Home | About | Donate

Black People to Texas: Erasure Is Real, and Slaves Were Not "Workers"


#1

Black People to Texas: Erasure Is Real, and Slaves Were Not "Workers"

Amidst a recent slew of telling stories from post-racial America - not - comes the tale of Texas mom, doctoral candidate and black person Roni Dean-Burren, who called out publishing giant McGraw-Hill after her 15-year-old son noticed his geography text's "Patterns of Immigration" described "the Atlantic slave trade (bringing) millions of workers from Africa." “Revisionist history," she charged, "(is) retelling the story however the winners would like it told.”


#2

The Atlantic slave trade brought millions of people..

Really? Well who owned those ships and who owned and ran the slave markets? Isn't it important to teach the people the true history, not just propaganda bits and pieces?

Apparently not or else everyone would know the truth of just who owned and operated those slave ships. (look it up)


#3

Texas also has its head in the sand about the glorious revolution of 1836. The flag at the Alamo was three red, white and green verticle stripes with the numbers 1824 in the center white field. This was in reference to the Texican's demand Mexico revert to the constituion of 1824 which allowed slavery. Santa Anna (always painted as the bad guy) had rewritten the constitution and outlawed slavery. So the great Texas freedom fighters were fighting for the right to enslave human beings. This was the sole reason to split from Mexico. This is totally ignored by Texas history books. I don't think even the black people in Texas realize this just as the Hispanic population fails to realize the April "Fiesta" celebration commemorates Santa Anna's defeat at San Jacinto.


#6

Here is an article that appeared in the Houston press this last July: http://www.houstonpress.com/news/5-reasons-the-new-texas-social-studies-textbooks-are-nuts-7573825

5 REASONS THE NEW TEXAS SOCIAL STUDIES TEXTBOOKS ARE NUTS

Not surprised as "the fix" has been on in Texas for scores of years!


#9

I like books, really I do but this is one book worth burning, en mass--a book burning ceremony-- to drive home the point that racist revisionist materials will not be tolerated. While you accept the fact that these racists exist nothing should compel you to tolerate them.


#10

A very good book to read on this subject is Gerald Horne's scholarly work, The Counter Revolution of 1776.


#11

Not to mention the book was wrong. The Atlantic Slave Trade brought millions of slaves to the Americas. 95 percent of those went to the Carribean, Brazil, and Central America. Estimates to the English Colonies and the U.S. after that are around 500,000.


#12

Come now readers this not just textbooks in Texas. This revising of histroy is prevalent among all manner of US History and has been for hundreds of years. These textbooks in Texas are just another in the same line of "whitewashing history"

As example "The Boston Tea Party".

One of the guys behind this was one John Hancock. John Hancock was a smuggler who made his fortune smuggling tea from the Dutch into the Americas. The British east India company was in fact able to sell its tea at a lower price because the British crown had LOWERED the Tax on imported teas by 25 percent> This would threaten the livelihood of the Boston Merchants so they organized a rebellion claiming it about freedom and "No taxation without representation" .

John Hancock was the guy who financed these protests paying the people to riot on the streets and board those ships pretending to be Mohawks. One John Adams was the lawyer for John Hancock helping get all charges against him dropped. It was the 1 percent against the one percent nothing more.

The one percent in the USA paying others to riot and protest in the streets "democracy freedom and liberty" is one that continues to this day and was the modus operandi in places Like Iran in 1953, In Chile under Allende and in the Ukraine a few years back. It taken to an extreme in places like Libya and Syria as we witnessed these past years.


#13

Ummm...John Adams defended Hancock for the 1767 seizure of his ship "Liberty" by the Crown on the grounds that they suspected him of smuggling Madeira wine. He was tried in an Admiralty Court, all charges were dropped but they kept his ship. This was 6 years before the "Tea Party".


#14

So the F what? I am showing how these 1 percenters struck togther. John Adams is said to have been one of those that was involved with the boarding of the boats during the boston tea party. He was close chums with John hancock.They made up stories about "freedom and liberty" to justify their actions when all they were doing was lining their pockets.

Just as they did in Texas with that Alamo crap.

Just as they do today as they talk about freedom and liberty the world over. When one of those US politicians opens his or her mouth to talk about "freedom and liberty" be it today or 200 years ago, rest asuured theyare/were making bucks off it.

They than count on having historians cover up what they were really up to and make their cause seem "noble". They were nothing more then slaveowners and slavetraders and land thieves and fraud artists and smugglers and not one thing has changed.


#15

Just being accurate...wouldn't think you had a problem with that. Adams was also the only lawyer that would represent Capt. Prescott , the British officer that was charged with the Boston Massacre by the Crown- after being turned down by several "loyalist" lawyers. Got him off too.

I think you might be confusing John Adams with his cousin Sam Adams. Sam called the mass meeting against the tea shipment, while John was actually hired by the ship owners to try to get out of the liability of the tea being destroyed.

Anyway, this article was about slavery in the s.e. US's despiction in a text book.


#16

Hats off to Ms. Dean-Burren. It is so heartening to see such conscientious, courageous and effective resistance to the status-quo from this valiant young woman (and from her son). I am confident that her doctorate will be hard-won, well-deserved and productive. Not all of them are. I work at a college, and examples of PhDs who are "dumb as a rock" are common, as she aptly demonstrated of the Texas Advisory Board.

Dean-Burren sees it as a partial victory: “On a surface level, ‘yay'...thumbs up for listening." Then again, the changes will only be made now in digital versions - ie at no cost - and not for years in print. Thus, a historical distortion pretty gross even by Texas' sketchy standards - a narrative that's "not really the story of slavery" - will remain in place, and the facts of black lives and bodies and pain are lost. “This is erasure,” says Dean-Burren. “This is revisionist history - retelling the story however the winners would like it told.”

On the other hand, the corrections Ms.Dean-Burren won are cosmetic to a large extent. A more appropriate response would be an immediate, full recall of the flawed textbooks. Why let the "revisionist history" persist?