Textbook says slaves were immigrants?!

[Mrs Mungo]

Yes, except I had to add all Veritas Press to my list. :glare:

 

Omnibus is VP's history program. Some of their books are I am fine with, others I am not. I understand that some don't want to support them at all. I understand why some people don't want to try and weed through them. But, I do like some of their stuff and not all of it revolves around a providential/dominionist POV.

[Rhonda in TX]

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.

 

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.

[Jean in Newcastle]

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:

 

So. . . the point of the pie chart was that people of different national origins came to the U.S., including those of African origin. Then it asked the kids to remember why some came - which obviously would refer to slavery. 4th grade seems old enough to know and remember those reasons. I would have a harder time if they were pointing out that people of different national origins came to the U.S. but didn't include those of African origin. You have to look at context.

[simka2]

Omnibus is VP's history program. Some of their books are I am fine with, others I am not. I understand that some don't want to support them at all. I understand why some people don't want to try and weed through them. But, I do like some of their stuff and not all of it revolves around a providential/dominionist POV.

 

Oh, I agree. It is a personal decision I had to make. ;)

Edited September 17, 2011 by simka2

[Mrs Mungo]

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!)

 

The OP didn't realize it would be an issue for her. Spelling it out helps other people for whom it does make a difference.

[dmrranch]

Just a thought...textbooks, well any book, will always be written from someone's point of view that you may or may not agree with. In my mind that brings about points of discussion. I would speculate that most of us homeschool because we want to raise our children up in the "way we would have them to go".

 

Having said that, if you find yourself daily having to reword or rework then you might need to change what you're doing.

[Princess Peach]

So. . . the point of the pie chart was that people of different national origins came to the U.S., including those of African origin. Then it asked the kids to remember why some came - which obviously would refer to slavery. 4th grade seems old enough to know and remember those reasons. I would have a harder time if they were pointing out that people of different national origins came to the U.S. but didn't include those of African origin. You have to look at context.

 

Absolutely, we stopped at that point in our reading and my 3rd and 4th grader immediately answered "slaves", but they did not emigrate. They were ripped from their families, transported like animals, and sold. It just doesn't belong in the same category as immigration, imo. And I reminded them of all of that and they got it.

[Guest thanneaKS]

In regards to BJU and racism--I married interracially in 1975. We began homeschooling our three biracial (actually multiracial as he was West Indian and had a few mix-ups in his lineage) children in 1986. We used BJU curriculum for some classes throughout our homeschooling career. I did research their stand on interracial dating and the info I got was that it was permitted if both sets of parents agreed. In 2000, they dropped that requirement. Their point was that most parents are paying for college and have a right to the information. In addition, they felt that many parents would object. And so on. From personal experience, I can vouch that, at least prior to 2000, that was true. I won't get into my family's reception in many circles--Christian, homeschooling, secular. Suffice it to say, lots of folks had difficulties with interracial marriage.

 

In terms of the curriculum, I occasionally found something that I considered offensive. Sometimes it was racial, sometimes it was ridiculously anti-Catholic, sometimes it was a Biblical interpretation I disagreed with. Still, we used the curriculum because I found it to be solid, challenging, and interesting. Of course, we discussed the things we didn't really agree with, but that simply added richness to our school days.

 

I now teach in a public school and I find the secular curriculums to be far more offensive and biased, abeit in different ways. Just quick thoughts from an old-timer's perspective.

[Halftime Hope]

this last post was not addressed to either of you all or to the OP's original concern. (I meant that sincerely. No sarcasm.) It was addressed specifically to Spy Car's post about his shock that BJU material was used and discussed in polite company. I'm polite company, even thoughtful company (generally--til his post), but I'm done with the contentiousness, the divisiveness, that brands people as impolite, unthoughtful if they use this material or that material.

 

I edit curriculum materials contstantly, round out viewpoints, add dimension, play devil's advocate, continually, to get my kids and my students to think. Constantly. This from a weekly resource list for my AmerLit class:

 

[Please see] http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi709.htm on another facet of Benjamin Franklin’s life that we haven’t encountered elsewhere in our studies -- he was, at one point, Indian Representative to the Iroquois nation. This commentary includes the theory that the connection shaped our new government. It is quite possible, but note that the Founding Fathers were familiar with other confederations, such as that of Ancient Greece’s city-states and that in The Netherlands.

