Fair enough. And, after reading your quotation of the original, I am in even greater embarrassment that I did not dig deeper from my secondary source whose quotations, I noted in my source footnote, were "edited for readability." As for my comment about editing words out of sources: I see ellipses and use ellipses whenever a word or phrase is deleted from a quotation. I also seek to indicate when a word is replaced by the use of brackets. My training and experience with professional sources says such practices are acceptable. At the time I wrote my notes for Core 100, I know I looked for original sources to back up the quotations I was fed by my secondary source. Under the time and monetary constraints I was working, I did the best I could. Your ability to find the original and to show the (truly awful) comparison serves me--and, I'm sure, everyone here--with further proof of the need, always, to attempt, to the best of your ability, to push your research back to the originals if at all possible . . . and if you can't find the originals, at least provide the source from which you did acquire the quote . . . and hold your conclusions in reserve/lightly. Again, thank you, Kathryn!

Understand that I am not seeking to justify even one of my foibles and failures as so admirably pointed out in this thread. I am guilty as charged of having made some really dumb mistakes and having written some really dumb things Thank you (you, singular, and you, the participants in this thread, plural) for pointing a few of them out to me and awakening me to what I am afraid I will find was a serious methodological error on my part in more than one place in my notes. Beyond that, while you're using "Dick, Jane, and Harry . . . just sit[ting] down and writ[ing]" epithets, I would like to object that I did not "just sit down and write." I have never "just sat down and written." I have attempted to do my background spadework as thoroughly as possible. Further, I would like to note that even Ms. Wise-Bauer, whose company sponsors this forum, had no "history" degree until long after her famous books on history were first written and published. I have no desire to compare myself, my achievements or my capabilities to those of Ms. Wise-Bauer. (Though it is interesting to me that we share the honor of both having been declared National Merit Finalists; we both received BA's in one of the liberal arts--she in English from Liberty University in 1988, I in Philosophy from Michigan State in 1977; and we both received the MDiv from Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia--she in 1991, I in 1982.) She, of course, has chosen a more academic profession; I, a series of more prosaic jobs--pastor, writer/editor, business owner/researcher. Some of us choose to pursue more formal education and then formalize our academic qualifications with degrees. Some of us--for various reasons--do not. Clearly, Ms. Wise-Bauer has made tremendous intellectual, cultural, and academic achievements and contributions for which I stand in awe and respect. But while I would never claim anywhere near Ms. Wise-Bauer's intellectual firepower nor even a significant fraction of her tremendous achievements, I would no more want to refer to myself as a rube "Dick, Jane, or Harry" than I would want to refer to you or Ms. Wise-Bauer with such terms. Please. How does one gain expertise in a field of study? By studying. By doing the work. And by being willing to engage in sharp discussions such as this one. . . . I have done my studies. I have continued my studies. And I intend, in the future, to maintain the discipline of the scholar. Whether I add another degree after my name is less important to me than that I have sought, to the best of my ability, both to understand, as thoroughly as reasonable, each field about which I write as well as to convey accurately and well to those who seek my help what I have learned. As I have already admitted, I have been less than perfect in pursuing my goals. When I have seen my errors or been shown my failures (as here), I have committed myself to admit my mistakes, make amends as best I can, and seek to do better in the future. It is my intent, as soon as I have the opportunity, to go back to those Core 100 notes and clean them up. For the input of various participants in this discussion--especially you, Sarah, and Kathryn (due to your (pl) recommendations of various resources)--again, I want to express my gratitude. I think this is where the discussion has gone, but I would like to note that that does not appear to be where it began. It appears to have begun with a question about whether Holzmann was (or, rather, "is") trying to whitewash slavery in Sonlight Core 100. My response was motivated not only by what I perceived as attacks on my character and motives but by the attacks I perceived on the character and purpose/motives of Sonlight Curriculum. Thank you for the admonition. I see where I need to "change my ways." And thank you for the recommendation. John

