Discussion: Publisher Agrees To Change Textbook Caption That Describes Slaves As 'Workers'

Discussion for article #241416

“A slave by any other name”….

7 Likes

Disgusting. This is like referring to rape victims as sex partners, or a domestic violence victim as a fight opponent, or a robbery victim as a donor.

22 Likes

Are you fucking kidding me?

Blah blah blah “we will update this caption”…

And not a single conservative school district will purchase the revised edition.

This was deliberate, not an accident, not an oversight, not an honest mistake. It was a MARKETING decision.

14 Likes

Bingo. It is beyond disgusting. Who do they think they’re fooling?

7 Likes

This is really beyond rational belief! And all those PhD’s need to be shamed extensively for this massive blunder. McGraw-Hill is not doing enough to rectify this situation as we have how many school children indoctrinated into some sort of peaceful migration of Africans to America. It is beyond disgusting!

8 Likes

The copies with the mistake in them should be recalled and destroyed.

10 Likes

Wouldn’t the term “slave labor” be about as 100% accurate as possible?

3 Likes

“Intercourse participant”. Nice and neutral.

4 Likes

Apart from the shortcomings McGraw-Hill’s explanation and response, kudos to this woman for her deft use of social media activism. In the video, she keeps it very factual, which makes the point more effective. One woman and her smart kid made a difference.

17 Likes

Time to do a cold reboot of the planet. Obviously, this app has crashed.

2 Likes

Oh geez, now they’ll have to change their War of Northern Aggression chapter too. Because, libruls.

7 Likes

McGraw - Hill, once a paragon of educational publishing in this country, is now reduced to an abject joke. Is this a version with pages printed to satisfy the Texas market only, or has it seeped over the state borders to other school districts as well?

6 Likes

Now, now, ma’am. Let’s all calm down. McGraw-Hill made an honest mistake.

No different from the time its European division — in an German-language history textbook — referred to Auschwitz as a huge, Jews-only tanning salon. These things slip through, when you have a marketing problem and only about 50 academics “reviewing” the book for accuracy.

4 Likes

They’re going to note that they were forced into labor? How white of them. And while we’re on the topic what kind of slavery is not forced labor…and just working?

You can revise a lot of history but you cannot revise slavery.

1 Like

How much do you want to bet that this is the product of Texas Board of Ed’s rewriting of American history AGAIN? (And of course from the big Texas market such crap gets repropagated to lots of other smaller states who can’t dictate terms to the publishers.)

(California would NEVER allow that kind of whitewashing to slip in, I am totally sure.)

1 Like

“Robbery victim as a donor.” I like that, actually.

“No, officer, I never stole that car. The owner donated it to me.”

Or, in Republican speak: “I pointed the gun at him, and he CHOSE to give it to me.”

3 Likes

Since when does “remember the Alamo” mean it’s ok to forget everything else ? ? —

2 Likes

Sort of gives whole new meaning to the term “slave wages.”

On a related note, elsewhere in the book, the term “rape victim” has been replaced with the equivalent term “sex worker.”

1 Like

The slave trade was migration? Through the Door of No Return; chained in filthy ship holds like sardines to then be sold to horrible men like so much livestock.

Slaves were workers? Workers are paid; not forced to see their children taken away and sold.

McGraw-Hill has standards? Sure they do. They write custom propaganda to dis-inform a generation of American school children, but only to the highest bidder.

5 Likes