Incredibly Racist Alabama History Book

http://slightlywarped.com/incredibly-racist-alabama-history-book/
Give Daddy Some Love...

C.L. Smith, a Hunstville, AL man, shared some pictures from an old Alabama textbook from 1971 that is sure to raise some eyebrows and remind everyone why it’s important to teach actual accurate history and not just a bunch of shit that some people really really want to be true.

Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/unclaimedmysteries/

Give Daddy Some Love...
About the author

Jason Donner

Jason Donner devoured the universe and you are all living inside him.
  • Larisa T

    These are shocking. The progressive Alabama Web site did a series on old Alabama history textbooks several years ago. There are even more books and quotes here:

    http://www.leftinalabama.com/tag/Lies%20my%20history%20book%20told%20me

  • Pingback: Религиозна гаргара - лъжите за политеизма (част I)()

  • Vincent J.

    OK, I guess I’m not politically correct enough; I can’t see what’s shocking about any of the portions which I could read clearly other than the stilted composition. Perhaps it looks awkward, because it was written for children.

    Seriously, what’s wrong with what was written in that book which we can see on this web page?

    • Jason_Donner

      You’re serious? Can you read the passages about slavery being a form of social security and the slaves receiving the best in medical care? Perhaps the perpetuated lie that slavery was not the cause of the Civil War despite the fact that the Articles of Succession says that it is?

      • Vincent J.

        I wouldn’t call that racist. I’d say that’s a form of rationalization. It’s kind like those old western movies in which the sheriff stops the bad guys from beating up the good guy’s girlfriend, and then they say to the sheriff, “We wuz only havin a little fun. We didn’t mean anything by it.”

        They really believed that most slaves had the basics provided for them. That’s condescending, but I don’t see it as racist.

        The South seceded, because they were the economic power house of the nation at that time, and slavery was a large part of that economy. The people who pulled the strings behind the scenes, the same ones who caused the Democratic convention to split into two factions and put up two different Democrats for president, had their eyes on the money. They wanted to ensure that northerners didn’t mess with what they considered a good money-making system. (Wars are usually about money regardless of what anybody says.)

        The North did not go to war to end slavery. In fact, Abraham Lincoln explicitly said that it was not about slavery. It was about preserving the Union. That was partly because the monarchists in Europe were hoping that this strange new republic would fail and thus demonstrate that people were meant to live under monarchs, but they also wanted to keep the south under their federal thumb to preserve the south as a place to sell goods made in northern factories. Once again, it was about money.

        Lincoln later issued the Emancipation Proclamation to hurt the southern war effort and to impress the abolitionists in England and France at a time when both England and France were considering recognizing the south as a separate country and entering the war on the side of the south. Lincoln didn’t want to be fighting England and France, so he issued the Emancipation proclamation.

        At the beginning of the war, Lincoln was more than happy to guarantee the continuation of slavery, if that would have brought the south back into union, but it was too late.

        Those who teach that the war was ALL about slavery are wrong. It was about many things. Slavery was only one part of it. The largest part of it was money.

        • Jason_Donner

          I’m just going to stop you right there.

          “The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of this organization”

          http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html

          The idea that slavery wasn’t the cause of the Sucession and Civil War is simple propaganda. There it is in the original document in black and white. Cardinal Principle: The main reason.

          Were there other reason? Of course…. but any time I hear that South-rationalizing clap-trap about it not being about slavery, I point back to the sucessionist’s own words that stare right back at us through history.

          • Vincent J.

            Slavery was one of the main reasons the south seceded. It was not the reason that the north accepted the south’s gambit and initiated war. Lincoln could have walked away from a fight. Many in the north would have said, “Good riddance” to the south. Lincoln did not go to war to free the slaves. Note that he didn’t issue the emancipation proclamation until well into the war, when he felt it would give him a political advantage with England and France. The emancipation proclamation certainly didn’t do the slaves any good. Those slaves in lived in the border states such as Maryland were behind federal lines, so Lincoln’s proclamation didn’t pertain to them; they remained slaves. His proclamation covered those slaves who were behind confederate lines, and the rebels had no intention of obeying Lincoln, so they, too, remained slaves.

            In summary, the secession was largely about slavery though not entirely, and the war prosecuted by Lincoln was never about slavery. Lincoln didn’t like slavery, but not enough to go to war; he loved the Union enough to go to war.