Is Holzman white washing slavery in Sonlight core 100?

[Chanley]

I am considering using Hakim's History of US. Someone lent their Sonlight 100 core so that I could read John Holzman's remarks about the book thus giving a more well rounded view of the civil war. I opened it to this comments about slavery. He cites the WAP slave narratives and seems to me, to be trying to say that while slavery is not right, many slaves had a good life while slaves. His attitude seems like white washing a very deplorable part of our history that still has social implications today.

 

First of all, I have no illusion that life after slavery was easy for ex-slaves. But I find that the Slave Narratives should be considered in the cultural context in which they were recorded. They were recorded in the 30's by people who were slaves as children. They were also recorded by white people interviewing ex-slaves. I would bet my lunch that most of these folks were not comfortable talking poorly of whites to whites. I mean really!

 

Anyway, there are a few other areas that leave me with a bad taste in my mouth. This being the primary issue I have with the rebuttal of Hakim's work.

 

Has anyone else encountered this, or am I just being overly sensitive?

[SarahW]

Ugh,

 

I think that topic is best left for a college-level discussion.

 

Ok, facts are that very few southerners owned slaves. Also facts are that only a very small percentage of those few owned more than a dozen slaves. Did those who had only have a few slaves, maybe a single family that did "estate" work, treat them well? Maybe.

 

But the problem with using these slave narratives, besides the ones you mentioned, is that it ignores the impact of being a subjugated person. Historians and sociologists know that outlook and viewpoints of subjugated people can be very skewed. Think Stockholm Syndrome on a massive scale, or battered wife syndrome. Whether it is one person or a group of people, the effect is the same. And the effects carry on even after the emancipation from subjugation, as is very obvious in both the previously-abused woman and the history of blacks in the South immediately following the Civil War.

 

Because of this, I think it is very dangerous to present the slave narratives as a fact to younger students. When a student is old enough to think critically about reliable narrators and the impact of social class then I think the slave narratives could be an interesting study.

[Kathryn]

I have no idea about the Sonlight notes as I haven't read them, but in my coursework for my graduate history degree at a Southern university, the WPA slave narratives were frequently used to illustrate bad/faulty history. The historical library at which I worked housed all the originals from our state. Many journal articles and even whole books have been written about the problems related to relying on the slave narratives for an accurate picture of antebellum life for slaves. In addition to some of the issues mentioned, there are several examples of vastly different stories told by the same person interviewed by different workers (black/white, Northern/Southern, male/female, etc.). There is also interviewer bias, interviewee bias of the interviewer, poor training of interviewers, faulty recollections of interviewees, etc.

[stripe]

I would not take seriously anyone who thinks slavery was a kindly institution.

 

Kathryn's comments remind me of some sections of the book Blindspot.

[SarahW]

I would not take seriously anyone who thinks slavery was a kindly institution.

 

Yes, and the system practiced in the South was particularly cruel. That's just a fact.

 

Kathryn, thanks for sharing the details. It's not something I studied, just something that came up in my college US History course for a few minutes. I didn't know there were so many "recessions" of the same account. It's definitely not a reliable source for making grand sweeping generalizations.

[cavscout96]

Yes, and the system practiced in the South was particularly cruel. That's just a fact.

 

Kathryn, thanks for sharing the details. It's not something I studied, just something that came up in my college US History course for a few minutes. I didn't know there were so many "recessions" of the same account. It's definitely not a reliable source for making grand sweeping generalizations.

 

 

hmmm......

 

while I do not disagree tha the institution of slavery was deplorable, I find it hard to reconcile your statements above.

 

what about American slavery made it any more or less cruel forms of slavery practiced in other countries? stating something is "just a fact," does not make it so. it's a bit of a "grand, sweeping generalization" in my opinion.

[SarahW]

hmmm......

 

while I do not disagree tha the institution of slavery was deplorable, I find it hard to reconcile your statements above.

 

what about American slavery made it any more or less cruel forms of slavery practiced in other countries? stating something is "just a fact," does not make it so. it's a bit of a "grand, sweeping generalization" in my opinion.

 

 

 

I'm just comparing it to previous systems of slavery. In the ancient world and in the Roman system there were ways slaves could gain freedom, and then they could go on to build a decent life for themselves. There was also temporary slavery or debt-payment slavery, which offered the slave certain rights.

 

The combination of lifetime bondage and racism made the Southern system much more cruel. That's just my own value judgment based upon the facts that I have studied. I don't know of anyone who would particularly disagree.... which is why I didn't think it needed explaining.

[msjones]

I once engaged in a discussing with John about this and left with the impression that, indeed, he does not agree that slavery is inherently immoral.

 

I wish I could say this surprises me, but it doesn't.

 

I liked Sonlight better before I read Holzman's articles.

[Haiku]

There are definitely people who think that slavery is Biblical and therefore not immoral. I know someone who believes this.

 

Tara

[mommymilkies]

This is good to know. Dd just started Core 100, but I think it is too much work for her right *now*, but with this added, I think I will just sell it and move on.

[kiwik]

I'm sure there were slaves that had basically pleasant lives (at least no more unpleasant than free servants in 19th century England :-)). But they still knew they were property which might be sold if their owner died or suffered financial ruin. And that their children were only theirs by consent of their masters, and that others like them had miserable lifes and it was only a matter of luck that they weren't miserable and that could change at any time.

 

Of course all of our lives could come crashing down around our ears but I've yet to hear of anyone choosing to become a slave unless the alternative was dire.

[cavscout96]

I'm just comparing it to previous systems of slavery. In the ancient world and in the Roman system there were ways slaves could gain freedom, and then they could go on to build a decent life for themselves. There was also temporary slavery or debt-payment slavery, which offered the slave certain rights.

 

The combination of lifetime bondage and racism made the Southern system much more cruel. That's just my own value judgment based upon the facts that I have studied. I don't know of anyone who would particularly disagree.... which is why I didn't think it needed explaining.

 

 

The particualrs are not what I was addressing. I was adressing "just a fact" vs. "grand, sweeping generalizations." and teh logicl disconnect in your statements.

 

I guess the fact that Roman slaves were used in gladitorial games doesn't register on the cruelty meter compared to how slaves were treated in the United States. (for example)

 

Again, I make no apology for slavery. I just take umbrage with those that proclaim it to be the greatest evil ever imflicted upon a people and thus perpetuate some sort of cutural/collective guilt. It happened, we fought a war over it, many people died and we (hopefully) learned some very costy and painful lessons from it. I personally consider the holocuast and Stalin's purge two examples of horrific events that garner much little attention in proportion to their atrocity.

 

As far as the study of history, by professional historians, it is common practice throughout academia in historical study to give considerable creedence to first hand (or primary source) accounts of historical events. As such, I do not believe the condemnation of the author's work is necessarily warranted soley due to his reliance on accounts from former slaves or thier children. You may discount his argument for other inconsistnecies, or take issue with the logic of conclusions he draws from these accounts, but debating the usefulness of the source is inconsistent with the manner in which history is studied.

[cavscout96]

I have no idea about the Sonlight notes as I haven't read them, but in my coursework for my graduate history degree at a Southern university, the WPA slave narratives were frequently used to illustrate bad/faulty history. The historical library at which I worked housed all the originals from our state. Many journal articles and even whole books have been written about the problems related to relying on the slave narratives for an accurate picture of antebellum life for slaves. In addition to some of the issues mentioned, there are several examples of vastly different stories told by the same person interviewed by different workers (black/white, Northern/Southern, male/female, etc.). There is also interviewer bias, interviewee bias of the interviewer, poor training of interviewers, faulty recollections of interviewees, etc.

 

 

Kathryn,

 

I find the very interesting. Admittedly, I am no expert on the slave narratives, but in my experience surrounding historical research, primary sources are always given considerable weight. Is there potential that this is a cricular argument. Is it possible that some have de-emphasized a primary source because of the supposed "value" (bad term for this discussion, but teh only one that comes to mind) of the source itself. Could it be that the those interviewed were deemed less worthy of creedence based on their race, social status, or education by those who take issue with the interviews? I find this a fascinating possibilty as it generally flies in the face of teh weight given to primary sources. Why?

 

I'm not trying to argue the facts of your statement, just truly surprised to see professional historians dismissive of first-hand accounts. I would love to hear more on this.

 

 

-CS96

[SarahW]

I'm not Kathryn, but primary sources are always judged critically.

 

Here is a basic source explaining this process: http://www.edteck.com/dbq/more/analyzing.htm

 

Of particular interest here is the "Questions for Analyzing Primary Sources" section.

[JDoe]

It is an inconvenient truth that slavery often is accepted and even defended by the slaves themselves. It seems to have been since recorded history began up until this very day.

 

It does not imply in my view that slavery is somehow "right". It does however indicate something about how people come to accept what is "normal" as they grow up. How a child that grew up as a slave would come to reject slavery is far more difficult to explain than how the same child comes to accept it.

 

Similar observations can be made with respect to the system of government one grows up with. Those growing up under absolute monarchy tend to accept and defend that, whereas those that grow up in a democracy tend to accept and defend that.

 

Are the fish aware of the water they swim in?

[Aslana]

Ok, facts are that very few southerners owned slaves. Also facts are that only a very small percentage of those few owned more than a dozen slaves. Did those who had only have a few slaves, maybe a single family that did "estate" work, treat them well? Maybe.

 

 

While it may be true that <20% of southerners owned slaves, I've serious doubts that any of these slaves were treated well. Children were sold straight from birth. Families separated. I'm sure that there may have been a "favorite" worker for these plantation owners, but I still doubt the veracity of anyone who claims they were treated well. I'm not saying you are making this sweeping claim, but you are questioning it, which is why I quote you.

 

The Slave Narratives I listened to, do not sound to me like they should be doubted in any way. I know there is a segment of the population that, like Holocaust deniers, deny slaves were treated poorly and feel slavery was a good thing. And it certainly did not sound like the slaves had accepted slavery as a fact of life and therefore, acceptable.

 

It sounded more to me like the slaves were saying that's just how it was and if we wanted to live, we did what we were told. That's fear, not acceptance. Someone mentioned Stockholm Syndrome and yeah, I could see that too.

 

 

 

(and this is making me reconsider sonlight 400. I was looking into either the Lit or Government core and I don't want crazy arse views like that popping up)

[cavscout96]

I'm not Kathryn, but primary sources are always judged critically.

 

Here is a basic source explaining this process: http://www.edteck.co...e/analyzing.htm

 

Of particular interest here is the "Questions for Analyzing Primary Sources" section.

