Texas Mother Teaches Textbook Company a Lesson on Accuracy

[Tennesseer]

Let us call it exactly what it was: they were slaves and not workers.

Texas Mother Teaches Textbook Company a Lesson on Accuracy

HOUSTON — Coby Burren, 15, a freshman at a suburban high school south of here, was reading the textbook in his geography class last week when a map of the United States caught his attention. On Page 126, a caption in a section about immigration referred to Africans brought to American plantations between the 1500s and 1800s as “workers” rather than slaves.

He reached for his cellphone and sent a photograph of the caption to his mother, Roni Dean-Burren, along with a text message: “we was real hard workers, wasn’t we.”



Their outrage over the textbook’s handling of the nation’s history of African-American slavery — another page referred to Europeans coming to America as “indentured servants” but did not describe Africans the same way — touched off a social-media storm that led the book’s publisher, McGraw-Hill Education, to vow to change the wording and the school’s teachers to use other materials in the class.

“It talked about the U.S.A. being a country of immigration, but mentioning the slave trade in terms of immigration was just off,” said Ms. Dean-Burren, who is black. “It’s that nuance of language. This is what erasure looks like.”

Complete article here: Texas Mother Teaches Textbook Company a Lesson on Accuracy

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Oct 7, 2015 8:28:21 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Let us call it exactly what it was: they were slaves and not workers.

Texas Mother Teaches Textbook Company a Lesson on Accuracy

HOUSTON — Coby Burren, 15, a freshman at a suburban high school south of here, was reading the textbook in his geography class last week when a map of the United States caught his attention. On Page 126, a caption in a section about immigration referred to Africans brought to American plantations between the 1500s and 1800s as “workers” rather than slaves.

He reached for his cellphone and sent a photograph of the caption to his mother, Roni Dean-Burren, along with a text message: “we was real hard workers, wasn’t we.”



Their outrage over the textbook’s handling of the nation’s history of African-American slavery — another page referred to Europeans coming to America as “indentured servants” but did not describe Africans the same way — touched off a social-media storm that led the book’s publisher, McGraw-Hill Education, to vow to change the wording and the school’s teachers to use other materials in the class.

“It talked about the U.S.A. being a country of immigration, but mentioning the slave trade in terms of immigration was just off,” said Ms. Dean-Burren, who is black. “It’s that nuance of language. This is what erasure looks like.”

Complete article here: Texas Mother Teaches Textbook Company a Lesson on Accuracy

Did the book refer to slaves as "workers" throughout the book, or just this one page?  If it was throughout the book, I can see the issue...if it was just this one caption, then that is a different story.

[Tennesseer]

Oct 7, 2015 8:47:25 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

Oct 7, 2015 8:28:21 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Let us call it exactly what it was: they were slaves and not workers.

Texas Mother Teaches Textbook Company a Lesson on Accuracy

HOUSTON — Coby Burren, 15, a freshman at a suburban high school south of here, was reading the textbook in his geography class last week when a map of the United States caught his attention. On Page 126, a caption in a section about immigration referred to Africans brought to American plantations between the 1500s and 1800s as “workers” rather than slaves.

He reached for his cellphone and sent a photograph of the caption to his mother, Roni Dean-Burren, along with a text message: “we was real hard workers, wasn’t we.”



Their outrage over the textbook’s handling of the nation’s history of African-American slavery — another page referred to Europeans coming to America as “indentured servants” but did not describe Africans the same way — touched off a social-media storm that led the book’s publisher, McGraw-Hill Education, to vow to change the wording and the school’s teachers to use other materials in the class.

“It talked about the U.S.A. being a country of immigration, but mentioning the slave trade in terms of immigration was just off,” said Ms. Dean-Burren, who is black. “It’s that nuance of language. This is what erasure looks like.”

Complete article here: Texas Mother Teaches Textbook Company a Lesson on Accuracy

Did the book refer to slaves as "workers" throughout the book, or just this one page?  If it was throughout the book, I can see the issue...if it was just this one caption, then that is a different story.

I have no idea. I have been out of high school for quite some time so I am not studying from that book. But if you are going to cite information in a picture, you should be damn sure it is correct.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Oct 7, 2015 8:51:41 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Oct 7, 2015 8:47:25 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

Did the book refer to slaves as "workers" throughout the book, or just this one page?  If it was throughout the book, I can see the issue...if it was just this one caption, then that is a different story.

