Pro-Slavery Social Studies Textbook Approved in Louisiana

[coffee4u]

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).

I wasn't talking about that, just the part where they are force fed propaganda.
They don't get to make up their own minds by being presented a range of facts.

 

[Pommer]

I wasn't talking about that, just the part where they are force fed propaganda.
They don't get to make up their own minds by being presented a range of facts.

Do we want children to think that maybe human beings “owning” other human beings might be something that they’d like to try?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Maybe not directly "pro-slavery," but certainly a lot more sympathetic than the topic usually merits.

 

[hedrick]

Has anyone seen the whole book? It he pages shown, while not overtly promoting slavery, were certainly giving a slaveholders perspective. But you’d need to see whether that’s typical of the treatment of the civil war period. It’s seems to have been the introduction to the topic, which suggests their emphasis. But you really need the whole context.

 

[RDKirk]

I was going to buy this book "Louisiana Our History, Our Home," to make a judgment myself, but hokey smokes, Bullwinkle, a copy costs Five Hundred Dollars on Amazon. Even used, it costs $250.

The Amazon reviews uniformly called it one-sided in its sympathetic view of slavery, however.

Even the one positive reviewer characterized it as "...you just need to teach it with a historical perspective. We have an obligation to our children to allow them to learn about both sides of the Civil War. " So even as a positive review, this book gives a one-sided view that requires teaching the other side from some other source.

I'm having my doubts that a public school in Louisiana that purchases $500 books for middle school is purchasing any other books to go along with them to balance out the viewpoint.

 

[coffee4u]

Do we want children to think that maybe human beings “owning” other human beings might be something that they’d like to try?

We want teenagers to be able to think critically by having all the facts so they become informed and educated in the truth. So that the belief that something is right or wrong becomes their own from good reasons, not something someone on high has simply handed down to them.

Kids when taught properly are quite smart enough to spot that things like slavery, murder and robbery are indeed wrong, along with spotting the lies and corruption in leaders.
You may want to show a little more faith in them.

The fact so many here are arguing about this shows you all think it's fine to dumb down kids. Do you want to be spoon fed by your leaders? Going to drink in every word from Trump or Biden or whichever clown the US elect next? Then again I see you are from the left, I guess that is exactly what the left would like to see to see, a generation of adults too stupid to think for themselves.

 

[coffee4u]

I was going to buy this book "Louisiana Our History, Our Home," to make a judgment myself, but hokey smokes, Bullwinkle, a copy costs Five Hundred Dollars on Amazon. Even used, it costs $250.

The Amazon reviews uniformly called it one-sided in its sympathetic view of slavery, however.

Even the one positive reviewer characterized it as "...you just need to teach it with a historical perspective. We have an obligation to our children to allow them to learn about both sides of the Civil War. " So even as a positive review, this book gives a one-sided view that requires teaching the other side from some other source.

Crikey. Either it's out of print and hard to get or the book is so bad that they made it too expensive for regular people to buy.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I wasn't talking about that, just the part where they are force fed propaganda.
They don't get to make up their own minds by being presented a range of facts.

Then you are talking about totalitarian propagandists, not "communism". Did the Soviets use totalitarian propaganda? YES, emphatically, YES. But, that does not make all propaganda communist. Please be more careful in you use of words, it helps if you want to be taken seriously.

 

[98cwitr]

Crikey. Either it's out of print and hard to get or the book is so bad that they made it too expensive for regular people to buy.

Don't worry. Nothing is too expensive when it comes to shouldering it onto the tax payers.

 

[98cwitr]

Then you are talking about totalitarian propagandists, not "communism". Did the Soviets use totalitarian propaganda? YES, emphatically, YES. But, that does not make all propaganda communist. Please be more careful in you use of words, it helps if you want to be taken seriously.

Can't have one without the other. Communism is antithetical to liberty, and human nature and human rights both have liberty as a foundational tenant. Therefore, communism, to implement, requires totalitarian action.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Can't have one without the other. Communism is antithetical to liberty, and human nature and human rights both have liberty as a foundational tenant. Therefore, communism, to implement, requires totalitarian action.

That's really weird since I remember a whole lot of Christian communes. The descriptions of Jesus and his disciples sure sounds like a "share all that you have and keep nothing for yourself" commune (albeit a wandering one). The 19th century is littered with utopian communes, most of them with strong Christian aspects to them. The early Israeli kibbutzim were communes as were all of those Hippy communes.

Were they all propped up by propaganda? Did they take away people's liberty? Sure some of them (well a lot) turned into sex cults, but not all of them. Sounds like communism doesn't require totalitarian action.

 

[98cwitr]

That's really weird since I remember a whole lot of Christian communes. The descriptions of Jesus and his disciples sure sounds like a "share all that you have and keep nothing for yourself" commune (albeit a wandering one). The 19th century is littered with utopian communes, most of them with strong Christian aspects to them. The early Israeli kibbutzim were communes as were all of those Hippy communes.

Were they all propped up by propaganda? Did they take away people's liberty? Sure some of them (well a lot) turned into sex cults, but not all of them. Sounds like communism doesn't require totalitarian action.

Commune != communism

A "christian commune" applied on a national scale to govern all the people within the "commune" would be a theocracy. Do you want a theocracy? No commune was utopian long term. None lasted.

 

[rturner76]

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.

China?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Commune != communism

A "christian commune" applied on a national scale to govern all the people within the "commune" would be a theocracy. Do you want a theocracy? No commune was utopian long term. None lasted.

What do you think they practice in a commune? Dog-eat-dog capitalism?

Did you mean "state communism"? Well then say so.

The durability of a commune or communist state is irrelevant to whether then claim of "communism" earlier in the thread is communism. (It is clearly not communism.)

I have no interest in you theocracy and will fight it with every last breath.

None of this has anything to do with the textbook or the slavocracy it whitewashes and supports.

 

[Nithavela]

Kids when taught properly are quite smart enough to spot that things like slavery, murder and robbery are indeed wrong, along with spotting the lies and corruption in leaders.
You may want to show a little more faith in them.

If kids are smart enough to figure out that slavery is wrong, why did the institution of slavery survive for the majority of mankinds history?

 

[rjs330]

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.

Is any of that untrue? Based upon what was happening to the they were forced to do so. When they realized what was happening they did send their slaves cause they were forced to leave.

It's not sympathetic to describe actual events.

 

[rjs330]

Crikey. Either it's out of print and hard to get or the book is so bad that they made it too expensive for regular people to buy.

No it's very typical for textbooks. Textbooks are very expensive. Some more than others. And we wonder why college education costs so much cause kids have to by their own and it costs them thousands.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Crikey. Either it's out of print and hard to get or the book is so bad that they made it too expensive for regular people to buy.

Given the price of textbooks these days, $500 isn't nearly as much a markup you'd think.

 

[TLK Valentine]

No it's very typical for textbooks. Textbooks are very expensive. Some more than others. And we wonder why college education costs so much cause kids have to by their own and it costs them thousands.

And textbooks aren't even covered under tuition -- students are expected to buy their own.

 

[rjs330]

If kids are smart enough to figure out that slavery is wrong, why did the institution of slavery survive for the majority of mankinds history?

It's because the society they lived in practiced it. Just like in Muslim countries they are taught that it's okay to beat women and kill gay men. When a society embraces it, it becomes common culture.

We no longer have that common culture. We are a free society and our laws keep it that way. Kids don't look around them and see slavery. They see freedom and our whole society eschews slavery. So specifically telling them slavery is bad isn't necessary to change behavior. Merely showing them the horrors of slavery and what was going on is enough to support their already established slaveless mores and culture.