Remember those Virginia textbooks that said Blacks fought for the Confederacy?
Options
Swiffness!
Members Posts: 10,128 ✭✭✭✭✭
lol/smh
Historians Find Shitload of Errors In VA History Textbooks
Surprise, surprise, historians have found glaring errors in a textbook claiming that African Americans fought in large numbers for the South during the Civil War.
A number of additional errors have been found in other textbooks being used in some Virginia classrooms, since the state ordered a review of the books, the Washington Post reports.
Among the textbooks' errors are claims that the Confederacy included 12 states and the U.S. entered World War I in 1916. Five professional scholars reviewed the books, with three of them finding "disturbing" results. State officials are scheduled to meet January 10 to review the results.
"I absolutely could not believe the number of mistakes -- wrong dates and wrong facts everywhere. How in the world did these books get approved?" said Ronald Heinemann, a former history professor at Hampden-Sydney College who reviewed "Our Virginia: Past and Present." The other book mentioned in the report was "Our America: To 1865."
Heinemann added that the book "should be withdrawn from the classroom immediately, or at least by the end of the year."
Five Ponds Press, a small publisher in Connecticut, is responsible for the books in question. The Post reports that the publisher e-mailed to say the "historians' critiques," as the Post put it, will be included in the books' next printing.
The Post first reported the errors back in October. The author, Joy Masoff, defended her work, telling the Post, "As controversial as it is, I stand by what I write. I am a fairly respected writer." But when it came to one of the Civil War's most controversial themes -- the role of African Americans in the Confederacy -- she relied primarily on an Internet search, according to the report. And the results were based on the work of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, a neo-confederate group based in Tennessee.
Masoff's other literary achievements include "Oh Yuck! The Encyclopedia of Everything Nasty" and "Oh Yikes! History's Grossest Moments." (LOL FOH)
Virginia's Department of Education requires textbooks to fulfill certain "Standards of Learning" goals, including making sure history standards provide "a basic knowledge of American culture through a chronological survey of major issues, movements, peoples, and events in the United States and Virginia history."
The state's Standards of Learning disqualifies many textbooks produced for a national market from being used, leaving Five Ponds Press in a unique position of providing several books for the state. Five Ponds' books are reportedly less expensive than its competitors, too.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/historians_find_myriad_errors_in_va_history_textbo.php?ref=fpa
Historians Find Shitload of Errors In VA History Textbooks
Surprise, surprise, historians have found glaring errors in a textbook claiming that African Americans fought in large numbers for the South during the Civil War.
A number of additional errors have been found in other textbooks being used in some Virginia classrooms, since the state ordered a review of the books, the Washington Post reports.
Among the textbooks' errors are claims that the Confederacy included 12 states and the U.S. entered World War I in 1916. Five professional scholars reviewed the books, with three of them finding "disturbing" results. State officials are scheduled to meet January 10 to review the results.
"I absolutely could not believe the number of mistakes -- wrong dates and wrong facts everywhere. How in the world did these books get approved?" said Ronald Heinemann, a former history professor at Hampden-Sydney College who reviewed "Our Virginia: Past and Present." The other book mentioned in the report was "Our America: To 1865."
Heinemann added that the book "should be withdrawn from the classroom immediately, or at least by the end of the year."
Five Ponds Press, a small publisher in Connecticut, is responsible for the books in question. The Post reports that the publisher e-mailed to say the "historians' critiques," as the Post put it, will be included in the books' next printing.
The Post first reported the errors back in October. The author, Joy Masoff, defended her work, telling the Post, "As controversial as it is, I stand by what I write. I am a fairly respected writer." But when it came to one of the Civil War's most controversial themes -- the role of African Americans in the Confederacy -- she relied primarily on an Internet search, according to the report. And the results were based on the work of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, a neo-confederate group based in Tennessee.
Masoff's other literary achievements include "Oh Yuck! The Encyclopedia of Everything Nasty" and "Oh Yikes! History's Grossest Moments." (LOL FOH)
Virginia's Department of Education requires textbooks to fulfill certain "Standards of Learning" goals, including making sure history standards provide "a basic knowledge of American culture through a chronological survey of major issues, movements, peoples, and events in the United States and Virginia history."