 

 

 

SarahW,

 

I agree. that is a good page. this section in particluar captures the point I was trying to make:

 

--------------------------------------------------------

Time and Place Rule

 

To judge the quality of a primary source, historians use the time and place rule. This rule says the closer in time and place a source and its creator were to an event in the past, the better the source will be. Based on the time and place rule, better primary sources (starting with the most reliable) might include:

• Direct traces of the event;

• Accounts of the event, created at the time it occurred, by firsthand observers and participants;

• Accounts of the event, created after the event occurred, by firsthand observers and participants;

• Accounts of the event, created after the event occurred, by people who did not participate or witness the event, but who used interviews or evidence from the time of the event.

 

--------------------------------------------------------

 

I'm not saying that the should be considered the one and only, comprehensive authority, only that, using the time and place framework, should not be dismissed out of hand. Consider this in the context of how many of us were taught about slavery in the US. I'm not sure I had a single primary source in my studies during my schoool years, only textbooks that "captured" the issue in about 1-2 chapters.

 

not defending holzman or hakim, just of the opinion that discounting sources out of hand is not good scholarship

[SarahW]

Cavscout96,

 

One of the stories we talked about in my college class was of a slave who worked in the kitchen. One day she overheard her masters talking about selling her. She was very sad about this, so she thought of an idea to prove her worth to her masters so they could keep her. So one day she put a small amount of poison in their food, so that when they got sick she could nurse them back to health and prove her worth. However, she put too much poison in the food, and they all died. Distraught with grief, she went out into the woods and killed herself.

 

Now, even if you could say that this story is factually true, to extrapolate from this that all slaves loved their masters and wanted to be with them is a vast over-generalization. It ignores all the psychological and social issues that are obviously at play in that story. Even if you could find an authentic account of masters who went out of their way to take care of their slaves, can you then make a judgement about slavery in the American south as a whole? Nope.

 

As for gladiators - yes, that was cruel. But they were a tiny percentage of the slave population, and they could also gain freedom. Sure, the way they got their freedom was particularly nasty, but it was a possibility. The Romans never decided that everyone with red hair were, by their very existence, beings that were only good for a life of bound servitude.

 

But that a certain sort of people were supposed to be slaves was what the Southern system was built upon, which is why it was called a "peculiar institution." There are numerous documents that show this viewpoint. Callahan is one:

 

To maintain the existing relations between the two races, inhabiting that section of the Union, is indispensable to the peace and happiness of both. It cannot be subverted without drenching the country in blood, and extirpating one or the other of the races. Be it good or bad, it has grown up with our society and institutions, and is so interwoven with them, that to destroy it would be to destroy us as a people. But let me not be understood as admitting, even by implication, that the existing relations between the two races in the slaveholding States is an evil—far otherwise; I hold it to be a good, as it has thus far proved itself to be to both, and will continue to prove so if not disturbed by the fell spirit of abolition. I appeal to facts. Never before has the black race of Central Africa, from the dawn of history to the present day, attained a condition so civilized and so improved, not only physically, but morally and intellectually. It came among us in a low, degraded, and savage condition, and in the course of a few generations it has grown up under the fostering care of our institutions, as reviled as they have been, to its present comparatively civilized condition. This, with the rapid increase of numbers, is conclusive proof of the general happiness of the race,

http://oll.libertyfu...=html&Itemid=27

 

This argument from race and "civilization" of culture is, imo, particularly insidious. I can't think of any other slave system in human history that built that sort of construct. It made people consider a person's worth according to their ancestry and cultural heritage. That is, I hope everyone agrees, a particularly nasty sort of slavery.

 

 

ETA: I see that maybe we cross-posted. This was all about your pp above, not the most recent one. About that Kathryn has much more to say. I'm a historian by training, but US History in particular always made me snooze. ;)

[Kathryn]

All of my college papers and books are in the attic, but here are a few Internet sites that explain a bit.

 

 

http://cwmemory.com/2006/11/01/interpreting-slave-narratives/

This gives an example of two narratives by the same ex-slave, one with a white interviewer and one with a black interviewer.

 

http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Article.jsp?id=h-3007

 

"Lomax insisted that the interviews were to be objective, verbatim recordings of the experience of each ex-slave encountered by the FWP writers, but in practice the interviews reflect the systematic racism of the Jim Crow South. The early Georgia interviews indicated that interview subjects were more likely to be open and direct with interviewers of their own race. The majority of interviewers were white, however, and blacks remained underrepresented in all the state writers' projects. The Georgia Writers' Project employed the highest number (though not the highest percentage) of African Americans, four of thirty-four interviewers.

The attitude of the interviewer toward the subject, as well as the form of the interview, undermines the reliability of the text for modern readers. Many interviewers, though not all, describe their subjects in terms common for their place and time, such as "old darky" and "typical old Negro mammy." The instructions to FWP interviewers from Washington asked that the dialect of the subjects be taken down verbatim, and also included a list of recommended interview questions covering ghost stories and a laundry list of superstitions, leaving the subject obscured behind the mask of vulgar stereotype.

The interviews also reflect the attitude of the subject toward the interviewer. Again and again the interviews describe the extreme poverty of many of the subjects, most over the age of eighty, dependent on children, grandchildren, or government relief. Under such circumstances, it is conceivable that a black subject might be wary or fearful of telling a white person from a government agency anything he or she would not want to hear; in many cases the interviewer seems happy to record the subject confirming the stereotype of the benevolent master and expressing regret for the disappeared good old days of slavery. Whippings and other cruelties are often attributed to the master of a neighboring plantation, not the subject's own.

Once collected, the interviews were edited by supervisors in charge of the state writers' program offices, making up for the deficiencies of inexperienced or untrained interviewers and creating a tidy, more "literary" manuscript. In some states, the most shocking allegations of interview subjects were mitigated or removed; interviews from Georgia show less evidence of this practice."

 

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/snhtml/snintro16.html

"Given the myriad problems of authenticity and reliability surrounding the interviews, one might despair of using them at all. Indeed, until the 1970s they were not widely used in a serious fashion by scholars. The reservations concerning their use were summarized by David Henige, who, after a cursory discussion of the context within which the interviews were obtained, concludes that "the combination of weaknesses that characterizes the ex-slave narratives restricts their reliable data to such matters as childhood under slavery, some aspects of family life, some details on slave genealogies, and some unintended insights into the nature of memory and of interview psychology...." Therefore, he contends, the Federal Writers' Project effort to preserve the life histories of the former slaves "was largely an opportunity lost.""

 

http://historyofanationlibertyfellowship.org/uploads/presentations/Taylor/Slavery%20a%20View%20from%20the%20Bottom%20Rail%20WPA.PPTX

 

"Historians, James West Davidson and Mark Hamilton Lytle, shared the following considerations in After the Fact the Art of Historical Detection, McGraw Hill, Boston, 2005. (pages 186-190) (Note from me, Kathryn: I recognize this title as one we used in my coursework)

The sheer bulk of interviews – 2, 300 collected.  

   (Still a small sampling of the original four million freed people.)

 

The age of the participants - How sharp were their memories?

       - the interviews took place between 1936 and 1938 – 2/3 of those    interviewed were more than 80 years old

       - 43% were less than 10 years old in 1865

       -77% were under 20 years old in 1865

Many would remember slavery through a child’s experiences which might be less harsh  or because children are so impressionable memories may be magnified both good and bad.

(Age may have biased the type of recollections as well as their accuracy)

 

Context of Times:

-1930s black people were still considered inferior by many

        the everyday etiquette  of the south brings this home – white    southerners addressed black people by their first names or as “boy,†     “auntie,†“uncle†while blacks were expected to address white    people as “ma’am,†or “mister.â€

-many were share croppers and poor farmers in debt to white property owners

-between 1931 and 1935 seventy African Americans were lynched in the south

Many interviewers had to reassure informants that the information they shared would not be used against them.

 

The Interviewer

Was the interviewer black or white?  

 

Was the interviewer from the same community as the former slave?

   “One older woman summed up the situation quite cheerfully.  “Oh, I know your father en your granfather en all of dem.  Bless Mercy, child, I don’t want to tell you nothin’ but what to please you.â€

 

What was the interviewer’s style of questioning?

   Simply by choosing his or her questions, the interviewer can begin to define the kinds of information a subject will volunteer.

–Asking leading questions

–Unconscious clues

 

 

•Method of Collection

   The director of the Federal Writers’ Project instructed interviewers - “details of the interview should be reported as accurately as possible in the language of the original statements.â€

   The mostly white interviewers made and effort to capture the speech patterns . ( Some tape-recorded the interviews – but it was a very small number that were taped.)

 

•Interviewers took notes and later reconstructed and transcribed

–sometimes editing to improve the flow

–Possibly editing out what they felt objectionable or irrelevant

–Some edited to correct English but most tried to provide a flavor of black dialect with varying degrees of success.

–Still, some transcripts contain racist notions and clear exaggerations."

[Kathryn]

If anyone is interested, I found a copy online of the chapter from "After the Fact" related to slavery. The discussion of the WPA narratives begins on page 186:

 

http://www.mpsaz.org/rmhs/staff/jxcollums/class1/ap2/files/view_from.pdf

 

* while Davidson and Lytle noted that they only guessed that Augustus Ladson was black, that has since been proven to be true.

[Kim in Appalachia]

This is good to know. Dd just started Core 100, but I think it is too much work for her right *now*, but with this added, I think I will just sell it and move on.

 

 

I'm using Core 100 right now. This is my 2nd time going through this program. I'll say that I skip a lot, and I mean a lot of his "notes" I use the guide for questions and ignore his opinion on lots of topics. When I'm skipping over a lot of pages, I often say to my dd that I skipping all of his hot air.

 

The Core is usefull for scheduling and planning. But I'll also admit that we dumped the lit books and picked our own. Too easy and boring for my dd. I do like the Hakim books, they are better than the average textbook.

 

HTH

[CatholicMom]

I am considering using Hakim's History of US. Someone lent their Sonlight 100 core so that I could read John Holzman's remarks about the book thus giving a more well rounded view of the civil war. I opened it to this comments about slavery. He cites the WAP slave narratives and seems to me, to be trying to say that while slavery is not right, many slaves had a good life while slaves. His attitude seems like white washing a very deplorable part of our history that still has social implications today.

 

First of all, I have no illusion that life after slavery was easy for ex-slaves. But I find that the Slave Narratives should be considered in the cultural context in which they were recorded. They were recorded in the 30's by people who were slaves as children. They were also recorded by white people interviewing ex-slaves. I would bet my lunch that most of these folks were not comfortable talking poorly of whites to whites. I mean really!

