I would have to see the text book as a whole to see if it whitewashes slavery. But if it's just the one graphic/section than this is an overreaction.
(10-06-2015 09:44 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote: [ -> ]I would have to see the text book as a whole to see if it whitewashes slavery. But if it's just the one graphic/section than this is an overreaction.
What's ridiculous is their lack of reading ability. The section in question says The
African slave trade ... brought over millions of workers.
I don't know how a sentence with the words "African slave trade" can be interpreted as downplaying slavery.
But we have a lot of stupid people in this country who overreact to things.
(10-06-2015 10:09 AM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ] (10-06-2015 09:44 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote: [ -> ]I would have to see the text book as a whole to see if it whitewashes slavery. But if it's just the one graphic/section than this is an overreaction.
What's ridiculous is their lack of reading ability. The section in question says The African slave trade ... brought over millions of workers.
I don't know how a sentence with the words "African slave trade" can be interpreted as downplaying slavery.
But we have a lot of stupid people in this country who overreact to things.
Didn't the sentence say "“The Atlantic Slave Trade between the 1500s and 1800s brought millions of workers from Africa to the southern United States to work on agricultural plantations.”
Uh -- not being nitpicky here, just wondering where you got "African slave trade" ...
maybe I'm missing something?
As for using 'workers,' I gotta say that's probably not the best way to describe people who were forcefully relocated from one country to another and then required to labor, toil, work, whatever.
(10-06-2015 10:25 AM)gsu95 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-06-2015 10:09 AM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ] (10-06-2015 09:44 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote: [ -> ]I would have to see the text book as a whole to see if it whitewashes slavery. But if it's just the one graphic/section than this is an overreaction.
What's ridiculous is their lack of reading ability. The section in question says The African slave trade ... brought over millions of workers.
I don't know how a sentence with the words "African slave trade" can be interpreted as downplaying slavery.
But we have a lot of stupid people in this country who overreact to things.
Didn't the sentence say "“The Atlantic Slave Trade between the 1500s and 1800s brought millions of workers from Africa to the southern United States to work on agricultural plantations.”
Uh -- not being nitpicky here, just wondering where you got "African slave trade" ...
maybe I'm missing something?
As for using 'workers,' I gotta say that's probably not the best way to describe people who were forcefully relocated from one country to another and then required to labor, toil, work, whatever.
Still don't see the big deal, the words "Slave Trade" were used.
(10-06-2015 10:25 AM)gsu95 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-06-2015 10:09 AM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ] (10-06-2015 09:44 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote: [ -> ]I would have to see the text book as a whole to see if it whitewashes slavery. But if it's just the one graphic/section than this is an overreaction.
What's ridiculous is their lack of reading ability. The section in question says The African slave trade ... brought over millions of workers.
I don't know how a sentence with the words "African slave trade" can be interpreted as downplaying slavery.
But we have a lot of stupid people in this country who overreact to things.
Didn't the sentence say "“The Atlantic Slave Trade between the 1500s and 1800s brought millions of workers from Africa to the southern United States to work on agricultural plantations.”
Uh -- not being nitpicky here, just wondering where you got "African slave trade" ...
maybe I'm missing something?
As for using 'workers,' I gotta say that's probably not the best way to describe people who were forcefully relocated from one country to another and then required to labor, toil, work, whatever.
I did it from memory reading it a couple hours before I posted. It
was "Atlantic" slave trade and from "Africa."
It sounds pretty bad to say the Slave trade brought slaves. Its simple good writing that you don't repeat words. Just as you don't say "African slave trade" and from Africa in the same sentence.
They were "workers" in addition to being slaves. European "workers" in that climate tended to die of malaria.
Our country is turning in to a bunch of ******* and idiots.
(10-06-2015 10:09 AM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ] (10-06-2015 09:44 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote: [ -> ]I would have to see the text book as a whole to see if it whitewashes slavery. But if it's just the one graphic/section than this is an overreaction.
What's ridiculous is their lack of reading ability. The section in question says The African slave trade ... brought over millions of workers.
