Textbook says slaves were immigrants?!

[Mrs Mungo]

I figured as much, but a girl can dream right?! :D

Actually, most recent dream is for there to be "spiritual abuse" seminars at homeschool conferences. Wouldn't that be fun?

 

That way people could directly from one room to that one?

[Slartibartfast]

That way people could directly from one room to that one?

 

I think that would simplify the logistics.

[FaithManor]

The problem with referring to slaves as "immigrants" is that it supplants the true definition of their condition.

 

They were victims of kidnapping, period. Immigrants who came to this country were not brought here in the holds of ships, in chains, beaten, starved, and when they became weak...thrown over board to drown in order to lighten the load. There is no way possible that the term immigrant applies. Innocent prisoners/victims of torture would be an excellent choice of words. An armed mad-man enters my home, drags me against my will to Singapore, and sells me to a brothel or a factory, I think we'd consider it erroneous and egregious to refer to me as an immigrant of Singapore. It would be completely inaccurate to say I "came" to Singapore. No, some evil excuse of a human being came into my home, abducted me, and dragged me kicking and screaming away from my homeland. This is NOT immigration and should never be referred to as such. One can see that if that is the definition historians, governments, educators, and the like used to apply to my predicament, it would be cultivating a false impression.

 

There is more to the definition of many words than what appears in the dictionary. There are cultural, legal, moral, and colloquial useages that must be taken into consideration. Honesty demands that we acknowledge this and call a spade a spade. They were seized, kidnapped, forced, chained, beaten, killed, brutalized, sold, separated forever from their loved ones by oppressors.

 

But, though this particular fallacious statement hails from a BJU book, the reality is bias exists in many forms and permeates all curriculum. I've seen some pretty wild claims made in secular curriculums as well. So, the best we can do when faced with a book sitting in our lap, offending our sense of right and wrong, and worrying about the impact on our children, is to fight such craziness by teaching our kids discernment. We can use it as a teachable moment to help our students learn logic and gain wisdom.

 

As for bias, well, I have to tell you, if I tossed every book, every curriculum and every publisher that ever offended my moral sensibilities, we'd probably be a bookless house! So, instead, I look for the teachable moments, those opportunities for priceless conversation, debate, and discourse, even if I am thinking to myself, "Well this curriculum/book is a bust; I'll not use it again!"

 

To the OP, I don't blame you for making the best of it for the year. I remember years when our budget was tight and I had to get creative and make something work because we didn't have the funds to scrap a curriculum. Sometimes I look back on that, see my grown dd who has become a wonderful, wise, grow-up, think back on those conversations...possibly talks that might never have taken place if it hadn't been for the "bad" book, those times when I was stretched as a teacher, and I wonder if it was at those times that I was doing the best teaching I've ever done. It's not necessarily a negative to have to get out of our comfort zone and really grapple with something, edit, change, and make it work. :001_smile:

 

Faith

[simka2]

That way people could directly from one room to that one?

 

Well, I wasn't quite going there :tongue_smilie:. But I really was thinking that it would be great to have a homeschool seminar on something like, "How to disciple your children without Spiritual Abuse" or "Finding, creating, reclaiming a healthy church."

 

Just random thoughts I occasionally have. :D

[WIS0320]

Welcome to the world of Bob Jones! . . . a publisher whose products we boycott because of their personal, unsupported opinions about the world.

 

:iagree:

 

I've never even looked at BJU materials. There are so many other choices out there that I don't see the need to support BJU if I can help it.

[phathui5]

The third part says: Blacks.The third part says: Blacks.

 

I think Middle Eastern, North African and South African would work.

[Xuzi]

I am concerned that no one has pointed out the Africa isn't a country to a few of the earlier posters...

 

:tongue_smilie:

 

But that irritation was erased by somebody else posting a West Wing reference...that made me happy again.

Reminds me of this Whose Line Is It Anyway clip? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8Q10g_Mov4 :lol:

[Slartibartfast]

 

But, though this particular fallacious statement hails from a BJU book, the reality is bias exists in many forms and permeates all curriculum. I've seen some pretty wild claims made in secular curriculums as well. So, the best we can do when faced with a book sitting in our lap, offending our sense of right and wrong, and worrying about the impact on our children, is to fight such craziness by teaching our kids discernment. We can use it as a teachable moment to help our students learn logic and gain wisdom.

 

As for bias, well, I have to tell you, if I tossed every book, every curriculum and every publisher that ever offended my moral sensibilities, we'd probably be a bookless house! So, instead, I look for the teachable moments, those opportunities for priceless conversation, debate, and discourse, even if I am thinking to myself, "Well this curriculum/book is a bust; I'll not use it again!"

 

To the OP, I don't blame you for making the best of it for the year. I remember years when our budget was tight and I had to get creative and make something work because we didn't have the funds to scrap a curriculum. Sometimes I look back on that, see my grown dd who has become a wonderful, wise, grow-up, think back on those conversations...possibly talks that might never have taken place if it hadn't been for the "bad" book, those times when I was stretched as a teacher, and I wonder if it was at those times that I was doing the best teaching I've ever done. It's not necessarily a negative to have to get out of our comfort zone and really grapple with something, edit, change, and make it work. :001_smile:

 

Faith

 

I think that is fair but I come from several generations of interracial marriage. My children are a result of that. Their own teachings would have had a negative impact on my family, they called my ancestors wrong because of who they married.