 

Anyway, there are a few other areas that leave me with a bad taste in my mouth. This being the primary issue I have with the rebuttal of Hakim's work.

 

Has anyone else encountered this, or am I just being overly sensitive?

 

 

I am not familiar with Sonlight 100 or Holzmann's remarks, but based on what you're saying here this doesn't sound like white washing to me. You're saying yourself that you recognize Holzmann to be saying that slavery is "not right." If he is also saying that not all slaves were treated very poorly (I imagine he means things like being screamed at, beaten, worked cruelly, etc), that does not mean he is white washing the whole of slavery. After all, like you said, you believe him to be saying he doesn't think it's right. Personally I think you're being a bit sensitive. He may just be pointing out something some people don't realize... that there were many different slave owners and not all were screaming, beating, task masters. So what if that is true, ya know? I would think that as many slave owners as there were that not all were complete monsters, even though they were sucked into this immoral system of their day. We should hope it is true that some slaves led a basically pleasant life, despite their circumstances, and not be in denial of this because we hate the nature of slavery (rightfully so) so much.

 

While it may be true that <20% of southerners owned slaves, I've serious doubts that any of these slaves were treated well. Children were sold straight from birth. Families separated. I'm sure that there may have been a "favorite" worker for these plantation owners, but I still doubt the veracity of anyone who claims they were treated well. I'm not saying you are making this sweeping claim, but you are questioning it, which is why I quote you.

 

The Slave Narratives I listened to, do not sound to me like they should be doubted in any way. I know there is a segment of the population that, like Holocaust deniers, deny slaves were treated poorly and feel slavery was a good thing. And it certainly did not sound like the slaves had accepted slavery as a fact of life and therefore, acceptable.

 

It sounded more to me like the slaves were saying that's just how it was and if we wanted to live, we did what we were told. That's fear, not acceptance. Someone mentioned Stockholm Syndrome and yeah, I could see that too.

 

(and this is making me reconsider sonlight 400. I was looking into either the Lit or Government core and I don't want crazy arse views like that popping up)

 

 

Why is it fair to doubt the claims of a sane adult just because they have been a slave? I'm sure you can find other former slaves who say they *were* beaten or treated harshly, so why should we refuse to believe those who say they actually weren't? I think it's silly at best and demeaning at worst to just refuse to believe their testimonies when they were under no known coercion to lie. I'm assuming the interviewers weren't exactly KKK members and if they were interested enough in hearing the testimonies of former slaves, I would assume they want to know the truth. Just sayin.

 

 

I once engaged in a discussing with John about this and left with the impression that, indeed, he does not agree that slavery is inherently immoral.

 

 

Personally I think it is not nice to publicly post this about John when this was merely an "impression" you got and we can not verify it with his own words. I think you should not spread this notion around in the (likely, IMO) case that you are very wrong on this point.

[cavscout96]

 

Cavscout96,

 

The Romans never decided that everyone with red hair were, by their very existence, beings that were only good for a life of bound servitude.

 

 

 

 

You are correct, they believe EVERYONE that was not a Roman citizen was of lesser worth and not accorded the rights and priviledges granted to those who were.

 

 

But that a certain sort of people were supposed to be slaves was what the Southern system was built upon, which is why it was called a "peculiar institution."

 

 

This argument from race and "civilization" of culture is, imo, particularly insidious. I can't think of any other slave system in human history that built that sort of construct. It made people consider a person's worth according to their ancestry and cultural heritage. That is, I hope everyone agrees, a particularly nasty sort of slavery.

 

 

 

 

Every form of slavery that I have ever read of did EXACTLY this. The Egyptions enslaved the Isrealites because... they were Isrealites and not Egyptians. The Greeks enslaved anyone they conquered who was... not Greek, and so on with the Romans, etc. I don't find the American form of slavery so vastly different from any other form of slavery throughout history. I beleive that we have convinced ourselves as Americans that it was the worst injustice ever visited upon a people in the history of mankind.

 

I'm not saying it wasn't an abhorrent instituion. I'm simply stating that attacking a curriculum based on a position assembled after studying a primary source is bad scholarship in general. Now should those sources be examined in detail for reliability. Absolutely, but that examination must be done honestly with an eye toward established pratice of lending weight to "time and place" over someones incredulity that someone, previously in bondage, would ever remark that it might not have been as horrific as you've been led to believe. Rememeber, that contemprary anti-slavery accounts were written with an agenda, just as contemporary states rights advocates did. when applying both teh time and place, and bias filters, one would have to assume that teh former slaves had no reason to portray their previous condition of bodage in a positive light. What did they have to gain?

 

I'm not arguing for or against the curriculm, and certainly not for the defense of slavery as an institution. I am simply pointing out that the logic behid dismissing the Sonlight curriculum appears flawed. If you thoroughly deconstruct the arguement (which requires studying the sources carefully and firstly discounting them) and still decide the curriculum is off target, by all means do not use it. Until we do, however, apply the intellectual rigor required to evaluate teh argument, making broad generalization about the authors credibility is academically dishonest.

[SarahW]

You are correct, they believe EVERYONE that was not a Roman citizen was of lesser worth and not accorded the rights and priviledges granted to those who were.

 

 

 

Every form of slavery that I have ever read of did EXACTLY this. The Egyptions enslaved the Isrealites because... they were Isrealites and not Egyptians. The Greeks enslaved anyone they conquered who was... not Greek, and so on with the Romans, etc. I don't find the American form of slavery so vastly different from any other form of slavery throughout history. I beleive that we have convinced ourselves as Americans that it was the worst injustice ever visited upon a people in the history of mankind.

 

Sorry, but no, no, no. That's not what history tells us at all.

 

The Egyptians did not believe that Israelites were only good to be slaves because they were just Israelites, and therefore inferior beings. Remember Joseph? Moses? Okay, they're in the Bible. But solid evidence shows that Hysoks (ethnically related to the Hebrews) and other foreigners could gain positions in government, and even were Pharaoh's sometimes.

 

Making conquered people your slaves because you conquered them was just done in the ancient world. It was a political move, not an ethnic one.

 

Romans broke these rules and allowed their conquered peoples to remain free and keep major parts of their culture (like the Greeks and Jews). And Roman citizens was originally anyone born in Rome, and then their descendants. People could gain Roman citizenship. Josephus did, even though he was a Jew. The Romans only enslaved whole groups of people after they proved themselves unable to live as freeman in the Roman empire, like a good number of Jews after the revolt of 70. Except Josephus, and others who accepted the Roman government.

 

To decide that it was better for a certain ethnic group to be in lifetime bondage (like Callahan argued) is simply pernicious.

 

I'm not saying it wasn't an abhorrent instituion. I'm simply stating that attacking a curriculum based on a position assembled after studying a primary source is bad scholarship in general. Now should those sources be examined in detail for reliability. Absolutely, but that examination must be done honestly with an eye toward established pratice of lending weight to "time and place" over someones incredulity that someone, previously in bondage, would ever remark that it might not have been as horrific as you've been led to believe. Rememeber, that contemprary anti-slavery accounts were written with an agenda, just as contemporary states rights advocates did. when applying both teh time and place, and bias filters, one would have to assume that teh former slaves had no reason to portray their previous condition of bodage in a positive light. What did they have to gain?

 

I'm not arguing for or against the curriculm, and certainly not for the defense of slavery as an institution. I am simply pointing out that the logic behid dismissing the Sonlight curriculum appears flawed. If you thoroughly deconstruct the arguement (which requires studying the sources carefully and firstly discounting them) and still decide the curriculum is off target, by all means do not use it. Until we do, however, apply the intellectual rigor required to evaluate teh argument, making broad generalization about the authors credibility is academically dishonest.

 

Yes, we are studying the original sources. Lots of people have studied the original sources. I am, actually, a historian. Not of U.S. history, but historiography is historiography, and human nature is human nature. Kathryn has offered many specifics as to why the texts are unreliable. As much as historians wish it wasn't so, original sources can be dramatically unreliable. Even Josephus can be quite unreliable.

 

This is something that historians simply have to sort through day in and day out. For a non-historian and non-expert in the field to come in and say something that flies in the face of good methodology is the height of irresponsibility. I would expect the author of a curriculum of history to know that, but he apparently does not (which makes me question his understanding of history entirely) or he has an agenda (which is unfortunately possible). Either way, what he says is completely unacceptable.

[cavscout96]

Sarah,

I respectfully disagree.

Joseph was a high-ranking official in Egypt, before the Israelites were enslaved.

Rome did NOT extend the rights and privileges of Roman citizens to conquered peoples, while not necessarily enslaved; they were without question second-class inhabitants.

Does enslaving people for political expediency make it more palatable? I should think it might actually be WORSE.

to Kathryn's postings;

How does a 2005 analysis of 70-year-old recordings trump a firsthand account?

I know several folks over the age of 80 with extremely sharp minds. Dismissing an account out of hand based on age is as bad as dismissing one due to race.

Many of the justifications listed could be boiled down to "they were just old, poor, uneducated and misled "colored folk" How can their firsthand accounts been taken seriously" That perspective, in my viewpoint is unbelievably short-sighted and "flies in the face of good methodology." With whom does the bias really lie with respect to understanding the relative credibility of the narratives? It appears, on its face, that an “enlightened†academia has discounted firsthand accounts simply because they are incredulous that they did not support their hypothesis. This practice is what I would term the "height of irresponsibility."

Ladies, I believe we will just have to agree to disagree.

Regards

-CS96

[Kathryn]

Sarah,

I respectfully disagree.

Joseph was a high-ranking official in Egypt, before the Israelites were enslaved.

Rome did NOT extend the rights and privileges of Roman citizens to conquered peoples, while not necessarily enslaved; they were without question second-class inhabitants.

Does enslaving people for political expediency make it more palatable? I should think it might actually be WORSE.

to Kathryn's postings;

How does a 2005 analysis of 70-year-old recordings trump a firsthand account?

I know several folks over the age of 80 with extremely sharp minds. Dismissing an account out of hand based on age is as bad as dismissing one due to race.

Many of the justifications listed could be boiled down to "they were just old, poor, uneducated and misled "colored folk" How can their firsthand accounts been taken seriously" That perspective, in my viewpoint is unbelievably short-sighted and "flies in the face of good methodology." With whom does the bias really lie with respect to understanding the relative credibility of the narratives? It appears, on its face, that an “enlightened†academia has discounted firsthand accounts simply because they are incredulous that they did not support their hypothesis. This practice is what I would term the "height of irresponsibility."

Ladies, I believe we will just have to agree to disagree.

