Is Holzman white washing slavery in Sonlight core 100?

[LucyStoner]

I've read my Andrea Dworkin like any other riot grrl feminist who came of age with Bikini Kill, The Gits and the Butchies while reading my Ms., Bust and B!tch magazines and inhaling the works of feminist authors like chocolate bars and participating in Home Alive and Take Back the Night etc. Her work has it's place. As a het lady I also like my (TMI?) non-celibate marriage just fine. Heck, more than just fine. I'm a lucky lady married to a most incredible (and dyed in the wool feminist) husband. Anyhoo, comparing slavery to just any modern day male female relationship even as a rhetorical exercise seems rather, um, zealous. I'm scratching my head here. I wager I can't be the only one.

 

If I couldn't divorce, had to marry who I was told to by my father, couldn't own property or keep my earnings or have standing to bring any court case, then I yeah, I suppose we could liken my marriage to slavery. But my calendar shows that it is 2013 and I live in the United States. And have ya seen my husband?! No one would say living with him was an unwelcome choice.

 

As for psychological and sociological probings into the power dynamic of sexual positions? All I will say is well, wow. That seems pretty far off the scope of this discussion. I don't think I've earnestly had this discussion since my women's studies study group as a college sophomore. That was plenty.

 

If we refuse to discuss with our kids the kinds of statements I have placed in my notes, I am concerned that we will fail to discuss with our kids or help ourselves (or our kids) to understand

• How or why modern forms of state-enforced and state-sponsored servitude are right or wrong. (When I speak of state-enforced and state-sponsored servitude, I am referring to such things as America's [my opinion: over-populated] prison system, military conscription, what various members of Congress [and, I understand, various presidents] have proposed as mandatory public service, and (personally, as a libertarian) the entire range of federal "subsidies"--whether personal (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP, etc.) or corporate (FDA, USDA, FDIC, FHA, [not to mention the quasi-governmental/quasi-"private" Federal Reserve, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, etc., etc.].) [Once more: "No one wants to be a slave"? --I vehemently object to the assertion!]
  
• How or why the institution of heteros*xual marriage--let alone heteros*xual relations of any type--is/are (or is/are not) valid. [i imagine you--as I--have heard arguments for the position that heteros*xual relations are, virtually by definition, asymmetric in terms of power and control of power. Are they? And if they are, are they, therefore, virtually by definition, illegitimate? Is any person's attempt to defend marriage between a man and a woman, virtually by definition, either a perpetrator of violence against women or a casualty of Stockholm Syndrome?]
  
• How or why any relationship of unequal power may--or may not--be valid. (I am referring here--as I noted in my previous post--to such relationships as obtain between parents and children or employers and employees.)
  

I am unwilling to dismiss all of the ex-slaves' positive statements about life under slavery as the result of Stockholm Syndrome every bit as much as I am unwilling to dismiss every married woman's positive statement about marriage, or every child's positive statement about his or her parents, or every employees' positive statement about his or her employer, or every participant in what I would call state-sponsored servitude as a result of Stockholm Syndrome. . . .

[junepep]

Pen --

 

Here are some of the statistics that you were looking for - it's the 1860 census rather than the 1850, but they do have charts with a comparative analysis by decade:

From the 1860 Census http://www2.census.g...ts/1860a-15.pdf starting at pp32 of 90 you can find the tables for the statistics on deaf & dumb, blind, insane and idiotic by race & country of origin.

 

The discussion of the revised data set for deaf and dumb begins here: http://www2.census.g...ts/1860a-02.pdf on page 52 of 52 with a continuation of the full review of the data available here: http://www2.census.g...ts/1860a-03.pdf

These numbers provide the proportions of the populations being discussed. There are almost twice as many white people who are deaf and dumb, with Free "Colored" people being (far) closer to the white populations in terms of % of deaf/dumb within the overall group - indicating that there was a non-genetic reason for the difference between slaves and whites. It also runs through Blind, Insane with a bit of sifting through the text. Interestingly the blind populations are virtually indistiguishable (although it may still be statistically significant). Unhelpfully the Insane population is not broken out into the same statistical format and the idiotic population seems to be lumped in somewhat with the insane(?) - I didn't take the time to read the whole thing, I just skimmed it.

[stripe]

The other claim about *marriage* that might be of note, as it relates to BrightFlash/John Holzman's post has to do with the idea that marriage = prostitution.

 

Apparently there is something in Les Miserables about this ("We say that slavery has vanished from European civilization, but this is not true. Slavery still exists, but now it applies only to women and its name is prostitution"), and plenty of others have said that it's prostitution.

[Kathryn]

 

 

o.O -- *doh* I just assumed that it was for elementary because we're in the K-8 board!!

 

 

:leaving:

 

er... continue on then... LOL

 

No problem! I thought that might have been the confusion.

[mommymilkies]

PS to my prior post: While I am not sure whether there was still slavery in the North in 1850, I am more sure that there was not new slave importation in the North at that point, whereas from the famous Amistad case, I think we do know that, though already illegal, there was still a thriving blackmarket trade of newly imported slaves from Africa to the South heading toward the Civil War. So aside from the issues of such things as is this South versus North heath in general, there is also the question of whether the figures may be skewed by newly arrived Africans, where all the blind, dumb, deaf, insane, and idiotic are supposed to be left in Africa and not brought across in the first place.

