It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

McGraw-Hill to rewrite textbook after mom's complaint

page: 2
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 5 2015 @ 09:42 PM
link   
How about they put this in history books ???????






posted on Oct, 5 2015 @ 09:42 PM
link   
Thanks Spider, I was wondering how long this would take before it was posted on ATS.


And I find it very offensive, it totally ignores... *sigh* I got to take a step back, was about to "go hard in the paint".

Yea, it's total bull. However McGraw Hill is going to change that. At least McGraw listened in this issue, I'll give them that



posted on Oct, 5 2015 @ 09:44 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

That list isn't wholeholly accurate. But whatever let's you sleep at night and convinces you that the white man did blacvk americans a favor.

A. Johnson

That's the short bio for one of your quotes but by all means, promote Ignorance. By the way, the Africans didnt have chattel slavery, which is what the Europeans where looking for, heck they didn't even have a word for it.
edit on 5-10-2015 by cenpuppie because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2015 @ 09:52 PM
link   
Texas again. What a surprise.

As memory serves --- Didn't Texas pass some law or something that they can write their own history for school books?


edit on 5-10-2015 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2015 @ 09:56 PM
link   
a reply to: cenpuppie



Anthony Johnson (b. c. 1600 – d. 1670) was an Angolan who achieved freedom in the early 17th-century Colony of Virginia, where he became one of the first African American property owners and slaveholders.


en.wikipedia.org...



William Ellison Jr, born April Ellison, (C. April, 1790 – 5 December 1861) was a cotton gin maker and blacksmith in South Carolina, a free negro and former slave who achieved considerable success in business before the American Civil War. He eventually became a major planter and one of the medium property owners, and certainly the wealthiest "black" property owner, in the state. He held 40 slaves at his death and more than 1,000 acres of land.


en.wikipedia.org...

5 Native American Communities Who Owned Enslaved Africans

Try again.



posted on Oct, 5 2015 @ 10:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: okrian
Telling the truth about the history of our country shouldn't be a political issue. Admitting the gruesome horror of our faults, and coming to terms with the permanent destruction they have done is the only path to moving forward. And the only way to feel a true pride for all the good things our country has done. The only people that make this a political issue are those that don't want to admit what has actually happened here and fight to cover it up through revisionist history.


I don't see many people denying or attempting to deny slavery. History of just about every country has some pretty awful parts to it. It happens. It sucked. People still screaming about slavery today when no one alive was a slave or an owner ( not that type of slavery anyways) gets pretty pathetic. Ugliness has happened to many groups of people in the US over the years. I'm fine talking historically but if someone today is blaming slavery for their current situation in life.....I mean seriously, how long does it take to get your stuff together, forgetting that you weren't a slave, just like I was never an indentured servant and have never seen an " Irish need not apply" sign. Always remember history, after so long though it's no longer a reason, it's an excuse.

As far as the op goes, the lady has a point sort of, they technically were workers. Just not paid and had no freedom, etc. Not sure this is the fight to spend time on. But hey she did and won.



posted on Oct, 5 2015 @ 10:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee
Texas again. What a surprise.

Didn't Texas pass some law that they can write their own history for school books.



When it comes to text books for public schools, what's made in Texas doesn't necessarily stay there.

Unfortunately, Texas is one of the largest suppliers of text books to public schools across the nation and the board that approves these books is dominated by paranoid, neo-religious, right-wingers.

They're attempting to re-write everything from evolution, to slavery, to natural history while condemning all religion not based in Christianity.

Sad, ain't it?



posted on Oct, 5 2015 @ 10:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: Annee
Texas again. What a surprise.

Didn't Texas pass some law that they can write their own history for school books.



When it comes to text books for public schools, what's made in Texas doesn't necessarily stay there.

Unfortunately, Texas is one of the largest suppliers of text books to public schools across the nation and the board that approves these books is dominated by paranoid, neo-religious, right-wingers.

They're attempting to re-write everything from evolution, to slavery, to natural history while condemning all religion not based in Christianity.

Sad, ain't it?


I know. It was discussed on ATS before.

I remember.



posted on Oct, 5 2015 @ 10:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Reallyfolks
As far as the op goes, the lady has a point sort of, they technically were workers. Just not paid and had no freedom, etc. Not sure this is the fight to spend time on. But hey she did and won.


Ahh you just nailed what I was trying to say on page one, though you done it a lot more succinctly than I could hope to have managed. I don't have any cookies so I guess you can have a star.



posted on Oct, 5 2015 @ 10:24 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Then let me be crystal clear, that so called list is totally taken out of context. That is what I expect to see on stormfront with the caption "everyone did it!"

Here you, here is a look at your list but in better context Black Slave owners

Now, try again.



posted on Oct, 5 2015 @ 10:28 PM
link   
The book was at least partially correct. It depends on the time frame really.