Regards

-CS96

 

Apparently so. I'm at a serious loss in understanding how you came to your conclusions given the material posted.

[cavscout96]

another quote from the same source you ref'd above:

 

"But even discounting the prejudices of the interviewers, and making allowances for the subjects' inability to be candid, the narratives contribute greatly to the understanding of the lives of African Americans before and during the Civil War. Unlike the antebellum slave narratives, the WPA interviews cover a wide spectrum of people who suffered under slavery. Most subjects were under the age of fifteen when the Civil War ended, but they lived in seventeen states; hailed from cities and from the country, from small farms and large plantations; and worked in a number of tasks. Descriptions of clothing, food, living arrangements, family, and other aspects of daily life can all be found in the narratives."

 

your own references tates their value is "in dispute." that does not mean teh same as "refuted."

 

 

from one of your internet sources:

 

"However, a blanket indictment of the interviews is as unjustified as their indiscriminate or uncritical use. Each kind of historical document has its own particular usefulness as well as its own inherent limitations for providing understanding of the past. The utility of the ex-slave interviews can only be determined in the context of the objectives of the researcher. For example, if one is interested in entering the perennial debate over the profitability of slavery, information obtained from the narratives will be highly impressionistic and much less valuable than that from other sources such as plantation records. Yet if one wishes to understand the nature of the "peculiar institution" from the perspective of the slave, to reconstruct the cultural and social milieu of the slave community, or to analyze the social dynamics of the slave system, then these data are not only relevant; they are essential."

 

how can you be at a loss for my conclusions

[Aslana]

I said:

 

Aslana, on 14 April 2013 - 09:41 AM, said:

 

While it may be true that <20% of southerners owned slaves, I've serious doubts that any of these slaves were treated well. Children were sold straight from birth. Families separated. I'm sure that there may have been a "favorite" worker for these plantation owners, but I still doubt the veracity of anyone who claims they were treated well. I'm not saying you are making this sweeping claim, but you are questioning it, which is why I quote you.

 

The Slave Narratives I listened to, do not sound to me like they should be doubted in any way. I know there is a segment of the population that, like Holocaust deniers, deny slaves were treated poorly and feel slavery was a good thing. And it certainly did not sound like the slaves had accepted slavery as a fact of life and therefore, acceptable.

 

It sounded more to me like the slaves were saying that's just how it was and if we wanted to live, we did what we were told. That's fear, not acceptance. Someone mentioned Stockholm Syndrome and yeah, I could see that too.

 

(and this is making me reconsider sonlight 400. I was looking into either the Lit or Government core and I don't want crazy arse views like that popping up)

 

 

You said:

 

Why is it fair to doubt the claims of a sane adult just because they have been a slave? I'm sure you can find other former slaves who say they *were* beaten or treated harshly, so why should we refuse to believe those who say they actually weren't? I think it's silly at best and demeaning at worst to just refuse to believe their testimonies when they were under no known coercion to lie. I'm assuming the interviewers weren't exactly KKK members and if they were interested enough in hearing the testimonies of former slaves, I would assume they want to know the truth. Just sayin.

 

 

 

Why doubt claims? As others have pointed out, those claims were directly related to who and how the interview was conducted. It is NOT doubting the former slave, it is doubting how they recount their memories to the specific person questioning them. Others have shown that some of the former slaves answered much differently when a white person questioned them as opposed to how they answered when someone else questioned them. That's why I said I would doubt the claims of some who stated they were treated well. I'd have to look at the interview process--who interviewed them and how.

 

Your use of the KKK shows you absolutely do not understand the difference between speaking as one thinks they should be speaking and speaking from the heart or truthfully. They WERE under coercion to speak nicely about their time as slaves --simply by being interviewed by a white person. Studies have shown this (see previous posts). Also look up the meaning of Stockholm Syndrome. Even if the white person interviewing them could absolutely prove no malice intended, Stockholm Syndrome states that the victim will still answer and respond according to how they think the interviewer wants them to, not how the victim should be answering.

 

Do NOT mistake my words for any of your assumptive claims. Do not fall under the impression that I am in any way disrespecting them. To do so would be very, very wrong.

[Kathryn]

another quote from the same source you ref'd above:

 

"But even discounting the prejudices of the interviewers, and making allowances for the subjects' inability to be candid, the narratives contribute greatly to the understanding of the lives of African Americans before and during the Civil War. Unlike the antebellum slave narratives, the WPA interviews cover a wide spectrum of people who suffered under slavery. Most subjects were under the age of fifteen when the Civil War ended, but they lived in seventeen states; hailed from cities and from the country, from small farms and large plantations; and worked in a number of tasks. Descriptions of clothing, food, living arrangements, family, and other aspects of daily life can all be found in the narratives."

 

your own references tates their value is "in dispute." that does not mean teh same as "refuted."

 

 

from one of your internet sources:

 

"However, a blanket indictment of the interviews is as unjustified as their indiscriminate or uncritical use. Each kind of historical document has its own particular usefulness as well as its own inherent limitations for providing understanding of the past. The utility of the ex-slave interviews can only be determined in the context of the objectives of the researcher. For example, if one is interested in entering the perennial debate over the profitability of slavery, information obtained from the narratives will be highly impressionistic and much less valuable than that from other sources such as plantation records. Yet if one wishes to understand the nature of the "peculiar institution" from the perspective of the slave, to reconstruct the cultural and social milieu of the slave community, or to analyze the social dynamics of the slave system, then these data are not only relevant; they are essential."

 

how can you be at a loss for my conclusions

 

NO ONE has stated that the slave narratives are inherently of no value. No one has said that they are blanketly "refuted" as sources. What has been pointed out over and over is that their utility is limited because of all the reasons listed. When you have a white worker, who leads an elderly black welfare recipient in 1930s South Carolina to believe that she's from the welfare office, ask leading questions like "don't you think your master deserved to keep your pay since he fed and clothed you?," AND you have an alternate interview of the same woman conducted with a black man that shows very different views, you cannot trust the value of the interview as it relates to white/black, slave/master relations, etc. That is what those quotes are saying. The interviews may be useful for understanding customs, family life, religion, etc., within the black community, but their utility in other ways are very limited. Part of graduate training in history is detailed coursework in how primary sources are to be evaluated.

 

Sorry if this is disjointed, my 3yo is dancing around yelling at me.

[Shelly in VA]

Regarding slavery, the book Slavery and Social Death: A Comparative Study by Patterson is an excellent source of information: http://www.amazon.com/Slavery-Social-Death-Comparative-Study/dp/067481083X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1366124858&sr=8-1&keywords=slavery+and+social+death. The book description on Amazon says:

 

This is the first full-scale comparative study of the nature of slavery. In a work of prodigious scholarship and enormous breadth, which draws on the tribal, ancient, premodern, and modern worlds, Orlando Patterson discusses the internal dynamics of slavery in sixty-six societies over time. These include Greece and Rome, medieval Europe, China, Korea, the Islamic kingdoms, Africa, the Caribbean islands, and the American South. Slavery is shown to be a parasitic relationship between master and slave, invariably entailing the violent domination of a natally alienated, or socially dead, person. The phenomenon of slavery as an institution, the author argues, is a single process of recruitment, incorporation on the margin of society, and eventual manumission or death.

Distinctions abound in this work. Beyond the reconceptualization of the basic master-slave relationship and the redefinition of slavery as an institution with universal attributes, Patterson rejects the legalistic Roman concept that places the "slave as property" at the core of the system. Rather, he emphasizes the centrality of sociological, symbolic, and ideological factors interwoven within the slavery system. Along the whole continuum of slavery, the cultural milieu is stressed, as well as political and psychological elements. Materialistic and racial factors are deemphasized. The author is thus able, for example, to deal with "elite" slaves, or even eunuchs, in the same framework of understanding as fieldhands; to uncover previously hidden principles of inheritance of slave and free status; and to show the tight relationship between slavery and freedom.

Interdisciplinary in its methods, this study employs qualitative and quantitative techniques from all the social sciences to demonstrate the universality of structures and processes in slave systems and to reveal cross-cultural variations in the slave trade and in slavery, in rates of manumission, and in the status of freedmen. Slavery and Social Death lays out a vast new corpus of research that underpins an original and provocative thesis.

This doesn't address Sonlight's point-of-view, obviously, but I thought this might be a helpful resource for those using Core 100.

[Shelly in VA]

Regarding slavery, the book Slavery and Social Death: A Comparative Study by Patterson is an excellent source of information: http://www.amazon.com/Slavery-Social-Death-Comparative-Study/dp/067481083X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1366124858&sr=8-1&keywords=slavery+and+social+death. The book description on Amazon says:

 

This is the first full-scale comparative study of the nature of slavery. In a work of prodigious scholarship and enormous breadth, which draws on the tribal, ancient, premodern, and modern worlds, Orlando Patterson discusses the internal dynamics of slavery in sixty-six societies over time. These include Greece and Rome, medieval Europe, China, Korea, the Islamic kingdoms, Africa, the Caribbean islands, and the American South. Slavery is shown to be a parasitic relationship between master and slave, invariably entailing the violent domination of a natally alienated, or socially dead, person. The phenomenon of slavery as an institution, the author argues, is a single process of recruitment, incorporation on the margin of society, and eventual manumission or death.

Distinctions abound in this work. Beyond the reconceptualization of the basic master-slave relationship and the redefinition of slavery as an institution with universal attributes, Patterson rejects the legalistic Roman concept that places the "slave as property" at the core of the system. Rather, he emphasizes the centrality of sociological, symbolic, and ideological factors interwoven within the slavery system. Along the whole continuum of slavery, the cultural milieu is stressed, as well as political and psychological elements. Materialistic and racial factors are deemphasized. The author is thus able, for example, to deal with "elite" slaves, or even eunuchs, in the same framework of understanding as fieldhands; to uncover previously hidden principles of inheritance of slave and free status; and to show the tight relationship between slavery and freedom.

Interdisciplinary in its methods, this study employs qualitative and quantitative techniques from all the social sciences to demonstrate the universality of structures and processes in slave systems and to reveal cross-cultural variations in the slave trade and in slavery, in rates of manumission, and in the status of freedmen. Slavery and Social Death lays out a vast new corpus of research that underpins an original and provocative thesis.

This doesn't address Sonlight's point-of-view, obviously, but I thought this might be a helpful resource for anyone using Core 100.

[mommymilkies]

Thank you, Shelly, I'll put that on my reading list.

[brightflash]

Fascinating discussion. And thank you to those who provided alternative sources and critical perspectives on the Slave Narratives. I am particularly grateful to you, Kathryn, for taking the time to provide the detailed sources for good historical method.

