Texas school curriculum calls slavery "side issue"

[Irbis]

One should expect a history book to be accurate. If it deliberately re-writes history to be less accurate, then it should not be sold as a history book.

Define accuracy. History is not hard science, 3/4 of it is interpretation of know and suspected facts and as such is open to bias. You'd need something out of whack to not be able to defend it somehow, and I bet a lot of Southern "historians" published papers previously supporting thesis of this book to make it hard to prove ill will.

[Borgholio]

Different interpretations or opinions is one thing, but saying slavery was a side issue is an outright lie given how the Confederacy said it was about slavery from the outset. There's nothing to interpret there.

[lance]

Of course, as it turned out, the South was wrong to presume foreign recognition on the sole basis of the importance of cotton (one Texas Senator had even declared that "even Queen Victoria must bow to King Cotton") and even their supporters overseas, like Liverpool merchant James Spence, proved antislavery (Spence argued that the South would, of course, embark on gradual emancipation after the war. He was eventually fired as his writings proved too controversial in the South).

I thought the main problem with that plan was Egyptian cotton started to be a major thing a little bit before the war.

[Steve]

As I recall, Indian and Egyptian cotton ended up staunching the losses that hurt the British economy. They were further aided by the fact that the Union started taking the cotton-growing regions of the South and resumed cotton exports.

[Elheru Aran]

If the textbook follows such a curriculum, then it is wrong, regardless of correspondence or lack thereof.

No it is not. The textbook has as its one and only purpose for existence to help the student pass what ever class he is taking. If a textbook fails to follow the curriculum than it is going to fail at that one and only duty. And thus it is useless. In fact it is worse than useless as it is an expensive waste of paper, ink and other resources.

If I take your words at face value, then yes, a textbook that does not help the student pass the curriculum is a bad textbook, and one that does help is a good textbook... by the standards of that curriculum.

Logic demands that a badly done curriculum is just as bad as an inaccurate textbook. It doesn't matter if the textbook helps the student pass the curriculum, if that student is not getting an good education out of that curriculum. In this specific case, the textbook is preaching a skewed view of history (well, more skewed than the norm anyway). That makes it a bad textbook regardless of the curriculum, and if the curriculum is sympathetic to this view of history, then that just adds to the problem.

It is vital that textbooks present accurate information about whatever subject they teach, as they are such a fundamental part of education-- a hard reference that can be checked to verify or disqualify information received by other means. As such, regardless of curriculum, an inaccurate textbook is a bad one. Your argument that it isn't if it helps pass the curriculum is sophistry. A bad textbook is a bad textbook. That's why so much attention is paid to them, because they're important.

[Irbis]

Different interpretations or opinions is one thing, but saying slavery was a side issue is an outright lie given how the Confederacy said it was about slavery from the outset. There's nothing to interpret there.

Is it?

Funny that, I heard that USA and Japan jointly called all mention of systemic genocide in China, 1936-1945, published in 50s, absurd invented Commie lies. Japan, from what I saw, mostly still follows that line, even. In China, you have massacres enshrined in history book, but 1989 protests mostly don't exist in any form of written source.

Holocaust? If not for the fact that Jews have huge diaspora that did everything to help cultivate the memory, it would be a commie lie too. Sadly, as a side effect of Jewish work, Holocaust today equates to Jewish genocide. So called "forgotten holocausts", say, equally brutal Nazi attempts to eradicate Gypsies or gays, remain mostly ignored as Gypsies were illiterate, unorganized, cut off behind Iron Curtain group that was easy to ignore and forget.

In Poland, right now, you have rabidly right wing "Institute of National Memory" is "proving" that fascists Polish militias that spent more time cooperating with Germans and killing Poles and Jews in WW2 were really the only underground resistance movement, because anti-Russian heroes. Now, they try to pump this shit into as many textbooks and history papers as possible.

So, where you see that objective truth? All I see is victors and strong groups writing history as they want it to be, lies repeated until they become truth being standard, not exception. Oops, I mean 'interpretations'. Lies is what the other country or group does, no?

[Elheru Aran]

Irbis, just because what's written in popular history books don't reflect those incidents, doesn't mean they didn't happen. These things have been documented at first hand. Those documents are out there and a matter of public record for the most part. The mass of the populace may be ignorant of them, but that does not excuse them nor mean that those events did not happen. Objectivity is difficult to achieve but can exist.

As far as American history goes, the documentation proves that the war was about slavery. Interpreting it to be otherwise requires stretching, or blatant ignorance, of the facts. For any Southern apologist supporting the 'Lost Cause', you should be able to find a proper historical rebuffing of their assholery.

[Purple]

If I take your words at face value, then yes, a textbook that does not help the student pass the curriculum is a bad textbook, and one that does help is a good textbook... by the standards of that curriculum.