 

I guess it is all about where our lines are, I couldn't purchase those materials and look my kids in the eye. Neither myself nor my husband would permit them in our home.

 

I think you are right, we all have to pick and choose. It can be hard to find that perfect book...we just have to find our lines and where we are willing to compromise.

Edited September 18, 2011 by Sis

[Laura Corin]

I am concerned that no one has pointed out the Africa isn't a country to a few of the earlier posters...

 

 

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

[JudyJudyJudy]

I went to college with a guy who objected to being referred to as African. He was very proudly from one of the Caribbean islands.

I understand this guy's position. It would be like someone referring to you as European when you are American. However, just as white people aren't native to the US, black people (as we define black people today) are not native to the islands of the Caribbean.

[Matryoshka]

I understand this guy's position. It would be like someone referring to you as European when you are American. However, just as white people aren't native to the US, black people (as we define black people today) are not native to the islands of the Caribbean.

 

:iagree: I am European-American, even though on my dad's side my family has been here hundreds of years. The "black" people of the Caribbean are also (at least partly) of African descent, even if their ancestors were brought there hundreds of years ago (also as slaves, sadly).

 

They hyphenated thing gets complicated when people have, over the course of time, lived in more than one country. Afro-Carribean-American?

 

I still prefer the ethnic designation, which at least refers to heritage and culture rather than melanin content. Although as people move from place to place to place and intermarry through generations over time, all of those designations are going to become more and more meaningless... maybe we'll just be stuck with "human"...

[Sebastian (a lady)]

Brava.

 

Well said.

 

I haven't used the BJU text in question but from the snippets it sounds like there was a prompt to make the student consider that slaves were not originally in North America but also that there were other differences in how they came or in their condition (I'm thinking of the what else do you know question.)

 

I frequently have to stop and clarify or contradict something we read. Even at times with our catechism. But those are often the most fruitful discussions in our home.

 

Eta I was referring to Faithe's comment but can't quote on my iPod.

Edited September 18, 2011 by Sebastian (a lady)

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

I will start by saying we don't use BJU so I can speak with no authority or experience concerning their materials.

 

1) I think they used the words immigrant and immigrate correctly. In the case of slavery those words lack the ability to convey much about how and why those individuals arrived but the terms may not be incorrect, technically speaking.

 

2) No one book will please every family. But I am tired of the whole sale condemnation of any given curriculum or book and the corresponding assumption that anyone who would own or read said materials must be of the same evil mindset that the authors are perceived to be of and therefore are trying to raise another generation of despicable people. That is just bunk. It is one thing to say you choose not to use a given curriculum/book for the following reasons and completely another to call or implicate that all folks who do use it are horrible, misguided individuals. Sometimes you can learn as much by disagreeing with an author as by agreeing.

 

We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.

 

Winston

 

I'm not sure you'd approve of the ideals of "God, King and Country" that Winston was so adamantly defending. Perhaps you need to read a bit more about Churchill.

[Slartibartfast]

2) No one book will please every family. But I am tired of the whole sale condemnation of any given curriculum or book and the corresponding assumption that anyone who would own or read said materials must be of the same evil mindset that the authors are perceived to be of and therefore are trying to raise another generation of despicable people. That is just bunk. It is one thing to say you choose not to use a given curriculum/book for the following reasons and completely another to call or implicate that all folks who do use it are horrible, misguided individuals. Sometimes you can learn as much by disagreeing with an author as by agreeing.

 

 

They didn't even stop the "anti-interracial marriage" and preaching against it policies until 2000, and they didn't apologize until 2008.

 

I will condemn it. I will emphatically condemn it, they condemned me so why not? They condemned my children so why not? They condemned my grandparents and my great-grandparents.

 

I might not say anything about people who do use those materials but that doesn't mean I am not thinking "Smurf you" at BJU.

 

Yes, the new President might be a much different person but that doesn't mean my family wasn't impacted by the teachings they propagated.

Edited September 18, 2011 by Sis

[Spy Car]

I have no personal problem with other people using BJUP materials. The products are what they are, and it does not follow that anybody who uses and likes them supports the extremism and wrong positions. It is a false, foolish jump of (non)logic to assume so.

 

 

I'm sorry but your logic is faulty.

 

When one purchases materials from BJU they profit from the sale. This income supports their mission, and supports their institutional extremism and wrong positions.

 

One may (in some sense) object to some (or many) particulars of the BJU ideology as a matter of conscious; however, when one gives them money one is directly supporting the extremism of BJU. This makes one morally culpable and complicit in advancing BJU's extremism, private objections aside.

 

We vote for the kind of world we want to live in with our dollars. Those choices have repercussions and we need to take responsibility for those decisions.

 

I would not send a nickel to BJU. Their legacy of institutional racism and bigotry is repugnant to me.

 

Bill

[AngelBee]

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.