I don't know how a sentence with the words "African slave trade" can be interpreted as downplaying slavery.
But we have a lot of stupid people in this country who overreact to things.
I'm pretty sure it is a historical fact that native Africans provided the slaves for the slave trade. They simply raided other weaker tribes, captured their enemies and sold them into slavery. It's pretty clear that Africans were complicit in the trade.
I suspect that had the section said European Slave Trade, that would have sit better.
I have a problem with the mindset of the little boy saying "we".
Never in my life have a associated myself as being a part of centuries old
human beings.
"The Atlantic Slave Trade... brought workers..."
What else could be read here? "The Slave trade brought employees"?
Then it wouldn't be a slave trade, right?
It'd be a "shovel ready jobs program" lol.
(10-06-2015 10:25 AM)gsu95 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-06-2015 10:09 AM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ] (10-06-2015 09:44 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote: [ -> ]I would have to see the text book as a whole to see if it whitewashes slavery. But if it's just the one graphic/section than this is an overreaction.
What's ridiculous is their lack of reading ability. The section in question says The African slave trade ... brought over millions of workers.
I don't know how a sentence with the words "African slave trade" can be interpreted as downplaying slavery.
But we have a lot of stupid people in this country who overreact to things.
Didn't the sentence say "“The Atlantic Slave Trade between the 1500s and 1800s brought millions of workers from Africa to the southern United States to work on agricultural plantations.”
Uh -- not being nitpicky here, just wondering where you got "African slave trade" ...
Yes, you are being nitpicky...
(10-06-2015 12:08 PM)JMUDunk Wrote: [ -> ]"The Atlantic Slave Trade... brought workers..."
What else could be read here? "The Slave trade brought employees"?
Then it wouldn't be a slave trade, right?
It'd be a "shovel ready jobs program" lol.
The slave trade brought property?
The funny part is that McGraw-Hill was probably trying to be PC to begin with and it backfired on them. You really can't win anymore.
(10-06-2015 11:12 AM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ] (10-06-2015 10:25 AM)gsu95 Wrote: [ -> ]Didn't the sentence say "“The Atlantic Slave Trade between the 1500s and 1800s brought millions of workers from Africa to the southern United States to work on agricultural plantations.”
...
As for using 'workers,' I gotta say that's probably not the best way to describe people who were forcefully relocated from one country to another and then required to labor, toil, work, whatever.
I did it from memory reading it a couple hours before I posted. It was "Atlantic" slave trade and from "Africa."
It sounds pretty bad to say the Slave trade brought slaves. Its simple good writing that you don't repeat words. Just as you don't say "African slave trade" and from Africa in the same sentence.
They were "workers" in addition to being slaves. European "workers" in that climate tended to die of malaria.
The problem with that explanation is that the same sentence reads "workers ... to work". I saw the same problem with redundancy there. Perhaps if it read "the Atlantic Slave Trade brought men, women, and children from Africa to work in agriculture", this never would've raised any eyebrows and it would've read better.
I can understand how the caption looked curious to the student, but I think the kerfuffle is overblown. The mother accused the state board of education and politicians in Austin of pressuring the publisher to play down the evils of slavery. That seems possible, but unlikely to me. This was a Geography textbook.
(10-07-2015 01:32 PM)I45owl Wrote: [ -> ] (10-06-2015 11:12 AM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ] (10-06-2015 10:25 AM)gsu95 Wrote: [ -> ]Didn't the sentence say "“The Atlantic Slave Trade between the 1500s and 1800s brought millions of workers from Africa to the southern United States to work on agricultural plantations.”
...
As for using 'workers,' I gotta say that's probably not the best way to describe people who were forcefully relocated from one country to another and then required to labor, toil, work, whatever.
I did it from memory reading it a couple hours before I posted. It was "Atlantic" slave trade and from "Africa."
It sounds pretty bad to say the Slave trade brought slaves. Its simple good writing that you don't repeat words. Just as you don't say "African slave trade" and from Africa in the same sentence.