I have no idea. I have been out of high school for quite some time so I am not studying from that book. But if you are going to cite information in a picture, you should be damn sure it is correct.

The caption does say "The Atlantic Slave Trade" at the start of it, so I think that implies they were slaves.  If it said "The Atlantic Slave Trade brought millions of workers from Africa between the 1500's and 1800s," do you really see an issue with it?  Or do you realize that since it is talking about the Atlantic slave trade, it is talking about the number of slaves being brought over during that time frame?

[Tennesseer]

Oct 7, 2015 9:00:57 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

Oct 7, 2015 8:51:41 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

I have no idea. I have been out of high school for quite some time so I am not studying from that book. But if you are going to cite information in a picture, you should be damn sure it is correct.

The caption does say "The Atlantic Slave Trade" at the start of it, so I think that implies they were slaves.  If it said "The Atlantic Slave Trade brought millions of workers from Africa betweeen the 1500's and 1800s," do you really see an issue with it?  

I do see an issue with and as I suspected, you don't. Let's call a slave a slave and not a worker.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Oct 7, 2015 9:03:51 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Oct 7, 2015 9:00:57 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

The caption does say "The Atlantic Slave Trade" at the start of it, so I think that implies they were slaves.  If it said "The Atlantic Slave Trade brought millions of workers from Africa betweeen the 1500's and 1800s," do you really see an issue with it?  

I do see an issue with and as I suspected, you don't. Let's call a slave a slave and not a worker.

And I think sometimes people are looking for reasons to be offended.  If a caption said "The  prison line brought millions of workers to....," would you really have an issue with calling the "workers" instead of prisoners?  I think the logical implication is that if somebody is brought by the prison line, they are prisoners in the same way that people who are brought by a slave trade route are slaves.  

[Tennesseer]

Why shouldn't people be offended when you call a slave a worker and not a slave?

[Wisconsin Beth]

Oct 7, 2015 9:03:51 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Oct 7, 2015 9:00:57 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

The caption does say "The Atlantic Slave Trade" at the start of it, so I think that implies they were slaves.  If it said "The Atlantic Slave Trade brought millions of workers from Africa between the 1500's and 1800s," do you really see an issue with it?  

I do see an issue with and as I suspected, you don't. Let's call a slave a slave and not a worker.

I thought it should read "people" and not workers. 

But one of my first reactions did kind of match PI's.  Because grammatically, workers is tied to the proper noun of Atlantic Slave Trade.  But I can also see why workers is offensive too.  No matter what your take on the accuracy - it shouldn't have made it out of proofreading because it's a lousy sentence. 

[The Captain]

I have a bigger issue with the context in which it was used.  Look at the caption above the graphic in Tennesseer's link.  It states "Patterns in immigration".

To me immigration is a voluntary act.  Being forced to move as a slave is not.  Yes, how the population distribution by country of origin came to be should be understood.  However, it glosses over the circumstances of that distribution and appears to make it seem voluntary.

 

[Deleted]

Oct 7, 2015 9:17:25 GMT -5 The Captain said:

I have a bigger issue with the context in which it was used.  Look at the caption above the graphic in Tennesseer's link.  It states "Patterns in immigration".

To me immigration is a voluntary act.  Being forced to move as a slave is not.  Yes, how the population distribution by country of origin came to be should be understood.  However, it glosses over the circumstances of that distribution and appears to make it seem voluntary.

 

I believe the word is being used correctly.  Immigration can be forced.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Oct 7, 2015 9:12:18 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Why shouldn't people be offended when you call a slave a worker and not a slave?

If it said the south had millions of "workers" on plantations, that is one thing to be upset about...however, in this context that specifically says the Atlantic Slave Trade right before it, is entirely another issue where IMO people are looking for reasons to be offended.  It didn't purposefully exclude the word "slave" from the context in this instance and basic reading comprehension should help people realize they are talking about slaves.  You want to argue that it should say the Atlantic slave trade brought millions of slaves (which is redundant), that's fine. However, the outrage over it, like it was some slap in the face is another issue that needs to be discussed.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Oct 7, 2015 9:16:44 GMT -5 Wisconsin Beth said:

Oct 7, 2015 9:03:51 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

I do see an issue with and as I suspected, you don't. Let's call a slave a slave and not a worker.