 

In Illinois there may have been, unofficially. Researching slavery in the salt mines is quite disturbing. I just read a book earlier that said that slave owners were allowed to keep their slaves, but I think that new slaves to the area were not allowed. I will have to research this one further. Here are some quickly (I promised myself I wouldn't be on the net right now!):

 

"Illinois had laws concerning slavery. The Ordinance of 1787 had forbidden slavery in the Northwest Territory. Petitions to eliminate this prohibition and to permit slavery in Illinois were sent to Congress in 1796 and again in 1802. The Illinois Constitution of 1818, provided that "neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall hereafter be introduced into this state." The people who already owned slaves were not affected. Illinois had infamous Black Laws, which stripped blacks slave, indentured, or free of their civil rights."

http://www.lib.niu.e.../ihy960248.html

http://www.wttw.com/....taf?p=76,4,3,4

 

"Illinois Constitution of 1848--- “ there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the state, except as punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.†This officially ended the last vestiges of slavery in Illinois."

http://www.freedomtr...org/slavery.htm

 

Here is the 1850 Slave Census. http://search.ancest....aspx?dbid=8055

Many Border states had slaves, but so did D.C. and New Jersey. LMK if you can't search this database. You may need to be a member. If so, I will try to find another.

 

Funnily enough, while posting this, the website shut me down as a spammer. lol I think that's the internet's way of telling me to go do something productive!

[jenbrdsly]

Before it is removed Mr Holtzman's post should be preserved and disseminated to schoolboards so they we realize what kind of minds they dealing with. It is utterly appalling.

 

I feel sickened inside knowing how many people have entrusted their children's educations to Sonlight. Wow!

 

Bill

 

 

 

Can I add Veritas Press to that list?

[Pen]

WRT the bolded [John had written, "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."

John Holzmann, 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.

 

 

Kathryn or others of you,

 

What history text, for those of us who are interested in finding something that is accurate etc. as you say above, would you suggest for 1) upper elementary 2) middle school 3) high school? I'm interested in this for both US and World History.

 

I will look at the texts suggested by Bill.

 

For World History for younger stages, we did use SOTW, and though SWB may not be an historian, I thought it did an excellent job in presenting history in a readable and enjoyable form that gave my ds a good overview, and that left him liking history--which is more than I can say for my own history education.

 

In general, I do not mind if a writer takes on writing in the historical field or in the scientific field, or whatever--often writers can make things more clear and more interesting and I see no reason that they need be limited to only fiction, but I do want it to be well researched and accurate. We do not mind doing some extra research for more information on topics of interest, but do not want (and cannot--I do have the interest, but I do not have the time) to check everything for accuracy. We do not mind using 2 texts that would give different view points to compare.

 

Or, how would you recommend going about teaching history if that was not one's own field?

 

Thanks.

[Pen]

 

 

In Illinois there may have been, unofficially. Researching slavery in the salt mines is quite disturbing. I just read a book earlier that said that slave owners were allowed to keep their slaves, but I think that new slaves to the area were not allowed. I will have to research this one further. Here are some quickly (I promised myself I wouldn't be on the net right now!):

 

"Illinois had laws concerning slavery. The Ordinance of 1787 had forbidden slavery in the Northwest Territory. Petitions to eliminate this prohibition and to permit slavery in Illinois were sent to Congress in 1796 and again in 1802. The Illinois Constitution of 1818, provided that "neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall hereafter be introduced into this state." The people who already owned slaves were not affected. Illinois had infamous Black Laws, which stripped blacks slave, indentured, or free of their civil rights."

http://www.lib.niu.e.../ihy960248.html

http://www.wttw.com/....taf?p=76,4,3,4

 

"Illinois Constitution of 1848--- “ there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the state, except as punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.†This officially ended the last vestiges of slavery in Illinois."

http://www.freedomtr...org/slavery.htm

 

Here is the 1850 Slave Census. http://search.ancest....aspx?dbid=8055

Many Border states had slaves, but so did D.C. and New Jersey. LMK if you can't search this database. You may need to be a member. If so, I will try to find another.

 

Funnily enough, while posting this, the website shut me down as a spammer. lol I think that's the internet's way of telling me to go do something productive!

 

Thank you! That resembles things I had heard for NY and NJ also. I cannot get the database, but think it may be because of slow connection not member issue. I also got stopped by a spam detector, must mean I too had better go do something else now!

[stripe]

In response to

 

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.

 

And

 

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.

 

I thought the purpose of using Sonlight was that the authors of the text are being compensated for what the teacher cannot do herself, either because of lack of time or background. If all information is known to be UNreliable, what is the purpose of publishing it, exactly?

 

I must say, how would this fly if the provider was writing math books filled with errors and omissions. We'll skip science for now, as that's a touchy subject. Or teaching Spanish with wrong vocabulary and grammar. I just find the idea startling that there would be no expectation that the author feels confident in the accuracy, completeness, or importance of his work. As my grandma is wont to say, if you want something done right, do it yourself. But, gee, that would not involve my paying anyone.

[SarahW]

 

 

Kathryn or others of you,

 

What history text, for those of us who are interested in finding something that is accurate etc. as you say above, would you suggest for 1) upper elementary 2) middle school 3) high school? I'm interested in this for both US and World History.

 

I will look at the texts suggested by Bill.

 

For World History for younger stages, we did use SOTW, and though SWB may not be an historian, I thought it did an excellent job in presenting history in a readable and enjoyable form that gave my ds a good overview, and that left him liking history--which is more than I can say for my own history education.

 

In general, I do not mind if a writer takes on writing in the historical field or in the scientific field, or whatever--often writers can make things more clear and more interesting and I see no reason that they need be limited to only fiction, but I do want it to be well researched and accurate. We do not mind doing some extra research for more information on topics of interest, but do not want (and cannot--I do have the interest, but I do not have the time) to check everything for accuracy. We do not mind using 2 texts that would give different view points to compare.

