Pro-Slavery Social Studies Textbook Approved in Louisiana

[Confused-by-christianity]

You want to buy a middle school textbook so you can be better informed for a Christian forums discussion?

I doubt I would buy the book but I would check on it and see what’s going on. It wouldn’t be so much for a CF discussion but rather to see what others are learning in school.

 

[Pommer]

I doubt I would buy the book but I would check on it and see what’s going on. It wouldn’t be so much for a CF discussion but rather to see what others are learning in school.

Try this, I’m pretty sure that this is the book.

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

Try this, I’m pretty sure that this is the book.

Looks like it could be

 

[Ophiolite]

It seems to be taken from her diary...which would present a sympathetic view.

That's history, it should be examined from every perspective. History isn't about pointing at people in the past moralizing about them.

If that's what you think should happen, then you're the problem, not the textbook.

As is so often the case I find little in what you post I can agree with - intellectually, emotionally, or factually. I suppose I'll just have to get used to it.

• It is possible that the text-book has presented a comparable set of material of similar quality and quantity exploring the point of view of the slaves. However, it appears that the views of the white slave-owner took the headline space.
  
• History is acknowledged to be an interpretation of the past in the light of the present. Offer an interpretation that seems reluctant to condemn slavery and you imply that it wasn't such a bad thing.
• It seems to have been based on her diary, not taken from it. Commentary to place her viewpoints in better context and to contrast them with current ethical positions would have been appropriate. Perhaps this is done further into the text, but that is rather late given the 'headline' has already been written.
• Defending something that probably does not merit defending exacerbates problems.

 

[Ana the Ist]

As is so often the case I find little in what you post I can agree with - intellectually, emotionally, or factually. I suppose I'll just have to get used to it.

• It is possible that the text-book has presented a comparable set of material of similar quality and quantity exploring the point of view of the slaves. However, it appears that the views of the white slave-owner took the headline space.

Well keep in mind that the topic appears to be Confederate Louisiana and that's the first page of a chapter.

Is your problem that the first page went to a Louisiana slave owner?

• History is acknowledged to be an interpretation of the past in the light of the present.

According to whom? I find it hard for a serious historian to be saying this. Yes, historians interpret evidence in the present. Morality really doesn't offer anything in way of understanding.

• It seems to have been based on her diary, not taken from it. Commentary to place her viewpoints in better context and to contrast them with current ethical positions would have been appropriate.

I certainly don't think there's anything wrong with a teacher pushing students to think this way, but I see no reason why the text should.

Defending something that probably does not merit defending exacerbates problems.

I can tell you the horrors of the gulag, I can condemn those involved, but you won't understand why people stood in chains and we're hauled off to labor camps, and sent to starve in Siberia unless I examine Stalin's perspective.

That's the difference between understanding history and understanding the relationship it has to now. No teacher should teach morality to students. That's the job of parents. I wouldn't trust such things to the state.

That's why when a child acts badly, I don't get upset at his teachers....I don't blame the state or the system. It's the parents fault.

 

[Bradskii]

It seems to be taken from her diary...which would present a sympathetic view.

That's history, it should be examined from every perspective.

I'm not sure you've read through the thread as you're putting forward opinions which have alrwady been dealt with. And one way the opinion you just offered was dealt with was to imagine an Auschwitz guard keeping a diary and complaining about his work conditions and the food and gee, the weather is just so cold...

Do you think it would be valid to read that diary from a sympathetic viewpoint?

Actually, maybe I shouldn't have asked that. I'm afraid about the answer it will get. But I'll let it stand.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'm not sure you've read through the thread as you're putting forward opinions which have alrwady been dealt with. And one way the opinion you just offered was dealt with was to imagine an Auschwitz guard keeping a diary and complaining about his work conditions and the food and gee, the weather is just so cold...

Do you think it would be valid to read that diary from a sympathetic viewpoint?

Actually, maybe I shouldn't have asked that. I'm afraid about the answer it will get. But I'll let it stand.

What do you mean by valid in this context?

 

[Bradskii]

What do you mean by valid in this context?

I don't know. It was a word I saw in a book once. I thought I'd try to use it in a sentence.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I don't know. It was a word I saw in a book once. I thought I'd try to use it in a sentence.

Do better.

I'm asking you a question. I don't really understand what you mean by valid in that context. It doesn't make any sense to me.

Valid in what way?

 

[Bradskii]

Valid in what way?

I knew I shouldn't have asked.

Acceptable, proper, correct, justifiable. Do you think it's in any way acceptable, proper, correct or justifiable to read that diary from a sympathetic viewpoint?

diary
/ˈdʌɪəri/
A book in which one keeps a daily record of events and experiences.

sympathetic
/sɪmpəˈθɛtɪk/
Feeling, showing, or expressing sympathy.

viewpoint
/ˈvjuːpɔɪnt/
A person's opinion or point of view.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I knew I shouldn't have asked.

