Jump to content

Menu

Philosophy of education question - when should we start teaching history?


Recommended Posts

I've been pondering my philosophy education as I'm approaching the grammar years with my ds5. One question that I'm unsettled on is when I think one ought to start teaching history. My ds has no scope of time and wouldn't be the least bit surprised if I told him that Moses is visiting our friends in Oregon or that Elijah preached to his grandfather. His sense of reality and fiction is also blurred. He doesn't understand the finality of death either. Just the other day he was assuring his little sister that an injury that she had had hadn't killed her. I don't think that he's slow. If anything he seem precocious. I really wonder whether it makes any sense at all to teach history until some of his understanding has matured.

 

I regret with my older dc that I postponed formal education for too long but now I don't want to pendulum swing too far the other direction by starting some subjects too early.

 

The public schools around here don't start history until middle school. Elementary school social studies consist of just family structures, local geography, starting small and working towards where we are in the world. The idea is that children need some of this prerequisite understanding in order to make much sense of history. I wonder if they're right.

 

What do you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think your 5 year old's sense of time (and inability to grasp the finality of death) is completely typical.

 

An argument for teaching history to young kids is that it is full of great stories and will provide scaffolding for when the names, places, events, and vocabulary become more complex later on. Not to mention it helps develop their sense of time and place, real and imaginary. (One educational philosophy, of course, is that this process shouldn't be hurried.) My little kids love history and get extremely excited and swept away by the stories I tell, even the 3 year old.

 

Personally, I think it's a shame that some public schools don't start Real History earlier. Yes, studying one's community and state are important, but little kids are also fascinated by the wider world, and the lives of people who have gone before them, and the monuments and achievements of past civilizations.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the problems with focusing on local geography, "community helpers" and such in elementary social studies is that it puts the child in the center of it all.  (This idea is definitely not original to me.  It may be stated in TWTM but I don't remember.)  History is a lot bigger than that! 

 

I started reading history to my kids at a very young age.  I read them stories.  True stories, but stories nonetheless.  Later they were able to fill in details, timeline, etc.

 

We did do Story of the World when my son was about 6 and my daughter about 5. She remembers very little of it, except some of the projects and the fact that the girl in one of the earliest stories (if not the first one) ate lizards.   But I am not sure chronological history is really important at that age.  

 

My son still loves history above almost all else.  My daughter is meh about it, but at least she doesn't hate it.  :-)

Edited by marbel
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In one version of the Neo-Classical Trivium point of view (there are many variations) the content covered in history is different at different ages and stages because of developmental issues, so they don't avoid teaching younger kids history just because the younger kids don't have a well developed sense of time.

Using Story of the World 1-4  (SOTW) as an example, The Well Trained Mind (TWTM) recommends with Ancients in 1st grade/Early Modern in 3rd grade and focusing on the Grammar stage (more concrete facts): who the Romans/Founders were, where they lived, what they did, what they ate, how they lived, who they conquered/rebelled against, etc.  A timeline is recommended to help put that in perspective, but few children at that age are going to grasp the difference in a year, a decade, a century and a millennia. That's OK.  They may still get something out of it.

Four years later, at the Logic stage (cause and effect) when the Romans/Founders are revisited, it's not all new to them because they've been there before and have a sense of the Romans/Founders, especially if you've saved their grammar stage work (narrations, projects, geography) in a binder that they've flipped through at the beginning of the year and/or at the beginning of each unit.   They can focus on  a timeline again (preferably one they made) and they'll better understand that he Romans were so very, very long ago and the Founders were a long time ago.  They can focus on more abstract ideas like cause and effect as it relates to the major events and historical figures of Ancient Rome/Colonial America: How expanding empires are hard to manage, the effects of Roman road building had on warfare and empire management, how European wars affected the colonies, the difficulty of managing a colony from abroad, the home field advantage in warfare, how Protestantism affected constitutionalism, how growing up during a colonial war preps you for war in adulthood, how technology spreads ideas, building a new society from the ground up vs. transforming a long established one, and such.

Then, four years after that, when they're back in Ancient Rome/Colonial America and they walked down memory lane in their old binder of grammar level assignments, they can focus on the greatest ideas of those times in depth because they have already learned the grammar and the logic stage content. Much more abstract ideas like: what makes good government and why, what rights are, what to be, how to live, how not to be, what is worthy of our time and attention, and that kind of thing based on what we see in history.  They also should have the writing and formal logic skills by then to do some fairly sophisticated argumentation and persuasion about those kinds of abstract ideas.

Not everyone does a 4 year rotation every time and not everyone starts at 6, but you get the idea of systematically building something more complex and abstract on top of something simpler and more concrete. Sometimes you have to have the long term in mind in order to decide what the best use of your time and attention in the short term.  Not everyone wants or has to take this route with history, but for people who do or who want something like this, they need to bear it in mind from the beginning and continue it all the way through because it can't all be crammed it at the end with depth.

4 year rotation
Year 1: Ancients                   4,000 BCE - 500 CE         Grades 1, 5, 9

Year 2: The Middle Ages           500 CE - 1600 CE       Grades 2, 6, 10
Year 3: Early Modern               1600 CE - 1850 C         Grades 3, 7, 11

Year 4: Late Modern                 1850CE - Present day  Grades 4, 8, 12

3 year rotation
Year 1: Ancients for 3 quarters+ Middle Ages for 1 quarter               Grades 1, 4, 7, 10

Year 2: Middle Ages for 2 quarters + Early Modern for 2 quarters     Grades 2, 5, 8, 11

Year 3: Early Modern for 1 quarter + Late Modern for 3 quarters      Grades  3, 6, 9, 12

 

3 year rotation options include going through each time span 4 times rather than 3, spending longer periods of time and going into more depth in national history while doing world history only 3 times, and/or starting at a later age and going through 3 times, ending at an earlier age and going through 3 times.