They were "workers" in addition to being slaves. European "workers" in that climate tended to die of malaria.
The problem with that explanation is that the same sentence reads "workers ... to work". I saw the same problem with redundancy there. Perhaps if it read "the Atlantic Slave Trade brought men, women, and children from Africa to work in agriculture", this never would've raised any eyebrows and it would've read better.
I can understand how the caption looked curious to the student, but I think the kerfuffle is overblown. The mother accused the state board of education and politicians in Austin of pressuring the publisher to play down the evils of slavery. That seems possible, but unlikely to me. This was a Geography textbook.
More likely just someone trying to be offended. Such is the America we live in today.
(10-07-2015 02:14 PM)VA49er Wrote: [ -> ] (10-07-2015 01:32 PM)I45owl Wrote: [ -> ] (10-06-2015 11:12 AM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ] (10-06-2015 10:25 AM)gsu95 Wrote: [ -> ]Didn't the sentence say "“The Atlantic Slave Trade between the 1500s and 1800s brought millions of workers from Africa to the southern United States to work on agricultural plantations.”
...
As for using 'workers,' I gotta say that's probably not the best way to describe people who were forcefully relocated from one country to another and then required to labor, toil, work, whatever.
I did it from memory reading it a couple hours before I posted. It was "Atlantic" slave trade and from "Africa."
It sounds pretty bad to say the Slave trade brought slaves. Its simple good writing that you don't repeat words. Just as you don't say "African slave trade" and from Africa in the same sentence.
They were "workers" in addition to being slaves. European "workers" in that climate tended to die of malaria.
The problem with that explanation is that the same sentence reads "workers ... to work". I saw the same problem with redundancy there. Perhaps if it read "the Atlantic Slave Trade brought men, women, and children from Africa to work in agriculture", this never would've raised any eyebrows and it would've read better.
I can understand how the caption looked curious to the student, but I think the kerfuffle is overblown. The mother accused the state board of education and politicians in Austin of pressuring the publisher to play down the evils of slavery. That seems possible, but unlikely to me. This was a Geography textbook.
More likely just someone trying to be offended. Such is the America we live in today.
I'm convinced there's a significant number of people in this county who when they wake up in the morning their first thought is "What can I get offended by today?"
(10-07-2015 02:21 PM)Kaplony Wrote: [ -> ] (10-07-2015 02:14 PM)VA49er Wrote: [ -> ] (10-07-2015 01:32 PM)I45owl Wrote: [ -> ] (10-06-2015 11:12 AM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ] (10-06-2015 10:25 AM)gsu95 Wrote: [ -> ]Didn't the sentence say "“The Atlantic Slave Trade between the 1500s and 1800s brought millions of workers from Africa to the southern United States to work on agricultural plantations.”
...
As for using 'workers,' I gotta say that's probably not the best way to describe people who were forcefully relocated from one country to another and then required to labor, toil, work, whatever.
I did it from memory reading it a couple hours before I posted. It was "Atlantic" slave trade and from "Africa."
It sounds pretty bad to say the Slave trade brought slaves. Its simple good writing that you don't repeat words. Just as you don't say "African slave trade" and from Africa in the same sentence.
They were "workers" in addition to being slaves. European "workers" in that climate tended to die of malaria.
The problem with that explanation is that the same sentence reads "workers ... to work". I saw the same problem with redundancy there. Perhaps if it read "the Atlantic Slave Trade brought men, women, and children from Africa to work in agriculture", this never would've raised any eyebrows and it would've read better.
I can understand how the caption looked curious to the student, but I think the kerfuffle is overblown. The mother accused the state board of education and politicians in Austin of pressuring the publisher to play down the evils of slavery. That seems possible, but unlikely to me. This was a Geography textbook.
More likely just someone trying to be offended. Such is the America we live in today.
I'm convinced there's a significant number of people in this county who when they wake up in the morning their first thought is "What can I get offended by today?"
You have just defined a "progressive" Democrat.
Any problems with his English book, because his grammar is sh!t.