Acceptable, proper, correct, justifiable. Do you think it's in any way acceptable, proper, correct or justifiable to read that diary from a sympathetic viewpoint?

Acceptable as a valid historical document? Yes.

Proper as a valid point of reference for a historical period? Yes.

Correct as an accurate portrayal of the historical context? I'd need to read it first.

Justifiable as a valid historical document for understanding the time and place? Absolutely....but contingent on the above.

Why wouldn't it be valid?

 

[Bradskii]

Acceptable as a valid historical document? Yes.
Proper as a valid point of reference for a historical period? Yes.
Correct as an accurate portrayal of the historical context? I'd need to read it first.
Justifiable as a valid historical document for understanding the time and place? Absolutely....but contingent on the above.
Why wouldn't it be valid?

OK. So you think that a sympathetic treatment of the trials and tribulations of an extermination camp guard, detailing all the problems and hardships he went through in his job of gassing and then burning innocent men, women and children would be entirely acceptable.

Good to have that confirmed.

 

[Ana the Ist]

OK. So you think that a sympathetic treatment of the trials and tribulations of an extermination camp guard, detailing all the problems and hardships he went through in his job of gassing and then burning innocent men, women and children would be entirely acceptable.

Are we still talking about the diary or your sweetly ironic hypothetical lol?

 

[Bradskii]

Are we still talking about the diary or your sweetly ironic hypothetical lol?

Lol? Good grief...

No, we're not talking about anything now. Glad that you had the opportunity to make your position clear.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Lol? Good grief...

No, we're not talking about anything now. Glad that you had the opportunity to make your position clear.

There's many letters from concentration camp guards, and officials, including testimonies and documentation.

Many complain of the things you would expect, the repulsive nature of their duty, the overzealous nature of SS guards, morale dropping, soldiers not living up to expectations.

There are those who despise the work of the camps, and wish to be dead on front lines.

There are those who wholeheartedly approve of the situation and duty.

If you only read one, you wouldn't understand history.

I've never seen one that described the situation as tedious or boring....but if your hypothetical exists in reality, I see no reason why it couldn't be included.

 

[Bradskii]

I've never seen one that described the situation as tedious or boring....but if your hypothetical exists in reality, I see no reason why it couldn't be included.

I think the key phrase that you just avoided mentioning, but which I expressely included, and would like to highlight again, was 'a sympathetic treatment'.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I think the key phrase that you just avoided mentioning, but which I expressely included, and would like to highlight again, was 'a sympathetic treatment'.

In which of those actual documents which I mentioned, wherein the narrator is writing about themselves, do you imagine would be "unsympathetic"?

Maybe this would be easier if you just clearly stated whatever your objection is?

You don't want people depicted as people....you want them dehumanized into some base level of "moral monsters" so....

What's the reason? It's certainly not history. Dehumanizing is exactly what you're doing if you insist we cannot, for some reason, depict people in history as people in full....and instead we should reduce them to some set of characteristics that they cannot be depicted apart from.

 

[Bradskii]

In which of those actual documents which I mentioned, wherein the narrator is writing about themselves, do you imagine would be "unsympathetic"?

Hey, you've answered the question. I was quite clear in what I was asking and you were quite clear in your response. We're done.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Hey, you've answered the question.

Hey, glad I could help.

It seemed like you had an objection of some sort but I guess it died before it was expressed.

Feel free to ask any questions in the future. Words don't scare me like they do some.

 

[Ophiolite]

Is your problem that the first page went to a Louisiana slave owner?

My problem is the apparent uncritical sympathy shown for the slave owner's views.

According to whom? I find it hard for a serious historian to be saying this. Yes, historians interpret evidence in the present. Morality really doesn't offer anything in way of understanding.

I don't think I used the the word Morality in making my point. However, while I stand by my observation, for it arises from several commentaries by historians that I have read over the years, I cannot readily locate links to, or even just citations that would support my position. You may, therefore, safely ignore it.

I certainly don't think there's anything wrong with a teacher pushing students to think this way, but I see no reason why the text should.

Why not?

I can tell you the horrors of the gulag, I can condemn those involved, but you won't understand why people stood in chains and we're hauled off to labor camps, and sent to starve in Siberia unless I examine Stalin's perspective.

However, we should not examine Stalin's perspective sympathetically.

That's the difference between understanding history and understanding the relationship it has to now. No teacher should teach morality to students. That's the job of parents. I wouldn't trust such things to the state.

The question is what the text is teaching to students, not what the teachers are teaching to students. So, now we have a text that implies a sympathy for the slave owner and dehumanises the slaves, and - according to you - teachers who should not make any comment on whether that attitude is right or wrong.

That's why when a child acts badly, I don't get upset at his teachers....I don't blame the state or the system. It's the parents fault

On this we agree. Unfortunately it does not seem relevant to point being discussed.