ANTI CATHOLIC BIAS IN BEKA'S COVERAGE OF MEXICO
\doc\web\98\06\beka.txt
Date sent:      	Sat, 29 Aug 1998 10:55:33 -0600
From:           	"Catherine" <CB_Snider@email.msn.com>
Originally to:  	<core-net@TUCC6.TUCC.Trinity.Edu>


Dear Sue:


I would like to be totally fair to A Beka, and so I will keep my comments
only to that text I have read. I read A Beka's fourth grade history book
"The History of Our United States." A better title for this work might be
"A History...etc." A Beka has an agenda, and they don't let the facts
stand in their way. Would you agree that telling a half-truth is the same
as telling a lie?  I think so. A Beka tells half truths whenever the truth
goes against their message.


They are heavily anti-Catholic, which I find very offensive. For example,
their treatment of the conquest of Mexico is half-truths at best.
Important points are left out. No mention is made that the Aztec were a
strong military power themselves, who conquered their neighbors and
exacted tribute. No mention of their human sacrifices. The writers are
careful to stress that the Spanish were cruel and greedy and cared for
nothing but gold.


You can often tell what side a historian is on by the stories they choose
to relate, the way they tell those stories, and the adjectives they use.
Once we're done reading the first few chapters, we know the Spanish
Catholics were cruel and greedy. That might not bug me so much if English
Protestants were also called cruel and greedy, which they were. But no,
English Protestants are godly and good.


Now lets look at the story of Sir Francis Drake, a sea dog who raided
Spanish galleons. What nouns and adjectives are used here? We are told
that he sank Spanish ships and stole their gold. We aren't told that he
murdered the people on board. We aren't told he was greedy and cruel. No,
A Beka calls him successful.


Several pages are spent telling about English missionaries to the Indians.
Spanish missionaries are mentioned, but they were mostly cruel and greedy
too.


The U.S. policy toward the Indians is very glossed over. The worst thing
said about the United State's actions was that "there was cruelty on both
sides." We are told they Indians were "moved to reservations", where they
were "promised protection." No Trail of Tears, no mention of systematic
extermination or Andrew Jackson's policies of Indian management. No
mention that "The only good Indian is a dead Indian." We are told that the
Indians were forced to move as pioneers moved westward, but "the Indians
could not understand that America's way of life was rapidly changing." So
it's their fault, I guess. We are told that "in 1924, our government
passed a law which made the Indians citizens of the United States.
Happily, since that time, there has been a greater understanding and
friendship between the white man and the Indian." There! Everything is all
better! Is this a great nation or what?


I'm not done yet. Let's push on to the Alamo. Here's what I know about it:
In the early 1800's, the Mexican government gave huge tracts of land to
whoever wanted to settle there, if they would agree to a few conditions:
1) become a citizen of Mexico 2) abide by the laws of Mexico (which had
outlawed slavery) and 3) become a Catholic. Sam Austin brought in tons of
people, some of them rabble-rousers and many of them slave owners, who
wanted free land but had no intention whatever of obeying these
conditions. When Mexico decided to crack down on these people, she found a
revolution on her hands. What bugs me about A Beka's treatment of the
issue is that A Beka writes "Then the Mexican government tried to take
away the freedoms of the Americans already in Texas. You can imagine how
the freedom-loving Americans felt about that!" Yea, right. They loved
their freedom to own slaves and steal land.


Then comes the Mexican-American war, which was a land grab by the cruel
and greedy United States. But of course, A Beka doesn't tell us that.  A
Beka throws out a few facts that yes, are true, but they definitely leave
out the bigger picture.


A Beka speaks very approvingly of the U.S.'s English Protestant history.
Everything else was "not God's plan for the United States."


I find the whole thing hugely offensive.


Cathy Snider