 

 

*******

 

 

I do not have a current copy of Sonlight's Core 100 notes. I haven't done anything with the Sonlight Curriculum program since I resigned from day-to-day operations back in 2008. So some of the notes I wrote may have been edited or deleted since I last saw them in 2006. BUT I would like to provide a little context and perspective for the "complaint" with which this thread began . . . and provide at least a partial response to and defense against the judgment that at least one reader seems to have made, based on the discussion in this thread, that Sonlight's Core 100 program is so seriously flawed that she will return it; and another's comment that she had discussed the subject of slavery with me and came away with the impression that I "[do] not agree that slavery is inherently immoral"; and the judgment of the third person who seems to think I somehow believe "slavery was a kindly institution" and, therefore, is of a mind to dismiss me as someone she could possibly "take seriously."

 

As I reviewed my notes from 2006, here is what I discovered. This is how I introduced the note in which my first quotes from the Slave Narratives appears:

 

 

I am not writing these notes in order either to justify the institution of slavery as it was practiced, nor to suggest that either you or I would have liked being a slave.

However

, Ms. Hakim keeps making comments that need to be corrected or clarified.

 

 

On page 132 [sorry, as of 4/19/2013, I don't know what volume of Hakim's 10-volume series I was commenting on--JAH], she says, “No one wants to be a slave.â€

 

 

That is simply not true! That would be like saying, in today’s society, “No one wants to be a factory worker,†“No one wants to be a garbage man,†or, “No one wants to be a coal miner.â€

 

Please remember: I am making an analogy here. We have to keep things in perspective, look at them in context. And, in perspective, in context, we have to ask: what other options might a person have?

 

 

Ms. Hakim says that “visitors from Europe will say [that slaves] live better than most peasants in the Old World.†—If that is true (and there is no reason to question its truth), then on what grounds can we say that slave life was so bad? [4/19/2013: I provide elsewhere in the Instructor's Guide lots of reasons to believe that the institution of slavery--and the racist laws of the United States--both South AND North--were DEEPLY egregious! After all, I am, here, merely attempting to respond to comments about a snippet of one note in a multi-hundred-page book of notes. --JAH]

 

 

For people today who do not either have the ability or desire to finish high school, on what grounds can we say that working in a factory, or driving a garbage truck, or being a coal miner is so bad?

 

 

Clearly, no one I can think of would want to be kidnapped from his or her village (as the about-to-be-slaves were kidnapped from their villages in Africa); no one would want to go through the “Middle Passage†(the packed-like-sardines voyage across the Atlantic Ocean that all about-to-be slaves were forced to endure). And I can’t imagine anyone wanting to go through the fearsome process of being auctioned as a slave.

 

 

There can be no doubt: many slaves

were

unhappy in their lot, and for just cause: they were beaten mercilessly and forced to endure terrible privations by inhumane masters. And even without “just cause,†some (many?) black slaves desired to live in an open, competitive environment rather than slavery.

 

 

However

, many others—

many

others—had very different experiences (they were never beaten and never

feared

being beaten). And many held different values or simply saw things from a different perspective. Many black slaves were well pleased with their station in life.

 

 

It is unfair and unrighteous for us to generalize from the abusive slave masters and the abused slaves to all slave masters and all slaves. [FOOTNOTE: Just as it is unfair and unrighteous for modern social workers to generalize from abusive husbands and boyfriends to all men; from abusive parents to all parents; or from abusive employers to all employers.] Neither the testimony of former slaves nor statistical measures will support such generalizations. [FOOTNOTE: Please note: despite the common attempt to argue the merits of slavery on the basis of human happiness or pain, I am not at this point seeking to argue about the legitimacy of slavery. I am seeking merely to point out that true history is more complex than Ms. Hakim’s comments would lead us to believe.]

 

 

It is a matter of historic record that “returns from the 1850 census show that of white Northerners and Southerners, one person in every thousand was either deaf, dumb, blind, insane, or idiotic. For the free blacks of Yankeedom, one in every 506 was afflicted with one of these conditions. [FOOTNOTE: In other words, free blacks in the North were almost twice as likely to suffer from one of these conditions than was a white person.—JAH] . . . [Among Southern blacks, however,] only one in 1,464 had a condition as previously described.†[FOOTNOTE: In other words, black slaves were less likely than whites, and far less likely than their Northern brothers, to suffer similar debilities.

[i then provided the proper source reference for my statistics.]

]

 

 

It is also a matter of historic record—hard as it may be for most of us to imagine—that many slaves loved their masters and, following emancipation, looked back with wistfulness at their period of enslavement. Thus we find such statements as these. . . .

 

--And from there I included some--what to me were startling and, until I thought about them, frankly unimaginable--statements about life under slavery taken from the Slave Narratives. AFTER I read them, and AFTER I thought about them . . . well . . . I realized the truth of some of the things I just quoted above . . . and I realized the statements from the Slave Narratives weren't quite as unimaginable as I first thought.

 

But, now what "unbelievable," and (as suggested in this thread) POSSIBLY "not-worth-the-paper-they-were-printed-on" statements did I quote?

 

From ex-slave Simon Phillips of Alabama:

 

 

People have the wrong idea of slave days. We were treated good. My Master never laid a hand on me the whole time I was with him. . . . Sometimes we loaned the master money when he was hard pushed.

 

From ex-slave Isaam Morgan of Mobile, Alabama:

 

 

Any time a slave worked over time or cut more wood than he was supposed to, Master paid him money for it, ‘cause whenever one of us slaves saw something we liked, we did just like the white folks do now. We bought it. Master never whipped any of his slaves. . . . No’m, none of our slaves ever tried to run away. They all knew they were well off. . . . They [Yankees] offered me a horse if I would go North with them, but I just couldn’t leave the Master even though I did want that horse mighty bad.

 

From ex-slave D. Davis of Marvell, Arkansas:

 

 

The first of every week he [the master] gave each and every single man or family a task to do that week, and after that task was done, then they were through work for that week and could then tend the patches which he would give them for raising what they wanted. And what the slaves raised on those patches that he gave them would be theirs, whatever it would be, cotton or potatoes or whatever it would be. They owned [it] and they could sell it and have the money for themselves to buy what they wanted.

 

In my source footnote, I then say,

 

 

I should note—as one of our black clients pointed out—that, considering the climate of the times in which these interviews were granted, the data concerning negative comments should be held in suspicion. As our client wrote: “Why would most of these people even consider speaking out against their slave owners’ injustices? Who would protect them afterward? . . .

 

 

"In some stores owned by African Americans, . . . [t]here are Afro prices and white-man prices. Now, the people who know this are obviously . . . Africans, because they’re the ones being treated to the discounts. Dare I suggest that the same is true in interviews by African slaves . . . and that black people speak completely differently to one another than they do to white people, even now? Obviously, there is much less apprehension now than there was 50 to 80 years ago. However, it is still there. I can’t imagine the lack of ‘freedom of speech’ a slave or an ex-slave must have experienced while answering direct questions about life with their ‘master’ and the conditions in which they lived.â€

 

Unfair? "Crazy arse[d]," as one participant, here, suggests? Inappropriate for middle and high school students to think about, as another seems to suggest?

 

I think not.

 

It is possible these statements I quoted were, indeed, whitewashed. Maybe. But, just for example, I'm not sure why Mr. Morgan would have felt obliged to make his statements so all-encompassing: "Any time a slave worked over time or cut more wood . . . [W]henever one of us slaves saw something we liked. . . . Master never whipped any of his slaves. . . . [N]one of our slaves ever tried to run away. They all knew they were well off. . . ."

 

Still. Supposing every one of these quotations was somehow false. Then what? Shall the rest of my notes be set aside? "Holzmann doesn't know what he is talking about." "He is [some awful descriptor]." "Sonlight is not to be trusted." (????)

 

Really?

 

This is one note in the midst of hundreds of pages of notes about dozens and dozens of subjects.

 

Whether my note is useful or not, I would like to call your attention to something one customer wrote to me many years ago after reading some of the things I had written about the so-called Civil War.

 

She said something to the effect of, "I could never understand how ANYONE could sympathize with the Southern cause until I read your notes and heard 'the other side.'" And why did that matter? And why was she thankful to have been provided "the other side" on this and so many other issues for which Ms. Hakim provides only one perspective?

 

I thought she hit the nail on the head: As long as we are taught a straw man version of what "the other side" looks like, we are able to deride it and hold ourselves up as great moral heroes: "I would have never supported slavery! I would have done the right thing!" But once you see how "the other side" thinks, things become a bit more complicated. And you have to think a little more and dig a little deeper and ask yourself, in some serious humility: "Oh, really? Would I really avoid going in that direction if I had been brought up on that side of the fence? . . . If so, what would have clued me in to the fault of that viewpoint? And how would I have stood up against the social pressure of all of 'my people'?"

 

I expect history would say most of our prideful confidence is misplaced. The realities of life are quite a bit less clear than traditional histories pretend they are. And many, many of us would--and probably will--find ourselves on the "wrong" side of history in some conflict or another.

 

One of the reasons I wrote the notes I did was to provide reason for (at least most of us) to carry ourselves a bit more humbly. To realize maybe we're not such clear thinkers and know-it-alls as we would like to believe.

 

*******

 

 

 

Hey. As long as I have the opportunity, I'd like to share one other note from the same Instructor's Guide. It appears just a few pages later:

 

 

Ms. Hakim tells the story of James Forten, a 14-year-old black boy who fought on behalf of the American Revolutionary forces against the British (see Book 3, chapter 23). When captured and told he would be set free if he would renounce his country, Ms. Hakim says, “Forten wouldn’t consider it. He was an American and he said, ‘No! I shall never prove a traitor to my country!’†(Book 3, pg. 112).

 

 

She seems comfortable with Forten’s story. Why does she not tell similar stories of [southern] slaves like Robin who was captured with his master during Morgan’s raid into Ohio?

 

 

He was separated from his master in prison, and was offered his liberty several times in exchange for taking an Oath of Loyalty to the Union. He refused saying, “I will never disgrace my family by such an oath.†[source referenced in my/Sonlight's notes.]

 

 

Or how about the unnamed slave, captured with his master at Point Lookout? The master agreed to take the oath of allegiance. The slave would not. “Your master has taken the oath,†his captors told him. “Why won’t you?â€

 

 

“Massa has no principles,†the slave replied with disgust. [Again, source referenced in my/Sonlight's notes.]