 

Again, my apologies to you both. Princess Peach, I'm with you on using it even though you disagree with some/much, b/c it's paid for. I hope you find something that is a better fit next year.

Edited September 17, 2011 by Valerie(TX)

[Mrs Mungo]

this last post was not addressed to either of you all or to the OP's original concern. (I meant that sincerely. No sarcasm.) It was addressed specifically to Spy Car's post about his shock that BJU material was used and discussed in polite company. I'm polite company, even thoughtful company (generally--til his post), but I'm done with the contentiousness, the divisiveness, that brands people as impolite, unthoughtful if they use this material or that material.

 

I edit curriculum materials contstantly, round out viewpoints, add dimension, play devil's advocate, continually, to get my kids and my students to think. Constantly. This from a weekly resource list for my AmerLit class:

 

[Please see] http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi709.htm on another facet of Benjamin Franklin’s life that we haven’t encountered elsewhere in our studies -- he was, at one point, Indian Representative to the Iroquois nation. This commentary includes the theory that the connection shaped our new government. It is quite possible, but note that the Founding Fathers were familiar with other confederations, such as that of Ancient Greece’s city-states and that in The Netherlands.

 

Again, my apologies to you both. Princess Peach, I'm with you on using it even though you disagree with some/much, b/c it's paid for. I hope you find something that is a better fit next year.

 

No apologies needed. I understand what you were saying. I wish these things were easier to discuss. :grouphug:

[YLVD]

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:

 

 

 

Correctly...purposefully...evasively... I have other words to substitute but I will stop.

 

Must log out now... :tongue_smilie:

 

:iagree:

 

I personally would never use that curriculum for these reasons.

[YLVD]

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:

[YLVD]

this last post was not addressed to either of you all or to the OP's original concern. (I meant that sincerely. No sarcasm.) It was addressed specifically to Spy Car's post about his shock that BJU material was used and discussed in polite company. I'm polite company, even thoughtful company (generally--til his post), but I'm done with the contentiousness, the divisiveness, that brands people as impolite, unthoughtful if they use this material or that material.

 

I edit curriculum materials contstantly, round out viewpoints, add dimension, play devil's advocate, continually, to get my kids and my students to think. Constantly. This from a weekly resource list for my AmerLit class:

 

[Please see] http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi709.htm on another facet of Benjamin Franklin’s life that we haven’t encountered elsewhere in our studies -- he was, at one point, Indian Representative to the Iroquois nation. This commentary includes the theory that the connection shaped our new government. It is quite possible, but note that the Founding Fathers were familiar with other confederations, such as that of Ancient Greece’s city-states and that in The Netherlands.

 

Again, my apologies to you both. Princess Peach, I'm with you on using it even though you disagree with some/much, b/c it's paid for. I hope you find something that is a better fit next year.

 

I find bigotry and racism for more than impolite. It offends me to my very core and I would not add it into my daily life. We are entitled to that viewpoint. I can't understand taking offense to that but whatever.

[Mrs Mungo]

I find bigotry and racism for more than impolite. It offends me to my very core and I would not add it into my daily life. We are entitled to that viewpoint. I can't understand taking offense to that but whatever.

 

You can read Mein Kampf and discuss it without agreeing with it. I'm not comparing BJU to Mein Kampf; I am purposely using the latter as an extreme example to prove the point.

[YLVD]

You can read Mein Kampf and discuss it without agreeing with it. I'm not comparing BJU to Mein Kampf; I am purposely using the latter as an extreme example to prove the point.

 

I get that. But, I can't support a company...such as BJU... with those viewpoints, etc with my money.

[Just Robyn]

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

 

I have to assume that's part of the "United we stand..." aspect of homeschooling. Don't tell me not to use A Young People's History of the US and I won't tell you not to use BJU, even if I don't understand why anyone (apparently many "anyones", enough for them to stay in business) would use it.

[Mrs Mungo]

I have to assume that's part of the "United we stand..." aspect of homeschooling. Don't tell me not to use A Young People's History of the US and I won't tell you not to use BJU, even if I don't understand why anyone (apparently many "anyones", enough for them to stay in business) would use it.