And those are the only standards that a textbook should be judged by because they are ultimately its sole purpose for existing.

Logic demands that a badly done curriculum is just as bad as an inaccurate textbook. It doesn't matter if the textbook helps the student pass the curriculum, if that student is not getting an good education out of that curriculum. In this specific case, the textbook is preaching a skewed view of history (well, more skewed than the norm anyway). That makes it a bad textbook regardless of the curriculum, and if the curriculum is sympathetic to this view of history, then that just adds to the problem.

How can you not see the difference? It's not a bad textbook but a good textbook for a flawed curriculum.

a hard reference that can be checked to verify or disqualify information received by other means.

No. That is not what a textbook is for. A textbook is there as a written record of the curriculum. It's purpose is to provide a written record of what is being said in class so that students do not have to memorize it all the first time they hear it or keep notes. It's purpose could perfectly be served by recording the lecture word for word on video and playing it back.

The type of textbook you speak off is something that shows up around when you reach university when they basically hand you proper books meant for actual professionals and actually expect and indeed demand you think. Elementary school history is NOT such a situation. But those aren't textbooks. They are professional books pressed into the role of a textbook.

As such, regardless of curriculum, an inaccurate textbook is a bad one. Your argument that it isn't if it helps pass the curriculum is sophistry. A bad textbook is a bad textbook. That's why so much attention is paid to them, because they're important.

No, my argument is that a tool that does not serve its purpose well is bad. And that a tool that does this is good. A tool is judged exclusively by the effectiveness and efficiency of how it performs the job it is meant to perform.
A handgun that kills innocent babies efficiently and with few stoppages and problems is a perfectly good handgun. It is the purpose for which it is used (killing innocent babies) that is bad. But the gun it self is good.

[Elheru Aran]

a hard reference that can be checked to verify or disqualify information received by other means.

No. That is not what a textbook is for. A textbook is there as a written record of the curriculum. It's purpose is to provide a written record of what is being said in class so that students do not have to memorize it all the first time they hear it or keep notes. It's purpose could perfectly be served by recording the lecture word for word on video and playing it back.

The type of textbook you speak off is something that shows up around when you reach university when they basically hand you proper books meant for actual professionals and actually expect and indeed demand you think. Elementary school history is NOT such a situation. But those aren't textbooks. They are professional books pressed into the role of a textbook.

I think I see the problem here.

Curricula aren't written around textbooks or vice versa across the United States. Generally they're based upon a fairly cursory assumption of the material in the textbook, at least with liberal-arts subjects such as literature and history, and the teachers can often extemporize at length on material that's not particularly covered in the textbooks. Math and sciences do depend upon the textbook a little more. This is why students do have to take notes and pay attention in class-- they can't necessarily learn the subject just by reading the textbook, practical examples that are *not* identical to the textbook are essential to expanding the subject and helping students apply the principles they are learning. I don't have time to elaborate further, but I think the problem you and I are having here is that wherever you live and the States have different approaches to the use of textbooks in class.

[Purple]

I don't have time to elaborate further, but I think the problem you and I are having here is that wherever you live and the States have different approaches to the use of textbooks in class.

That's going to be it than. Where I am from we newer use textbooks in class at all. At least not until I reached university where as I said they weren't textbooks but actual professional grade books for the subjects. In elementary/high school textbooks were something you cracked open at home to freshen up on what was used in class. So if the material had not matched what we were told than we'd have been screwed.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Is it?

Funny that, I heard that USA and Japan jointly called all mention of systemic genocide in China, 1936-1945, published in 50s, absurd invented Commie lies. Japan, from what I saw, mostly still follows that line, even. In China, you have massacres enshrined in history book, but 1989 protests mostly don't exist in any form of written source.

Holocaust? If not for the fact that Jews have huge diaspora that did everything to help cultivate the memory, it would be a commie lie too. Sadly, as a side effect of Jewish work, Holocaust today equates to Jewish genocide. So called "forgotten holocausts", say, equally brutal Nazi attempts to eradicate Gypsies or gays, remain mostly ignored as Gypsies were illiterate, unorganized, cut off behind Iron Curtain group that was easy to ignore and forget.

In Poland, right now, you have rabidly right wing "Institute of National Memory" is "proving" that fascists Polish militias that spent more time cooperating with Germans and killing Poles and Jews in WW2 were really the only underground resistance movement, because anti-Russian heroes. Now, they try to pump this shit into as many textbooks and history papers as possible.

So, where you see that objective truth? All I see is victors and strong groups writing history as they want it to be, lies repeated until they become truth being standard, not exception. Oops, I mean 'interpretations'. Lies is what the other country or group does, no?