 

 

Ms. Hakim ought—and we ought—to be comfortable with these stories of black men and women of the Old South who considered themselves to be Confederates. Why should we find it remarkable that they might say--as Forten did during the Revolutionary War: “No! I shall never prove a traitor to my country!�

 

 

It was this sentiment that motivated Robert E. Lee to fight for Virginia. It was the same sentiment that motivated many black men and women to consider the Confederate cause their cause as well. . . .

 

*******

 

 

I don't pretend to be infallible or omniscient. My notes are not perfect, by any means. (I thought I might be able to get away with such imperfection by sharing the fruits of my research and, generally, seeking to raise questions rather than making too many assertions.) My goal in writing the notes I did was to provide enough fodder to cause students--and parents--to think . . . and to ask questions of their own . . . and to engage in deeper research . . . even as some of the participants in this thread, obviously, have engaged in deep research of their own.

 

If you're not interested in doing research; if you want simply to be spoon-fed your history and know that everything your history text teaches you is perfectly accurate and from impeccable sources: clearly, you will have to find your texts and curriculum somewhere else than in anything I have written or anything published or sold by Sonlight Curriculum.

 

I like to imagine, however, that I might have an adequate handle on the vagaries of historical research, and that my own meandering research is interesting enough that it might inspire some students--and parents--to do research of their own.

 

Based on the proven success of so many Sonlight students through the years, I think my imagination has proven more real than false.

 

But I am open to being proven wrong.

 

Thanks for listening.

 

John Holzmann

[albeto]

So... enslaved people report being grateful for what they had (such as, a lack of immediate threat to life and limb), and from this you conclude they were "well pleased with their station in life"?

 

The fact that this is offered as valid education is offensive to me as a citizen of the United States, and appalling as a member of the human race.

 

I read from your post the same Stockholm Syndrome you fail to recognize in enslaved peoples. Being conditioned to be grateful for not suffering more at the hands of one with an asymmetric control of power ought never be confused with being "well pleased."

[Haiku]

Slavery is wrong, and I can't really imagine why anyone would feel the need to go to such great lengths to justify the idea that some slaves were happy. Of course they were. They knew of no other life. Slavery is still wrong, and, honestly, you come off as rather a crackpot in trying to justify to such an extent that some slaves were happy.

 

Tara

[stripe]

Every form of slavery that I have ever read of did EXACTLY this.

 

I am familiar with cultures that enslaved members of their own society, but often the conditions were much less severe than American slavery.

 

I think the American form of slavery differs from other forms of slavery in several important ways, including:

* offspring of slaves were automatically slaves

* family ties were not maintained: marriage was not recognized, children were taken from mothers

* slaves were prohibited from learning; literacy was a crime

* physical abuse was tolerated

* the legal system did not recognize enslaved people as human beings

* slavery was lifelong and freeing slaves was uncommon through most of its history

 

I do not think most Americans think slavery was the worst injustice ever committed. At all! There have been no reparations ever made to its survivors or descendants, for example, which is customary when horrors were perpetrated. Instead, black people were and are told to get over it and lift themselves up. A woman who burns herself on hot coffee gets millions for her suffering, but those who were beaten and raped were not given anything? The big apology for slavery from the House came in 2008, and from the Senate in 2009. "You wonder why we didn't do it 100 years ago," said Sen. Tom Harkin. It was carefully phrased so as to sidestep giving any reparations.

 

So, yes, there were likely many horrors that former slaves did not want to discuss with the WPA people, because they didn't want to relive it, felt uncomfortable discussing evil white people with a white interviewer, or tried to downplay it for any number of reasons. So anything in the Slave Narratives that doesn't sound utterly horrific, doesn't mean slave life was good because Massa tossed them a pig foot once a week. It is a common survival technique to try to help oneself deal with horrors that have been survived, and shouldn't be interpreted as the loving "Downton Abbey" type of concern, which is also totally fake and unrealistic, for the underclass.

 

Who cares whether a person was beaten and so forth to determine how they were treated -- that is not the MAIN point of slavery. The main point of slavery is the deprivation of liberty. So whether one is treated brutally or "well," he or she is still not able to choose to be there, not able to choose to do something else, work somewhere else, or go home. It is the fact of the lack of choice that makes it an abomination, not some mean overseer with a whip. Even in a gilded cage, it is still slavery.

 

A woman enslaved in the Americas was not able to decline the sexual advance of her "master," or the efforts of her master to "breed" her with a strong black "buck" (and don't think these terms were an accident). As former slave Maggie Stenhouse described in the WPA Slave Narratives, "Durin' slavery there were stockmen. They was weighed and tested. A man would rent the stockman and put him in a room with some young women he wanted to raise children from." So pregnancy and childbirth were "encouraged," regardless of the view of the women themselves. And the women were often separated from their children.

 

Given that so many slave owners professed to be devout Christians, I think it is important that the white American Christian establishment not waste its time attempting to explain or justify this horrific behavior.

 

There is a history of trying to downplay others' suffering, and the same thing happened when middle class Indian men were enslaved by the John Pickle Company in Tulsa, OK in 2001 . And it's worth noting that in that case, the men were believed and assisted by members of a local church, leading to their escape in 2002. (That's right -- a church! This was a group of American Christians who were moved to help when they realized what was going on.) You can listen to an episode of This American Life about it

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/344/the-competition

and read about it in John Bowe's book Nobodies, which documents that there were no small number of people who felt whatever they suffered was acceptable because there are so many people who want to come to the US, and that merely living in the US should be sufficient to make these men happy, despite the fact that they had no freedom of movement and choice, and were not being compensated adequately and were living in squalor.

 

I think it is very disturbing when the very fact of being enslaved is no longer taken for the horror and injustice that it is.

[justasque]

It is a matter of historic record that “returns from the 1850 census show that of white Northerners and Southerners, one person in every thousand was either deaf, dumb, blind, insane, or idiotic. For the free blacks of Yankeedom, one in every 506 was afflicted with one of these conditions. [FOOTNOTE: In other words, free blacks in the North were almost twice as likely to suffer from one of these conditions than was a white person.—JAH] . . . [Among Southern blacks, however,] only one in 1,464 had a condition as previously described.†[FOOTNOTE: In other words, black slaves were less likely than whites, and far less likely than their Northern brothers, to suffer similar debilities. [i then provided the proper source reference for my statistics.]]

 

 

I'm not a historian, so I'll limit my comments to this one point.

 

I don't think I would jump to the conclusion that because there were fewer *living* people among Southern blacks who were "deaf, dumb, blind, insane, or idiotic", that Southerners were "less likely than whites, and far less likely than their Northern brothers, to suffer similar debilities". In fact, there could be a number of reasons for the difference. Just because there were fewer living people with such afflictions doesn't mean there were fewer people who had those conditions to begin with. An obvious possibility is that under harsh conditions, people with such disabilities would have a shorter lifespan, for all kinds of reasons, than those who lived in more favorable conditions. It would be harder for them to care for themselves, harder for them to communicate their needs, harder for family members to care for them (if they even lived together), harder for them to avoid accidental death (farming accidents, etc.), harder for them to get help if they were sick, harder for them to defend themselves from harsh treatment or abuse. Remembering that such people were property, much as a horse or cow was, owned for economic benefit, one's mind goes to the fact that such people were likely to be of little, if any, economic benefit to their owners, and worth little, if sellable at all, on the open market. That thought leads to some horrific possibilities. Rather than seeing the statistic you cited as pointing towards favorable conditions for blacks in the South, I would see it as possible evidence of quite the opposite.

 

As I sort through information about slavery, I find that thinking of slaves as prisoners of war (and subsequent generations of imprisoned offspring of prisoners of war) can sometimes give me a different lens through which to view their situations. By reading first-hand accounts of more modern POW camps, I can get a sense of how humans react to being in slave-like conditions (and how humans react when given power over slaves). By reframing the scenario like this, I can gain insight or understanding that is sometimes hard to see with the American plank in my eye.

[swellmomma]

Just one more reason that I stopped supporting Sonlight, When the owners have to come over here and sound like lunatics it's time to find a new curriculum (actually I did that previously due to other reasons, but this takes the cake and ensures that catalog will never suck me in again)

[mommaduck]

A good book to read, highly recommended down here is Carolina Clay: The Life of Slave Potter Dave.

[mommaduck]

When I've taught on this subject, I taught the good, thebad, and the ugly...of every side (there were more than two sides). There were different perceptions, different ranks of slaves, different ranks of white people, different reasons for fighting in the war, prejudices amoungst the classes of people, those that were mixed but managed to survive or pass, prejudices in both the North and the South, which side had the majority of what resources, the mindset and what exactly constituted a plantation vs a farm and even what a plantation house was at that time (Gone With the Wind type views do not apply). Relationships between whites and blacks were fairly complex and contradictory in the old South. Where one was a slave, but could shake hands and shoot the breeze with a white person in the South vs one could be free and be smacked down for trying to shake a white hand in the North. (a letter from a Union soldier to home addresses his disgust at white Southerners shaking hands with black Southerners and how it would never be allowed in the North) Many whites are not quite as white as many think. During the colonial era, interracial marriages (whether legal or not) were not fully uncommon between NA, blacks, and whites...all had also been able to be enslaved at one time, though two of these were phased out...the Caribbean had white and black slavery a well. Poor whites and Irish were often seen as less value than a black slave, even as a person. Certain dangerous jobs were paid next to nothing and given to the Irish, because who would risk a good investment (slave) in such a venture (the debate on who had it "better" is always a matter of perspective...both can be seen as being better off or screwed in their positions).

 

Honestly, I despise most curricula in this area as they want to broadbrush each each side as entirely evil or entirely saintly. Neither side was entirely either and each had a mix of both kinds of people.

[Kathryn]

Fascinating discussion. And thank you to those who provided alternative sources and critical perspectives on the Slave Narratives. I am particularly grateful to you, Kathryn, for taking the time to provide the detailed sources for good historical method.

 

*******

I do not have a current copy of Sonlight's Core 100 notes. I haven't done anything with the Sonlight Curriculum program since I resigned from day-to-day operations back in 2008. So some of the notes I wrote may have been edited or deleted since I last saw them in 2006. BUT I would like to provide a little context and perspective for the "complaint" with which this thread began . . . and provide at least a partial response to and defense against the judgment that at least one reader seems to have made, based on the discussion in this thread, that Sonlight's Core 100 program is so seriously flawed that she will return it; and another's comment that she had discussed the subject of slavery with me and came away with the impression that I "[do] not agree that slavery is inherently immoral"; and the judgment of the third person who seems to think I somehow believe "slavery was a kindly institution" and, therefore, is of a mind to dismiss me as someone she could possibly "take seriously."

