atomic weapons of today, we should do our best to see that such weapons are never used again. Or they could point to the fact that the USA and the USSR never came to nuclear blows because they saw the devastation of the two atomic bombs dropped on Japan. That would be a good use of using the past to try to make a better future.

 

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was asking what's wrong with that response. They wouldn't be graded any differently regardless of their response as long as they used actual historic events and critical thinking to present their position or opinion. That's not how the grading of AP testing works.

UKMustangFan is exactly right. The questions aren't scored based on a specific interpretation of history (which may be why there is backlash against it). They are scored on being able to analyze an event and using information to support your analysis.

 

Here is the written part of last year's exam. This contains the scoring guidelines for the questions. http://media.collegeboard.com/digitalServices/pdf/ap/ap14_us%20history_scoring_guidelines.pdf

 

Additionally, there are several links to sample scored answers that I can provide if anyone is interested.

I don't have a problem at all in looking at black marks in our past. As long as it isn't the main focus and differences of opinion are encouraged. If the course hasn't changed from when I took it to something that makes America look evil. The good this country has done far outweighs it's wrongs.

UKMustangFan is exactly right. The questions aren't scored based on a specific interpretation of history (which may be why there is backlash against it). They are scored on being able to analyze an event and using information to support your analysis.

 

Here is the written part of last year's exam. This contains the scoring guidelines for the questions. http://media.collegeboard.com/digitalServices/pdf/ap/ap14_us%20history_scoring_guidelines.pdf

 

Additionally, there are several links to sample scored answers that I can provide if anyone is interested.

 

You really believe there is no bias? I saw it in grading portfolios. I assume, hope, the responses are read by 2 or 3 graders to help eliminate bias.

You really believe there is no bias? I saw it in grading portfolios. I assume, hope, the responses are read by 2 or 3 graders to help eliminate bias.

I can't find where I said that the scorers had no bias.

 

I, too, have graded portfolios. Those were graded much looser than the AP exams are. First, 40% of the score for the AP US History exam is multiple choice. Then, the remainder of the sections are graded by separate scorers. A scorer grades only one question, not like one person grading an entire portfolio. Instead, they grade the same question over and over, as part of a team that will grade only that question.

 

Regardless, it doesn't seem that it is the scoring process that is being questioned, but the standards.

The question I have is: is this class going to be the evening news version of history or a serious examination of events that bring us to where we are? By that...if one watches the evening news and accepts those daily reports as an accurate depiction of life in the city/state/country which is being reported, one quickly draws a conclusion of a disorderly, violent, disrespectful society because for every 1 report of something normal or good that is going on, there are 5 to 10 bad events that are highlighted. Regarding our history and our present...there are many, many good decisions and tremendous leadership that founded this country and put us on the course that we follow. I will make a bet that the positive, enlightened, good decision and actions outweigh the negative significantly. If the history course properly characterizes this along with the controversial facts, I have no issue. If the controversial facts are portrayed in a way to undermine all the good things....then I question whether the intention is to educate or disrupt.