 

Or, how would you recommend going about teaching history if that was not one's own field?

 

Thanks.

 

 

I'm not going to comment on US history because I just don't feel very confident about it (nothing in US history is nearly old enough for me to find it interesting).

 

I did come across the series The World in Ancient Times by Oxford and I thought the information that I perused looked very solid. (Here's the Roman one, as an example)

 

The problem with elementary grade-level books is that they are written for the "Social Studies" model that most public schools follow. I suspect this is why SWB took it upon herself to write SOTW in the first place - there was simply nothing available. Now, some people like CHOW and LHOW, and I personally prefer LHOW, but it does show it's age and lacks depth. I think on another thread I used to the old figure skating system to give SOTW a 5.9, but I have serious questions about the methodology used in it and I see places in it where it appears SWB used outdated sources. However, generally speaking, the information is "mainstream," just a bit stale (cf. the illustration of a Roman vs. the illustration of a Barbarian :rolleyes: ) and I appreciate that she doesn't go off on wild tangents like, well, other people.

 

When I was in college (so over a decade ago) the History department had just overhauled the whole Word Civ core sequence to make it chronological and primary-source heavy. They ended up publishing their own book (through the campus bookstore) and each semester we had to purchase a whole binder worth of photocopied pages that we had to read. With the Oxford books I see that this approach has trickled down to the middle school level. It should be trickling down to elementary next, since that's always the last to be updated. Hopefully this approach becomes popular enough that we'll have a variety of quality things to choose from on all levels.

 

My kid will be in 1st in the Fall, so I've started trying to recreate my World Civ classes on his level. It's caused me a lot of :wacko: the past few weeks, lol. I've been thinking of making a blog and putting it up for others to peruse when I'm done. I'm sort of eccentric (well, I suppose we all are in some way), but maybe people could use it as a resource. But no, so far I have not found one book or one series for elementary that I'm completely happy with. I do think UEWH is good, but I think learning World History just from that would be dreadfully boring.

[PachiSusan]

Wow. Just wow. I have nothing to add to this conversation but I cannot believe how many times my jaw has dropped with comments that are being made. Sonlight History is forever tainted for me now. I'm glad I never used them.

[Kathryn]

I haven't investigated very far ahead as my oldest is in first. I'm using TOG with him (though I'm not Protestant, and definitely not Reformed), because I like the choices it gives me to pick from. My son actually reads all of the lower and upper grammar, both recommended and alternate, choices that we can get in two library systems or that I really want to buy. I also go through the SOTW activity book and pick books, get things off my own shelves, and go through my library's catalog for further selections. I really like to pull from a variety of sources as it gives a much more well-rounded picture than any one single source can.

[jenbrdsly]

This seems like an appropriate place to chime in again on why you shouldn't listen to Doug Wilson. It's because of a lot of the same issues being discussed on this thread.

[PachiSusan]

Thank you to all of you who hung in there and asked the hard questions. I learned something very important: don't let your lack of education in one department mean you just stay in that though process. I was also taught that the main cause of the war was over slavery and that the North was against it and the South was for it. After reading this thread, I will be much more aware and careful about what/how is being taught about slavery and making sure that ALL of the history is taught. It has caused me to research more deeply and educate myself, and that will continue right along with educating Melissa. Thank you all!

[Pen]

...

 

I did come across the series The World in Ancient Times by Oxford and I thought the information that I perused looked very solid. (Here's the Romanone, as an example)

 

Okay. I'll check that. Anything for more modern times?

 

... I think on another thread I used to the old figure skating system to give SOTW a 5.9,

 

I don't know the skating system. 5.9 is good or bad or middling?

 

but I have serious questions about the methodology used in it and I see places in it where it appears SWB used outdated sources. However, generally speaking, the information is "mainstream," just a bit stale (cf. the illustration of a Roman vs. the illustration of a Barbarian :rolleyes: We had it on audio so I missed that, but also saw Terry Jones's The Barbarians film and liked that and it probably gave a different view, so it was one of the places where we had sought out some other views. ) and I appreciate that she doesn't go off on wild tangents like, well, other people.

 

When I was in college (so over a decade ago) the History department had just overhauled the whole Word Civ core sequence to make it chronological and primary-source heavy. They ended up publishing their own book (through the campus bookstore) and each semester we had to purchase a whole binder worth of photocopied pages that we had to read. With the Oxford books I see that this approach has trickled down to the middle school level. It should be trickling down to elementary next, since that's always the last to be updated. Hopefully this approach becomes popular enough that we'll have a variety of quality things to choose from on all levels. I hope so.

 

My kid will be in 1st in the Fall, so I've started trying to recreate my World Civ classes on his level. It's caused me a lot of :wacko: the past few weeks, lol. I've been thinking of making a blog and putting it up for others to peruse when I'm done. I'm sort of eccentric (well, I suppose we all are in some way), but maybe people could use it as a resource. But no, so far I have not found one book or one series for elementary ah... and probably have not yet looked much for the upper grades. that I'm completely happy with. I do think UEWH is good, but I think learning World History just from that would be dreadfully boring.

 

Thank you for these ideas. What is UEWH?

[Pen]

Thank you to all of you who hung in there and asked the hard questions. I learned something very important: don't let your lack of education in one department mean you just stay in that though process. I was also taught that the main cause of the war was over slavery and that the North was against it and the South was for it. After reading this thread, I will be much more aware and careful about what/how is being taught about slavery and making sure that ALL of the history is taught. It has caused me to research more deeply and educate myself, and that will continue right along with educating Melissa. Thank you all!

