Princess Peach Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 We are using Bob Jones for 4th grade history. I do not agree with everything BJU stands for, but it is a pretty solid textbookish program and that is what I wanted. Anywho, we are learning about immigration and I was shocked to see that they have slaves listed as immigrants. They do clarify that it was not their choice to come to America, but they are lumped in with immigrants, nonetheless. I have not seen the 3rd grade textbook, so I don't know how slavery was taught there. My kids were taught about slavery last year and understand what it is. I read the 4th grade text aloud. When I got to the part about slaves being immigrants, I clarified that I disagreed (in fact, I told them that they were not immigrants and we discussed why not). However, it really bothers me. Am I incorrect? Is there actually a school of thought that slaves were immigrants? In related disturbing textbook ideas, there is also a pie chart that depicts the population of the US in 1790. It is divided into 3 parts. One part lists: English, Welsh, Scots, and Scots-Irish. Another part lists: Germans, Dutch, and others. The third part says: Blacks. :001_huh: Am I being overly sensitive here? Has anyone else had these issues with this curriculum? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 Considering the long and despicable legacy of official racism and bigotry at Bob Jones University, I don't think you're being too sensitive. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 BJU has had major issues irt ethnicity, slavery, genders, etc. Doesn't surprise me that they would try to minimize what slavery was in this manner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrs.m Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 I would not have worded it that way but they are using the definition of immigrant correctly. It would be offensive if they were dropping the idea that they were slaves which it sounds like they aren't. But I don't use BJU texts so without the complete context it is hard to say what they meant. (sorry for the bold formating. I just cut and paste.) <H2>im·mi·grant [ Ãmmigrənt ] somebody settling in country: a newcomer to a country who has settled there plant or animal in new place: a plant or animal that establishes itself in a place where it was not found before settling in another country: relating to those who have come to settle in another country Synonyms: settler, émigré, migrant, refugee, colonist, colonizer See full definition · Encarta World English Dictionary </H2> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathleen in VA Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 My Oxford English Dictionary defines immigrant as "a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country." In that sense I suppose slaves were immigrants. I think the word is understood by many to mean a person who decided to come to another country to live, but technically the textbook is correct - and they did clarify the point that the slaves did not choose to come. That said, I don't think BJU is famous for their sensitivity towards the black community. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alte Veste Academy Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 Am I incorrect? Is there actually a school of thought that slaves were immigrants? In related disturbing textbook ideas, there is also a pie chart that depicts the population of the US in 1790. It is divided into 3 parts. One part lists: English, Welsh, Scots, and Scots-Irish. Another part lists: Germans, Dutch, and others. The third part says: Blacks. :001_huh: Am I being overly sensitive here? Has anyone else had these issues with this curriculum? You are not being overly sensitive. I have a lot of things to say on this issue that might end in locked threads and my first banning, so I will refrain. :tongue_smilie: I would not have worded it that way but they are using the definition of immigrant correctly. Correctly...purposefully...evasively... I have other words to substitute but I will stop. Must log out now... :tongue_smilie: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ipsey Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 BJU had a rule against interracial dating at their university until 2000. You can Google it if you'd like. The school's issues with racism are well known. I'm not surprised that they would choose to present the enslavement and transportation of black people as just another form of immigration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orthodox6 Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 Welcome to the world of Bob Jones! . . . a publisher whose products we boycott because of their personal, unsupported opinions about the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Princess Peach Posted September 17, 2011 Author Share Posted September 17, 2011 Good gravy, I can't switch now. At least I read it out loud, so I can edit it. :glare: I have been researching BJU and the history. I am not pleased. What is another textbookish curriculum for future reference? I know a lot of folks hate textbooks, but my DD responds well to that format. