Pro-Slavery Social Studies Textbook Approved in Louisiana

[Ana the Ist]

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

It's a view taken from her diary. It's of her situation from her point of view.

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.

Done.

Why not?

Because it's a history textbook.

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

If we examine his circumstances from his perspective....do you think he'll be unsympathetic?

The question is what the text is teaching to students, not what the teachers are teaching to students.

The answer is history.

I think the real question is...

Do you want students to understand history? Or something else?

 

[FredVB]

Slavery, the enslaving of any to serve the interests of others, is wrong, and must be ended for all, though it does continue on, of human people and others. Still, the Union was not primarily motivated by that, and not at all by many on that side. Ending slavery was only stated for a goal later in the Civil War. It was imperial interest, that the state of the Union would keep control and not permit secession uncontested. It never has, and while it accumulated more territory to annex, it strengthened itself as it could from the actions of the leaders in it to hold what it had and not lose any of it from secession anymore. And now it has more power, to override more rights of those besides the elites in it.

 

[RDKirk]

Slavery, the enslaving of any to serve the interests of others, is wrong, and must be ended for all, though it does continue on, of human people and others. Still, the Union was not primarily motivated by that, and not at all by many on that side. Ending slavery was only stated for a goal later in the Civil War. It was imperial interest, that the state of the Union would keep control and not permit secession uncontested. It never has, and while it accumulated more territory to annex, it strengthened itself as it could from the actions of the leaders in it to hold what it had and not lose any of it from secession anymore. And now it has more power, to override more rights of those besides the elites in it.

That's not quite correct. The primary reason the Union was in peril of southern secession was because of Abolitionist pressure, particularly in preventing slavery in the new western territories...that would become non-slave states that would gain an overwhelming control of the legislature and permanence in the presidency. There would have been no threat of secession except for the Abolitionists.

 

[Estrid]

Slavery, the enslaving of any to serve the interests of others, is wrong, and must be ended for all, though it does continue on, of human people and others. Still, the Union was not primarily motivated by that, and not at all by many on that side. Ending slavery was only stated for a goal later in the Civil War. It was imperial interest, that the state of the Union would keep control and not permit secession uncontested. It never has, and while it accumulated more territory to annex, it strengthened itself as it could from the actions of the leaders in it to hold what it had and not lose any of it from secession anymore. And now it has more power, to override more rights of those besides the elites in it.

I came across a book from the 1870s that at one point suggested
"Why was civil war fought" as a debate topic.

If they didn't know then, I kind of doubt people do now either.

 

[coffee4u]

Does anyone have the entire book to actually know all of what it contains? or is all the judgment based on 2 pages? I notice a lot of people have a lot to say on these threads without having any access to all the facts.

One or two pages means nothing, a book may have a few pages from one view and then a few pages showing a different view. Perhaps there are critical questions asked about each view in turn? How can anyone know unless all the book can be viewed.

 

[Bradskii]

Does anyone have the entire book to actually know all of what it contains? or is all the judgment based on 2 pages? I notice a lot of people have a lot to say on these threads without having any access to all the facts.

One or two pages means nothing, a book may have a few pages from one view and then a few pages showing a different view. Perhaps there are critical questions asked about each view in turn? How can anyone know unless all the book can be viewed.

There's 20 pages of comments. Read through them for a better understanding of the topic.

 

[rambot]

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".

That's about as blatant as could be short of "man...slavery was awesome".

 

[coffee4u]

There's 20 pages of comments. Read through them for a better understanding of the topic.

Not comments, those are just people opinions, I mean pages of this curriculum, are they available someplace to look at?

 

[coffee4u]

That's about as blatant as could be short of "man...slavery was awesome".

Yes it may look that way, but does it continue that way?

Maybe after that it switches around and says this is how people at the time thought and then give some critical thinking questions to help the kids see how society has changed or why that thinking was wrong.

There is nothing wrong in looking and learning how a group of people thought or currently think even if you disagree with it. You can't truly know your own position without also understanding something about the opposing point of view and coming up with reasons why you disagree with it. Adults usually have, teens are in the middle of developing that skill.

So if the first few pages taught was "man...slavery was awesome". The questions could be "Why did they think slavery was awesome?" and "Why was slavery not awesome?"
Teenagers are still figuring out what they believe, and being able to objectively look at each side is healthy. It's critical thinking, not simply being spoon feed only one idea.

Or maybe the entire book is slanted that way and the teachers are not bringing up critical questions. In which case that is completely different and very concerning.

 

[rambot]

Yes it may look that way, but does it continue that way?

Maybe after that it switches around and says this is how people at the time thought and then give some critical thinking questions to help the kids see how society has changed or why that thinking was wrong.

There is nothing wrong in looking and learning how a group of people thought or currently think even if you disagree with it. You can't truly know your own position without also understanding something about the opposing point of view and coming up with reasons why you disagree with it. Adults usually have, teens are in the middle of developing that skill.

So if the first few pages taught was "man...slavery was awesome". The questions could be "Why did they think slavery was awesome?" and "Why was slavery not awesome?"
Teenagers are still figuring out what they believe, and being able to objectively look at each side is healthy. It's critical thinking, not simply being spoon feed only one idea.

Or maybe the entire book is slanted that way and the teachers are not bringing up critical questions. In which case that is completely different and very concerning.

Of all the ethically ambiguous opportunities to challenge students to examine for themselves, I'd like to think that "slavery was bad" doesn't actually require time and thought.

It's okay to just say some things were wrong.

 

[rjs330]

. 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.