I thought it should read "people" and not workers. 

But one of my first reactions did kind of match PI's.  Because grammatically, workers is tied to the proper noun of Atlantic Slave Trade.  But I can also see why workers is offensive too.  No matter what your take on the accuracy - it shouldn't have made it out of proofreading because it's a lousy sentence. 

Personally I think saying the Atlantic Slave Trade brought millions of slaves is a bit redundant, which is probably the reason they didn't use it a 2nd time in the same sentence.  Using "people" seems reasonable, but then again some people might want to argue that is downplaying they were slaves.  

[Tennesseer]

Oct 7, 2015 9:23:17 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

Oct 7, 2015 9:12:18 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Why shouldn't people be offended when you call a slave a worker and not a slave?

If it said the south had millions of "workers" on plantations, that is one thing to be upset about...however, in this context that specifically says the Atlantic Slave Trade right before it, is entirely another issue where IMO people are looking for reasons to be offended.  It didn't purposefully exclude the word "slave" from the context in this instance and basic reading comprehension should help people realize they are talking about slaves.  You want to argue that it should say the atlantic slave trade brought millions of slaves (which is redundant), that's fine. However, the outrage over it like it was some slap in the face is another issue that needs to be discussed.

Writing "...brought millions of workers from Africa to the Southern United States to work on agricultural plantations" pretty much says what I highlighted from you posted above.

Most Americans aren't stupid. Those who know the history of slavery and the South can read between the lines. "Southern United States" and "agricultural plantations' simply means slavery in the South and forced to work on cotton plantations. But some young people today might not understand that.

As for the redundancy, it could be rewritten one way like. “The capturing and selling of the people of Africa to North and South America between the 1500s and 1800s brought millions of slaves to the southern United States primarily to work on cotton plantations.”

I am sure McGraw-Hill Education will figure out a way of changing 'workers' to 'slaves'.

[The Captain]

Oct 7, 2015 9:22:37 GMT -5 @hickle said:

Oct 7, 2015 9:17:25 GMT -5 The Captain said:

I have a bigger issue with the context in which it was used.  Look at the caption above the graphic in Tennesseer's link.  It states "Patterns in immigration".

To me immigration is a voluntary act.  Being forced to move as a slave is not.  Yes, how the population distribution by country of origin came to be should be understood.  However, it glosses over the circumstances of that distribution and appears to make it seem voluntary.

 

I believe the word is being used correctly.  Immigration can be forced.

Huh...never though of it that way but you're right. 

[Tennesseer]

Oct 7, 2015 9:22:37 GMT -5 @hickle said:

Oct 7, 2015 9:17:25 GMT -5 The Captain said:

I have a bigger issue with the context in which it was used.  Look at the caption above the graphic in Tennesseer's link.  It states "Patterns in immigration".

To me immigration is a voluntary act.  Being forced to move as a slave is not.  Yes, how the population distribution by country of origin came to be should be understood.  However, it glosses over the circumstances of that distribution and appears to make it seem voluntary.

 

I believe the word is being used correctly.  Immigration can be forced.

In the context of the subject matter in textbook, it is incorrectly used.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Oct 7, 2015 9:46:39 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Oct 7, 2015 9:23:17 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

If it said the south had millions of "workers" on plantations, that is one thing to be upset about...however, in this context that specifically says the Atlantic Slave Trade right before it, is entirely another issue where IMO people are looking for reasons to be offended.  It didn't purposefully exclude the word "slave" from the context in this instance and basic reading comprehension should help people realize they are talking about slaves.  You want to argue that it should say the atlantic slave trade brought millions of slaves (which is redundant), that's fine. However, the outrage over it like it was some slap in the face is another issue that needs to be discussed.

Writing "...brought millions of workers from Africa to the Southern United States to work on agricultural plantations" pretty much says what I highlighted from you posted above.


Actually it doesn't because of what was prefaced by right before it.  

Most Americans aren't stupid. Those who know the history of slavery and the South can read between the lines. "Southern United States" and "agricultural plantations' simply means slavery in the South and forced to work on cotton plantations. But some young people today might not understand that.