 

 

 

I'm not sure that ALL is possible. Because there is so much, people can specialize and spend a lifetime on just one small part of history--but there is a great importance to learning far more than generally gets taught in our educational system, and homeschool is a great chance to be able to do that both for our children and ourselves. Even sometimes when something does get touched on, I think many books say that there was a slavery "triangle"(really more than a triangle) involving the islands in the Caribbean, Europe, Africa, and the American mainland, it is easy to miss some implications of that--for example, that some parts of the North especially places like New York City, had a heavy investment/profit motive (for certain people, not the many poor immigrants eking out a living, but the commodities brokers, shippers and so on) related in the economic system that involved slavery. And not only were whole areas more complex than what many people heard in school, but also individual people, like, for example, Thomas Jefferson, who we hear most about. But while there were those in the South who would have liked to get rid of slavery, and those in the North who supported it, it is also true, so far as I know, that the main abolitionist movement was stronger in the North than in the South, the main outcry against slavery was coming from Northerners, the main refusal to support laws that required returning runaway slaves to their owners came from Northerners, and so on. And I think when one reads the Secession declarations from Southern states, that one sees that slavery was the main cause of secession, and thus if trying to preserve the Union was thence a cause for war, underlying that was slavery issues leading to secession. Some of the historians here will no doubt correct me if I am wrong.

 

I think understanding the complexity is important though, not just for the past, but because it relates to how we understand the present. And how we act in the present. And how our children will be prepared to move into a future which, one hopes, will perhaps be better than past or present, and can uses lessons from both.

[nmoira]

Okay. I'll check that. Anything for more modern times?

 

 

There's a second series called The Medieval and Early Modern World.

[SarahW]

Okay. I'll check that. Anything for more modern times?

 

What nmoira said. Since I am most familiar with ancient history, that's what I evaluate.

 

I don't know the skating system. 5.9 is good or bad or middling?

 

5.9.is 1st place in the competition, but not perfect.

 

We had it on audio so I missed that, but also saw Terry Jones's The Barbarians film and liked that and it probably gave a different view, so it was one of the places where we had sought out some other views. )

 

I haven't seen that, but from the overview I read it seems pretty good. I don't understand why he puts blame on the RC church though. Referring to the Middle Ages as dark and lacking in intellect was popularized by Petrarch, the Italian humanist. The RC church was eventually influenced by Italian humanism, which proved problematic to them (and Galileo). But blaming just the RC Church, which the wiki seems to suggest, seems really misleading. Maybe the wiki got that part wrong.

 

 

 

ah... and probably have not yet looked much for the upper grades

 

Not too much. Though I have run across some interesting things that turned out to be too advanced for early elementary. Maybe I'll get around to making a list someday.

 

Thank you for these ideas. What is UEWH?

 

Usborne Encyclopedia of World History. I know some people don't like the format, but the text and pictures are pretty ok. Though I wish they didn't discuss the Great Pyramids and New Kingdom mummies on the same page (see, I can find something to criticize in just about everything!)

 

 

I agree with Kathryn. The best thing to do is use a variety of sources, and then the bad stuff will hopefully filter itself out. You just have to make sure to keep your B.S. antenna fully extended at all times.

[Kathryn]

States rights was the issue, slavery was THE issue about which it escalated. It is extremely hard for a child (or at least it was for me) to understand the nuance in there. Anyway, basically anytime you have a good guy/bad guy scenario presented, be wary. There are ALWAYS deeper issues, even with a Stalin or a Hitler (not that their behaviors have excuses, but they do have explanations beyond "bad guy.").

[Kathryn]

And sorry for my short, to the point, answers all weekend. DH hates me being on when he's around.

[LucyStoner]

This seems like an appropriate place to chime in again on why you shouldn't listen to Doug Wilson. It's because of a lot of the same issues being discussed on this thread.

 

Every time I read anything about this dude, I always want to challenge him to a one on one basketball game. Ok to play basketball provided it's in a ladylike way? What does that even mean? There isn't anything unladylike about beating the bananas out of a jerk on the court. But he likely has a different definition of Iadylike than I do. :) There is something ungentlemanly about policing the athletic endeavors of girls though.

[Pen]

States rights was the issue, slavery was THE issue about which it escalated. It is extremely hard for a child (or at least it was for me) to understand the nuance in there. Anyway, basically anytime you have a good guy/bad guy scenario presented, be wary. There are ALWAYS deeper issues, even with a Stalin or a Hitler (not that their behaviors have excuses, but they do have explanations beyond "bad guy.").

 

 

Hmmm. Well, I am not an historian and it was not my strong point in school. I am however a lawyer, and it looks to me like slavery is pretty key.

 

Do you think the Southern states would have seceded about States rights issues other than slavery--or over the general issue of States Rights? Do you think the Northerners were refusing to honor Federal laws passed about returning escaped slaves because of their belief that their state should be able to make its own laws on the matter as a general important principle or because they were against slavery?

 

What source to look at to understand this?

 

There had been talk of secession other times, and certainly things like the Alien and Sedition Acts led to issues about States rights that had the Jeffersonians opposing what tended to be more Northerners as with hmmm what was it, the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions or somethings (cannot recall and am not going to try to look it up now). But prior rumblings and discontent had not come to the point of secession, and Calhoun speeches often seemed inflammatory toward war related to slavery, not other states rights. ????? The compromises and all, such as Missouri Compromise seem to be about slavery (though granted that is also about voting power and how population will be counted).

