McGraw-Hill to rewrite textbook after mom's complaint

originally posted by: DeadFoot

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.

Call it what it was..SLAVERY !! emotional or not that is exactly what was, and you know very well they are busy obscuring and watering the issue for their own political and emotional benefit because the next step is to say that slavery was nonexistent.

a reply to: Spider879

The words "workers" and "immigrants" are neutral words.

There is really no obligation to highlight the entirety of a textbook to a negative-wording standard. Simply because the general opinions surrounding the topic determine that the practice was rather deplorable.

Again, it's just a juvenile knee-jerk reaction, and a complete waste of money.

originally posted by: DeadFoot
a reply to: Spider879
The words "workers" and "immigrants" are neutral words.

Well, you wouldn't say that if you got a job, and they refused to pay you and refused to let you leave. You'd sure as hell recognise the nuances then, wouldn't you?