So your argument is ... since other people unrelated to this discussion have lied about other things 50 years ago, then the primary documents relating to the causes of the Civil War are suddenly ambiguous and uninterpretable? I mean, in response to people outraged over blatant historical revisionism, your grand response is to just wave your hands and say that other people have done it, too?

[Steve]

Yeah, Irbis, that's a pretty week argument. It sounds almost like what my redneck supervisor argued the night we debated it, that all evidence about the South fighting for slavery was "Yankee lies" and that "Yankees won and wrote the history books".

And honestly, I recall my own textbook learning did refer to the Nazis going after other groups than just Jews. Japanese war crimes were generally limited in mention to Nanjing - in later textbooks - and the Bataan Death March.

[TheFeniX]

This is not news... well it is, but not to someone who got chewed up by the Texas education system 20+ years ago. Slavery has always been taught as a "side issue" in Texas. Here's essentially how my Texas History and US History classes went when I was in school in the late 80s to early 90s.

The war was about State's rights and taxation. The North was bullying the southern states for all that raw material so that the much more industrialized North could turn bigger profits. The Whiskey Rebellion was somehow a part of this. By abolishing slavery, the North could somehow force the South into a spiral, allowing said North to buy up all the cotton (or whatever) at much cheaper prices. As part of this, the "no new slave states" was another way to weaken the South's voting power.

When the war broke out, over State's rights mind you cuz that's what the war was actually about and saying anything else on a test got you marked down, taxation on whiskey and other junk, and over "over-federalization" which the South was heroically fighting against because State's rights > all, Lincoln made the war about slavery to keep other countries out of it and also so there could be no peaceful resolution.

You people have no idea how fucking stupid it gets/got. The Texas Declaration of Causes wasn't even in our textbook, only a paraphrased one which didn't even mention slavery.

[Steve]

Sounds about right. I've often heard the argument that the Northern states were somehow exploiting or planning to exploit the Southern ones.

[Flagg]

What a shock! A state whose entire existence is due to a bunch of slave owning illegal immigrants committing treason against their government (Mexico) when said government banned slavery and was successful and then did the same thing when a President who they thought might possibly one day maybe do something slave owning scum (because there is no other kind) disliked was elected and was very much unsuccessful, wants to downplay the issue of slavery? Oh dear me, I've a case of the vapors!

Oh, and the idiots who threw their lives away for nothing at the Alamo were ordered to abandon it by Sam Houston, the leader of the treachery against Mexico. But it gave them a slogan and got a bunch of worthless assholes killed (and the slaves forced to be there with them freed) so it turned out well for the traitor scum.

[Steve]

To be fair to Sam Houston, he was a Unionist Southerner and opposed secession in 1860, going so far as to refuse to give an oath to the Confederacy as was demanded of him by the Secession Convention and popular furor. Therefore he was removed from his position as Governor of Texas by the Secession Convention. He didn't live to see his prediction of Northern victory come true, though.

I bet they don't teach that in Texan schools either.

[Simon_Jester]

In further fairness, the Anglo Texans who revolted against Mexico had every reason not to think of themselves as 'real' Mexicans any more than the British colonists had reason to think of themselves as 'real' Cherokee in 1760.

So I wouldn't even call it treason. I'd call it, quite simply, an in-filtration of colonists from a foreign country who, having quite thoroughly established domination of a sparsely populated border province, proceeded to lever it away from the country that had previously owned it without exercising any real control over it.

[TheFeniX]

Good sir! I will not idly stand by and allow you to slander the name of Davy Crockett. Wounded and dieing he killed fiddie Mexican soldiers who cowardly murdered him, then hoisted his body up in celebration knowing that some random wounded guy was in fact a famous folk hero. Oh man, that fucking movie.

Anyways, Texas doesn't glorify the South like some education systems do. It's more presented as "slavery was bad and the South was wrong to seceded, but the Confederates had the right idea in some areas, such as State's rights, so lets downplay the shit that only the most racist of asshats could possibly defend." Read: slavery. This is (at least I assume) why they present the idea of a war fought about taxation and State's rights as these are still relevant and defensible today.

Texas' role in the Civil War is/was talked about it a third-party kind of way. We went along (well, they did, my family was meandering around Europe at the time) with the whole thing due to "force" concerning not only our primary exports, but also the threat of Mexican invasion. So, it wasn't really our fault, cmon guys, quit being so mean. It was the other, truly racist states, that did the heavy lifting. Like, we had an honest discussion that, had it been geographically feasible, Texas most likely would have joined the North. Which is.... laughable.

[Steve]

Extremely so. Texas was Southern in culture and outlook at that time.

[Elheru Aran]

The whole notion that Mexico might have invaded Texas in the 1860s is absurd. France was busy 'intervening' in Mexico at the time, trying to keep their puppet Maximilian on the throne. The Mexicans had entirely too much on their hands to be concerned with a former province which had been independent for the past twenty years or so.