- cross-posted to:
- texas@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- texas@lemmy.world
Emails obtained by Texas Monthly suggest the Texas Historical Commission was concerned about retaliation from lawmakers for carrying the books.
You must log in or register to comment.
“Ugh, I wish I could just learn about the Southern pre-industrial economy without have to hear all this stuff about slavery…”
Oh dear, I almost choked when I read this. Well played.
I don’t think there would be even a leaflet of material let alone a whole book.
When a Historical Society is in fear of retaliation from law makers because they were teaching history, there’s obviously a big problem.
This was a manufactured problem used as an excuse to remove the books.
Basically a YouTuber karen has made it their personal mission to remove the books because she liked every about plantation history except acknowledging that “brutal enslavement” bit, so she makes a video about it and sends the video along with threats of contacting the legislature about the books to some low level party involved with the texas commission.
The spineless weasel watches the video, agrees with it, and then escalates the threat to the “historical society” leadership, which is all directly appointed by the executive branch of texas. They tell the weasel that they prefer to talk face to face, i.e “no records you idiot,” then suddenly 20+ books about slavery disappear from plantation gift shops, under the premise that a book must “be directly applicable to texas history.” Of course, some of those books about slavery are directly applicable, but they are still gone. Southern Cookbooks, books about flowers, things that are not applicable to texas history stuck around no problem.
This was a ginned up controversy, and all the parties involved worked together to remove books about slavery from slave plantations because they all wanted them gone.
This article has a deeper dive into what happened.
This article has a deeper dive into what happened.
That’s the exact same article as the OP. Did you mean to link a different article?
Yes indeed. Good catch. Ive fixed it now with this one.
That woman is a fucking asshole, censuring the brutality on slavery of the plantation that had majority of the history there. She definitely wants to glorify slavery to be good and wants it back as there is no someone believes this unless she is trying to change it was acceptable to own people at time and that people should own slaves again. She should have her channel remove for misinformation. At the time slavery was brutal, and was not socially acceptable to some at the time as some of the founding father wanted to end slavery in america even though they were hypocrites some wanted to end slavery.