I am rather of the opinion that the vast majority of people who have ever purchased Sonlight have never heard even a beginning Southern perspective (white or black) on relations between the races (before or after the Civil War prior to the Jim Crow era); they have never heard any stories or perspectives on slavery other than the horrors (of which there were plenty; I am not attempting to whitewash the horrors); they have never heard even a beginning "apologetic" for any Southerner's participation in the Civil War. At best--concerning the last point--we have heard of Robert E. Lee's decision to side with the Confederates due to his sense of duty first to his state and then to the Union. But any other reasons? --I would wager fewer than one or two percent of Sonlighters--or homeschoolers in general--are aware of what an apologist for the South might say. My point: No. I did not write my note(s) with a neo-Confederate audience in mind. I agree with you 100 percent. John Oh. PS. If I might say so: Participants in this thread are probably better-informed and better-educated than about 95 percent of all homeschoolers. (That's my guess.) As highly trafficked as the WTM forums are, there are about a million other homeschoolers who don't come here. Sonlight deals with only a small percentage of them. But having dealt with percentage of Sonlighters, not mention a fairly representative bunch of texts that a large proportion of homeschoolers use, I think I am not being unfair when I suggest that the vast majority of homeschoolers--certainly those I have dealt with--were brought up with a "the North was right/righteous, the South was wrong/evil" perspective. And as I have already confessed, that was how I was raised--in some very highly-rated northern school districts. THEREFORE--despite the fact that this is tangential to the question of my foolish/poorly-formed use of Slave Narratives quotes--it is partially because of your latter point, Bill--about the need to "learn to stand against injustice, hatred, and bigotry in the moment, even when it is unpopular and runs against the dominant cultural norms" . . . --It is partially because of that point that I think those of us who were brought up with the monochromatic and one-sided North-was-righteous/South-was-evil viewpoint need, at least, to understand what a well-educated/well-informed Southerner might say in defense of his or her culture and history. And then, of course, having become aware, we must figure out how to respond . . . both to our own (Northern/dominant) culture's prideful boasts as well as to the Southern viewpoint that "you Northerners are uninformed and speak in a highly prejudiced manner."

Sarah: You asked if I was saying that I believe "'deaf, blind, physically or mentally disabled' infants who 'cannot contribute efficient work' should be 'taken care of'?" Your question came as a result of the following interchange between albeto and me: Really, albeto? "Patently absurd and professionally irresponsible" . . . i.e., therefore, apparently, not worth thinking about or discussing? No! Obviously, you don't actually believe your own rhetoric . . . because you actually attempt to address the apparent anomaly: I like your proposed "solution" to the vexing statistics! My response: I think, in context, it is pretty obvious I wasn't attempting to say anything about infants or their care. I was attempting to address albeto's proposed explanation for (i.e., "solution" to) what, to my mind, seem rather vexing statistics. However, seeing how someone might want to correlate my comment about statistics to a legal and social policy that a well-known sociopath termed "the Final Solution," and since you seem to be interested in my opinions about the care of those with handicaps, let me state without equivocation: I believe that we, the able, have a responsibility toward those who are unable, both born and unborn. And I have put my money and my body on the line for that principle. (But lest anyone charge me with taking credit for more than I deserve, let me hasten to add I have made no great personal sacrifices for that principle. I have merely participated in certain forms of civil disobedience in behalf of those who are unable to speak for themselves; and I have merely donated several thousands of dollars to the cause of handicappers and toward those who work in behalf of otherwise unwanted children. I hold in far higher esteem than myself those who deal, on a daily basis, with parents and/or children who are deaf, blind, physically or mentally disabled. And I hold in far higher esteem than myself those moms and dads who have actually adopted and cared for the otherwise unadoptable--children who have been abandoned by their own parents. Sarita and I have never made the kinds of sacrifices such people have made.) John

Calandalsmom: As you well know, Sonlight's programs are designed for use with a wide range of ages. And Core 100 students do go up through high school. After this discussion, however, I think you are right: My note missed my intended target . . . which (intended target) was mentioned in this note primarily in the parenthetical remark about abusive husbands and boyfriends, parents, and employers . . . and here, in this thread, in my further comments about s*x workers, dependents upon the state, etc. Foolish me. I never, in this particular note (I did get back to it later), got back around to the primary target . . . probably because, at the time, I was so wide-eyed astonished at the revelations to which I had recently been introduced about a whole "other" side of slavery about which I had been wholly unaware until only a few months or weeks before writing my note. John

Agreed. Sorry. That was not my intent, but I think I understand now why you would view my post that way. Yeah. I saw that yesterday and wondered about it myself. And I realized I was a fool, back whenever I first created that note, not to edit the source's use of that word. The source: a book--one of the few I had ever read (and had only read a few days or weeks before I first wrote my note)--that was, as you suggest, specifically designed to argue in favor of "the South." NOTE: I had never read such a book (much less ever heard any arguments) in favor of anything other than a straight-on "the North was right, the North was righteous; the South was wrong, the South was wicked" perspective. Now, Perhaps you-all here on TWTM are far more educated than I was. Perhaps you-all have heard and thought through all the arguments. You have considered the different sides and you have not only come to your wise and considered conclusions based on all of the extensive data you have digested. Indeed, it is possible that you-all have taught (or are planning to teach) your children all of the arguments and to see through the way "the other side" attempts to present its case. REALITY: I was totally shocked that I had never even heard such perspectives, never even been confronted with such statistics. FWIW: I have neither Union nor Confederate blood in me, and I have never lived "down South." My father is an immigrant, and my mother's parents and/or grandparents were immigrants. Indeed, based on my understanding of statistics, the vast majority of Americans today are descendants of immigrants who came subsequent to the Civil War. Yet that doesn't make the questions of the Civil War irrelevant to many issues we face today. Agree. Easy for us to say today. Not at all easy, apparently, from the perspective of most Northerners or Southerners back at the time of the Civil War. You may be right. Or, rather, I should say, obviously, from your perspective, that is how my comments sound[ed]. That was certainly not my intention . . . and I hope my responses, here, this morning, have at least begun to clear up what my intention was. Thanks. John

