Pro-Slavery Social Studies Textbook Approved in Louisiana

keith99 said:

But Gone With the Wind is far less flattering to Scarlett than this piece of propagands is toward slave owners.

A release in a time when people actually rememebred the content of Gone With the Wind would surely have led someone to replying about the plight of the poor slave owners with the most famous of GWTW quotes:

“Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn.”

Click to expand...

Curses. I've been waiting for well over a hundred posts for an opportunity to use that quote. Now you've beaten me to it. Maybe I'll get another chance. Because...After all, tomorrow is another day!

Hey, it's the best I could come up with.

On that matter, I read years ago that the studio was worried about the word 'damn' in that line. They thought they'd risk leaving it in, but they got Gable to put the stress on the word 'give' thinking it would lessen the impact.

Vap841 said:

Again I could see it two ways, on the one hand that’s exactly what slaves were, property, and the lead up of the story was the totality of their property was 1000 acres & 150 slaves, then most of it was lost. On the other hand I could see what you’re seeing in the wording of it. I’m very pessimistic about social engineering and I swear that they do 90% of this stuff on purpose to get everyone at each other’s throats on a never ending basis, call me a conspiracy theorist if you want lol

Click to expand...

See, no, that's exactly what slaves weren't. Property. They were humans, unjustly enslaved by the like of the "poor southern bell" described in this article.

SoldierOfTheKing said:

Serious students of history, on the other hand, know that we can learn about the story of our ancestors without judging them. Not because their actions can’t be designated as good or evil, but because in the broader historical framework, what we think about them isn’t all that meaningful. We are just one generation out of 5000 years of recorded history. We are dust and ashes as they were, to which we will return as they did. That’s easy to understand, if we can only approach history with a measure of humility.

Click to expand...

It is always beneficial to view history through a humble lens. But "serious students of history" absolutely know that we can judge historical behavior and people, as much as we can judge any one. If someone is more concerned about the higher cost of labor than about the emancipation of thousands of their brethren, we can describe them as heartless, even if we don't judge them as worthy of hellfire.

Occams Barber said:

It's a story which has been (deliberately?) biased to show a slaveowner in a flattering light. Facts can be delivered in a prejudicial way. Its easy - don't tell all the facts, emphasise some facts and minimise others, trivialise some parts of the story- the list goes on.

Click to expand...

It seems the objection here isn't about parts of history that aren't being told, but about the parts that are. The implication isn't that the textbook doesn't teach enough, but that it teaches too much. A balanced view of history is precisely that the critics don't want.

Occams Barber said:

Louisianans are a part of this history - that doesn't mean they have an exclusive right to tell the story.

Click to expand...

We're talking here about textbook they use to teach their own children though.

Bradskii said:

No, it's telling one minor side of a story where some people who owned slaves were inconvenienced by those men, women and children, bought for cash as property who were given their freedom.

If such a book were printed in Australia detailing the hardships of the people who took Aboriginal children away from their families between 1910 and 1970 there would be a national outcry. It is a shameful episode in our country's history and we do our best to own it. To accept that what was done was wrong. And we are still struggling to put that right. It's an open wound that's never far from our collective consciousness.

Slavery was also a shameful episode. To write a book, for children, when the focus is on the poor slave owners, shows exactly why that period is still causing you problems.

Click to expand...

What kind of problems are you talking about? There's no land on this earth that doesn't have unpleasant facts about its history - most have worse than mine. That doesn't make it a cause for shame. It isn't about being pro or anti anything, it's just that being ashamed serves no constructive purpose. It needn't be an "open wound" unless you insist on continually picking the scab.

Bradskii said:

I might have expected such a book to be published when films like Gone With The Wind was released. But now? Good grief...some of you are still living in the sixties.

Click to expand...

Are the historical facts different today than they were when Gone With The Wind came out?

SoldierOfTheKing said:

It seems the objection here isn't about parts of history that aren't being told, but about the parts that are. The implication isn't that the textbook doesn't teach enough, but that it teaches to much. A balance view of history is precisely that the critics don't want.

Click to expand...

Exactly what factors are being balanced in the pages shown the the OP in your analysis?

What about that balance do think bothers us?

SoldierOfTheKing said:

Are the historical facts different today than they were when Gone With The Wind came out?

Click to expand...

Nope. But some of them were glossed over then. It seems some people are still living in those times.

morningstar2651 said:

This is in a history textbook for middle-schoolers used in Louisiana. I'm surprised they don't call it "the war of Northern aggression".

Click to expand...

Is this supposed to be surprising?

This is a response to demolishing the statues of racist leaders whom Southerners look up to because they honor the racist leaders who provided them with pride they still hold onto liberalism.

lol...

Oompa Loompa said:

Although I do not believe the textbook is pro-slavery, I do see it being sympathetic to Kate Stone because of the impact the Civil War had on her life. Which, for the record, isn't a bad thing. Sometimes if is easy to forget that the Confederate South comprised of actual human beings. Dare I say, "there were good people on both sides". Did Kate Stone own slaves? Yes. Did she support slavery? Yes. Was her worldview corrupted by the only social norms she ever knew? Yes. Did she lose everything because that wicked social norm was ripped from her? Yes. The point is that it is important to recognize the point of view from the southern perspective. Otherwise, we are not going to learn history...but Northern propaganda.

