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.