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halftime Hope Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 (edited) In related disturbing textbook ideas, there is also a pie chart that depicts the population of the US in 1790. It is divided into 3 parts. One part lists: English, Welsh, Scots, and Scots-Irish. Another part lists: Germans, Dutch, and others. The third part says: Blacks. :001_huh: Am I being overly sensitive here? Has anyone else had these issues with this curriculum? No snark here, just a sincere question. What would you have prefered that the pie chart labels be? BTW, I recently compared the newer and older editions of the BJU high school US History. They have made significant progress in the rewrite, exhibiting much more cultural senstivity and giving a broader POV than before. (I'm not attempting to rationalize or advocate for BJU, just stating a fact.) Edited September 17, 2011 by Valerie(TX) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tangerine Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 I guess, by the dictionary, you could also say they worked for room and board. But that would be misleading as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Princess Peach Posted September 17, 2011 Author Share Posted September 17, 2011 No snark here, just a sincere question. What would you have prefered that the pie chart labels be? Africans. The other labels have to do with country of origin, not race. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halftime Hope Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 Africans. The other labels have to do with country of origin, not race. That's exactly what I would have said. : ) My labels would have been UK, Europe and Africa. Nicely parallel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrs.m Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 Good gravy, I can't switch now. At least I read it out loud, so I can edit it. :glare: I have been researching BJU and the history. I am not pleased. What is another textbookish curriculum for future reference? I know a lot of folks hate textbooks, but my DD responds well to that format. The Complete Book of US History Or A History of US I have a textbook lover here too... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the4Rs Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 Wow..this is eye opening for me too. I am also using BJU for history and science with my daughter who loves textbooks. I hadn't seen the racism in first or second grade but this does concern me. We can't afford to change this year but now I'm going to have to reconsider for future years which really bums me out because I liked what I'd seen thus far. But we are planning to add to our family from Africa within the next year or two and I cannot in good conscience use something that would be deragatory to any of my children. That's so sad in this day and age. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrothead Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 It is not only (sorry I don't know the correct term) black people that BJU texts are deceitful in depicting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abbeyej Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 There are plenty of reasons to be concerned about BJU history, *but*, in this case, I can see how African slaves would be included in a list of "people from various parts of the world who came to North America, stayed permanently, and impacted the culture and landscape forever". ... The word "immigrant" doesn't require that the move be voluntary or towards a "better" place. Obviously those things wouldn't apply to slaves -- kidnapped, tortured, brought here against their will, forced into inhuman roles... But "voluntary" and "better place" aren't implied by the word "immigrant" anyway. I think it's a good conversation point. How were slaves immigrants? How was their immigration to the US radically different from various types of European immigrants? And there are many types: those who came as debtors and petty criminals to populate the penal colony of Georgia; indentured servants; second-sons of aristocrats looking for land of their own; adventurers; serfs and peasants from both Eastern and Western Europe; Chinese who came to work the railroads; etc, etc. All of these did technically "immigrate" to North America / the US. Some voluntarily, some under compulsion, and many in some gray area in between. All that said, *this* word (in the context as I understand it from your description -- obviously I'm not reading the text for myself) might not send me over the edge. But I avoid BJU materials for a variety of reasons, and their ... unique ... perspective on some historical events is one of those reasons. I do think there's a tendency to whitewash (erm, no pun intended) much of white, protestant history while distorting the history related to other groups. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathleen in VA Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 (edited) Are all black people from Africa? I read an article once by a black author who found the label "African-American" offensive since he/she (can't remember now) didn't come from Africa even though they were black. Would "Africans" on the chart be just as offensive? And, if not all blacks come from Africa, from what other countries do they originate? Sincerely interested to know, that's all. ETA: Also, I know that many Scotch/Irish were brought to this country against their will and sold as slaves as well. While researching dh's geneaology we found that one of his ancestors in the 1600s operated a slave ship that did just that. Ugh. Edited September 17, 2011 by Kathleen in VA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 It is not only (sorry I don't know the correct term) black people that BJU texts are deceitful in depicting. Exactly... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 I guess, by the dictionary, you could also say they worked for room and board. But that would be misleading as well. One could say even say they got free passage on a cruise ship. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trish Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 What's the other option, Native Americans? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alte Veste Academy Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 There are plenty of reasons to be concerned about BJU history, *but*, in this case, I can see how African slaves would be included in a list of "people from various parts of the world who came to North America, stayed permanently, and impacted the culture and landscape forever". ... The word "immigrant" doesn't require that the move be voluntary or towards a "better" place. Obviously those things wouldn't apply to slaves -- kidnapped, tortured, brought here against their will, forced into inhuman roles... But "voluntary" and "better place" aren't implied by the word "immigrant" anyway. I think it's a good conversation point. How were slaves immigrants? How was their immigration to the US radically different from various types of European immigrants? And there are many types: those who came as debtors and petty criminals to populate the penal colony of Georgia; indentured servants; second-sons of aristocrats looking for land of their own; adventurers; serfs and peasants from both Eastern and Western Europe; Chinese who came to work the railroads; etc, etc. All of these did technically "immigrate" to North America / the US. Some voluntarily, some under compulsion, and many in some gray area in between. You know, I could agree with this but, on a strictly semantic note (:tongue_smilie:), aren't immigrants people who have emigrated? Because emigrate means to leave one country or region for another, not be taken forcibly, bought and sold, etc. To me the process of immigration begins with emigration and, therefore, implies that the emigrant/immigrant had some choice in the matter. As to the rest, I see your point and agree that it's a valuable discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orthodox6 Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 Not a direct answer, but another common ignorant conclusion by some is that people from India are "blacks". Personal opinion, but I think the author referenced was being squiffy for no useful reason. My husband was born in the U.S. (first generation), but of course he acknowledges that he is Greek. Our children, then, are "Greek-American", despite all being born here. Are all black people from Africa? I read an article once by a black author who found the label "African-American" offensive since he/she (can't remember now) didn't come from Africa even though they were black. Would "Africans" on the chart be just as offensive? And, if not all blacks come from Africa, from what other countries do they originate? Sincerely interested to know, that's all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orthodox6 Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 You know, I could agree with this but, on a strictly semantic note (:tongue_smilie:), aren't immigrants people who have emigrated? Because emigrate means to leave one country or region for another, not be taken forcibly, bought and sold, etc. To me the process of immigration begins with emigration and, therefore, implies that the emigrant/immigrant had some choice in the matter. n. :iagree: . . . with the exception that one could be forced out of one's home and end up living in another country. Example: The government mandated, and forcibly carried out, exchange of populations between Greece and Turkey in 1923. I would posit that the affected peoples were both emigres and refugees. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orthodox6 Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 Well the british colonials certainly referred to Indian natives as both blacks and N***s. So I guess Im not following... Indians are not from Africa. That was my point. (nor are they black!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orthodox6 Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 Well in any case, this would be one of the LEAST objectionable facets of using BJU IMO. But then I am one of those godless pope worshiping catholics, so Im obviously prejudiced against BJU.;) I was waiting for an RC to join in! :) No way under sun can this EO use a BJUP social sciences textbook! :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orthodox6 Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 History disagrees with you. I think this is a silly semantic game. Rather like when that author caused a huge stir by saying Obama isnt black bc he isnt of west african descent. Black was used for any people of color who were being denigrated by colonialists.:lol Not just africans. [sigh. . .] Historical usage does not always correspond to what actually is the case. I think you and I both are aware of that. Let's let this go. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alenee Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 Well the british colonials certainly referred to Indian natives as both blacks and N***s. So I guess Im not following... If "blacks" is offensive and we want country of origin on the pie chart, wouldn't "African" be true *for that time period*? The slaves were taken from Africa... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laura Corin Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 (edited) No snark here, just a sincere question. What would you have prefered that the pie chart labels be? It should be one thing or the other. Either you have 'white' and 'black' as designations, or 'European' and 'African', or you list the countries that the slaves came from, in the same way as the immigrants' countries are listed. Laura Edited September 17, 2011 by Laura Corin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alenee Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 It should be one thing or the other. Either you have 'white' and 'black' as designations, or 'European' and 'African', or you list the countries that the slaves came from, in the same way as the other immigrants' countries are listed. Laura Agreed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Princess Peach Posted