 

What the...???

 

 

Oh...and I mean the f word. ;)

[Sputterduck]

I'm sorry but your logic is faulty.

 

When one purchases materials from BJU they profit from the sale. This income supports their mission, and supports their institutional extremism and wrong positions.

 

One may (in some sense) object to some (or many) particulars of the BJU ideology as a matter of conscious; however, when one gives them money one is directly supporting the extremism of BJU. This makes one morally culpable and complicit in advancing BJU's extremism, private objections aside.

 

We vote for the kind of world we want to live in with our dollars. Those choices have repercussions and we need to take responsibility for those decisions.

 

I would not send a nickel to BJU. Their legacy of institutional racism and bigotry is repugnant to me.

 

Bill

 

Spy Car makes a good point.

[Crimson Wife]

I'm sorry but your logic is faulty.

 

When one purchases materials from BJU they profit from the sale. This income supports their mission, and supports their institutional extremism and wrong positions.

 

One may (in some sense) object to some (or many) particulars of the BJU ideology as a matter of conscious; however, when one gives them money one is directly supporting the extremism of BJU. This makes one morally culpable and complicit in advancing BJU's extremism, private objections aside.

 

We vote for the kind of world we want to live in with our dollars. Those choices have repercussions and we need to take responsibility for those decisions.

 

I would not send a nickel to BJU. Their legacy of institutional racism and bigotry is repugnant to me.

 

Bill

 

As a Catholic, I'm not a fan of BJU at all. That said, BJU only profits if someone purchases their materials new. I know many Catholics who make a policy of buying used for materials from certain publishers. That way the money only goes to the seller (typically a fellow HS family) rather than the publisher.

[Sputterduck]

I understand this guy's position. It would be like someone referring to you as European when you are American. However, just as white people aren't native to the US, black people (as we define black people today) are not native to the islands of the Caribbean.

 

But what if the person is mostly native and identifies as such? You can have a couple relatives from way back that were from Africa, be mostly native and still look "black". Then when you move to America suddenly you are African-American, yet you have no cultural ties there at all. I think it would be annoying.

 

It's kind of like how everyone asks what the Asian part of my son is, but never what the European part of him is. It's weird to me. He's just as much European as he is Asian. Why the focus on only one side? I really don't mind questions. He loves the attention. It just makes me wonder when these discussions come up. Of course, in Mexico he'll always be "Chino" even though there is not a drop of Chinese in him at all.

 

Why does everyone always focus on the darker parts? Are they more interesting?

[Spy Car]

As a Catholic, I'm not a fan of BJU at all. That said, BJU only profits if someone purchases their materials new. I know many Catholics who make a policy of buying used for materials from certain publishers. That way the money only goes to the seller (typically a fellow HS family) rather than the publisher.

 

The argument does not hold, unfortunately. If one studies economics one knows that purchase of used items (even if it from a third party) drives up demand for both new products. Purchasing used BJU materials indirectly drives up sales of new BJU materials.

 

One is not off the hook purchasing used.

 

Bill

[elegantlion]

Spy Car makes a good point.

 

One is not off the hook purchasing used.

 

Bill

 

These posts discussing points, hooks, and Spy Car have me picturing a whaling harpoon. Perhaps I do need that nap.

[Slartibartfast]

As a Catholic, I'm not a fan of BJU at all. That said, BJU only profits if someone purchases their materials new. I know many Catholics who make a policy of buying used for materials from certain publishers. That way the money only goes to the seller (typically a fellow HS family) rather than the publisher.

 

Woa!! Catholics use BJU!??!?!?!??!

 

There is a huge disconnect here. I don't use materials from people who hate me, I don't compromise on that. I guess some people are less oh... indignant (or something) then I can see why they also might get over the racism issue more quickly.

 

I cannot wrap my mind around that though. I never imagined that some would choose to use the materials despite their views towards their faith.

[JudyJudyJudy]

Originally Posted by JudyJudyJudy

I understand this guy's position. It would be like someone referring to you as European when you are American. However, just as white people aren't native to the US, black people (as we define black people today) are not native to the islands of the Caribbean.

But what if the person is mostly native and identifies as such? You can have a couple relatives from way back that were from Africa, be mostly native and still look "black". Then when you move to America suddenly you are African-American, yet you have no cultural ties there at all. I think it would be annoying.

 

It's kind of like how everyone asks what the Asian part of my son is, but never what the European part of him is. It's weird to me. He's just as much European as he is Asian. Why the focus on only one side? I really don't mind questions. He loves the attention. It just makes me wonder when these discussions come up. Of course, in Mexico he'll always be "Chino" even though there is not a drop of Chinese in him at all.

 

Why does everyone always focus on the darker parts? Are they more interesting?

I think you misunderstood me. I understand why the person wouldn't want to be called African just as I don't refer to myself as European. I'm American. A person who comes from a Caribbean island where the people do not have US citizenship is not American (unless he/she obtains citizenship after being in the US), so for a lot of reasons "African-American" is incorrect terminology.

