Major Glaring Error in Joy Hakim's Books

[strawberryjam]

She states in several of her books that the dominant view during the Middle Ages was that the earth was flat, which isn't true. 

 

This wikipedia article goes into more depth, the reasons behind the flat earth myth are quite interesting. 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth

[Crimson Wife]

Yes, Ms. Hakim includes several claims that historians have disputed such as blaming St. Cyril for the burning of the Library of Alexandria and the murder of Hypathia, when the truth was it was a mob of both Christians and pagans.

 

She's got a grudge against Christianity in general and the Roman Catholic Church in particular and that is why I only selectively use her books.

[AimeeM]

Bummer. I'm starting to worry about using her science books (as a history of science course).

[strawberryjam]

The more research I'm doing, the more errors I'm finding. She is not a historian, she is an ex-newspaper journalist. Her books are entertaining but lacking in factuality. 

[strawberryjam]

 

 

She's got a grudge against Christianity in general and the Roman Catholic Church in particular and that is why I only selectively use her books.

 

You know, you're right. At first I assumed they were just minor misconceptions about Christianity but in hindsight I'm seeing more evidence for an anti-Christian (and perhaps pro-muslim?) worldview in her books. The flat earth thing goes beyond bias though, that is a major error.

[AdventuresinHomeschooling]

I don't like to disparage authors a lot, but in just the samples I read, I could pick up on her bias and decided we would not use her books. I occasionally have heard of other errors or incidents of bias since then. This just further confirms it for me. However, her writing style is very appealing.

[desertflower]

Well this is good to know. It's a bit surprising since all I hear (read from other threads),are only good things about her.

 

Thanks for posting this.

[JDoe]

Yes, Ms. Hakim includes several claims that historians have disputed such as blaming St. Cyril for the burning of the Library of Alexandria and the murder of Hypathia, when the truth was it was a mob of both Christians and pagans.

 

She's got a grudge against Christianity in general and the Roman Catholic Church in particular and that is why I only selectively use her books.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypatia

 

[PinkyandtheBrains.]

 

 

I have yet to read an unbiased history book.

 

 

We still enjoy Hakim. We also use a variety of sources.

[mom31257]

Dd hated her writing style, so I'm glad we ditched the series early on.

[Momling]

Have your child send her an email. She's a really cool person. We found some minor errors in her books and my daughter and Joy had an entertaining correspondence which led to her asking my 8 yr old daughter to help her fact-check something else she had been writing. It was pretty cute and made my girl feel really important.

[Crimson Wife]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypatia

 

 

If you were my child, I'd tell you to be very careful in citing Wikipedia as it is not a reliable source.

 

Here's a more reliable one that you may want to read: http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2010/06/the-perniciously-persistent-myths-of-hypatia-and-the-great-library

[Hunter]

History texts tell us more about the author than the events being written about. History is just a story written from the author's perspective. I don't believe in "errors" or "accurate", or maybe I just don't care anymore. I'll be 50 before you know it, and I guess I'm just tired and jaded with age. Brains just work differently as you get older. Not better and not worse, just differently. We start caring about different things.

 

I look for texts that tell a good story or don't use texts at all. I can't find "truth" because I don't believe there is ONE truth to find about anything, never mind history.

 

It's all a big WHATEVER to me. Life is short and needs to be LIVED, for most people. Maybe there are few special people meant to be historians. I don't know. Me and mine, though, I think we are better off going to the river and watching to see what the ducks eat. I think I saw one eat a tadpole!!!

 

When we get to the middle ages and the renaissance, because it's too cold and windy to be by the river. I want to read about people and the most interesting stories possible, even the ones that I'm assuming are literature and not "facts'. What! Dragons are errors?  ;)

[HomeschoolingHearts&Minds]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypatia

 

 

Adding to Crimson Wife, this myth is also discredited in Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion.

 

I found Ms. Hakim's writing style to be a bit distracting, but I agree with Hunter---every history book is a story and they all have biases.  You won't get at "just the facts."  Choose something you like, supplement with other sources.

 

 

 

[texasmama]

History texts tell us more about the author than the events being written about. History is just a story written from the author's perspective. I don't believe in "errors" or "accurate", or maybe I just don't care anymore. I'll be 50 before you know it, and I guess I'm just tired and jaded with age. Brains just work differently as you get older. Not better and not worse, just differently. We start caring about different things.

 

I look for texts that tell a good story or don't use texts at all. I can't find "truth" because I don't believe there is ONE truth to find about anything, never mind history.

 

It's all a big WHATEVER to me. Life is short and needs to be LIVED, for most people. Maybe there are few special people meant to be historians. I don't know. Me and mine, though, I think we are better off going to the river and watching to see what the ducks eat. I think I saw one eat a tadpole!!!

 

When we get to the middle ages and the renaissance, because it's too cold and windy to be by the river. I want to read about people and the most interesting stories possible, even the ones that I'm assuming are literature and not "facts'. What! Dragons are errors?  ;)

I agree.  All history books have a bias.  You just have to choose an author whose bias doesn't offend you every other page.  :)

 

We are Christian, and we just finished using the entire Hakim History of US series for last year.  I detected a slight liberal bias, but I thought she was even-handed enough.  We used the books in the series as jumping off points for discussion.  

 

I am not a historian, so unless errors were glaring, I would likely not catch them.