Some young people might not understand that a slave trade route brought slaves?  I realize we are all about sound bytes, but context is important.  How many people being "outraged" by this do you think even realize the slave trade route was even mentioned in the same sentence right before it vs the number of people who think the textbook just called slaves "workers?"  How many people do you even think realize it is in a geography book and not a history book?

As for the redundancy, it could be rewritten one way like. “The capturing and selling of the people of Africa to North and South America between the 1500s and 1800s brought millions of slaves to the southern United States primarily to work on cotton plantations.”

I am sure McGraw-Hill Education will figure out a way of changing 'workers' to 'slaves'.

And all that is fine, but again the "outrage" against it is ridiculous.  You can think that it could be worded differently (I think that all the time in textbooks...econ, history, finance, etc), but to argue that it's offensive is an overreaction.   There's nothing wrong with political correctness (or political politeness) to an extent, but this is an example of the problem when it goes too far.  

[Deleted]

PC-ness will lead to the ruination of our country.

[fishy999]

www.slate.com/articles/life/the_history_of_american_slavery/2015/06/animated_interactive_of_the_history_of_the_atlantic_slave_trade.html

Go wave your flag

[happyhoix]

Oct 7, 2015 9:17:25 GMT -5 The Captain said:

I have a bigger issue with the context in which it was used.  Look at the caption above the graphic in Tennesseer's link.  It states "Patterns in immigration".

To me immigration is a voluntary act.  Being forced to move as a slave is not.  Yes, how the population distribution by country of origin came to be should be understood.  However, it glosses over the circumstances of that distribution and appears to make it seem voluntary.

 

I agree, 'immigration' to the US has usually been voluntary, and 'workers' are usually people who agree to do work in exchange for something.

The textbook should have devoted some pages to forced immigration - the Africans being forced into slavery, the Native Americans being forced to abandon their property and move to reservations, etc.

Sometimes people like to sanitize our history because they think admitting we had some dark periods is somehow un-American.

[Virgil Showlion]

Oct 7, 2015 9:23:17 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

Oct 7, 2015 9:12:18 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Why shouldn't people be offended when you call a slave a worker and not a slave?

If it said the south had millions of "workers" on plantations, that is one thing to be upset about...however, in this context that specifically says the Atlantic Slave Trade right before it, is entirely another issue where IMO people are looking for reasons to be offended.  It didn't purposefully exclude the word "slave" from the context in this instance and basic reading comprehension should help people realize they are talking about slaves.  You want to argue that it should say the Atlantic slave trade brought millions of slaves (which is redundant), that's fine. However, the outrage over it, like it was some slap in the face is another issue that needs to be discussed.

How much do you want to bet that if McGraw-Hill had used the term "slaves" both times, they'd be under fire with criticism like "So all Africans are slaves, is that it?", or "So Africans were slaves before they came to the Americas, were they?"

If there was any doubt that these people were slaves or if "workers" (n. one who works at a particular occupation or activity; one who does manual or industrial labor) was an incorrect term, I could see putting it in the errata for the next edition, but neither of these is the case. You've got people throwing away textbooks because of a lack of redundancy in one image caption--that in all likelihood exists in the first place because McGraw-Hill didn't want to offend anybody.

Too many people with too much time. Too many rebels without a cause.

[Virgil Showlion]

Oct 8, 2015 7:28:37 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Oct 7, 2015 9:17:25 GMT -5 The Captain said:

I have a bigger issue with the context in which it was used.  Look at the caption above the graphic in Tennesseer's link.  It states "Patterns in immigration".

To me immigration is a voluntary act.  Being forced to move as a slave is not.  Yes, how the population distribution by country of origin came to be should be understood.  However, it glosses over the circumstances of that distribution and appears to make it seem voluntary.

 

I agree, 'immigration' to the US has usually been voluntary, and 'workers' are usually people who agree to do work in exchange for something.

The textbook should have devoted some pages to forced immigration - the Africans being forced into slavery, the Native Americans being forced to abandon their property and move to reservations, etc.

Sometimes people like to sanitize our history because they think admitting we had some dark periods is somehow un-American.

Firstly, as @hickle has already aptly demonstrated, "immigration" is an accurate term. "Workers" is also an accurate term, as the definitions make clear. Neither implies slavery, hence "The Slave Trade" is very plainly announced at the beginning of the caption.

