3 ms·

Here's an article which compares meta-narratives in Texas vs. California: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/01/12/us/texas-vs-california-history-textboo

Here's an article which compares meta-narratives in Texas vs. California: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/01/12/us/texas-vs-california-history-textbooks.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/01/12/us/texas-vs-c... Fights over textbook content are ancient and written about constantly. Since these battles are more heavily scrutinized outright falsehoods won't be found easily — rather meta-narratives are achieved by omission or emphasis. I would not argue that these meta-narratives are "ahistorical", though — rather, I would say that they reflect the interests of certain parties. Perspective is inseparable from "history".

_gabe_ 3y ago
> I would not argue that these meta-narratives are "ahistorical", though That seems to be what you were claiming though in your original comment: > as there is no shortage of fictional narratives anywhere — look no further than US state-approved high-school history textbooks.
slau 3y ago
As I read this thread in the early morning before the family rouses, my tired eyes keep misreading “ahistorical” as “shitstorical”, which, amusingly enough, isn’t far off the intended meaning.