Click to expand...

You see, this here discusses slaves as property only. If the book presents them as people with their own point of view there would not be such a problem. It's easy to forget that the Confederate South was comprised of many, many people who were not white - people, not simply property. Where is their story being presented here?

RDKirk said:

"With them came a justified fear that the slaves would abandon the plantation for the freedom they believed the Union army would provide."

Back in 1996, I read something similar in the Alabama History textbook that lay on a middle-school teacher's desk in Montgomery.

Click to expand...

The fear was justified. Not the slavery. Large distinction. The slave owners were fearful justifiably so. That doesn't make them right or justified in owning slaves.

Fantine said:

Er...they described emancipation as the owners "losing their PROPERTY in slaves."

That very premise is immoral.

There is a term used by Catholics: sins of "omission." That history book is a mortal sin of omission.

For shame, Louisiana.

Click to expand...

Well they did didn't they? Slaves were considered property. They lost their property. From the slave owners perspective that's what was happening.

I would like to see the rest of the text book though. Cause I would like to see another perspective in the book from the slaves point of view. This one just has the slave owner view.

RDKirk said:

The only times "justified" is not used in a 'moral sense" is when a builder is applying a plumb line to a wall or a writer is arranging text on a page.

In this case, yes, indeed, it is being used in a moral sense.

Click to expand...

Every citizen of a nation at war thinks the war their leaders are commanding right and justified.
Just shows how ignorant and gullible people can be. It’s the same today. Government says the vaccine is safe, then it’s safe.

rjs330 said:

The fear was justified. Not the slavery. Large distinction. The slave owners were fearful justifiably so. That doesn't make them right or justified in owning slaves.

Click to expand...

At first I thought it was fear of injury or death that the plantation owners would experience, but it turns out it was just a fear that their labor force would run out. Let me get my tear bucket...

Sorry, no sympathy for the "employer" losing a mistreated "labor force", nor for the loss of capital from the missing "property".

Dorothy Mae said:

Every citizen of a nation at war thinks the war their leaders are commanding right and justified.
Just shows how ignorant and gullible people can be. It’s the same today. Government says the vaccine is safe, then it’s safe.

Click to expand...

Lot's of people have objected to the wars of their leaders considering them unjustified, even in oppressive countries. Consequences vary.

Government agencies say that vaccines are safe because they supervised tests of those vaccines to measure the safety. Then they said it was safe.

Hans Blaster said:

Lot's of people have objected to the wars of their leaders considering them unjustified, even in oppressive countries. Consequences vary.

Click to expand...

The vast majority think it was justified or they’d be no war.

Government agencies say that vaccines are safe because they supervised tests of those vaccines to measure the safety. Then they said it was safe.

Click to expand...

I rest my case.

Dorothy Mae said:

I rest my case.

Click to expand...

So your objection to vaccine safety studies is that they:

Used science?

Were supervised by government agencies according to law?


What "case" is "closed"?

Hans Blaster said:

So your objection to vaccine safety studies is that they:

Used science?

Were supervised by government agencies according to law?


What "case" is "closed"?

Click to expand...

You believe the government without question. The fact is that the government allowed them to bypass regular testing procedures before using on the whole world. Now they cover up some very serious side effects.

morningstar2651 said:

It is pro-slavery.

Click to expand...

Where?

Dorothy Mae said:

Every citizen of a nation at war thinks the war their leaders are commanding right and justified.
Just shows how ignorant and gullible people can be. It’s the same today. Government says the vaccine is safe, then it’s safe.

Click to expand...

Have you ever heard of Vietnam? Or for that matter have you even considered why the United States was so late to enter both WW I and WW II? Hint remember the Maine and Pearl Harbor.

SoldierOfTheKing said:

It seems the objection here isn't about parts of history that aren't being told, but about the parts that are. The implication isn't that the textbook doesn't teach enough, but that it teaches too much. A balanced view of history is precisely that the critics don't want.
...

Click to expand...

A textbook that seems to focus primarily on the situation of the very rich while ignoring everyone else is not balanced.

Showing what was at stake for those very rich does give some insight.

But not if everyone else is pushed into the shadows. That includes the class of white soldiers represented by General Lee's request that his men could keep their mounts.

rjs330 said:

The fear was justified. Not the slavery. Large distinction. The slave owners were fearful justifiably so. That doesn't make them right or justified in owning slaves.

Click to expand...

But we know better now, so that statement--if included in the textbook at all--should have been accompanied by an explanation to the children that there was no justification.

Dorothy Mae said:

Every citizen of a nation at war thinks the war their leaders are commanding right and justified.
Just shows how ignorant and gullible people can be. It’s the same today. Government says the vaccine is safe, then it’s safe.

Click to expand...

But we know better now, so that statement--if included in the textbook at all--should have been accompanied by an explanation to the children that the truth was otherwise.