Secondly, how do you know the textbook doesn't have pages devoted to the specifics of the slave trade?

If your comments are hypothetical, disregard my criticism, but there's no basis for calling this diagram "sanitizing history".

[thyme4change]

another page referred to Europeans coming to America as “indentured servants” but did not describe Africans the same way

An indentured servant and a slave are not the same thing.  

[The Captain]

Oct 8, 2015 7:59:42 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Oct 8, 2015 7:28:37 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

I agree, 'immigration' to the US has usually been voluntary, and 'workers' are usually people who agree to do work in exchange for something.

The textbook should have devoted some pages to forced immigration - the Africans being forced into slavery, the Native Americans being forced to abandon their property and move to reservations, etc.

Sometimes people like to sanitize our history because they think admitting we had some dark periods is somehow un-American.

Firstly, as @hickle has already aptly demonstrated, "immigration" is an accurate term. "Workers" is also an accurate term, as the definitions make clear. Neither implies slavery, hence "The Slave Trade" is very plainly announced at the beginning of the caption.

Secondly, how do you know the textbook doesn't have pages devoted to the specifics of the slave trade?

If your comments are hypothetical, disregard my criticism, but there's no basis for calling this diagram "sanitizing history".

You know, I've been giving this some thought (shocking - I know).

Remember the saying "The pen is mightier than the sword"?

The English language is amazingly imprecise.  Context is so key to the overall conversation, that it is easy to manipulate the intended message simply by changing the context in which it is delivered.

We have some pretty epic discussions around this all the time.  Consider "Illegal Immigrant" vs "Undocumented Immigrant" or "Stay at home Mom" vs "Domestic Engineer".  The meaning is the same, but the hidden message between each phrase is very different.

I'm one of the first to say we've become way to PC as a society and I hope to hell the pendulum swings back because we're becoming a nation of whiny wusses.  HOWEVER when we're talking an educational textbook, you better make damn sure that nasty parts of our history are not glossed over or presented in a way that lessens the shock of what was done.

Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.

(ok - off my soapbox now)

[Virgil Showlion]

Oct 8, 2015 8:38:32 GMT -5 The Captain said:

Oct 8, 2015 7:59:42 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Firstly, as @hickle has already aptly demonstrated, "immigration" is an accurate term. "Workers" is also an accurate term, as the definitions make clear. Neither implies slavery, hence "The Slave Trade" is very plainly announced at the beginning of the caption.

Secondly, how do you know the textbook doesn't have pages devoted to the specifics of the slave trade?

If your comments are hypothetical, disregard my criticism, but there's no basis for calling this diagram "sanitizing history".

You know, I've been giving this some thought (shocking - I know).

Remember the saying "The pen is mightier than the sword"?

The English language is amazingly imprecise.  Context is so key to the overall conversation, that it is easy to manipulate the intended message simply by changing the context in which it is delivered.

We have some pretty epic discussions around this all the time.  Consider "Illegal Immigrant" vs "Undocumented Immigrant" or "Stay at home Mom" vs "Domestic Engineer".  The meaning is the same, but the hidden message between each phrase is very different.

I'm one of the first to say we've become way to PC as a society and I hope to hell the pendulum swings back because we're becoming a nation of whiny wusses.  HOWEVER when we're talking an educational textbook, you better make damn sure that nasty parts of our history are not glossed over or presented in a way that lessens the shock of what was done.

Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.

(ok - off my soapbox now)

I understand that words carry strong connotations. Furthermore I admit that, absent any context, the word "worker" carries the connotation of a paid worker. "Immigrant" has no connotation as far as I'm concerned.

Hence, "worker".

Is "paid worker" a strong connotation? Is "slave worker" an oxymoron or an absurdity ("prancing cowboy" is one of my favourites from a novelist who took "prancing" [n. to walk or move about spiritedly; to strut about] far too literally)? No.

Is context provided for "worker"? Absolutely. "The Atlantic Slave Trade..." at the very top of the paragraph.

Are there other reasons why McGraw-Hill might have used "workers" instead of "slaves"? Absolutely. See my last post.