 

My ancestry makes me a big ol' mutt (Irish, Scottish, English, French, Norwegian, Welsh, Italian, Cherokee Indian, Creek Indian, and much more). Dh is hispanic, but in reality, he, too, can list a whole bunch of countries from which his ancestors originated. Neither of us see the need for using hyphens. To each his own.

[Sputterduck]

I think you misunderstood me. I understand why the person wouldn't want to be called African just as I don't refer to myself as European. I'm American. A person who comes from a Caribbean island where the people do not have US citizenship is not American (unless he/she obtains citizenship after being in the US), so for a lot of reasons "African-American" is incorrect terminology.

 

My ancestry makes me a big ol' mutt (Irish, Scottish, English, French, Norwegian, Welsh, Italian, Cherokee Indian, Creek Indian, and much more). Dh is hispanic, but in reality, he, too, can list a whole bunch of countries from which his ancestors originated. Neither of us see the need for using hyphens. To each his own.

 

I see what you are saying.

 

But people will still refer to the "African-American guy" since people often don't know what else to say.

 

Have you ever noticed how many people assume a person is Mexican in the States just because they are Hispanic? I bet that gets *really* annoying if a person is not from Mexico. It's as bad as everyone here assuming my kid is from China. :glare: I have a friend here who, although she is part of this culture, corrects everyone when they call my son a chino. "Coreano!" she says. Sometimes she even adds, "y irlandés!"I love her. :tongue_smilie:

 

I don't use a hyphen, either. I'm just Irish, even though my family has been in America for a very long time. I just identify with being Irish more than I do with the place I happened to be born. Nothing against America. It's awesome in many ways. I just self-identify as Irish and always have.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

I'm sorry but your logic is faulty.

 

When one purchases materials from BJU they profit from the sale. This income supports their mission, and supports their institutional extremism and wrong positions.

 

One may (in some sense) object to some (or many) particulars of the BJU ideology as a matter of conscious; however, when one gives them money one is directly supporting the extremism of BJU. This makes one morally culpable and complicit in advancing BJU's extremism, private objections aside.

 

We vote for the kind of world we want to live in with our dollars. Those choices have repercussions and we need to take responsibility for those decisions.

 

I would not send a nickel to BJU. Their legacy of institutional racism and bigotry is repugnant to me.

 

Bill

 

Well I haven't watched an Alec Baldwin performance intentionally for about 15 years, because I think that he made a complete fool of himself back in the 1990s and I don't want to support a lifestyle that gives him a platform. But that doesn't mean that I'm going to tell my friends who like 30 Rock that they are evil for enjoying that show.

 

Similarly, my fil, a Viet Nam vet, could not abide Jane Fonda. But he once told me about a time when my mil, who is a dance school owner and still dances herself, was trying to find a leotard that would cover a large area where she'd had skin cancer removed. The one leotard she wanted was a Jane Fonda brand. So FIL bought it for her birthday. His love for his wife overcame his desire not to put even one cent into Fonda's pockets. And her dancing in that leotard didn't mean that she supported Fonda's politics then or in the past.

 

We don't use BJU products other than their testing services. Nor is it my aim to send a kid their for college. But I'm not willing to condem families who are using them, just based on a curriculum choice.

 

ETA: Should every parent with a kid in school be held responsible for the textbook choices that their educational agent, the school, makes on their behalf? What about oversimplifications, bias and outright errors in those books?

Edited September 18, 2011 by Sebastian (a lady)

[Spy Car]

 

We don't use BJU products other than their testing services. Nor is it my aim to send a kid their for college. But I'm not willing to condem families who are using them, just based on a curriculum choice.

 

I'm sorry but this is a red-herring argument. You have replaced an argument I have not advanced for the topic at hand.

 

Sending money to BJU does support them and their extremism (including supporting their anti-Catholic bigotry). That is the truth. You can try to emotionalize the discussion or send it off-track with red-herrings, but it remains that purchasing BJU materials supports their extremism. The logic is clear and indisputable.

 

Bill

[Jennifer3141]

The logic is clear and indisputable.

 

Bill

 

But it will probably be disputed for 13 pages anyway... :D

[twoforjoy]

I have kids running wildly in front of the computer as I've been reading this, so I might have missed it.

 

But, re: the AA vs. black issue, my understanding is that African-American is often used to refer specifically to the descendants of slaves. "Black" is a broader term, and would encompass groups like more recent Caribbean immigrants.

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

Well I haven't watched an Alec Baldwin performance intentionally for about 15 years, because I think that he made a complete fool of himself back in the 1990s and I don't want to support a lifestyle that gives him a platform. But that doesn't mean that I'm going to tell my friends who like 30 Rock that they are evil for enjoying that show.

 

Similarly, my fil, a Viet Nam vet, could not abide Jane Fonda. But he once told me about a time when my mil, who is a dance school owner and still dances herself, was trying to find a leotard that would cover a large area where she'd had skin cancer removed. The one leotard she wanted was a Jane Fonda brand. So FIL bought it for her birthday. His love for his wife overcame his desire not to put even one cent into Fonda's pockets. And her dancing in that leotard didn't mean that she supported Fonda's politics then or in the past.