 

See, as a lawyer my understanding is that arguments must be framed in legally cognizable terms, and States Rights is such a term...that does not mean that the argument in substance was about something other than slavery. We use what we have in law, in statutes, in common law, in the Constitution. If the Constitution and Federal laws say something that one does not agree with (like that slavery is legal and slaves are property and must be returned) one can try to pursue it at the state level, and can try to refuse the Federal law on a States rights basis. Or one can argue secession on a states rights basis.

 

We will be seeing things now about States' Rights with regard to issues like whether or not there can be Genetically Modified Engineering without courts being allowed to hear any cases on this issue (something that Obama signed in recently on behalf of Monsanto)--this will not be because people are generally so interested in States' Rights as that having lost at the Federal level, they will try to go to the State level (or anything else they can think of) to achieve what they think is critical for the health of their children, the earth, and the future. For some this is an issue like slavery was for abolitionists that goes very deep to what people think is of extreme importance to the fate of the world, and for others there is a deep economic incentive to pursue the GMOs as there was once a deep economic incentive for some to maintain slavery (others, of course, perhaps most, are barely cognizant about it, or could care less, or haven't yet learned enough to know that they should be caring). Anyway, if we follow this, we will hear the words "States Rights" (this is not a prediction, it is already the case--and also fights within states as to whether a smaller local area can do something different than the state as a whole and variations on that have already begun)--but States Rights is not the core substantive issue, that is a way to pursue the issue. Perhaps this is not the best analogy to use for a modern issue, but is the one that first came to my mind, and one that, like slavery, I think is of great weight and moment, even if living in the present we do not perceive that as yet.

 

Okay, so that is how as a lawyer I look at the references to States Rights, now, from the historian's perspective, can you explain how that is wrong, and how you see it?

[Pen]

PS. When I wrote about Northerners refusing to return slaves, I don't mean all Northerners were abolitionist and against slavery, nor do I mean that all Southerners supported slavery. Just trying to get at what was the issue versus the legal framework for the issue. And I do realize that times were different with people then still seeing themselves as a "Virginian" (or whatever state) perhaps more than as an "American".

[Chanley]

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.

 

John Holzmann

 

 

Thank you John for taking the time to defend your position. The above quote really speaks volumes to me about the attitude with which you approach your work. I do my research. I am teaching my children many different subjects on a daily basis. It is absurd to think that I can delve into each subject so deeply that I can be an authority on the subject matter. This is why I do take the time to scrutinize my curriculum choices. Which is what prompted this thread.

 

Impeccability is something we strive to achieve daily in our house. If I expect it from my children, I certainly expect it from the curriculum that I provide for their education. This discussion has made my decision regarding the second-hand purchase of this guide to be a very easy one.

 

On another note, I am learning so much from this thread and loving it. Perhaps I should post the other topics which caused me to pause while perusing the Core 100 IG. If we collectively rebutt the rebuttals that Holzman makes regarding Hakim's work, we may have the fodder for a very solid U.S. History course.

[Spy Car]

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.

 

Thank you John for taking the time to defend your position. The above quote really speaks volumes to me about the attitude with which you approach your work. I do my research. I am teaching my children many different subjects on a daily basis. It is absurd to think that I can delve into each subject so deeply that I can be an authority on the subject matter. This is why I do take the time to scrutinize my curriculum choices. Which is what prompted this thread.

Impeccability is something we strive to achieve daily in our house. If I expect it from my children, I certainly expect it from the curriculum that I provide for their education. This discussion has made my decision regarding the second-hand purchase of this guide to be a very easy one.

On another note, I am learning so much from this thread and loving it. Perhaps I should post the other topics which caused me to pause while perusing the Core 100 IG. If we collectively rebutt the rebuttals that Holzman makes regarding Hakim's work, we may have the fodder for a very solid U.S. History course.

 

Is is astounding that John Holtzman is self-aware enough warn readers who expect accurate history that relies on impeccable sources that they should not purchase anything written or sold by Sonlight Curiculum. Sounds like good advice. It is the first thing he has said that makes sense to me.

 

The only thing being "spoon-fed" by Holtzman is the same old excuse making and false presentation of life under Southern slavery as an idyllic age for the enslaved that we've seen from other neo-Conferderates and paleo-Confederates, who try to mislead children into believing it is the slaveholders who were are victims of hated, bigotry, and injustice and not those who were enslaved.

 

At least you got the answer to your question.

 

Yes, John Holtzman and Sonlight white-wash slavery.

 

If you want truthful history, if you want trustworthy sources, Sonlight is clearly not the place to expect it.

 

He said it himself.

 

Thanks for starting the thread, it has been most illuminating!

 

Bill

[PachiSusan]

 

At least you got the answer to your question.

 

Yes, John Holtzman and Sonlight white-wash slavery.

 

If you want truthful history, if you want trustworthy sources, Sonlight is clearly not the place to expect it.

 

He said it himself.

 

Thanks for starting the thread, it has been most illuminating!

 

Bill

 

 

I agree.

[CatholicMom]

In response to this entire thread: Wow. I am utterly amazed at the uncharitable comments made on this thread toward Mr. Holzmann. I am also amazed that he had the patience to continue to defend his statements to every nit-picking history-curriculum-writing-expert on this thread.

 

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

 

If this is what you think he was saying you need to put on your reading glasses (or your rational hat) and read again. You probably couldn't twist his words more.

 

Mr Holtzman, I'm afraid you are just digging yourself deeper and deeper into the morass. It is difficult to know where to begin dealing with the faulty logic evidenced in your posts. It is an overwhelming proposition.

