Submitter: I work in a small, bilingual K-12 private school in the Persian Gulf. By upper school, English is the primary language of study, but it is not the students’ first language, so the kids don’t have the same understanding of what words (and attitudes!) are thankfully no longer considered acceptable in most of the Anglophone world.
This magnified my distress at the following submission, which should have been weeded long, LONG ago on the basis of almost every conceivable weeding criterion: age, condition, age, offensiveness, age and inaccuracy. I am only sending a few of many illustrations of steam-operated textile and farm equipment, to say nothing of what the book terms “our Indian fellow-subjects” or “Indian natives.”
Most disturbing of all is the fact that I found a relatively recent weeding note in the book’s back pocket: “KEEP: “objectionable (pp.19, 24) but good for historiography, +detailed technically.”
If she opted to keep this, I would dearly love to see the items she opted to weed! Yes, it is detailed technically–for 100 years ago!
It is hard to cut my ranting short on this one. Read the samples for yourselves.
The frontispiece is entitled “NEGROES PICKING COTTON in the Southern United States.”
Holly: Historiography? When was the last time you had a historiography reference question in the children’s department? And I mean a real historiography project that would even begin to use a book like this. I can’t imagine any circumstance that would have me putting this book in a child’s hands. Or an adult’s hands, for that matter.