 

We don't use BJU products other than their testing services. Nor is it my aim to send a kid their for college. But I'm not willing to condem families who are using them, just based on a curriculum choice.

 

ETA: Should every parent with a kid in school be held responsible for the textbook choices that their educational agent, the school, makes on their behalf? What about oversimplifications, bias and outright errors in those books?

 

I'm sorry but this is a red-herring argument. You have replaced an argument I have not advanced for the topic at hand.

 

Sending money to BJU does support them and their extremism (including supporting their anti-Catholic bigotry). That is the truth. You can try to emotionalize the discussion or send it off-track with red-herrings, but it remains that purchasing BJU materials supports their extremism. The logic is clear and indisputable.

 

Bill

 

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

 

 

So Bill--you are actually stating that those who somehow own or use any materials from BJU are in support of those policies that BJU espouses? That they must believe in those same ideals?

 

That has been my and potentially other folks argument in this discussion. That it is one thing entirely to call out a publisher or institution for what they produce--it is another argument to extend that attitude to all who use the materials as you have absolutely no idea how they are being used. As Sebastian said-I am unwilling to say that anyone who uses BJU is as evil as many here are proclaiming the institution to be. You appear to be arguing that giving any money to that institution is exactly the same as believing all that they say and that therefore they are as evil as the institution. That is a leap of logic I am unwilling to take until I have met the actual user. I remain against assuming things about folks who own or read a particular book-there is too much room for error. That fact alone is hardly enough evidence to condemn someone.

[mrs.m]

I'm sorry but your logic is faulty.

 

When one purchases materials from BJU they profit from the sale. This income supports their mission, and supports their institutional extremism and wrong positions.

 

One may (in some sense) object to some (or many) particulars of the BJU ideology as a matter of conscious; however, when one gives them money one is directly supporting the extremism of BJU. This makes one morally culpable and complicit in advancing BJU's extremism, private objections aside.

 

We vote for the kind of world we want to live in with our dollars. Those choices have repercussions and we need to take responsibility for those decisions.

 

I would not send a nickel to BJU. Their legacy of institutional racism and bigotry is repugnant to me.

 

Bill

 

Well, this isn't true for everyone. I used their math program for K and 1st. Honestly, I did not know this about them because it didn't even cross my mind to research it. So to make a blanket statement that we are supporting their extremism might not be true in everyone's case. Sure, they got our money, but in my mind I was only paying for math curriculum. I think there are a number of people like me that didn't realize they took this stance. I am certain that the friend that suggested it to me didn't know about this either.

 

I know I should have researched but I was overwhelmed enough with just starting to homeschool. Politics such as these were the last thing on my mind. Hind sight...

 

:001_unsure::blushing: Just asking for some understanding for some of us... I don't support bigotry. I liked the colorful math books.

Edited September 18, 2011 by jannylynn

[tuzor]

:blink: exiting before I say something that will get me banned for life.

[Spy Car]

So Bill--you are actually stating that those who somehow own or use any materials from BJU are in support of those policies that BJU espouses? That they must believe in those same ideals?

 

No. And evidently you don't read what I actually write. At the end of the day it does not matter if one has private (or even public) objections to the policies of BJU if one sends them money you are supporting them and their mission. There is no getting around it.

 

That has been my and potentially other folks argument in this discussion. That it is one thing entirely to call out a publisher or institution for what they produce--it is another argument to extend that attitude to all who use the materials as you have absolutely no idea how they are being used. As Sebastian said-I am unwilling to say that anyone who uses BJU is as evil as many here are proclaiming the institution to be. You appear to be arguing that giving any money to that institution is exactly the same as believing all that they say and that therefore they are as evil as the institution. That is a leap of logic I am unwilling to take until I have met the actual user. I remain against assuming things about folks who own or read a particular book-there is too much room for error. That fact alone is hardly enough evidence to condemn someone.

 

You are engaging in the same red-herring argumentation that I objected to previously. One who supports BJU financially is supporting them regardless of any misgivings one might have about their bigotry. The dollars from those who have issues with BJU support BJU just as much as those who back them 100%.

 

I have not condemned anyone, this is a line of argument replaces that logic.

 

Bill

Edited September 18, 2011 by Spy Car

[Spy Car]

Well, this isn't true for everyone. I used their math program for K and 1st. Honestly, I did not know this about them because it didn't even cross my mind to research it. So to make a blanket statement that we are supporting their extremism might not be true in everyone's case. Sure, they got our money, but in my mind I was only paying for math curriculum. I think there are a number of people like me that didn't realize they took this stance. I am certain that the friend that suggested it to me didn't know about this either.

 

I know I should have researched but I was overwhelmed enough with just starting to homeschool. Politics such as these were the last thing on my mind. Hind sight...

 

:001_unsure::blushing: Just asking for some understanding for some of us... I don't support bigotry. I liked the colorful math books.

 

If you read what I said clearly, one need not support their bigotry as a matter of conscious, to support them financially. By giving them money one supports their cause no matter how many objections one may have in their hearts and heads.