Supposing we count this as an unacceptable omission, is one word in one caption sufficient to justify a claim of historical revisionism? It's not necessary to look at what else the textbook has to say about the slave trade? I'd love to see a defensible case for 'Yes'.

I see no reason why McGraw-Hill couldn't add this to the list of errata (despite not being an error) for the next edition, but pulling the textbook out of classrooms? Maybe the kids can burn them in the school courtyard and learn all about combustion so it won't be a complete waste of time and money.

[thyme4change]

Are there other reasons why McGraw-Hill might have used "workers" instead of "slaves"? Absolutely.

Maybe McGraw-Hill was trying to distinguish between a slave that worked in fields vs. a sex slave.  On the next page is a detailed description of the massive sex slave immigration that happened - complete with pictures and diagrams.  

[happyhoix]

Oct 8, 2015 7:59:42 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Oct 8, 2015 7:28:37 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

I agree, 'immigration' to the US has usually been voluntary, and 'workers' are usually people who agree to do work in exchange for something.

The textbook should have devoted some pages to forced immigration - the Africans being forced into slavery, the Native Americans being forced to abandon their property and move to reservations, etc.

Sometimes people like to sanitize our history because they think admitting we had some dark periods is somehow un-American.

Firstly, as @hickle has already aptly demonstrated, "immigration" is an accurate term. "Workers" is also an accurate term, as the definitions make clear. Neither implies slavery, hence "The Slave Trade" is very plainly announced at the beginning of the caption.

Secondly, how do you know the textbook doesn't have pages devoted to the specifics of the slave trade?

If your comments are hypothetical, disregard my criticism, but there's no basis for calling this diagram "sanitizing history".

Obviously I haven't read the text book, so I can't say for certain, but I think the publisher probably would have pointed to the chapter on forced immigrations and slavery, if there was one, rather than promising to change the language in future editions. 

While the word worker was technically correct in that slaves performed work, I think it implies the worker voluntarily worked in exchange for something.

If you aren't working for something, you're performing forced labor.


  
 









 

[Tennesseer]

5 REASONS THE NEW TEXAS SOCIAL STUDIES TEXTBOOKS ARE NUTS


Do new Texas textbooks whitewash slavery and segregation?


6 OVERLOOKED TAKEAWAYS FROM A REVIEWER OF CONTROVERSIAL TEXAS TEXTBOOKS

[ArchietheDragon]

The textbook was probably written by the same people that write Wiki How To instructions.

[grumpyhermit]

Oct 8, 2015 9:19:37 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Are there other reasons why McGraw-Hill might have used "workers" instead of "slaves"? Absolutely.

Maybe McGraw-Hill was trying to distinguish between a slave that worked in fields vs. a sex slave.  On the next page is a detailed description of the massive sex slave immigration that happened - complete with pictures and diagrams.  

I have often seen references to "field slaves" and "house slaves".

With the many words available to them they surely had more options than "worker." As others have pointed out "people" would have been perfectly acceptable since they used the word "work" shortly afterward. For those that are arguing that using slave twice would be redundant they didn't seem to have that problem with workers/work.

[thyme4change]

Oct 8, 2015 9:26:51 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Oct 8, 2015 7:59:42 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Firstly, as @hickle has already aptly demonstrated, "immigration" is an accurate term. "Workers" is also an accurate term, as the definitions make clear. Neither implies slavery, hence "The Slave Trade" is very plainly announced at the beginning of the caption.

Secondly, how do you know the textbook doesn't have pages devoted to the specifics of the slave trade?

If your comments are hypothetical, disregard my criticism, but there's no basis for calling this diagram "sanitizing history".

Obviously I haven't read the text book, so I can't say for certain, but I think the publisher probably would have pointed to the chapter on forced immigrations and slavery, if there was one, rather than promising to change the language in future editions. 

While the word worker was technically correct in that slaves performed work, I think it implies the worker voluntarily worked in exchange for something.

If you aren't working for something, you're performing forced labor.


  
 









 

I don't do P.R. or damage control, but I think one of the theories is to apologize, propose a solution and promise action. If you start trying to justify yourself by saying "did you see pages 119 - 135?" only makes you look worse. It gives people more material to use against you. Now you will be criticized for every word on pages 119-135. The best thing isn't that they save their reputation, the best thing is for this to die quickly.

Sent from my SM-G900V using proboards