 

But, there is no "United We Stand" aspect. There is particularly fierce opposition to such an aspect from the quarter who would happily and without reservation use BJU materials. How many "how dare you criticize my SOF" conversations have we had here? I don't mean to play to both sides of this discussion, but I think both sides have a valid point.

[Just Robyn]

But, there is no "United We Stand" aspect. There is particularly fierce opposition to such an aspect from the quarter who would happily and without reservation use BJU materials. How many "how dare you criticize my SOF" conversations have we had here? I don't mean to play to both sides of this discussion, but I think both sides have a valid point.

 

You have a good point. "United We Stand" is not a universal POV among homeschoolers then. Now that I think more about it, I bet there are some that would rather have homeschooling become illegal again (but continue to homeschool discretely) than have so many secular homeschoolers and homeschool programs out there.

[Mrs Mungo]

You have a good point. "United We Stand" is not a universal POV among homeschoolers then. Now that I think more about it, I bet there are some that would rather have homeschooling become illegal again (but continue to homeschool discretely) than have so many secular homeschoolers and homeschool programs out there.

 

Certain groups are pursuing homeschooling as a *religious freedom* at the expense of secular homeschoolers.

[gardenmom5]

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.

 

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?

 

I don't use bob jones, for reasons I won't go into.

 

technically they were immigrants - they immigrated. what word would you rather was used? (it's like christians freaking out because the dr labled their "miscarriage" as a spontanious abortion - technically, that's what it is is called in medical jargon).

 

The dutch settled new york - it was originally New Amersterdam. Pennsylvania "dutch" is a corruption of "duetsch" or german.

 

I do alot of family history, and the US census schedules back to 1790 has everyone broken into white/blacks/free-blacks. (all listed by head of house and broad age groups get nothing but a check mark until about 1850.) as the decades go by the census information gets better (is quite fascinating and well worth going over some as part of your american history studies). frankly, I think it is interesting and useful to know where people were emmigrating from and immigrating to - it can tell you alot about what was happening in THOSE countries. Many Irish came in during the potatoe famine. Swedes came in droves when there were famines and crop failures there. Germans (from Hanover/Prussia/etc.) were solicited by ad's in their own country to immigrate here during the middle 1800's. Chinese were solicited to come build the railroads. Jews came looking for peace from the pogroms.

 

There is much to be learned. what makes people pick up and leave everything they know to go somewhere completely different where they have no clue, probably no family, and little chance of ever returning "home"? They must have had great fortitude to do something so drastic.

 

I wonder the same thing as I see the movement within the US and out west where it was still a rough frontier. what made people pick up and go west and risk indian attacks? (and if you think that's an overreaction, you need to study more first person history).

[Orthodox6]

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 agree that the academic content of some of the BJUP products is solid enough for good homeschool learning.

 

It remains true, however, that this is a curriculum espousing viewpoints repugnant to many people, whether for religious reasons, or for political/moral reasons.

 

At any rate, it is not -- (Thanks be to God!) -- as if we were discussing curriculum from the Westboro group!

[leeannpal]

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

 

I have to agree here. I'm Christian, but the fact that interracial dating was against the rules at BJU up until relatively recently keeps me from wanting to use any of their products.

[Jean in Newcastle]

I have to agree here. I'm Christian, but the fact that interracial dating was against the rules at BJU up until relatively recently keeps me from wanting to use any of their products.

 

I don't use BJU things either - partly because of this kind of stance, and partly because I don't like textbooks BUT I think that you have to look at the context of this page in it's immediate written context, not the context of the school's history.

[SailorMom]

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:

[elegantlion]

Current common connotation of the word immigrant is people who made a conscious choice to come to this country (sorry about the alliterative Cs, total coincidence).

 

IMO a textbook publisher should extrapolate on the difference, even at the elementary level.

[leeannpal]

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

 

I've taught in Christian schools and even used Abeka, but I wouldn't ever consider using BJU. I have a few issues with ABeka too, and for that reason, I'm hesitant to go with completely Christian curricula that I haven't had a chance to thoroughly check out. Thank goodness most of the Christian curricula I have looked at have had a far more tolerant views of people groups, other religions and ethnicities than BJU does.

[Princess Peach]

I don't use bob jones, for reasons I won't go into.