I am curious. I read through the OP. I didn't see a reading of sympathetic treatment of the trials of the slave owner. They simply included what happened to her and some of her thoughts on the matter.

There was not treatment of sympathy for her position of being a slave owner or her losing her property. They didn't say "poor slave owner she lost her property and we feel bad for her".

The textbook goes in to say they will be looking at various points of view from the time.

We shouldn't whitewash history. We should tell it like it was. And in looking at the Confederacy at the time it's entirely appropriate to look at how the confederates viewed things. Like looking at Hitler or the concentration camp soldiers or even the Germans at the time. To see what they were thinking.

There was no sympathy offered here.

 

[rjs330]

There's 20 pages of comments. Read through them for a better understanding of the topic.

That doesn't address the issue brought up. What does the rest of the history book say? I get people are concerned over including a space owners point of view. I don't know why your so afraid of that.

But you also don't know what the rest of the history book shows. And this entire thread doesn't show it either.

 

[rjs330]

That's about as blatant as could be short of "man...slavery was awesome".

Did you miss the point that it was a history lesson which included the thoughts of a slave owner? Of course you would expect a slave owner to think slavery was awesome right? The history book isn't saying slavery was awesome or anything close to that. In two pages in simply states how people felt and what they did as slave owners at the time. It's entirely relevant to consider that.

 

[rjs330]

Of all the ethically ambiguous opportunities to challenge students to examine for themselves, I'd like to think that "slavery was bad" doesn't actually require time and thought.

It's okay to just say some things were wrong.

Why? You don't think the facts speak for themselves? I remember learning all about the Holocaust and the teacher never once had to say "this was wrong". Way back when we watched the movie Roots the teacher never had to tell us slavery was wrong.

When we learned how families were separated and children taken from their parents we didn't have to be told it was wrong. When we learned how blacks were hanged in the south and could not go to restaurants or drink out of certain water fountains we didn't have to be told it was wrong.

Most people when they read about humanities inhumanity to each other most of us immediately recognize the wrong in it all.

 

[Bradskii]

That doesn't address the issue brought up. What does the rest of the history book say? I get people are concerned over including a space owners point of view. I don't know why your so afraid of that.

But you also don't know what the rest of the history book shows. And this entire thread doesn't show it either.

The last comment in the thread was over 5 months ago. Everything that anyone wanted to say has been said.

 

[coffee4u]

Of all the ethically ambiguous opportunities to challenge students to examine for themselves, I'd like to think that "slavery was bad" doesn't actually require time and thought.

It's okay to just say some things were wrong.

Simply saying something is wrong is not enough IMO. I assume this was a class for teenagers who will soon be tomorrows adults, but different if it was aimed at 7 year olds, then saying something is wrong may be enough. Teenagers need to learn to think critically -I don't see the schools providing enough of that. I think knowing what drove people over anything in history is part of understanding why things happened and understanding leads to not repeating things.

If all we say is X is bad, who is getting to decide that? That is how communism works. Far better to come to that conclusion yourself. North Korean students get told that the USA is bad. A North Korean defector said that on a video and I am inclined to believe them.

Also didn't realize how old this thread is, guess I must have missed it.

 

[RDKirk]

I'm working on my family tree. Most of our branches just stop abruptly in the late 1800s. A couple of them, though, extend all the way to the point in the 1850s or so that suddenly "ancestors" are identified in the census and other documents as white. It's after that point that the real ancestors are anonymous slaves who later took their masters' names.

I've found one line in my wife's tree that goes back to Tennessee (slave owners in the East often kept meticulous pedigree records) where the owner listed his ten slaves by name, so there we can trace the actual person. There is another case in my own line, going back to Ohio, where my earliest definite ancestor is listed as "mulatto." I'm going to get the DNA test to see if I match up with any of the white family trees noted in that town with my last name. It's a small town, and there appear to be lots of blacks and whites with the same last name.

 

[Hans Blaster]

If all we say is X is bad, who is getting to decide that? That is how communism works. Far better to come to that conclusion yourself. North Korean students get told that the USA is bad. A North Korean defector said that on a video and I am inclined to believe them.

No that's not how communism works. There is nothing about converting farms and factories to workers' collectives in everyone agreeing that "X is bad" (unless X= "private ownership of factories and farms", that would be communism then).

 

[Strathos]

No that's not how communism works. There is nothing about converting farms and factories to workers' collectives in everyone agreeing that "X is bad" (unless X= "private ownership of factories and farms", that would be communism then).

Most reactionaries' understanding of Communism seems to stop at 'things we don't like'. Their thought process basically goes: Communism = bad, whatever I'm currently griping about = bad, so whatever I'm currently griping about = Communism.

If you actually study Communism, its history, theory, and implementation, then you'll discover that... yeah, it's pretty bad. Never been successfully done and probably never will be. But at least you'll know what it is.

 

[Kettriken]

I am curious. I read through the OP. I didn't see a reading of sympathetic treatment of the trials of the slave owner. They simply included what happened to her and some of her thoughts on the matter.

There was not treatment of sympathy for her position of being a slave owner or her losing her property. They didn't say "poor slave owner she lost her property and we feel bad for her".

This is a very interesting take. Erroneous, even. The original post, the chapter introduction for "Secession and the Civil War" is all from the sympathetic perspective of an enslaver's heiress, detailing only her trials. One clear example is from the second paragraph on the second page. The mother sent her slaves to Texas, while she and her daughter were forced to move to Texas as, in the words of the textbook, refugees.

Other examples abound.