School textbooks with wrong information, its on the internet...

[Nintendesert]

- 40% of southern families owned at least one slave, so even the "dirt poor" ones owned them at almost a 1 out of every 2 ratio.
- The units were integrated because of my three reasons I mentioned above... the slaves were doing everything else for their owners... it was just another duty for them. And only 5% of blacks lived in the North at that time.
- Most of all, it's disrespectful to explicitly SAY it, in the same way it's disrespectful to say some Jews fought with the Nazis. It lessens the impact of probably the worst era of American history to imply "well hey, some obviously didn't mind being slaves because they fought against the north!" I've been in some areas of the country where they still seem to harbor bad feelings 145 years after the end of the civil war and where black hatred still thrives. Those are the people who want to lessen their ancestors' atrocities of treating thousands of human beings as farm animals. That is exactly why it's mentioned in their textbooks.

Let ALL historical facts be out there and let people draw their own conclusion. Blacks fighting for the South is a historical fact. Just because it doesn't fit your contemporary view of the war and race relations doesn't justify you being a sorry sack of shit revisionist.

 

[guyver01]

The 13th Amendment, ending slavery, was ratified in January 1865.

http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/13thamendment.html

Formally abolishing slavery in the United States, the 13th Amendment was passed by the Congress on January 31, 1865, and ratified by the states on December 6, 1865.

Technically, congress passed it in January.

This seems to me like just a typo.. not really a big "omg.. wrong!" type issue.

 

[2Xtreme21]

Let ALL historical facts be out there and let people draw their own conclusion. Blacks fighting for the South is a historical fact. Just because it doesn't fit your contemporary view of the war and race relations doesn't justify you being a sorry sack of shit revisionist.

I want you to somehow swing "and look at all the blacks that died fighting for slavery" into a way that equally blights the worst part of our history had it not been said, or said differently. It can't.

And, dumbass, historical revisions happen because of personal bias. Believe me-- I would lobby my heart out to get things like this and this included in our textbooks based on freedom of information and "letting all historical facts be out there", but that would mean painting this "great country" in a bad light.

The same way including references to blacks fighting for slavery and renaming the slave trade to the "Atlantic Triangular Trade" would just lessen the true atrocities this country has committed in its history.

Edit: Re-- Lebowski on my facts. In your link it says "47% of total population" for slaves in the lower south. My mistake for not including the rest of the south.

 

[Jadow]

20+ years ago I always thought it was funny that every person in a "story" problem in the math book was Miguel or Jamiqua. I didn't think anything insidious about it then, I know much better now.

What is wrong with Bob or Steve being in a story problem!

 

[2Xtreme21]

20+ years ago I always thought it was funny that every person in a "story" problem in the math book was Miguel or Jamiqua. I didn't think anything insidious about it then, I know much better now.

What is wrong with Bob or Steve being in a story problem!

Just seems like you've grown retarded with age.

What is wrong with Miguel or Jamiqua being in a story problem?

 

[Jadow]

Just seems like you've grown retarded with age.

What is wrong with Miguel or Jamiqua being in a story problem?

Nothing if they're proportionately represented, however minorities are vastly overrepresented in textbooks. It's as if white people with anglo names don't exist in the textbook world.