Did TX K-12 Working Group Advocate Describing Slavery as "Involuntary Relocation"?

Sounds like a rare case of conservative political correctness...which is what I initially thought it was.

   A little thought casts doubt on this account, though, and, indeed, that doesn't seem to be what happened.

   Of course if it were true, it would be grotesquely absurd and inaccurate--the kind of linguistic absurdity we are deluged with from the left.

   My guess was--and this seems right--that 'involuntary relocation' was supposed to be a description of one aspect of slavery: among other abominations, enslaved people from Africa were involuntarily relocated to the Americas. They were kidnapped, imprisoned, sold, taken ("relocated") to the Americas, and forced into a life of bondage in which they were denied the most basic rights and forced to work for the benefit of their "masters" All of this was completely involuntary, of course--including the relocation. 

   It would be mad to describe all this as mere "involuntary relocation"--but it's accurate to describe the relevant part of it that way. So far as I can see, anyway. 

  We might still object that 'involuntary relocation' isn't quite powerful enough to describe this particular kind of involuntary relocation. Being told to step back from a police line could also be called involuntary relocation. Being hauled in chains through the Middle Passage is quite different, obviously. But that seems to be a matter of tone and emphasis. Or something. At least the use of the term isn't obviously crazy when properly understood. 

   Of course I could be wrong about the intended use of the term.