 

:huh: Faulty logic is accusing ridiculous things like:

 

1) John believes some slaves were content to remain slaves.

2) John believes some slaves were raped, tortured, subject to whippings, etc.

3) Therefore, John believes those same slaves who were raped, tortured, subject to whippings, etc, were content to remain slaves!

 

Good grief. Obviously this is not what he was saying and these kinds of completely irrational accusations are so dishonest it is pure slander, in my opinion.

 

Let me lay out another example of "faulty logic" that has taken up way too much time on this thread: John believes some slaves were content with continuing to be slaves, therefore John believes slavery is [insert: OK!!, or "not inherently immoral," or "not really that bad!" etc, etc.]

 

 

This simply does not follow. Whether some slaves were content to be slaves or not says absolutely *nothing* about whether or not slavery itself is inherently immoral. In fact, he clearly said repeatedly that he believes slavery was wrong (shock! surprise! :laugh: ). "Slavery is OK" simply does not follow from the fact that someone believes that perhaps not all slaves were unhappy.

 

I would like to assure John that any thoughtful, charitable, rational person who read even his FIRST post/defense in this thread, understood his point and the matter was settled. John Holzmann hereby does not believe slavery is morally neutral. John Holzmann also does not believe that every single slave was severely unhappy. Some were, by their own testimonies, content to remain slaves. His defending this statement at length does not change the fact that he believes slavery to be inherently immoral, nor does it mean he is unaware that many slaves were NOT content to be slaves and were severely mistreated.

 

Sadly, I believe this thread reveals a serious need among many well-trained minds to take a class in Logic 101.

[cavscout96]

States rights was the issue, slavery was THE issue about which it escalated. It is extremely hard for a child (or at least it was for me) to understand the nuance in there. Anyway, basically anytime you have a good guy/bad guy scenario presented, be wary. There are ALWAYS deeper issues, even with a Stalin or a Hitler (not that their behaviors have excuses, but they do have explanations beyond "bad guy.").

 

 

Very well stated. I concur, and you've pretty much summarized what I've been trying to say throughout the thread. Apart from our differing opinions on the "primary source" discussion, I think we are otherwise on common ground in this regard.

[SarahW]

In response to this entire thread: Wow. I am utterly amazed at the uncharitable comments made on this thread toward Mr. Holzmann. I am also amazed that he had the patience to continue to defend his statements to every nit-picking history-curriculum-writing-expert on this thread.

 

 

 

If this is what you think he was saying you need to put on your reading glasses (or your rational hat) and read again. You probably couldn't twist his words more.

 

 

 

:huh: Faulty logic is accusing ridiculous things like:

 

1) John believes some slaves were content to remain slaves.

2) John believes some slaves were raped, tortured, subject to whippings, etc.

3) Therefore, John believes those same slaves who were raped, tortured, subject to whippings, etc, were content to remain slaves!

 

Good grief. Obviously this is not what he was saying and these kinds of completely irrational accusations are so dishonest it is pure slander, in my opinion.

 

Let me lay out another example of "faulty logic" that has taken up way too much time on this thread: John believes some slaves were content with continuing to be slaves, therefore John believes slavery is [insert: OK!!, or "not inherently immoral," or "not really that bad!" etc, etc.]

 

 

I never thought that John thought number 3. What we were objecting to was the idea that "Hey, slavery really wasn't that awful most of the time. Some people liked it. For some people it was the most they could ever do." Which isn't an obscure idea, you'll find numerous people on the internet saying exactly that.

 

 

This simply does not follow. Whether some slaves were content to be slaves or not says absolutely *nothing* about whether or not slavery itself is inherently immoral. In fact, he clearly said repeatedly that he believes slavery was wrong (shock! surprise! :laugh: ). "Slavery is OK" simply does not follow from the fact that someone believes that perhaps not all slaves were unhappy.

 

I would like to assure John that any thoughtful, charitable, rational person who read even his FIRST post/defense in this thread, understood his point and the matter was settled. John Holzmann hereby does not believe slavery is morally neutral. John Holzmann also does not believe that every single slave was severely unhappy. Some were, by their own testimonies, content to remain slaves. His defending this statement at length does not change the fact that he believes slavery to be inherently immoral, nor does it mean he is unaware that many slaves were NOT content to be slaves and were severely mistreated.

 

Sadly, I believe this thread reveals a serious need among many well-trained minds to take a class in Logic 101.

 

No, what John was saying was, based upon his not-too-close reading of faulty texts where some former slaves say that they were happy with their life because it wasn't nearly as bad as it could have been (and failed to see the major red flag there!), that this is analogous to people today who like getting a tax refund.

[stripe]

Sadly, I believe this thread reveals a serious need among many well-trained minds to take a class in Logic 101.

No, speaking as someone who is well versed in logic, the logic is actually quite simple: I would never support Sonlight because I do not want to give my money to a support their missionary work.

 

Thanks to this thread, I know now that I do not want to support a company whose curricular materials include the idea that even if slaves were denied their freedom, it was still at its heart a benevolent institution, that generally took care of those who could not take care of themselves on their own. Thus, the slave owner was like a husband or father or employer. Riiiight.

 

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.]

 

!

 

This is a fatally flawed and offensive analogy. I would be okay with the analogy that violent pimps are to prostitution as brutal slave owners are to slavery: the normal part of an immoral and exploitative institution. But the minute marriage or parenting or employment is declared analogous to slavery, I lose interest. Even the nicest of pimps is doing a horrible thing.

 

Finally, as Mr Holzman has stated, accuracy is not important to him, so I will decline to send my money their way. It's as simple as that.