 

Bill

Edited September 18, 2011 by Spy Car

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

No. And evidently you don't read what I actually write. At the end of the day it does not matter if one has private (or even public) objections to the policies of BJU if one sends them money you are supporting them and their mission. There is no getting around it.

 

 

 

You are engaging in the same red-herring argumentation that I objected to previously. One who supports BJU financially is supporting them regardless of any misgivings one might have about their bigotry. The dollars from those who have issues with BJU support BJU just as much as those who back them 100%.

 

I have not condemned, anyone this is a line of argument that replaces logic.

 

Bill

 

Both financially and philosophically? Are those permitted to be separate issues or are they forever linked? If they are linked then your statements regarding BJU must also be applied to those who fund them-or in other words anyone who uses their products is an anti-Catholic bigot and racist. There is no fault in logic there-the logic is the natural follow on from what you yourself have stated. Please stand by your argument and stop trying to have it both ways.

 

The ownership or reading of any given book doesn't mean that the owner believes and supports the content of the book or the beliefs of the author. I'm tired of the argument that every book or curricula that is deemed racist, bigoted or otherwise morally lacking means that those who have read, owned or otherwise used it must also be morally lacking. Good gravy where has individual liberty and the presumption of innocence gone?

 

I don't give two hoots about BJU, haven't and probably will never use them. That said-I am still unwilling to condemn those who have or do without actually meeting them. But then maybe that is too open minded of me.

[Audrey]

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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:

 

 

All the above points to the need to research a curriculum before purchasing. It is not enough to simply research how the curriculum is structured, and if that will work for your child, but also to research the actual content. Someone else's review is NOT sufficient. I believe you need to read it yourself. In addition to that, it is imperative that you research the company that produces the curriculum. There are many companies out there that have strong ties to movements and politics and organizations with which you may feel uncomfortable.

 

I say all of this having learned the hard way, like the OP. I relied on reviews and recommendations from others for a certain science curriculum, only to discover that the curriculum itself was a veiled front for an ideology that I abhor and which is patently unscientific.

 

Mistake made and lesson learned. To the OP: I'm sorry you spent good money on that curriculum. I hope that you can find a way to edit carefully and that you are able to find another curriculum that will work for you for next year that is not bound in such egregious offensiveness.

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

All the above points to the need to research a curriculum before purchasing. It is not enough to simply research how the curriculum is structured, and if that will work for your child, but also to research the actual content. Someone else's review is NOT sufficient. I believe you need to read it yourself. In addition to that, it is imperative that you research the company that produces the curriculum. There are many companies out there that have strong ties to movements and politics and organizations with which you may feel uncomfortable.

 

I say all of this having learned the hard way, like the OP. I relied on reviews and recommendations from others for a certain science curriculum, only to discover that the curriculum itself was a veiled front for an ideology that I abhor and which is patently unscientific.

 

Mistake made and lesson learned. To the OP: I'm sorry you spent good money on that curriculum. I hope that you can find a way to edit carefully and that you are able to find another curriculum that will work for you for next year that is not bound in such egregious offensiveness.

 

Well put! I would add that it never pays to beat yourself up over these sorts of issues. Keep researching until you find what you like.

[mrs.m]

If you read what I said clearly, one need not support their bigotry as a matter of conscious, to support them financially. By giving them money one supports their cause no matter how any objections one may have in their hearts and heads.

 

Bill

 

You are right and I know it logically. :D I'm a girl and want some grey area because the heart or intention does matter to me.

 

But this might be the reason why it still comes up on this forum as a suggestion for curriculum in polite conversation. I think there are a number of people who do not know this about BJU.

[Crimson Wife]

Woa!! Catholics use BJU!??!?!?!??!

 

There is a huge disconnect here. I don't use materials from people who hate me, I don't compromise on that. I guess some people are less oh... indignant (or something) then I can see why they also might get over the racism issue more quickly.

 

I cannot wrap my mind around that though. I never imagined that some would choose to use the materials despite their views towards their faith.

 

I would not personally use materials from BJU, Abeka, Veritas Press, or any of the other Protestant publishers that include anti-Catholic rhetoric in some of their books. However, I do know Catholics who will use some of their materials (such as a math or science book) if purchased used. I don't agree with them, but each of us has to act in accordance with our own consciences.

[Spy Car]

Both financially and philosophically?

 

Financially. The money BJU gets from whole-hearted endorsers is as equally green as those it gets from conscientious objectors.

 

By supporting BJU financially one is morally culpable for that choice.

 

The ownership or reading of any given book doesn't mean that the owner believes and supports the content of the book or the beliefs of the author.

 

Who said otherwise? Again, it is a red-herring.

 

Do you deny those who send money to BJU are not supporting them financially. Do you see no moral consequences for such financial support?

 

I'm tired of the argument that every book or curricula that is deemed racist, bigoted or otherwise morally lacking means that those who have read, owned or otherwise used it must also be morally lacking. Good gravy where has individual liberty and the presumption of innocence gone?

 

And I'm tired of red-herrings. BJU is an institution with a legacy of racism and bigotry (no one seems to be denying this plain-fact). Sending such an institution money supports their cause. I don't know how a reasonable person could argue otherwise.

