Involuntary Relocation to replace slavery?

Apparently, a workgroup of Texas educators suggested a change to the 2nd grade Social Studies standards. They wanted to compare the ways different groups found themselves in what is now known as the US. They want students to compare voluntary immigration patterns to the colonization of Africa, the kidnapping of African people, the genocidal practices of the middle passage, chattel slavery, and generational trauma currently being experienced by descendants of enslaved Africans. How does one compare colonizing Native land for a “better life” to the slave trade? It seems like the comparison would be to other acts of genocide, enslavement, or racial/ethnic or religious state-sanctioned oppression. Instead, this group of educators, and others, want to compare the filthy, assault-filled, deadly middle passage to a voyage to a new world.

“How does one compare colonizing Native land for a “better life” to the slave trade?”

Sadly, that’s not even the worst part. Members of this working group did not want to call this horrific practice slavery at all. Not even kidnapping. Not forced labor, not oppression or colonization, or anything that might come close to teaching children about the heinous violations of human rights enacted against African people. Instead, members of this workgroup wanted to refer to slavery as involuntary relocation. Involuntary relocation? Involuntary relocation is what happens when your landlord sells the property and the new owner chooses to use the land to build a sky rise. Involuntary relocation is when your parent gets a new job in the middle of the school year, and you must tell your friends goodbye. Involuntary relocation sounds like the title of a Rom-Com where the leading character’s company offers a promotion but says she has to move to accept it, and she begrudgingly moves only to find the love of her life. Slavery was not involuntary relocation.

“Instead, members of this work group wanted to refer to slavery as involuntary relocation.”

Luckily, the wording was sent back to the committee for review. We’ll see what happens. Regardless, we should remember that a group of educators in a state where the majority of children are BIPOC wanted to teach our children to think about slavery as “involuntary relocation” instead of the hate-filled, greedy, and literally dehumanizing practice that it was. If the point of studying history is not to repeat the past, why would this suggestion make it past a workgroup? I cannot emphasize how deeply concerned I am about the state of education in this country. When we think about facilitating positive racial identities, think about how this egregious downplay of facts speaks to the worth of the descendants of slavery.

How valued can a child who knows what happened to their ancestors feel when their teacher and textbook refer to the enslavement of African people as involuntary relocation?

My heart aches for these children.

'