 

As I reviewed my notes from 2006, here is what I discovered. This is how I introduced the note in which my first quotes from the Slave Narratives appears:

 

I am not writing these notes in order either to justify the institution of slavery as it was practiced, nor to suggest that either you or I would have liked being a slave.

However

, Ms. Hakim keeps making comments that need to be corrected or clarified.

 

On page 132 [sorry, as of 4/19/2013, I don't know what volume of Hakim's 10-volume series I was commenting on--JAH], she says, “No one wants to be a slave.â€

 

That is simply not true! That would be like saying, in today’s society, “No one wants to be a factory worker,†“No one wants to be a garbage man,†or, “No one wants to be a coal miner.â€

Please remember: I am making an analogy here. We have to keep things in perspective, look at them in context. And, in perspective, in context, we have to ask: what other options might a person have?

 

Ms. Hakim says that “visitors from Europe will say [that slaves] live better than most peasants in the Old World.†—If that is true (and there is no reason to question its truth), then on what grounds can we say that slave life was so bad? [4/19/2013: I provide elsewhere in the Instructor's Guide lots of reasons to believe that the institution of slavery--and the racist laws of the United States--both South AND North--were DEEPLY egregious! After all, I am, here, merely attempting to respond to comments about a snippet of one note in a multi-hundred-page book of notes. --JAH]

 

For people today who do not either have the ability or desire to finish high school, on what grounds can we say that working in a factory, or driving a garbage truck, or being a coal miner is so bad?

 

Clearly, no one I can think of would want to be kidnapped from his or her village (as the about-to-be-slaves were kidnapped from their villages in Africa); no one would want to go through the “Middle Passage†(the packed-like-sardines voyage across the Atlantic Ocean that all about-to-be slaves were forced to endure). And I can’t imagine anyone wanting to go through the fearsome process of being auctioned as a slave.

 

There can be no doubt: many slaves

were

unhappy in their lot, and for just cause: they were beaten mercilessly and forced to endure terrible privations by inhumane masters. And even without “just cause,†some (many?) black slaves desired to live in an open, competitive environment rather than slavery.

 

However

, many others—

many

others—had very different experiences (they were never beaten and never

feared

being beaten). And many held different values or simply saw things from a different perspective. Many black slaves were well pleased with their station in life.

 

It is unfair and unrighteous for us to generalize from the abusive slave masters and the abused slaves to all slave masters and all slaves. [FOOTNOTE: Just as it is unfair and unrighteous for modern social workers to generalize from abusive husbands and boyfriends to all men; from abusive parents to all parents; or from abusive employers to all employers.] Neither the testimony of former slaves nor statistical measures will support such generalizations. [FOOTNOTE: Please note: despite the common attempt to argue the merits of slavery on the basis of human happiness or pain, I am not at this point seeking to argue about the legitimacy of slavery. I am seeking merely to point out that true history is more complex than Ms. Hakim’s comments would lead us to believe.]

 

It is a matter of historic record that “returns from the 1850 census show that of white Northerners and Southerners, one person in every thousand was either deaf, dumb, blind, insane, or idiotic. For the free blacks of Yankeedom, one in every 506 was afflicted with one of these conditions. [FOOTNOTE: In other words, free blacks in the North were almost twice as likely to suffer from one of these conditions than was a white person.—JAH] . . . [Among Southern blacks, however,] only one in 1,464 had a condition as previously described.†[FOOTNOTE: In other words, black slaves were less likely than whites, and far less likely than their Northern brothers, to suffer similar debilities.

[i then provided the proper source reference for my statistics.]

]

 

It is also a matter of historic record—hard as it may be for most of us to imagine—that many slaves loved their masters and, following emancipation, looked back with wistfulness at their period of enslavement. Thus we find such statements as these. . . .

 

--And from there I included some--what to me were startling and, until I thought about them, frankly unimaginable--statements about life under slavery taken from the Slave Narratives. AFTER I read them, and AFTER I thought about them . . . well . . . I realized the truth of some of the things I just quoted above . . . and I realized the statements from the Slave Narratives weren't quite as unimaginable as I first thought.

 

But, now what "unbelievable," and (as suggested in this thread) POSSIBLY "not-worth-the-paper-they-were-printed-on" statements did I quote?

 

From ex-slave Simon Phillips of Alabama:

 

People have the wrong idea of slave days. We were treated good. My Master never laid a hand on me the whole time I was with him. . . . Sometimes we loaned the master money when he was hard pushed.

 

From ex-slave Isaam Morgan of Mobile, Alabama:

 

Any time a slave worked over time or cut more wood than he was supposed to, Master paid him money for it, ‘cause whenever one of us slaves saw something we liked, we did just like the white folks do now. We bought it. Master never whipped any of his slaves. . . . No’m, none of our slaves ever tried to run away. They all knew they were well off. . . . They [Yankees] offered me a horse if I would go North with them, but I just couldn’t leave the Master even though I did want that horse mighty bad.

 

From ex-slave D. Davis of Marvell, Arkansas:

 

The first of every week he [the master] gave each and every single man or family a task to do that week, and after that task was done, then they were through work for that week and could then tend the patches which he would give them for raising what they wanted. And what the slaves raised on those patches that he gave them would be theirs, whatever it would be, cotton or potatoes or whatever it would be. They owned [it] and they could sell it and have the money for themselves to buy what they wanted.

 

In my source footnote, I then say,

 

I should note—as one of our black clients pointed out—that, considering the climate of the times in which these interviews were granted, the data concerning negative comments should be held in suspicion. As our client wrote: “Why would most of these people even consider speaking out against their slave owners’ injustices? Who would protect them afterward? . . .

 

"In some stores owned by African Americans, . . . [t]here are Afro prices and white-man prices. Now, the people who know this are obviously . . . Africans, because they’re the ones being treated to the discounts. Dare I suggest that the same is true in interviews by African slaves . . . and that black people speak completely differently to one another than they do to white people, even now? Obviously, there is much less apprehension now than there was 50 to 80 years ago. However, it is still there. I can’t imagine the lack of ‘freedom of speech’ a slave or an ex-slave must have experienced while answering direct questions about life with their ‘master’ and the conditions in which they lived.â€

 

Unfair? "Crazy arse[d]," as one participant, here, suggests? Inappropriate for middle and high school students to think about, as another seems to suggest?

 

I think not.

 

It is possible these statements I quoted were, indeed, whitewashed. Maybe. But, just for example, I'm not sure why Mr. Morgan would have felt obliged to make his statements so all-encompassing: "Any time a slave worked over time or cut more wood . . . [W]henever one of us slaves saw something we liked. . . . Master never whipped any of his slaves. . . . [N]one of our slaves ever tried to run away. They all knew they were well off. . . ."

 

Still. Supposing every one of these quotations was somehow false. Then what? Shall the rest of my notes be set aside? "Holzmann doesn't know what he is talking about." "He is [some awful descriptor]." "Sonlight is not to be trusted." (????)

 

Really?

 

This is one note in the midst of hundreds of pages of notes about dozens and dozens of subjects.

 

Whether my note is useful or not, I would like to call your attention to something one customer wrote to me many years ago after reading some of the things I had written about the so-called Civil War.

 

She said something to the effect of, "I could never understand how ANYONE could sympathize with the Southern cause until I read your notes and heard 'the other side.'" And why did that matter? And why was she thankful to have been provided "the other side" on this and so many other issues for which Ms. Hakim provides only one perspective?

 

I thought she hit the nail on the head: As long as we are taught a straw man version of what "the other side" looks like, we are able to deride it and hold ourselves up as great moral heroes: "I would have never supported slavery! I would have done the right thing!" But once you see how "the other side" thinks, things become a bit more complicated. And you have to think a little more and dig a little deeper and ask yourself, in some serious humility: "Oh, really? Would I really avoid going in that direction if I had been brought up on that side of the fence? . . . If so, what would have clued me in to the fault of that viewpoint? And how would I have stood up against the social pressure of all of 'my people'?"

 

I expect history would say most of our prideful confidence is misplaced. The realities of life are quite a bit less clear than traditional histories pretend they are. And many, many of us would--and probably will--find ourselves on the "wrong" side of history in some conflict or another.

 

One of the reasons I wrote the notes I did was to provide reason for (at least most of us) to carry ourselves a bit more humbly. To realize maybe we're not such clear thinkers and know-it-alls as we would like to believe.

*******

 

Hey. As long as I have the opportunity, I'd like to share one other note from the same Instructor's Guide. It appears just a few pages later:

 

Ms. Hakim tells the story of James Forten, a 14-year-old black boy who fought on behalf of the American Revolutionary forces against the British (see Book 3, chapter 23). When captured and told he would be set free if he would renounce his country, Ms. Hakim says, “Forten wouldn’t consider it. He was an American and he said, ‘No! I shall never prove a traitor to my country!’†(Book 3, pg. 112).

 

She seems comfortable with Forten’s story. Why does she not tell similar stories of [southern] slaves like Robin who was captured with his master during Morgan’s raid into Ohio?

 

He was separated from his master in prison, and was offered his liberty several times in exchange for taking an Oath of Loyalty to the Union. He refused saying, “I will never disgrace my family by such an oath.†[source referenced in my/Sonlight's notes.]

 

Or how about the unnamed slave, captured with his master at Point Lookout? The master agreed to take the oath of allegiance. The slave would not. “Your master has taken the oath,†his captors told him. “Why won’t you?â€

 

“Massa has no principles,†the slave replied with disgust. [Again, source referenced in my/Sonlight's notes.]

 

Ms. Hakim ought—and we ought—to be comfortable with these stories of black men and women of the Old South who considered themselves to be Confederates. Why should we find it remarkable that they might say--as Forten did during the Revolutionary War: “No! I shall never prove a traitor to my country!�

 

It was this sentiment that motivated Robert E. Lee to fight for Virginia. It was the same sentiment that motivated many black men and women to consider the Confederate cause their cause as well. . . .

*******

I don't pretend to be infallible or omniscient. My notes are not perfect, by any means. (I thought I might be able to get away with such imperfection by sharing the fruits of my research and, generally, seeking to raise questions rather than making too many assertions.) My goal in writing the notes I did was to provide enough fodder to cause students--and parents--to think . . . and to ask questions of their own . . . and to engage in deeper research . . . even as some of the participants in this thread, obviously, have engaged in deep research of their own.

If you're not interested in doing research; if you want simply to be spoon-fed your history and know that everything your history text teaches you is perfectly accurate and from impeccable sources: clearly, you will have to find your texts and curriculum somewhere else than in anything I have written or anything published or sold by Sonlight Curriculum.