 

Individual liberty demands individual responsibility for our decisions.

 

Bill

Edited September 19, 2011 by Spy Car

[Princess Peach]

I want to thank everyone for the good discussion here. I have learned a lot, and the back and forth has been interesting. I am glad that everyone has been relatively civil so that the thread can remain undeleted so that future homeschoolers can search for threads about this curriculum and this will pop up so they can make an informed decision. :)

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

Financially. The money BJU gets from whole-hearted endorsers is as equally green as those it gets from conscientious injectors.

 

By supporting BJU financially one is morally culpable for that choice.

Do you deny those who send money to BJU are not supporting them financially. Do you see no moral consequences for such financial support?

 

I'm tired of the argument that every book or curricula that is deemed racist, bigoted or otherwise morally lacking means that those who have read, owned or otherwise used it must also be morally lacking. Good gravy where has individual liberty and the presumption of innocence gone?

 

And I'm tired of red-herrings. BJU is an institution with a legacy of racism and bigotry (no one seems to be denying this plain-fact). Sending such an institution money supports their cause. I don't know how a reasonable person could argue otherwise.

 

Individual liberty demands individual responsibility for our decisions.

 

Bill

 

So does financial support equal philosophical support or not? Your statements above seem to indicate that financial support is equal to philosophical support. If that is the case then anyone who purchases or otherwise acquires materials from BJU must be as racist, bigoted and morally corrupt as the institution that they support.

 

I'm not sure I can make that same leap about the innermost workings of the minds of all those who use materials from BJU. That argument isn't a red herring-it is the logical extension of your argument.

 

While you are busy exercising your individual liberty to say that any purchase or acquisition of BJU materials is direct support for a morally corrupt institution you need to be taking the responsibility for implying that the moral consequence of this support is that the supporters are probably equally morally corrupt.

Edited September 18, 2011 by JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst

[Spy Car]

So does financial support equal philosophical support or not? Your statements above seem to indicate that financial support is equal to philosophical support.

 

I do not know how I can be more clear. Financial support is not the same as philosophical support, but the dollars that come from those with philosophical qualms support the activities of BJU just as much as those who support BJU philosophically and financially.

 

If that is the case then anyone who purchases or otherwise acquires materials from BJU must be as racist, bigoted and morally corrupt as the institution that they support.

 

You persist in making red-herring arguements. I have said no such thing, as you must be well-aware.

 

Repeating the mischaracterizations (when I have repeatly made my position plain) does not make it anymore true. Please desist at attempts to ascribe positions to me that I do not hold.

 

Bill

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

When one purchases materials from BJU they profit from the sale. This income supports their mission, and supports their institutional extremism and wrong positions.

 

One may (in some sense) object to some (or many) particulars of the BJU ideology as a matter of conscious; however, when one gives them money one is directly supporting the extremism of BJU. This makes one morally culpable and complicit in advancing BJU's extremism, private objections aside.

 

We vote for the kind of world we want to live in with our dollars. Those choices have repercussions and we need to take responsibility for those decisions.

Bill

 

The argument does not hold, unfortunately. If one studies economics one knows that purchase of used items (even if it from a third party) drives up demand for both new products. Purchasing used BJU materials indirectly drives up sales of new BJU materials.

 

One is not off the hook purchasing used.

 

Bill

 

At the end of the day it does not matter if one has private (or even public) objections to the policies of BJU if one sends them money you are supporting them and their mission. There is no getting around it.

 

One who supports BJU financially is supporting them regardless of any misgivings one might have about their bigotry. The dollars from those who have issues with BJU support BJU just as much as those who back them 100%.

 

Bill

 

By supporting BJU financially one is morally culpable for that choice.

 

Do you deny those who send money to BJU are not supporting them financially. Do you see no moral consequences for such financial support?

 

BJU is an institution with a legacy of racism and bigotry (no one seems to be denying this plain-fact). Sending such an institution money supports their cause. I don't know how a reasonable person could argue otherwise.

Individual liberty demands individual responsibility for our decisions.

 

Bill

 

I'm having trouble reconciling your argument that both first and second hand acquisition of materials from BJU supports the moral corruption in this institution and their ideology and that there is moral culpability and moral consequences for this action with the fact that you see no link between financial and philosophical support of the institution. It seems that if the financial support carries such grave moral culpability and consequences then that must form the link to philosophical support. For if one doesn't rectify their financial support then they must be supportive philosophically.

 

However, if you will, please, formally and unequivocally state that those who own or use materials from BJU are not, by virtue of one or both of those acts, morally corrupt then we have no argument.

[Spy Car]

I'm having trouble reconciling your argument that both first and second hand acquisition of materials from BJU supports the moral corruption in this institution and their ideology and that there is moral culpability and moral consequences for this action with the fact that you see no link between financial and philosophical support of the institution. It seems that if the financial support carries such grave moral culpability and consequences then that must form the link to philosophical support. For if one doesn't rectify their financial support then they must be supportive philosophically.

 

However, if you will, please, formally and unequivocally state that those who own or use materials from BJU are not, by virtue of one or both of those acts, morally corrupt then we have no argument.