 

technically they were immigrants - they immigrated. what word would you rather was used? (it's like christians freaking out because the dr labled their "miscarriage" as a spontanious abortion - technically, that's what it is is called in medical jargon).

 

The dutch settled new york - it was originally New Amersterdam. Pennsylvania "dutch" is a corruption of "duetsch" or german.

 

I do alot of family history, and the US census schedules back to 1790 has everyone broken into white/blacks/free-blacks. (all listed by head of house and broad age groups get nothing but a check mark until about 1850.) as the decades go by the census information gets better (is quite fascinating and well worth going over some as part of your american history studies). frankly, I think it is interesting and useful to know where people were emmigrating from and immigrating to - it can tell you alot about what was happening in THOSE countries. Many Irish came in during the potatoe famine. Swedes came in droves when there were famines and crop failures there. Germans (from Hanover/Prussia/etc.) were solicited by ad's in their own country to immigrate here during the middle 1800's. Chinese were solicited to come build the railroads. Jews came looking for peace from the pogroms.

 

There is much to be learned. what makes people pick up and leave everything they know to go somewhere completely different where they have no clue, probably no family, and little chance of ever returning "home"? They must have had great fortitude to do something so drastic.

 

I wonder the same thing as I see the movement within the US and out west where it was still a rough frontier. what made people pick up and go west and risk indian attacks? (and if you think that's an overreaction, you need to study more first person history).

 

According to Merriam-Webster, the definition of the word immigrant is:

 

: one that immigrates: as a : a person who comes to a country to take up permanent residence

 

This implies a choice, which the slaves did not have. I guess I just would have liked more of a distinction made. I made that distinction on my own to my children.

 

All of the examples you gave...yes, we discussed that, the reasons the different groups had for coming to America. How hard it must have been, not arriving with much money, not knowing the language. But still they chose to come.

 

I was just initially shocked to find this in the text. Now, not so much.

[Halftime Hope]

I find bigotry and racism for more than impolite. It offends me to my very core and I would not add it into my daily life. We are entitled to that viewpoint. I can't understand taking offense to that but whatever.

 

I agree with your stated viewpoint, whole-heartedly. So much so that I pulled "The Ransom of Red Chief" off our reading list for this past week, (after I had already assigned it, thinking it would be a fun story to annotate, but not having read it in many years). Hoo, boy, did we discuss that in class!

 

That's not what I was taking offense to. Go back and read my post if you really want to understand.

 

And with that, I'm really bowing out. : )

[Alte Veste Academy]

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:

 

technically they were immigrants - they immigrated. what word would you rather was used? (it's like christians freaking out because the dr labled their "miscarriage" as a spontanious abortion - technically, that's what it is is called in medical jargon).

 

Working off the quote above, I don't think it would have been too terribly difficult to choose words like these instead: "And, too, there were slaves who came from many countries in Africa. Although they came against their will, they are also technically considered immigrants." That wasn't too hard, right? :) Of course, it won't work at all if your goal is to intentionally obfuscate the issue.

 

For the record, even non-Christians do not like having their miscarriages referred to as abortions.

[beaners]

According to Merriam-Webster, the definition of the word immigrant is:

 

: one that immigrates: as a : a person who comes to a country to take up permanent residence

 

This implies a choice, which the slaves did not have. I guess I just would have liked more of a distinction made. I made that distinction on my own to my children.

 

All of the examples you gave...yes, we discussed that, the reasons the different groups had for coming to America. How hard it must have been, not arriving with much money, not knowing the language. But still they chose to come.

 

I was just initially shocked to find this in the text. Now, not so much.

 

 

My Film and Immigration class in college included a lot of discussion about the slave trade. I went to a very large, very liberal state university. I found that the school as a whole and especially the Art branch of the school approached things from about 180 degrees of BJU. I'll add that I would find it difficult to think of a group in that large population that was more intent on portraying and discussing tough issues without offending the victims than the teaching staff in that field.

 

I don't personally think including the slave trade under immigration is done out of malice, and I wouldn't be surprised to see it there. I would move on to something else if other aspects of a curriculum made me uncomfortable. I'd also add some clarifying statements if I didn't find the text adequate.

[nowimscrappin]

I'm just finding it interesting that people who fancy themselves "tolerant" are going on about how much they HATE BJU and even are going after the people here who like it. That is hypocrisy if I've ever seen it. You can't say you are accepting, and then only be accepting of people or things that think like you, regardless of whether the other views are repugnant, outdated, etc.