The state's Standards of Learning disqualifies many textbooks produced for a national market from being used, leaving Five Ponds Press in a unique position of providing several books for the state. Five Ponds' books are reportedly less expensive than its competitors, too.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/historians_find_myriad_errors_in_va_history_textbo.php?ref=fpa
Comments
-
There was indeed a gaggle of ? ass negroes fighting for the Confederate Army.
:true story
SMH -
The Prime Minister wrote: »There was indeed a gaggle of ? ass negroes fighting for the Confederate Army.
:true story
SMH
Nah. There was ONE newspaper report of 70 blacks volunteering to help Virginia, a couple of 90+ year old textbooks written by racist old Southerns claiming blacks fought for the South, and one quote from Frederick Douglas claiming that blacks were fighting for the South, which was his clever way of scaring White Northerners into supporting Black enlistment in the Union Army.
This whole "well of course there was ? fighting for the South" meme is unnecessary self flagellation on the part of black people, and it unwittingly helps our racist enemies who would like to believe that the Civil War had NOTHING to do with slavery and there were no CSA vets in the ? (yes, I watched them argue this once). Fact is, there were no less than 179,000 blacks enlisted in the Union Army. Whenever a Confederate officer suggested letting blacks serve in the CSA army, PEOPLE FREAKED THE ? OUT. Slaves acted as spies and saboteurs for the Union. When Confederate troops marched into the North, they actually captured free blacks and sold them into slavery back down South smh. Do not get this ? twisted. When Lincoln rode through Richmond, the black populace gave dude the Jesus-entering-Jerusalem treatment. Them "let's support the South" house negroes were a tiny-ass minority. -
.....not surprised at all.
-
The user and all related content has been deleted.
-
** Plans to write a text book for Mississippi **
** leaves out the part regarding the South's rise in Hip Hop ** -
The Prime Minister wrote: »There was indeed a gaggle of ? ass negroes fighting for the Confederate Army.
:true story
SMH
Some are still fighting til this very day. We even got a bunch of them on this forum. -
Uh, no ? ? That's why there was controversy surrounding the textbooks in the first place.
-
according to the internet, this is an outrageous notionSwiffness! wrote: »When Lincoln rode through Richmond, the black populace gave dude the Jesus-entering-Jerusalem treatment. Them "let's support the South" house negroes were a tiny-ass minority. -
The Emancipation Proclamation was more of a consequence of The Civil War than the cause.
The south was fighting for separation, and the reason the North wasn't having it is because the south nearly bankrupted the country in acquiring Texas, during the Mexican-American War. Which also tipped the congress heavily in favor of southern democrats by adding a rack of new seats.
Beef ensued.
And to assume that Lincoln was some kind of ? -Savior for Bkack people is also bogus.
"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the ? should be denied everything."
Abraham Lincoln (February 12, 1809 – April 15, 1865)
Source: Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858 (The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, pp. 145-146.)
He said a bunch of other ? ? but I don't feel like looking for it. -
i've bolded the key part of this post for youThe Prime Minister wrote: »Source: Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858 (The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, pp. 145-146.) -
Its OK when whites lie.
Sure they SAY they dont feel guilty about slavery....but they still feel the need to lie about it.
Gee, why hide the facts when u have nothing to be ashamed about? -
Textbooks aren't historical research, so if the textbooks are wrong, what were they sourcing? Are those books wrong as well?
Emancipation Proclamation was mostly aimed at keeping Britain and France out of the Civil War.They were hairs away from getting involved, but lost popular support for that move after the Proclaimation.
It freed basically no slaves as it didn't touch slaves in Union states and the ones it 'freed' were in the South and not listening to Lincoln anyway.
Many blacks fought for the South, but there were no black units in the south or official black CSA soldiers. Blacks fought in their local areas against pillaging Union troops and the like. The Union army wasn't exactly nice to southern Blacks and the desolation following the invasions killed white and black Southerners alike.
Abraham Lincoln was no friend of blacks and did much to hurt them during his time as a state legislator and congressman. He was also a very solid white supremacist. He also had no problem POLITICALLY with slavery, he even favored an amendment to let the South have slavery forever. His first duty was to his party politics and his political faction's well being. -
Southerners had too much money from large slave plantations. The influence or rich slave owners became a nuisance to the politicians of the north.
Still goes on today. People from the south just seem "slow" to people from the North. This is not even the thread topic though.
This is why some people who seem educated always say something crazy when in the media. Its not that they are racist, they are just saying what they know, lol
![[Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b26bfbf7cca7b014faa8ceaf4da7ed14.svg)