In this one note, and my attempt in one post to respond to what I believe were mischaracterizations both of my note and of me as a person, I agree that it would seem to be true that I ignore a lot of fundamental ethical issues associated with slavery and racial relations as legislated and practiced in the United States and the Confederate States of America. It would seem that way. But I believe it would be very unfair of you or anyone else here to assume that I do not address a tremendous range of issues related both to slavery and to racial relations in the United States (and its predecessor social organizations) before and after the Civil War, from the time of the Pilgrims pretty much down to the present day. . . . Really, albeto? "Patently absurd and professionally irresponsible" . . . i.e., therefore, apparently, not worth thinking about or discussing? No! Obviously, you don't actually believe your own rhetoric . . . because you actually attempt to address the apparent anomaly: I like your proposed "solution" to the vexing statistics! I thought my post was already too long. And I had certainly spent more time on the subject than I really wanted to spend. I refer you to my questions and comments in my other posts this morning about "s*x workers," female participants in heteros*xual relationships, recipients/dependents on what I call state-sponsored servitude, etc. No. I certainly wouldn't! John

I see a lot of people "woke up" in the few minutes between when I had ALMOST finished my immediately preceding post and when I actually posted it! So. A few replies. Your question, here, caused me to realize an issue I had not seen before now. Ms. Hakim said--and I objected to her statement--that "No one wants to be a slave." I see where I could have--and, if given the opportunity, I now will--radically revise my notes. Before I continue down the path I have just now begun, let me state that I find my own education a work in progress. Always. I try to listen to all sides--those who "support" "my" view, and those who don't. I find I need the bracing input of those who object either to what I say or how I express myself. And so I am offering my thanks to those who attack and deal with concepts and ideas. (I am not so thankful for those who make ad hominem attacks.) . . . Back to the subject at hand. With the input of those who have stuck to the problems associated with the Slave Narratives, and, now, with the insight I just gained from recognizing the problem of verb tense, I see that I would radically rewrite what I wrote however many years ago (and for which my most recent copy came from 2006). Key point: I expect in a future revision I would concentrate attention on the modern-day equivalents (or proposed equivalents) to slavery that I discussed in my immediately preceding post: Modern state-enforced, state-sponsored servitudes. S*x "workers." Heteros*xual relations of all kinds. Any and all relationships of unequal power. I haven't had time to think through whether I would still quote from the Slave Narratives as exemplars of the kinds of things one might hear from modern-day equivalents to slaves of old. But I would certainly modify my introduction to such statements/quotes if I did include them. Thanks for your question(s)! John