 

I don't use BJU but just wanted to put it out there. I haven't been on these forums long but find it interesting that those who want to be seen as the most open-minded, Christian-like, tolerant people aren't tolerant of those who make curriculum choices for reasons other than their own.

[simka2]

Believing in "tolerance," and being "tolerant" are 2 very different things.

 

I'm just finding it interesting that people who fancy themselves "tolerant" are going on about how much they HATE BJU and even are going after the people here who like it. That is hypocrisy if I've ever seen it. You can't say you are accepting, and then only be accepting of people or things that think like you, regardless of whether the other views are repugnant, outdated, etc.

 

I don't use BJU but just wanted to put it out there. I haven't been on these forums long but find it interesting that those who want to be seen as the most open-minded, Christian-like, tolerant people aren't tolerant of those who make curriculum choices for reasons other than their own.

[Alte Veste Academy]

I'm just finding it interesting that people who fancy themselves "tolerant" are going on about how much they HATE BJU and even are going after the people here who like it. That is hypocrisy if I've ever seen it. You can't say you are accepting, and then only be accepting of people or things that think like you, regardless of whether the other views are repugnant, outdated, etc.

 

On the surface, it might appear hyprocritical. In practice, I would simply say that I'm intolerant of intolerance. I'm OK with that seemingly apparent irony. ;)

[nowimscrappin]

But others aren't just saying they are intolerant of intolerance, they are intolerant of those who will still read it, use it, etc. They are basically saying they have no room for people who each read the books of intolerance, not just the people PUBLISHING the books of intolerance. There's a big difference.

 

I'm reminded of an episode of the West Wing (for those who used to watch it), not long after Josh was shot. Ainsley was interviewing for a job and discussing gun control with Sam (Rob Lowe). She said the problem that she had with the Democrats position wasn't that they hated guns - that it was ok to hate guns - but that they hated the people who liked guns. They hated the people. What did that say about them?

 

That's what I'm talking about here. Not people hating BJU. People hating PEOPLE who USE BJU. I don't see that as accepting or tolerant at all and thankful I don't use BJU because I feel certain that statements like that would have completely turned me off to this community. Its OK to dislike or hate a curriculum, and even share your personal feelings why, but to condemn others that do like it, is where I have a problem.

[Spy Car]

I'm just finding it interesting that people who fancy themselves "tolerant" are going on about how much they HATE BJU and even are going after the people here who like it. That is hypocrisy if I've ever seen it. You can't say you are accepting, and then only be accepting of people or things that think like you, regardless of whether the other views are repugnant, outdated, etc.

 

I don't use BJU but just wanted to put it out there. I haven't been on these forums long but find it interesting that those who want to be seen as the most open-minded, Christian-like, tolerant people aren't tolerant of those who make curriculum choices for reasons other than their own.

 

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

[Princess Peach]

But others aren't just saying they are intolerant of intolerance, they are intolerant of those who will still read it, use it, etc. They are basically saying they have no room for people who each read the books of intolerance, not just the people PUBLISHING the books of intolerance. There's a big difference.

 

I'm reminded of an episode of the West Wing (for those who used to watch it), not long after Josh was shot. Ainsley was interviewing for a job and discussing gun control with Sam (Rob Lowe). She said the problem that she had with the Democrats position wasn't that they hated guns - that it was ok to hate guns - but that they hated the people who liked guns. They hated the people. What did that say about them?

 

That's what I'm talking about here. Not people hating BJU. People hating PEOPLE who USE BJU. I don't see that as accepting or tolerant at all and thankful I don't use BJU because I feel certain that statements like that would have completely turned me off to this community. Its OK to dislike or hate a curriculum, and even share your personal feelings why, but to condemn others that do like it, is where I have a problem.

 

I've voiced my concerns about BJU curriculum and have said that for right now, I will continue to use it, regardless. And yet, FWIW, I don't feel hated here for using it.

 

I also haven't read any posts that say they hate the people using the curriculum. I have seen people say that they can't understand why anyone would want to use it. That is different and an entirely acceptable opinion.