I like to imagine, however, that I might have an adequate handle on the vagaries of historical research, and that my own meandering research is interesting enough that it might inspire some students--and parents--to do research of their own.

 

Based on the proven success of so many Sonlight students through the years, I think my imagination has proven more real than false.

 

But I am open to being proven wrong.

 

Thanks for listening.

 

John Holzmann

 

WRT the bolded, more than anything else, this stood out at me in this post, because I think that to be able to trust a curriculum provider to be accurate is what every single one of us is looking for when we research and choose how and with what to educate our children. If one cannot trust that a curriculum provider is using accurate and impeccable sources, I don't understand why one would choose that company. I've seen many, may people post that they had a woefully inadequate education in history and they want to make sure that the curriculum they choose is as unbiased and well-researched as possible, because they won't know the difference and don't have the time/know-how/desire to research every topic they come across to determine for themselves. To come right out and say, "hey, if that's what you're looking for, move along because that's not us" is jaw-dropping to me.

[TraceyS/FL]

WRT the bolded, more than anything else, this stood out at me in this post, because I think that to be able to trust a curriculum provider to be accurate is what every single one of us is looking for when we research and choose how and with what to educate our children. If one cannot trust that a curriculum provider is using accurate and impeccable sources, I don't understand why one would choose that company. I've seen many, may people post that they had a woefully inadequate education in history and they want to make sure that the curriculum they choose is as unbiased and well-researched as possible, because they won't know the difference and don't have the time/know-how/desire to research every topic they come across to determine for themselves. To come right out and say, "hey, if that's what you're looking for, move along because that's not us" is jaw-dropping to me.

I actually get what he meant by it though....

 

I don't have the background to know this myself, but I also cannot blindly trust a curriculum to provide the know all, be all, end all answer. I would liken that approach to a "National Curriculum" and that is all that will be taught, because that IS the truth. Period.

 

What I think he is getting at is that his plan was to have these types of discussions and investigations with your kids as you delve into a topic. Research and read for yourself and decided what is your truth in how it was.

 

Or you can buy XYZ Textbook, read it, ASSume that it was well researched and written without bias.... and call it good.

[mommaduck]

I think what he is saying is that in reality all texts show bias. You can go with one text and be spoonfed or you can read from various and get an idea of what the complexities actually are. You don't have to agree with his conclusions ;)

[SarahW]

I actually get what he meant by it though....

 

I don't have the background to know this myself, but I also cannot blindly trust a curriculum to provide the know all, be all, end all answer. I would liken that approach to a "National Curriculum" and that is all that will be taught, because that IS the truth. Period.

 

What I think he is getting at is that his plan was to have these types of discussions and investigations with your kids as you delve into a topic. Research and read for yourself and decided what is your truth in how it was.

 

Or you can buy XYZ Textbook, read it, ASSume that it was well researched and written without bias.... and call it good.

 

 

The problem with what you're saying is that people HAVE researched and read on this topic. Extensively.

 

Maybe, you know, it would be entirely reasonable to listen to what their research has told them.

 

All sorts of crazy people can form an opinion about anything in history. Watch Ancient Aliens.

 

But History is a science. There are particular methods and considerations that must be accounted for any time a historian conducts research.

 

If you disagree with what previous scholars have said, fine. In my own research I disagree with a particular strain of century-old research. I pore through their research, document why I think they were wrong, and then carefully construct my own research based upon the texts and other evidence. Other researchers may disagree with me. This is what academic journals are for. This is why they are so technical. This is why they have so much jargon. So that we all know precisely what other people are saying. I'm sorry if that makes it impenetrable to people who haven't delved into this area of research as deeply as the rest of us have, but that's how we advance research in our field.

 

You CAN NOT simply pull up some historic primary source and decide that it means something just because you think that it does. Seriously, how credible would it be for someone to go around and say that photosynthesis is wrong because of one experiment they ran in their kitchen??? Why would anyone think they can do the same thing with any historical document?

 

Sorry, I'm angry. Not just about your post, but about this whole thing. It offends me as a historian.

 

Like I said above, I would never discuss the slave narratives with anyone who does not already posses the maturity to consider the psychology of oppressed and abused people. To do otherwise is to just cause confusion where it should not exist.

[TraceyS/FL]

Like I said above, I would never discuss the slave narratives with anyone who does not already posses the maturity to consider the psychology of oppressed and abused people. To do otherwise is to just cause confusion where it should not exist.

I"m pretty familiar with oppressed and abused people - I lived my "abusive at the end marriage". I get that. Trust me. I've never read the slave narratives - and would be able to read between the lines easily, especially after moving south. I'm not agreeing with anything he said on the topic or disagreeing with it, I haven't done enough reading myself on it. BUT, the point of blindly believing what you are reading, and maybe Sonlight isn't for "you", and that aspect - that is what I am saying I "get".

 

 

But, if I buy XYZ text because I "like" the publisher - it will have their slant to it.

 

If I buy ABC text because I like their outlook - it will have their slant to it.

 

And, they might not agree on some things.

 

For the average person, we are blindly expected to go along with what is published. In some areas, if i'm picking conservative texts i will read one thing, and if I'm picking liberal it will read another. If i'm Jewish i'm going to be offended by some, and if i'm "whatever" by yet another.

 

So how you can suggest that I just "trust" a text a pick up because it has been researched and all that??? If there was such one view on events we wouldn't have choice in materials correct?? Is there a text that is labeled, "The World According to LMN, the final truth in History because we researched it all so you don't have to, and this IS IT"? Wouldn't we have world peace if there was such a thing?????

 

It isn't that easy - so a text/curriculum that suggests primary source reading, that helps develop the process that it takes to learn how to sort it out is the better alternative. Does such a thing exist??

 

I'm not saying that i'm pro-Core 100 (i do have an older version of it here somewhere.... it was given to me by a friend, never used it), or even pro-Sonlight. They have burned their bridges with me mostly, and I'm not one of their chosen customers anyway (and, as a CA transplant to Central Florida - i'm appalled by attitudes and behaviors toward groups of people here... APPALLED and embarrassed.).

 

BUT, i'm not the type of person to think there is ONE TRUE VIEW on a subject either, views are jaded by belief systems and experiences, and for me personally it is better to pick something that isn't going to go against my core values. But, how do I choose? I sit here and read these kinds of posts, that often make me aware of things I had not considered before - and I thank you guys for all the input!

 

I guess the other aspect is, how many people actually take the time to delve into the background of the writers of their chosen history text? What biases might the writers bring to the press??

[dorothythomas]

I don't know...I had discarded the idea of Sonlight for a variety of reasons but reading John's response makes me want to reconsider. While slavery is obviously completely abhorrent, it wasn't always obvious. There were reasons why people, good people, felt like it was okay. The same was true with the studying I did of the Holocaust. Germans were not inherently bad people. I found it fascinating to attempt to understand what cause people who are otherwise good people to allow or participate in such atrocities.

 

So hearing the point of view of slaves who say it wasn't so bad, yes, that is helpful in trying to understand both sides of a debate or a conflict as it was then. And yes, Stockholm Syndrome, fear of speaking openly, a system that was so broken that people might possibly prefer to be a slave, those things have to be considered. But there were people - slaves and owners - who thought this system was worth preserving. Even though it is clear that it was NOT, that it was horrific, I think it is worth understanding and when we get to that point I want my children to be able to consider these things.

 

To me, that is one of the most important reasons for studying history. How is it that horrors become acceptable to everyday people? In the considering of that is the only way to look at, to analyze ourselves and our times to guard against these things. So yes, we will as a family attempt to truly understand why slaves MIGHT have wanted to remain slaves and why faithful people might have fought for it. From the perspective we have, we know that it is horrendous but I want my kids to understand why there were people who didn't.

[Spy Car]

 

I am not writing these notes in order either to justify the institution of slavery as it was practiced, nor to suggest that either you or I would have liked being a slave.

However

, Ms. Hakim keeps making comments that need to be corrected or clarified.

 

 

On page 132 [sorry, as of 4/19/2013, I don't know what volume of Hakim's 10-volume series I was commenting on--JAH], she says, “No one wants to be a slave.â€

 

 

That is simply not true! That would be like saying, in today’s society, “No one wants to be a factory worker,†“No one wants to be a garbage man,†or, “No one wants to be a coal miner.â€

 

Please remember: I am making an analogy here. We have to keep things in perspective, look at them in context. And, in perspective, in context, we have to ask: what other options might a person have?

 

 

 

You are saying that some people wanted to locked in chains, denied their basic human rights, be subject to unwanted rape, subject to have children forcibly (and legally) removed from them, to be subject to whippings and other tortures, to be actively prevented an education, to be denied freedom of movement, to be considered a legal sub-human? Really???

 

And on this ground you quibble with Joy Hakim? Good god man! You need some serious help.

 

Bill

[mommaduck]

Agreed...with Tracey and Dorothy. It's equally insulting to those of us that descend from these culture and have studied them and taught them to be told that someone might not consider us worthwhile to discuss issues with simply because we don't see it exactly the way certain people do. I don't fall under a broadbrushed whitewashed view nor do I fall under a broadbrushed North was good and South was bad and all people of this or that sort felt this way or that.

[albeto]

You are saying that some people wanted to locked in chains, denied their basic human rights, be subject to unwanted rape, subject to have children forcibly (and legally) removed from them, to be subject to whippings and other tortures, to be actively prevented an education, to be denied freedom of movement, to be considered a legal sub-human? Really???

 

And on this ground you quibble with Joy Hakim? Good god man! You need some serious help.

 

Bill

 

 

This coming from a professional educational curriculum provider, both private and seeking use for public education. And people wonder why the general population is weary of home education.

[SarahW]

Tracey, I'm not saying that you can't consider the biases of a writer or think critically about the information that is being presented in a curriculum.

 

But you should consider how much expertise the author has in their subject. Would you use a science curriculum written by someone who is an accountant? I just don't understand why when it comes to the subject of history every Dick, Jane, and Harry thinks that they can just sit down and write a history curriculum and throw whatever information they want into it just because they think it is "interesting" and without any consideration of the studies that have already been done on it.

 

This is what this thread is about - is it appropriate to introduce young students to texts which scholarship has indicated to be highly problematic? I say definitely not. You can introduce them when the student understands why they are considered problematic.

 

To simply introduce them willy-nilly and try to build some sort of conclusion based off of it is irresponsible and bad science.

 

If you want to research how history is a science I suggest the book Historians' Fallacies.