From the 1500's through the mid 1600's there were no slaves. There were indentured servants, and by far the majority of them were white. Indentured servants made a deal with a landowner to provide labor and their particular skill or trade in exchange for room and board, living essentials, and upon completion of the contract, a piece of land to call their own. There were paid for their services. No one forced them to become indentured servants. They entered into the contract willingly, albeit often for lack of other serviceable options.

It wasn't until 1654 when Anthony Johnson, a black man and former indentured servant, sued in Virginia for ownership of John Casor, another black man, and won. That decision made Anthony Johnson the very first legally recognized slave owner in America. It wasn't for another ~100 years that the colonies formed and eventually became the United States of America.

We really need to put political correctness aside and just tell the truth. There is no shame in the learning curve of this or any other nation. The only shame is in denying your own history or refusing to learn from it.



posted on Oct, 5 2015 @ 11:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
While I fully understand the gripe...

It wouldn't be grammatically correct to say the slave trade brought over many slaves...

It's stating the obvious...



But yes, "workers" seems like a pretty whitewashed word to use.



Just how often does the 'obvious' slap people in the face?



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 03:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Spider879

I agree with you. This is the whole reason we have Black History Month in the first place; because they keep whitewashing what really happened.

There's a saying that "Those who control the present, control the past. And those who control the past control the future." This is an example of that. If you can change what people believe to be their heritage, history, and precedent, you can shape their advancement & development. This is why there are still some people here who think African Americans were better off during slavery than today. That's because they're never exposed to the real incidences surrounding slavery.

Here's a nice article I want everyone to read about "slave punishments". And the notes at the bottom of the page are jaw dropping. There's no way someone can read this stuff then believe that we were simply brought over as workers & immigrants, or that we were better off then than now.

Slave Punishments



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 03:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
The book was at least partially correct. It depends on the time frame really.

From the 1500's through the mid 1600's there were no slaves. There were indentured servants, and by far the majority of them were white. Indentured servants made a deal with a landowner to provide labor and their particular skill or trade in exchange for room and board, living essentials, and upon completion of the contract, a piece of land to call their own. There were paid for their services. No one forced them to become indentured servants. They entered into the contract willingly, albeit often for lack of other serviceable options.

It wasn't until 1654 when Anthony Johnson, a black man and former indentured servant, sued in Virginia for ownership of John Casor, another black man, and won. That decision made Anthony Johnson the very first legally recognized slave owner in America. It wasn't for another ~100 years that the colonies formed and eventually became the United States of America.

We really need to put political correctness aside and just tell the truth. There is no shame in the learning curve of this or any other nation. The only shame is in denying your own history or refusing to learn from it.


That's not true at all. Christopher Columbus brought African slaves on each of his journeys, literally started enslaving the Taino people the first day he arrived, and created the Caribbean slave trade. This was in the late 1400s through the mid 1500s. And the Spanish & French colonies had African slaves, as well.

I don't understand why everyone only talks about the British colonies when they were neither the first nor the largest European colonies in the Americas.
edit on 6-10-2015 by enlightenedservant because: had typed "people people" instead of "people". durr...



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 04:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: Spider879

I agree with you. This is the whole reason we have Black History Month in the first place; because they keep whitewashing what really happened.

There's a saying that "Those who control the present, control the past. And those who control the past control the future." This is an example of that. If you can change what people believe to be their heritage, history, and precedent, you can shape their advancement & development. This is why there are still some people here who think African Americans were better off during slavery than today. That's because they're never exposed to the real incidences surrounding slavery.

Here's a nice article I want everyone to read about "slave punishments". And the notes at the bottom of the page are jaw dropping. There's no way someone can read this stuff then believe that we were simply brought over as workers & immigrants, or that we were better off then than now.

Slave Punishments


Did you read the lines of text? Honestly, anyone seeing this stuff as some plot to "whitewash history" is really goin to be grasping with this topic.

The language is what is being discussed here and you know that when you are attacking the language of something then you are probably trying to present a pretty boring argument.

I mean, it's not like the textbook said "DIRTY N****RS GOT HAULED IN THE FREIGHT AND THROWN INTO THE DIRT WHERE THEY BELONG, PICKIN'."

So.... being upset about calling the "working" portion of the slave relationship the "workers" seems a little childish to me. What do you exxpect the author to do? Be in a constant state of hyperbole over a history lesson?

It's a textbook, not an editorial. They worked? Workers. They immigrated? Immigrants. It's English. People use different terms for these kinds of things, and when you have to write out this kind of stuff over and over and make it so that a 12-year-old isn't going to literally fall asleep learning it, then you can't just have the entire page use the same old boring descriptions of things over and over and over again.
edit on 6-10-2015 by DeadFoot because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 04:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
In before the "we should just get over slavery because they were sold by black people".