[simka2]

But others aren't just saying they are intolerant of intolerance, they are intolerant of those who will still read it, use it, etc. They are basically saying they have no room for people who each read the books of intolerance, not just the people PUBLISHING the books of intolerance. There's a big difference.

 

I'm reminded of an episode of the West Wing (for those who used to watch it), not long after Josh was shot. Ainsley was interviewing for a job and discussing gun control with Sam (Rob Lowe). She said the problem that she had with the Democrats position wasn't that they hated guns - that it was ok to hate guns - but that they hated the people who liked guns. They hated the people. What did that say about them?

 

That's what I'm talking about here. Not people hating BJU. People hating PEOPLE who USE BJU. I don't see that as accepting or tolerant at all and thankful I don't use BJU because I feel certain that statements like that would have completely turned me off to this community. Its OK to dislike or hate a curriculum, and even share your personal feelings why, but to condemn others that do like it, is where I have a problem.

 

Again, I think you are over simplifing a bit ;). There has been incredible tolerance shown to the OP who bought and uses the program. The only place that tolerance has not been extended, is in the acceptance that the curriculum is not objectionable.

[Alte Veste Academy]

But others aren't just saying they are intolerant of intolerance, they are intolerant of those who will still read it, use it, etc. They are basically saying they have no room for people who each read the books of intolerance, not just the people PUBLISHING the books of intolerance. There's a big difference.

 

I'm reminded of an episode of the West Wing (for those who used to watch it), not long after Josh was shot. Ainsley was interviewing for a job and discussing gun control with Sam (Rob Lowe). She said the problem that she had with the Democrats position wasn't that they hated guns - that it was ok to hate guns - but that they hated the people who liked guns. They hated the people. What did that say about them?

 

That's what I'm talking about here. Not people hating BJU. People hating PEOPLE who USE BJU. I don't see that as accepting or tolerant at all and thankful I don't use BJU because I feel certain that statements like that would have completely turned me off to this community. Its OK to dislike or hate a curriculum, and even share your personal feelings why, but to condemn others that do like it, is where I have a problem.

 

Well, I don't personally hate anyone who uses the books. In fact, a good friend just put her kids in a private Christian school that uses BJU and I certainly don't hate her (although I am irritated that she stopped homeschooling, frankly :tongue_smilie:). You know what though? She has no idea what BJU, especially its history program, is all about. Perhaps if she did and was all gung ho about it, we would have a problem. I think there would be a disconnect.

 

The problem is that if you believe a curriculum is _________, and ________ goes against everything you believe, you probably aren't going to have a warm, fuzzy friendship with someone who knows full well that the curriculum espouses those beliefs and keeps on using it. That's life.

[Mrs Mungo]

I'm just finding it interesting that people who fancy themselves "tolerant" are going on about how much they HATE BJU and even are going after the people here who like it. That is hypocrisy if I've ever seen it. You can't say you are accepting, and then only be accepting of people or things that think like you, regardless of whether the other views are repugnant, outdated, etc.

 

I don't use BJU but just wanted to put it out there. I haven't been on these forums long but find it interesting that those who want to be seen as the most open-minded, Christian-like, tolerant people aren't tolerant of those who make curriculum choices for reasons other than their own.

 

One, the individual who was most vocal in this thread against the program/university/school is not a Christian. So, I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say here. :confused: We've had white supremacists banned from this board. Tolerance only goes so far.

[Sputterduck]

I'm just finding it interesting that people who fancy themselves "tolerant" are going on about how much they HATE BJU and even are going after the people here who like it. That is hypocrisy if I've ever seen it. You can't say you are accepting, and then only be accepting of people or things that think like you, regardless of whether the other views are repugnant, outdated, etc.

 

I don't use BJU but just wanted to put it out there. I haven't been on these forums long but find it interesting that those who want to be seen as the most open-minded, Christian-like, tolerant people aren't tolerant of those who make curriculum choices for reasons other than their own.

 

You are not tolerant of everything. Nobody is and nobody should be. I've never understood the idea that people should be tolerant of everything and accepting of anything and that if they are not but say they value tolerance and acceptance they are hypocrites.

 

I am not referring to the original discussion in particular, but never really understood statements like the above. I don't care if people use BJU stuff if it works for them, though I think it's important to edit out anything racist. I'd personally not give money in support of an organization that was anti-interracial marriage. My son is half-Korean and half-Irish. I like to think that nobody cares anymore about that stuff, but apparently some do.