 

For me, slavery is a moral issue. To quote Thomas Aquinas, "Human law is law only in virtue of its accordance with right reason: and thus it is manifest that it flows from the eternal law. And in so far as it deviates from right reason it is called an unjust law; in such case it is no law at all, but rather a species of violence." And from Emperor Justinian in the year 533, "Captivity and servitude are both contrary to the law of nature; for by that law all men are born free."

 

 

 

Segregation has worked brillantly in the South, and, in fact, in the nation, to this extent: it has allowed white people, with scarcely any pangs of conscience whatever, to create, in every generation, only the Negro they wish to see. As the walls come down they will be forced to take another, harder look at the shiftless and the menial and will be forced into a wonder concerning them which cannot fail to be agonizing. It is not an easy thing to be forced to reexamine a way of life and to speculate, in a personal way, on the general injustice. -- James Baldwin, Harper's Magazine, October 1958 as quoted in http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1967/10/13/the-outrage-of-benevolent-paternalism-psegregation/#

[Kathryn]

 

 

Hmmm. Well, I am not an historian and it was not my strong point in school. I am however a lawyer, and it looks to me like slavery is pretty key.

 

Do you think the Southern states would have seceded about States rights issues other than slavery--or over the general issue of States Rights? Do you think the Northerners were refusing to honor Federal laws passed about returning escaped slaves because of their belief that their state should be able to make its own laws on the matter as a general important principle or because they were against slavery?

 

What source to look at to understand this?

 

There had been talk of secession other times, and certainly things like the Alien and Sedition Acts led to issues about States rights that had the Jeffersonians opposing what tended to be more Northerners as with hmmm what was it, the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions or somethings (cannot recall and am not going to try to look it up now). But prior rumblings and discontent had not come to the point of secession, and Calhoun speeches often seemed inflammatory toward war related to slavery, not other states rights. ????? The compromises and all, such as Missouri Compromise seem to be about slavery (though granted that is also about voting power and how population will be counted).

 

See, as a lawyer my understanding is that arguments must be framed in legally cognizable terms, and States Rights is such a term...that does not mean that the argument in substance was about something other than slavery. We use what we have in law, in statutes, in common law, in the Constitution. If the Constitution and Federal laws say something that one does not agree with (like that slavery is legal and slaves are property and must be returned) one can try to pursue it at the state level, and can try to refuse the Federal law on a States rights basis. Or one can argue secession on a states rights basis.

 

We will be seeing things now about States' Rights with regard to issues like whether or not there can be Genetically Modified Engineering without courts being allowed to hear any cases on this issue (something that Obama signed in recently on behalf of Monsanto)--this will not be because people are generally so interested in States' Rights as that having lost at the Federal level, they will try to go to the State level (or anything else they can think of) to achieve what they think is critical for the health of their children, the earth, and the future. For some this is an issue like slavery was for abolitionists that goes very deep to what people think is of extreme importance to the fate of the world, and for others there is a deep economic incentive to pursue the GMOs as there was once a deep economic incentive for some to maintain slavery (others, of course, perhaps most, are barely cognizant about it, or could care less, or haven't yet learned enough to know that they should be caring). Anyway, if we follow this, we will hear the words "States Rights" (this is not a prediction, it is already the case--and also fights within states as to whether a smaller local area can do something different than the state as a whole and variations on that have already begun)--but States Rights is not the core substantive issue, that is a way to pursue the issue. Perhaps this is not the best analogy to use for a modern issue, but is the one that first came to my mind, and one that, like slavery, I think is of great weight and moment, even if living in the present we do not perceive that as yet.

 

Okay, so that is how as a lawyer I look at the references to States Rights, now, from the historian's perspective, can you explain how that is wrong, and how you see it?

 

 

I'm confused as to what it is that you disagree with that I said. I thought by capitalizing my "THE" before slavery, I made it clear that that was THE issue in regards to states' rights that caused secession. I agree with all you said. While there had been other issues over the years, and perhaps there might have been others later if it hadn't been for slavery, I don't know, it was the issue of slavery that secession ultimately came over. However, since many in the South couldn't really identify with this as a reason, a sense of state pride (much stronger than national pride then) and the general principle of each state's right to determine it's laws and right to leave the union was what were fighting for.

[CatholicMom]

I do not want to support a company whose curricular materials include the idea that even if slaves were denied their freedom, it was still at its heart a benevolent institution [...].

 

 

Statements like these show that you still clearly do not understand (or, more likely, refuse to believe) what John has said he believes. It's just malicious at this point to continue to accuse someone of believing that slavery was a "benevolent institution." Come on.

 

For being bent on accurate historical accounts, it's pretty astounding that some here continue to ignore John's words regarding what he believes about the institution of slavery... words that are looking you in the face from your computer screen, not words that someone dug up from historical records. Hmm. It's almost laughable if it weren't mean.

[Spy Car]

:huh: Faulty logic is accusing ridiculous things like:

 

1) John believes some slaves were content to remain slaves.

2) John believes some slaves were raped, tortured, subject to whippings, etc.

3) Therefore, John believes those same slaves who were raped, tortured, subject to whippings, etc, were content to remain slaves!

 

The above are not Holtzman's beliefs, as evidence in this thread.

 

More like:

 

1) The enslaved were content to remain slaves

2) Because some people who were formerly enslaved as children and were interviewed seventy years later in the Jim Crow South by white researchers included some charitable comments about their enslavers, that slavery as an institution must have been pretty fine.

3 (no therefore, because there is no inference) Slaves were well treated (better than peasants in Europe) and no wonder they would have chosen to be enslaved.