 

Those who purchase directly from BJU directly support BJU financially. This is true whether they support BJU philosophically or not. Either way the dollars help sustain them as an institution. If one believes BJU as an institution has a legacy of racism and actively promotes bigotry then one must accept that dollars they spend on BJU materials helps support such things, like it or not.

 

Those who purchase second-hand are still indirectly supporting BJU financially. It is a well understood principle of economics that purchases in the used market cause scarcity which drives up the cost of used items (especially relative to new ones) which leads rational actors to turn to new materials rather than used, especially when they feel confident that can re-coup some of their costs in the secondary market.

 

If, on the other hand, those who are philosophically opposed to BJU refused to purchase BJU materials the demand for those materials would drop. The used market would be flooded with cheap used BJU products and sales of new BJU materials would fall. Partially because those who were still insistent on using BJU materials would be more inclined to buy used (given the collapse in prices) and partially because the lack of re-sale value might give them pause to purchase BJU materials at all if there was little or no demand for them in the used market.

 

It is standard economics. Buying used does not mean you are not indirectly supporting the sales of new BJU materials, and thereby indirectly supporting BJU financially. BJU obviously benefits less from used purchases than direct purchases, but if one follows basic economic theory it is easy to see they still benefit from the purchase of used materials by those who oppose them philosophically.

 

Bill

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

If one studies economics one knows that purchase of used items (even if it from a third party) drives up demand for both new products. Purchasing used BJU materials indirectly drives up sales of new BJU materials.

 

One is not off the hook purchasing used.

Bill

 

Financially. The money BJU gets from whole-hearted endorsers is as equally green as those it gets from conscientious objectors.

 

By supporting BJU financially one is morally culpable for that choice.

 

Do you deny those who send money to BJU are not supporting them financially. Do you see no moral consequences for such financial support?

 

Individual liberty demands individual responsibility for our decisions.

 

Bill

 

I'm having trouble reconciling your argument that both first and second hand acquisition of materials from BJU supports the moral corruption in this institution and their ideology and that there is moral culpability and moral consequences for this action with the fact that you see no link between financial and philosophical support of the institution. It seems that if the financial support carries such grave moral culpability and consequences then that must form the link to philosophical support. For if one doesn't rectify their financial support then they must be supportive philosophically.

 

However, if you will, please, formally and unequivocally state that those who own or use materials from BJU are not, by virtue of one or both of those acts, morally corrupt then we have no argument.

 

Those who purchase directly from BJU directly support BJU financially. This is true whether they support BJU philosophically or not. Either way the dollars help sustain them as an institution. If one believes BJU as an institution has a legacy of racism and actively promotes bigotry then one must accept that dollars they spend on BJU materials helps support such things, like it or not.

 

Those who purchase second-hand are still indirectly supporting BJU financially. It is a well understood principle of economics that purchases in the used market cause scarcity which drives up the cost of used items (especially relative to new ones) which leads rational actors to turn to new materials rather than used, especially when they feel confident that can re-coup some of their costs in the secondary market.

 

If, on the other hand, those who are philosophically opposed to BJU refused to purchase BJU materials the demand for those materials would drop. The used market would be flooded with cheap used BJU products and sales of new BJU materials would fall. Partially because those who were still insistent on using BJU materials would be more inclined to buy used (given the collapse in prices) and partially because the lack of re-sale value might give them pause to purchase BJU materials at all if there was little or no demand for them in the used market.

 

It is standard economics. Buying used does not mean you are not indirectly supporting the sales of new BJU materials, and thereby indirectly supporting BJU financially. BJU obviously benefits less from used purchases than direct purchases, but if one follows basic economic theory it is easy to see they still benefit from the purchase of used materials by those who oppose them philosophically.

 

Bill

 

I believe I offered no argument to your analysis of the economics of buying used vs buying new and that both can lead to the financial support of an institution.

 

I asked, if there is no means by which to acquire these materials without financially supporting the institution that created them. And if, according to you, one bears a moral culpability and suffers moral consequences for that choice. And if one is aware of the philosophy of the institution and continues to use these materials rather than offering a full and complete boycott of them, the only way of not offering financial support in your economic analysis above, does that not imply that those who use them must be, through their moral culpability, as morally corrupt as the institution?

 

However, as I mentioned above and you chose to not directly answer, if you will, please, formally and unequivocally state that those who own or use materials from BJU are not, by virtue of one or both of those acts, morally corrupt then we have no argument.

 

I still refuse to accept that the reading or ownership of a book directly implies my agreement with every belief stated in said work by the author or that I, by default, offer my full philosophical support to the author or the publisher. If acquisition of books and other materials always leads to financial support for the propagation of the ideas contained there in then no one could ever read the works of an author that they disagree with, for any acquisition of such books would in someway financially support a cause you would be morally culpable for furthering. That type of thinking, in my opinion, leads, ultimately, to less diversity, less freedom of speech, less disagreement, less individuality, less intellectualism, and less informed citizenry (either nationally or globally). One should not assume that the ownership or reading of a given book implies belief in or support for the causes contained there-in or those of the author or publisher.