Edited September 17, 2011 by Sputterduck

[tntgoodwin]

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.

[Garga]

I'm just finding it interesting that people who fancy themselves "tolerant" are going on about how much they HATE BJU and even are going after the people here who like it. That is hypocrisy if I've ever seen it. You can't say you are accepting, and then only be accepting of people or things that think like you, regardless of whether the other views are repugnant, outdated, etc.

 

I don't use BJU but just wanted to put it out there. I haven't been on these forums long but find it interesting that those who want to be seen as the most open-minded, Christian-like, tolerant people aren't tolerant of those who make curriculum choices for reasons other than their own.

 

But others aren't just saying they are intolerant of intolerance, they are intolerant of those who will still read it, use it, etc. They are basically saying they have no room for people who each read the books of intolerance, not just the people PUBLISHING the books of intolerance. There's a big difference.

 

I'm reminded of an episode of the West Wing (for those who used to watch it), not long after Josh was shot. Ainsley was interviewing for a job and discussing gun control with Sam (Rob Lowe). She said the problem that she had with the Democrats position wasn't that they hated guns - that it was ok to hate guns - but that they hated the people who liked guns. They hated the people. What did that say about them?

 

That's what I'm talking about here. Not people hating BJU. People hating PEOPLE who USE BJU. I don't see that as accepting or tolerant at all and thankful I don't use BJU because I feel certain that statements like that would have completely turned me off to this community. Its OK to dislike or hate a curriculum, and even share your personal feelings why, but to condemn others that do like it, is where I have a problem.

 

 

I seem to have missed the posts where the PEOPLE who use BJU were attacked? I saw a lot of people commenting that they don't like BJU and wonder why others use it, but nothing against the people who use it.

 

Can you quote some examples?

[Cricket]

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

 

:tongue_smilie:

 

If I could count the number of times I've said this to people. :lol:

 

Anyway, would someone mind pointing out to me why Abeka is "bad"? Maybe pm me so it doesn't start a controversy. I've never heard anything about Abeka. We tend to stay away from curricula so I guess I'm out of the loop!

 

I have had to edit some things as I've read aloud. If the overall slant of the book is something I disagree with, then I'd toss it altogether. To the OP, it sounds like it brought up some interesting discussion with your dc and that's a good thing. Usually it's something negative that does that!

[ktgrok]

Tolerance doesn't equal support. I can be tolerant of bigots but I'm not going to give them money to encourage their activities. That doesn't make me intolerant.

[Princess Peach]

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.

I don't know that anyone meant to refer to Africa as a country. You can put your concerns to rest. ;)

[Slartibartfast]

If I could count the number of times I've said this to people. :lol:

 

Anyway, would someone mind pointing out to me why Abeka is "bad"? Maybe pm me so it doesn't start a controversy. I've never heard anything about Abeka. We tend to stay away from curricula so I guess I'm out of the loop!

 

I have had to edit some things as I've read aloud. If the overall slant of the book is something I disagree with, then I'd toss it altogether. To the OP, it sounds like it brought up some interesting discussion with your dc and that's a good thing. Usually it's something negative that does that!

 

Abeka isn't really picky about who they offend. I think they state inflammatory things about everyone.

[YLVD]

I agree with your stated viewpoint, whole-heartedly. So much so that I pulled "The Ransom of Red Chief" off our reading list for this past week, (after I had already assigned it, thinking it would be a fun story to annotate, but not having read it in many years). Hoo, boy, did we discuss that in class!

 

That's not what I was taking offense to. Go back and read my post if you really want to understand.

 

And with that, I'm really bowing out. : )

 

Sorry, I may have misread or misinterpreted. In my defense, I am really tired, lol.

[simka2]

Abeka isn't really picky about who they offend. I think they state inflammatory things about everyone.

I am starting to wish there was an actually thread that would discuss the biases of different curriculum. Something we can ressurect every fall and steer the newbies to. ;)

[Mrs Mungo]

I am starting to wish there was an actually thread that would discuss the biases of different curriculum. Something we can ressurect every fall and steer the newbies to. ;)

 

They keep getting deleted. :tongue_smilie:

[simka2]

They keep getting deleted. :tongue_smilie:

 

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?