September 17, 2011 Author Share Posted September 17, 2011 Interesting discussion. I would also vehemently disagree with an anti-Catholic view, as well. I have not come across this yet. When/if I do (sigh), I will address this appropriately with my kids. Thanks to the poster that suggested the other resources. I did use the Story of Us with oldest DS last year, so I can always revisit that in later years. Our library has the whole set. I am unhappy with my choice of BJU, but I will just have to carefully pick through everything and make different choices next year. I am really annoyed that the curriculum offends so many people.:glare: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WishboneDawn Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 I was waiting for an RC to join in! :) No way under sun can this EO use a BJUP social sciences textbook! :) Chucki commented much earlier. She was just very subtle.;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mabelen Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 That's exactly what I would have said. : ) My labels would have been UK, Europe and Africa. Nicely parallel. The UK is part of Europe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simka2 Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 Interesting discussion. I would also vehemently disagree with an anti-Catholic view, as well. I have not come across this yet. When/if I do (sigh), I will address this appropriately with my kids. Thanks to the poster that suggested the other resources. I did use the Story of Us with oldest DS last year, so I can always revisit that in later years. Our library has the whole set. I am unhappy with my choice of BJU, but I will just have to carefully pick through everything and make different choices next year. I am really annoyed that the curriculum offends so many people.:glare: If this bothers you there are other curriculums that may bother you as well. Sorry, I am a bit gun shy and choose not to spend my morning ducking fruit, but if you want to pm me we can chat. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alte Veste Academy Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 I am really annoyed that the curriculum offends so many people.:glare: I'm more annoyed that there are enough people who aren't offended by the books that they are still in print and reasonably popular. :leaving: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
annandatje Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 BJU had a rule against interracial dating at their university until 2000. You can Google it if you'd like. The school's issues with racism are well known. I'm not surprised that they would choose to present the enslavement and transportation of black people as just another form of immigration. Particularly since immigration has a negative connotation to it these days. BJU did not admit African Americans until sometime in the 1970s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Princess Peach Posted September 17, 2011 Author Share Posted September 17, 2011 I'm more annoyed that there are enough people who aren't offended by the books that they are still in print and reasonably popular. :leaving: Well, yeah. But I had no idea about these issues. I did a lot of research on curriculum and there is a lot of positive stuff out there about BJU. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Princess Peach Posted September 17, 2011 Author Share Posted September 17, 2011 If this bothers you there are other curriculums that may bother you as well. Sorry, I am a bit gun shy and choose not to spend my morning ducking fruit, but if you want to pm me we can chat. ;) Check your pm's. And thanks. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alte Veste Academy Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 Well, yeah. But I had no idea about these issues. I did a lot of research on curriculum and there is a lot of positive stuff out there about BJU. Oh, yes! I totally got that you didn't know when you bought it. I'm talking about all the people who do know and still like/use/recommend/keep buying it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justasque Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 In related disturbing textbook ideas, there is also a pie chart that depicts the population of the US in 1790. It is divided into 3 parts. One part lists: English, Welsh, Scots, and Scots-Irish. Another part lists: Germans, Dutch, and others. The third part says: Blacks. :001_huh: I would want the pie chart to list the terms used in the original, primary document/source. That is, if it's from the census, what terms did that census ask people to use to describe themselves? AND I'd want 1) a source reference, and 2) an explanation that the census has changed through the years, or that we wouldn't group people this way today, or whatever. Wiki says that the census of 1790 counted "free white males at least 16 years of age, free white males under 16 years of age, free white females, all other free persons (reported by sex and color), and slaves." I'm not sure how "color" was interpreted at that time, nor am I sure how "white" was generally defined. (And just to be clear, I am baffled and horrified as to how a group of Americans could be against inter-racial dating as late as eleven years ago, and how such an institution could thrive, given their beliefs.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 Oh, yes! I totally got that you didn't know when you bought it. I'm talking about all the people who do know and still like/use/recommend/keep buying it! When I first came to this forum (actually the old board) I was shocked that BJU was accepted in polite company. I'm still shocked. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingersmom Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 I'm more annoyed that there are enough people who aren't offended by the books that they are still in print and reasonably popular. :leaving: :iagree: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justasque Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 I would want the pie chart to list the terms used in the original, primary document/source. That is, if it's from the census, what terms did that census ask people to use to describe themselves? AND I'd want 1) a source reference, and 2) an explanation that the census has changed through the years, or that we wouldn't group people this way today, or whatever. Wiki says that the census of 1790 counted "free white males at least 16 years of age, free white males under 16 years of age, free white females, all other free persons (reported by sex and color), and slaves." I'm not sure how "color" was interpreted at that time, nor am I sure how "white" was generally defined. (And just to be clear, I am baffled and horrified as to how a group of Americans could be against inter-racial dating as late as eleven years ago, and how such an institution could thrive, given their beliefs.) OK, so I looked it up, and in the 1790 census data I found, the "all other free persons" was not actually broken down by sex and color. So the sensible groupings would be (assuming you wanted to simplify), --Free whites (male and female) --Other free people --Slaves From the categories, it's clear to me the census folks weren't assuming that white=free or black=slaves. And where did BJU get the nationality part? Were they just assuming definitions for white and not-white? OP, was there a reference on that pie chart? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 We don't use abeka, BJU or Omnibus. This forum has gone round and round about these issues, so I will leave it at that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simka2 Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 We don't use abeka, BJU or Omnibus. This forum has gone round and round about these issues, so I will leave it at that. Yes, except I had to add all Veritas Press to my list. :glare: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halftime Hope Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 The UK is part of Europe. you are right. Back then, not so much. Probably not even UK, either, back then. I toyed with the idea of British Isles instead of UK. Whatever. British Empire, anyone? The OP and I knew what we meant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halftime Hope Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 When I first came to this forum (actually the old board) I was shocked that BJU was accepted in polite company. I'm still shocked. Bill You know? You and everyone else who feels this way is welcome to that viewpoint, but you need to understand that some of us are just sick to death of all the many ways (and this is just one of them) that people allow contention to play such a large part of their lives. I never thought I'd take this side of an issue, because I'm a non-conformist, and I don't particularly care for textbooks, but BJU is solid, well-thought out curriculum. It has served many thoughtful people very well. With any curriculum there will be biases--I don't care for Abeka's Great White Hope/Manifest Destiny leanings, either. But I'm not going to make broad-brush judgements about the people who use it and their motives. And with that, I've said my piece and won't engage on this thread anymore. I live with teens, and I'm so done with contention. (One is on the other side of it now. There is hope!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Princess Peach Posted September 17, 2011 Author Share Posted September 17, 2011 No reference on the pie chart. The text around it says, "Soon Scottish, Welsh, Dutch, and Irish immigrants had come to live in the English colonies. And, too, there were immigrants who came from many countries in Africa. What do you remember about those immigrants?" :ack2: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Princess Peach Posted September 17, 2011 Author Share Posted September 17, 2011 You know? You and everyone else who feels this way is welcome to that viewpoint, but you need to understand that some of us are just sick to death of all the many ways (and this is just one of them) that people allow contention to play such a large part of their lives. I never thought I'd take this side of an issue, because I'm a non-conformist, and I don't particularly care for textbooks, but BJU is solid, well-thought out curriculum. It has served many thoughtful people very well. With any curriculum there will be biases--I don't care for Abeka's Great White Hope/Manifest Destiny leanings, either. But I'm not going to make broad-brush judgements about the people who use it and their motives. And with that, I've said my piece and won't engage on this thread anymore. I live with teens, and I'm so done with contention. (One is on the other side of it now. There is hope!) Just wanted to comment on this. I understand your POV. I cannot and will not rid our homeschool of BJU stuff this year. I spent a lot of money on it and my budget is gone. My kids are doing well with it and it is academically solid, imo. I am now aware of the biases that exist there and I will edit accordingly throughout the year. However, if I had known then what I know now, I would have purchased something different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jennifer3141 Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 Considering the long and despicable legacy of official racism and bigotry at Bob Jones University, I don't think you're being too sensitive. Bill :iagree: Yuck. And this is why BJU stuff is banned in our home. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.