Yesterday morning, when only albeto and Tara had replied to my earlier post/response, I read their replies and found myself both disappointed and deeply troubled. Is it even possible for me to break through the mini-cultural cloud of prejudiced and prejudicial views expressed about me here on a forum of supposedly well-trained minds? But since my sanity is being questioned, I figure I should at least attempt to mount a small defense. Let me first note the phrase to which I objected in Joy Hakim's book. She said, “No one wants to be a slave.†And I replied, "That is simply not true!" In everything that follows, I would like to urge you to keep that basic quibble in mind. I will attempt to remind you of the concern I had--and have--about Ms. Hakim's statement at various points in what I say below. But I do believe it ought to color my entire post, here. I think albeto's post provides about as good a launch pad as any for me to attempt to defend myself against charges of lunacy, etc. Albeto writes, My response: No. However ex-slaves' testimonies--flawed and questionable as they may be--ought to be considered. Beyond that, while it may be true that every one of these reports was a result of feeling grateful because the speakers lacked an immediate threat to life and limb, I believe (I may be wrong, but I believe!) that some of their testimonies arose out of true, heart-felt, sincere appreciation for their masters, and in the midst of being fully aware of the implications--and horrific realities for others of the implications--of what you call, in your next paragraph, "the asymmetric control of power." In addition, I believe that we, today, who live in a different place and time and in far different circumstances: We may properly benefit from viewing ex-slaves' lives from their perspective. We do neither ourselves nor our children any great service to pretend any every happy/satisfied slave's perspective is wholly invalid and unworthy of consideration. Indeed, in responding to proponents of social and legal institutions like slavery, we need to be prepared to respond to issues that arise from these kinds of testimonies. Finally, while we are on the subject, I should probably note that there are plenty of people--indeed, hundreds of millions of people--around the world today who live in similar circumstances to those of slaves in the United States and Confederate States of America back in the mid-19th century. And recognizing that fact, I believe it does neither us nor our children any good to completely dismiss (i.e., refuse to consider) statements such as those from the Slave Narratives if and when we will dismiss similar statements made by contemporary domestic servants in such places as Latin America and India [where I have heard such statements] or, possibly, even, such places as Saudi Arabia [from whose domestic servants I have heard only very different statements]. --Somehow, I believe, we need to learn how to distinguish "Stockholm Syndrome" statements from statements arising from other motives. And we need to sort out and think through proper/appropriate responses to abuse, whether it is legitimated by the legal or social system or not. My response: albeto (and others): First, I recognize my own need to be cautious about assuming I understand what the "this" is to which you are referring when you speak of being offended. I believe it is quite valuable for all of us to recognize Stockholm Syndrome. Thank you and the others, here, who mentioned the syndrome. (I was unfamiliar with the term until I read it here in this thread--though the concept is no more difficult for me to grasp than it is for you.) Moreover, when you wrote, "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'": I couldn't agree more. HOWEVER, therefore, While I believe there is much to be gained from recognizing Stockholm Syndrome for what it is; While I can readily imagine many—indeed, perhaps most—slaves suffered from what sociologists now call Stockholm Syndrome; I would argue that it is valid education when we, as parents and educators, help our children look at the historical record, as best we can, “from the inside.†And, I am unwilling, without strong evidence, to assume that every statement in favor--either of slavery as it was practiced in the United States/Confederate States (which, as I noted, and would want to note again, here, I am not interested in defending!) or of slaveholders or of persons who fought on the side of the Confederacy or of persons who, even today, would seek to "defend the Confederate cause" [whatever they may mean by that phrase]-- . . . I am unwilling, without strong evidence, to assume that every such statement is--and dismiss every such statement as--a result of Stockholm Syndrome or benighted lunacy. Why am I unwilling to make such assumptions? Why do I believe such discussions are part of valid education? Why do I believe it is important to help our kids read the record? Because if we fail to read the record, if we fail to discuss these matters with our kids, we—and, more importantly, they—will find ourselves/themselves just as blind to similar circumstances in our own society. (Let me remind you, here, of my statement up top: This discussion arises from my objection to Ms. Hakim's assertion that “No one wants to be a slave.†--I object to that assertion.) The fact is--as I attempted to communicate in my previous post--it is easy from our position in history today to view slavery as a gross injustice. It is easy for us today to dismiss any and all statements showing any support of any type for any of the items I listed above (slavery as it was practiced in the United States/Confederate States, slaveholders; persons who fought on the side of the Confederacy; persons who, today, would seek to "defend the Confederate cause" in any manner whatsoever) . . . --It is easy for us today to dismiss all such statements as "offensive" or "not worthy of examination," etc. HOWEVER, again, because I agree with you, albeto, that "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,'" therefore I believe that if we dismiss any and all statements showing any support of any type for any of the items I listed above, and especially if we dismiss such statements too quickly or too out-of-hand, we will fail to help ourselves (or our kids) understand How or why anyone ever did support those now, to us, patently offensive positions. How or why slavery was accepted in America and elsewhere in the Western world for so many decades (or centuries)? Why was it only the wild and wacky, radical social misfits known as Quakers (a dismissive term at the time) and the equally derided evangelical "Clapham sect" who initiated, and, for so many decades, had to lead the fight against slavery? Why were these two largely marginal groups so hard-pressed to extinguish the practice? Why were these groups' campaigns against slavery so costly (costly not only in terms of money, but in terms of life and limb and social status)? Why did it take nearly 50 years for Wilberforce to finally push through Parliament his bill for the abolition not only of the slave trade but of the institution of slavery itself? And why--most importantly-- . . . Why, among so many other equally valid and perplexing questions . . . --Why were North American--Yankee, Massachusetts- and New York City-registered--vessels at the forefront of the North American slave trade all the way up to, and even through, the American Civil War? How or why people today--even, possibly, some of the participants here on the WTM forum--might refuse to express the same kind of revulsion you expressed against slavery . . . --how or why some people today might not express the same vehement revulsion against (just by way of example) every aspect of the modern s*x trade (not only pr*stitution [both local and international], but the production and dissemination of p*rnography). When "s*x workers" express their satisfaction and even pleasure in what they do, are we to take at least some of them seriously? Or should we always assume--and dismiss all of their statements as arising from--Stockholm Syndrome at work? . . . I don't think so! 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. . . . ********* I have read the remainder of thread participants' posts. I think I have presented, here, the primary concerns on my mind and heart. Thank you to any and all who have listened. John

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.†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.†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.†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?†“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