Glad they were able to get the change done.


Victim mentality much? As though black Africans are the only documented slaves throughout history...

In before "only slavery committed by white people should be revisited continually, while everyone else gets a free pass"

Oh wait...



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 04:56 AM
link   
a reply to: DeadFoot

It's not "workers" or "immigrants" when you legally own someone and all of their descendants. It's not "workers" or "immigrants" when these children were sold off at the age of 6 yrs old, just like a person today sells off their extra puppies. It's not "workers" when up to 10% of the "black" population by the time of the Civil War were the product of rape & sex/rape slavery (look up the Census records for mixed people). My own maternal line started with a Muscogee/Creek Indian and her white slave owner. Even Andrew Jackson's first slave was a woman, though no one likes to talk about the forced sex slavery part of the slave trade.

That's the point. It is whitewashing to treat them as merely "workers" & "immigrants" when the situation was far more horrific. Especially when there was a large scale abolition movement at the time which adamantly exposed the true horrors of the slave trade. And did you look at the link I provided in that post? If not, read it then tell me they were just "workers" or "immigrants".
edit on 6-10-2015 by enlightenedservant because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 06:28 AM
link   
My ancestor arrived in America as an indentured servant. If I am remembering right, the English Crown funded their travel expense with the agreement that once they were here they would work for the crown for a certain length of time. which well, the crown released them and everyone else that was part of that work area after the servants rebelled strongly to their conditions. they never did serve the entire time they were supposed to. They weren't force to come here, they came here willingly and their service was under a contract with a set date of when that debt would be paid off. And they agreed to that contract for the same reason that many immigrants come here today...they were looking for something better than the life they had.

In Great Britain back in the day they had workhouses for the poor, the orphaned or unwanted children, the physically or mentally disabled, the elderly, and single mothers. And they even resorted to sending the poor children to America.


There workhouses weren't pleasant places to be in as there were often abuses and rampant hunger. And although one could leave them if one chose to, without a job one wouldn't have a roof over their head or food to eat. Since the workhouses was about all there was in the form of welfare at that time. Some, would commit crimes just so they could be sent to prison because the food and living conditions were better.


And they even resorted to sending the poor children to America.


One solution to the problem of poor children was simply to send them away. In 1619 the first organised emigration of poor children took place when the London Common Council sent 100 vagrant children to join the first permanent English settlement in America at Jamestown, Virginia. After large-scale loss of life during attacks by native Americans in 1620 and 1622, further waves of children were sent to bolster the colonialists' numbers.
www.express.co.uk...


Slavery takes on many forms, from what we think of as the southern plantation (of which, some of those slaves were treated much better than the kids in these workhouses), to indentured servitude, to not so "acts of kindness" for the poor. Weather brought on by war or lousy economic conditions, a slave by any other name is still just a slave.

You listen to how some of the conservatives talk, you'd think that they would love to have these workhouses back into the picture replacing the welfare system.

oh, and I have to add a little spice to this thread...
the first slaves were women as a group, they come in all races, lived in all areas of the world, and except for some rare geographical areas, were bought and sold, treated as property, and expected to play a submissive role. They were seen as being less than men and therefore, suitable to be put into a subservient state. Could it be that being raised with such a family structure planted a seed in men's hearts that they too should enslave or be enslaved depending on their rank in society?


edit on 6-10-2015 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 06:29 AM
link   
Me on pg 1


and pls folks I do not want to get into the whole who is responsible for slavery or why the " Blacks " can't stop braying over it or my Irish great grand daddy was a slave too or close to it, it's not that type of thread we have those aplenty, can we agree that history books are being fkwith for an obvious political agenda and that it needs to stop.


The question is the whitewashing of textbooks not only of the slave era but evolution sharing space with creationism among others not even the Bible is spared.
Right-Wing Group Seeks Help Rewriting the Bible Because It's Not Conservative Enoughwww.alternet.org...
edi t on 6-10-2015 by Spider879 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 05:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: DeadFoot

It's not "workers" or "immigrants" when you legally own someone and all of their descendants.


Did they work? Did they immigrate?

They were workers, and they were immigrants. People are upset because they want it to be highlighted with a harsher language to suit some sort of emotional standpoint; that's really what this is about. And yea, I do find that kind of nitpicking rather childish.

It's a book. It's going to use a bunch of synonyms to convey the meaning. Honestly, I was expecting what it would say to be a lot worse coming in here. Guess I won't get to see anything abhorrent -- at least the emotional knee-jerking is a little entertaining, though.

And no, I didn't read your link. It's completely irrelevant.

Feel however you like; words are still words, and they still mean what they mean.



new topics




 
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join