 

This is what's faulty logic.

 

Good grief. Obviously this is not what he was saying and these kinds of completely irrational accusations are so dishonest it is pure slander, in my opinion.

 

The whole thread is intact, any person can read Mr Holtzman's postings here and draw his or her own conclusions.

 

Let me lay out another example of "faulty logic" that has taken up way too much time on this thread: John believes some slaves were content with continuing to be slaves, therefore John believes slavery is [insert: OK!!, or "not inherently immoral," or "not really that bad!" etc, etc.]

 

 

This simply does not follow. Whether some slaves were content to be slaves or not says absolutely *nothing* about whether or not slavery itself is inherently immoral. In fact, he clearly said repeatedly that he believes slavery was wrong (shock! surprise! :laugh: ). "Slavery is OK" simply does not follow from the fact that someone believes that perhaps not all slaves were unhappy.

 

Where is it shown that the enslaved were content being enslaved?

 

Or where is it shown that free-men asked to be enslaved?

 

You are asking us to accept a false premise at the outset.

 

I would like to assure John that any thoughtful, charitable, rational person who read even his FIRST post/defense in this thread, understood his point and the matter was settled. John Holzmann hereby does not believe slavery is morally neutral. John Holzmann also does not believe that every single slave was severely unhappy. Some were, by their own testimonies, content to remain slaves. His defending this statement at length does not change the fact that he believes slavery to be inherently immoral, nor does it mean he is unaware that many slaves were NOT content to be slaves and were severely mistreated.

 

You identified one thing correctly, John Holzman believes some people were content to remain enslaved. This is the message he wants to teach children. Slavery, in his mind, is a choice someone might have made, like one might choose to be a garage man. Such thinking is utter nonsense.

 

As is his assertatons that all the history books he read taught that "the North was right, the North was righteous; the South was wrong, the South was wicked." If that is true, let him cite these works.

 

If we wanted to "nit-pick" we could talk about the bizarre (and insulting) equalinon of chattel-slavery in the South with contemporary Americans having to pay taxes. Or delve into Mr Holzman's strange ideas about sex and the power relationships of men and women (but I'm going for brain-bleach on that one).

 

His writing on this thread made be glad I've never used materials written by him, or ones published by Sonlight. I have an affinity for history books that attempt to get it right and that weigh historical sources judiciously. Neither characterizes Mr Holtzman's self-described approach.

 

Bill

[jg_puppy]

 

These are now all available for Kindle and Nook download for those who do e-readers. So no need to run them down and pay for all the shipping book-by-book.

 

 

Thank you so much for pointing this out. I didn't know that and I want to use some of these books.

 

Janet

[boscopup]

Thank you so much for pointing this out. I didn't know that and I want to use some of these books.

 

Janet

 

Now if only the library would get them on Overdrive. THAT would be cool. My library has some hard copies of the books, but not all of them.

 

(btw, after this thread, I'm glad I don't really use the notes in Sonlight! :lol: )

[CatholicMom]

 

The whole thread is intact, any person can read Mr Holtzman's postings here and draw his or her own conclusions.

 

 

Where is it shown that the enslaved were content being enslaved?

 

Or where is it shown that free-men asked to be enslaved?

 

You are asking us to accept a false premise at the outset.

 

No, I'm not asking you to accept it. You're twisting my words for your benefit just like you are twisting Mr.Holzmann's. I didn't say people asked to be enslaved. I said that because someone believes that some people were content to remain slaves, does not mean that they must also believe that the institution of slavery was a good thing. I'm not sure why this point is hard to understand.

 

 

Yes, his words are in tact and anyone can read them and draw their own conclusions. And what he believes about the morality of the institution of slavery is no mystery:

 

 

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]

 

John Holzmann

 

This was the issue in question, and the answer is clear. I hope people will stop accusing otherwise despite what the man has said.

 

I also think that people are losing sight that this is one NOTE (not a chapter, not an article) about one point made in one book of the many (probably 50, if this Core is like most Cores) books. It was supposed to be something to think about, something to consider... not a scholarly thesis. I think you all are getting your shorts in a knot over something that is probably 1 page among hundreds of NOTES that are there for parents to use if they want, and aren't even essential to using a Core. I just think this whole thing is blown so out of proportion it's absurd. Clearly there are a LOT more notes about slavery and this time period in American History in which Holzmann recognizes and discusses the atrocities of slavery as well. Let's keep in mind the context of this conversation and be reasonable.

 

I believe the purpose of his notes are to provoke parents and children to interesting discussions about what they are reading and consider how to apply this information to our day and our lives. The NOTES John provides are not written or intended to be the history spine. They are intended to make people think about what the many books they are reading. So I think it's doubly unfair to raise his notes to a standard that they were not intended for. If this were the only thing he said about slavery in the notes of the entire Core then I would be concerned about a serious imbalance. And perhaps he should revise or explain some of the analogies further, to spell out for those who are not terribly adept at comprehending analogies, what his point is. But remember that we are talking about ONE NOTE. Elsewhere, he gives many reasons that the institution of slavery was, in his own words, "DEEPLY egregious."

 

Whether his analogies were flawed, whether you understood his points, he has made this much clear. Case closed. If anyone says that Sonlight/John Holzmann does NOT think slavery is bad, I'm going to flip my lid. :laugh:

 

I'm buying Core D for next year and my kids are excited to do Sonlight again and read about 50 books that I think they will love. I expect I won't agree with every single thing written in the notes. And, you know what? My day will carry on. :gnorsi:

[[email protected]]

The discussion will stay up, but I think it's time to move on now.