I’m also a tad bemused by the laziness.
Actually, it’s well-documented. As Kobal2 points out, they were generally enslaved in Africa by other Africans and then sold to the slave traders.
Are you saying you believe the use of the words “worker” or “laborer”, no matter how incidental or contextually correct, to describe in general terms what slaves did confuses students about the realities of slavery? Even if part of a larger discussion which discusses those realities?
“History” is not the topic “allegedly being taught” in this program; that topic would be World Geography. But it’s helpful to know you’ve formed a solid opinion based on a completely careless assessment of the actual situation.
I don’t see that as inherent at all. “Worker” denotes a person’s physical action and production-side economic role. It says nothing about their legal status or their will.
Are child garment “workers” (in New York in the early 20th century, or in Dhaka today) “voluntary laborers,” or “slaves”? Neither label is really fair and accurate, is it. But they are unquestionably working.
The text book manufacturer recognizes that better wording should be used, but is unwilling to issue a new edition over that one matter. That is all. This is a molehill, not a mountain, amigo.
It never should have been in there to begin with - it’s woefully bad for a history book. But they are fixing it.
That little fucker Johnny wasn’t. That layabout spent all day hanging around the water cooler.
At least that’s what my great grandpa told me.
That makes sense. And, as noted, it’s not a history text-- it’s a geography text. Not sure that makes a significant difference since both should reflect reality as closely as possible. But we might as well keep the facts straight if we’re going to go after people for… not keeping the facts straight.
Have you seen many high school history books lately? The ones my kids had were bad in being superficial and in giving no sense of the flow of history. When my daughter was in AP History I bought her a real history book to read. She had no trouble with the AP test.
When I was in AP history, we used The Growth of the American Republic by Morrison and Comager. Now that was a well written book.
You see? American labor is Just Too Dang Expensive! If foreign labor can Do the Job for Less, then we, As 'Mericans, just aren’t working hard enough to be Competitive in this New World Economy.
“So, where’s you wants this here “key-stone” dragged to for your new pyramid, Mr. Pharaoh?”
::raising hand:: I, my wife, my mother, and several of my friends found this appalling when we saw–and shared–the video. I’m frankly shocked at the shrugging here.
I’m with John. Molehill, not mountain.
Aw man, I was ready to get all worked up and then I saw the video. How can you say there was no mention of African’s being slaves when the Atlantic slave trade was in the very first sentence?
'Cause people are a bunch of soft, pissy-pants crybabies.
I think it might be a bit much to tell a black public school student and his mother that their views on textbook references to slavery make them “soft, pissy-pants crybabies.” But without more context, I don’t think this is really disagreeable.
The textbook has the numbers wrong, doesn’t it? Millions of Africans were enslaved, but isn’t the current best estimate that less than half a million were brought to the US (with the rest going to the Caribbean and South America)?
Only ~5 to 10% of all African slaves who were transported across the Atlantic ended up in North America, yes (hard numbers are obviously impossible to get).
But then again treatment of slaves (and Native Americans) was very different in the Spanish and French part of the Americas, too.
TIL that what slaves didn’t wasn’t work.