 

Caveat:  I am a non denominational Christian, and my theology is not strict.  I am pretty apolitical, and though I lean conservative, I fit a Liberterian viewpoint pretty well.  

[Hunter]

Back when I was younger and cared more about this stuff, I often used encyclopedias as our texts. Of course they are biased, but they sure do try not to be offensive to anyone, even if it's just to make more of a profit.

[Hunter]

I agree.  All history books have a bias.  You just have to choose an author whose bias doesn't offend you every other page.   :)

 

 

We cross posted. :lol: I really did use bias and offensive without having read your post first. That's too funny.

[JDoe]

If you were my child, I'd tell you to be very careful in citing Wikipedia as it is not a reliable source.

 

Here's a more reliable one that you may want to read: http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2010/06/the-perniciously-persistent-myths-of-hypatia-and-the-great-library

 

If you were my child I would recommend that you read your own sources to ensure they support your view of the world before posting

 

 

 

She was , however, brutally murderedâ€and then dismemberedâ€by a gang of Christian parabalani (a fraternity originally founded to care for the city’s poor); that much is true. 

[elegantlion]

History books often have bias, sometimes it's easy to spot by what they choose to write about or what they leave out. What is harder is the fact checking. I'm currently in college as a history major and it's interesting to see how bias comes across in multiple sources. What I was taught is that you should get history from multiple perspectives, you should look at primary sources (which can also be biased), and you should utilize critical thinking when reading ANY history. That's easier to do in high school or college, not so much in elementary school when you really can't go into much depth, especially if you're own background in lacking. 

 

I read one Hakim book and in the end didn't like it. It wasn't her facts, it was the tone. I can't even be specific but something about it rubbed me the wrong way. But her books are colorful and enticing and work well for some. 

 

Sometimes it's not possible to read two history books at a time, but I'd recommend that if something seems off to check alternate sources. Wikipedia can be a good place to start if you know of no other sources, then scroll to the bottom and look for cited sources in the links. 

 

I do think as you do history, you can teach your children critical thinking skills by checking facts that seem off or biased. By learning to read sentences critically, such as the wording of "some" or "all" or "most believe". Also, look at the bibliography and see what works an author used. There should be secondary and primary sources and a wide range, just not one author or person. 

[Tanaqui]

In general, Wikipedia has been found to be about as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica. Admittedly, that study is 10 years old, but unless you have a more recent one disputing that I'll stick with it.

[JadeOrchidSong]

Texasmama,

Can you share how you used Joy Hakim's History of US? My boys will use these next year and I am looking for ideas how to do this. Would like to add documentaries, movies, and American literature to it. Thanks!

[texasmama]

Texasmama,

Can you share how you used Joy Hakim's History of US? My boys will use these next year and I am looking for ideas how to do this. Would like to add documentaries, movies, and American literature to it. Thanks!

I think I already sent you my syllabus.  If memory fails me, pm me, and I will get it to you.  

[Mimm]

Wikipedia is remarkably accurate. Not appropriate where you want to cite peer reviewed sources for an academic paper, perhaps, but definitely appropriate for gathering information in the context of an internet discussion and I wouldn't hesitate to use it for some basic fact checking.

[JadeOrchidSong]

I think I already sent you my syllabus. If memory fails me, pm me, and I will get it to you.

It was my insomnia-suffering self with a not very clear mind that sent the request in the wee hour.

I am so sorry. You did send it to me. I asked about Sonlight Core 100. I totally forgot that uses History of US as spine. Again, thank you very much for the labor of love you put in it.

[Bluegoat]

I also agree all sources are biased.  I do get a bit annoyed about a lot of those kinds of errors about medieval science because its a particular topic of interest to me, and its so widely misunderstood. 

 

The question though of the flat world is interesting to me - while it wasn't the dominate view among intellectuals or the educated, which is who people generally seem to care about, I wonder how many of the average uneducated people thought the world was flat?  It might have been a fair number.

[SanDiegoMom]

When my third graders started homeschooling last year, they said they hated history and groaned whenever I mentioned it. After using Joy Hakim's History of Us, they say now that history is their favorite subject because it is filled with such interesting stories. I will take a source with a few errors in any direction, left or right, if it gets my kids engaged with the material and with the time period and has them asking for more!

[Slojo]

I also agree all sources are biased.  I do get a bit annoyed about a lot of those kinds of errors about medieval science because its a particular topic of interest to me, and its so widely misunderstood. 

 

The question though of the flat world is interesting to me - while it wasn't the dominate view among intellectuals or the educated, which is who people generally seem to care about, I wonder how many of the average uneducated people thought the world was flat?  It might have been a fair number.

 

I am not particularly well-versed on medieval European history (shrug), but I am curious about this whole "flat earth" dust-up (that I didn't know was a dust-up). My basic question is, similar to Bluegoat, just WHO DID believe in a flat earth then?  And, a whole 'nother question about histories -- why wouldn't we be concerned/interested in what the typical person believed/experienced in life (not saying you, Bluegoat, aren't), but this bias that history should primarily be concerned with what the educated/elite were doing is problematic. But that's a digression. 

 

I am far more concerned, I'd say, about the general bias against and just non-knowledge the average person has about non-European histories, because a great deal of damage has come from ignoring, not acknowledging or getting those histories wrong -- and I don't just mean "flat earth" wrong, but WAY wrong. But that's another thread.