I always thought university textbooks were supposed to be objective. An unbiased source of information.
Until my history textbook referred to someone as a “mama’s boy.” Seriously.
According to the textbook, Ibbi-Sin, a king from the Dynasty of Ur, wasn’t just an incompetent ruler. He was “something of a mama’s boy.”
The term “mama’s boy” sounds like a subjective judgement, as opposed to an objective statement of fact. Sure, I know everyone has a bias. Even textbook authors. But I figured that university textbooks should at least appear to be making an attempt at sounding neutral. You know, something more along the lines of ‘attachment disorder’ or ‘parent-child relationship psychosis.’
When I saw that pharse, I was startled. If a history textbook is going to insult someone, I thought they’d call them “inadequate” or “inept.” My textbook is breaking the rules.
That Alexander guy who took over Egypt? A mega-jerk.
Aristotle thought there were only five elements. What a moron!
And Gandhi, whining about human rights and junk. Talk about a cry-ass.