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've found my young kids enjoy history stories and information a lot, but as you say - their sense of chonology, and also often geography, is not developed enough to put it in the kind of perspective older kids and adults will.  They don't reat it as something measurable and quantifiable.

 

I don't really accept the neoclassical view on history at this age being about learning "facts" - some children will but not all.  Many people seem quite frustrated when they discover they have been doing history with young kids but they haven't retained names or dates, or really understood the geographical aspects.  And I suppose I also don't see a lot of value in just retaining those facts without being able to fit them together.

 

In my view, at that age what children can really get out of history is story, and that makes up for many of their other limitations.  So, while they may not have much of a sense of chronology in the abstract, if they hear, say, the story of the Egyptians or the British told well, the narrative form of the story can supply that deficiency - the chronology is build right into the story.  Maybe they can't tell you what the particular date Richard III lived or what else went on, but if they enjoy the story they will see how history moves along in cause and effect and will also remember what happened.

 

So - for under about grade 3 or 4, I've tried to treat history as stories.  I think to be effective, there has to be some significant narrative focus for the story, so I actually don't really like the history overviews like CHOW or SOTW for that age group - they are ok if you are looking for a series of short stories, but often the chapters take too many leaps to form a real narrative.  I find books and stories that are shorter than those books, more focused, but longer and more substantial than the individual chapters are better.  Often a narrower geographical focus seems to help.

 

Unfortunately, it can be hard to find books that really fit the bill.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

So - for under about grade 3 or 4, I've tried to treat history as stories.  I think to be effective, there has to be some significant narrative focus for the story, so I actually don't really like the history overviews like CHOW or SOTW for that age group - they are ok if you are looking for a series of short stories, but often the chapters take too many leaps to form a real narrative.  I find books and stories that are shorter than those books, more focused, but longer and more substantial than the individual chapters are better.  Often a narrower geographical focus seems to help.

 

Unfortunately, it can be hard to find books that really fit the bill.

 Do you have any favourites you could recommend?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just agreeing with what is already said here. I think the younger kids gain from the stories and the sense of different people living in different times and ways to themselves more than an understanding of the chronology or order of events. I think it's worth doing because they enjoy it if nothing else. I don't think memorising facts and dates is helpful but a rich history and literature curriculum is good for the minds to feed on. I personally don't like the trend towards our place outwards in circles but it's just a feeling not anything logical. My kids really liked chow at age 5.

 

That said, if there's pressure and things aren't all getting done I think history can readily be dropped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been pondering my philosophy education as I'm approaching the grammar years with my ds5. One question that I'm unsettled on is when I think one ought to start teaching history. My ds has no scope of time and wouldn't be the least bit surprised if I told him that Moses is visiting our friends in Oregon or that Elijah preached to his grandfather. His sense of reality and fiction is also blurred. He doesn't understand the finality of death either. Just the other day he was assuring his little sister that an injury that she had had hadn't killed her. I don't think that he's slow. If anything he seem precocious. I really wonder whether it makes any sense at all to teach history until some of his understanding has matured.

 

I regret with my older dc that I postponed formal education for too long but now I don't want to pendulum swing too far the other direction by starting some subjects too early.

 

The public schools around here don't start history until middle school. Elementary school social studies consist of just family structures, local geography, starting small and working towards where we are in the world. The idea is that children need some of this prerequisite understanding in order to make much sense of history. I wonder if they're right.

 

What do you think?

 

Always. There should never be a time that you can point to when you started teaching history. It's part of our lives.

 

When they are older, 10ish or so, you can start putting all the parts together in something chronological, but there's so much history, I don't see how you can only do it for a couple of years, or not talk about it at all until they're 10. That's just not right. :huh:

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I started SOTW 1 with my daughter when she was 6. The 4 year old tagged along and LOVED it. Did they really understand the chronology? No.  Could the 4 year old keep all the details straight? No. But,  history provided a rich contextual basis for discovering and discussing many important concepts  -- authority, democracy, justice; ecology, geography... Concepts I thought would be too complex for my children, even the 4 year old could grasp.  These are concepts that they still understand and remember.  The concepts provide a scaffold that enriches and strengthens their learning. They both love history and love books. I think this love for books was born from that first year of reading and discussing SOTW and the many history-related picture books that we read that year as part of our history study.

 

Unlike some who recommend pushing memory work in the elementary (poll parrot) stage, I don't focus on facts or dates. I'm more interested in giving my children a window to other cultures, other times, other sets of conventions and norms that we otherwise take for granted.  I want them to develop a love for learning and not be intimidated by foreign ideas or big words.   

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The public schools around here don't start history until middle school. Elementary school social studies consist of just family structures, local geography, starting small and working towards where we are in the world. The idea is that children need some of this prerequisite understanding in order to make much sense of history. I wonder if they're right.

 

What do you think?

 

My oldest is starting 4th grade in public schools.

 

They don't do "history" per se. But they have covered a lot of stories over the various subjects, such that he has an awareness of at least American history and government. No big details, but he can follow the chapter books about history now in a way he could not even in 2nd grade.  I believe this year they are focusing more specifically on Texas history.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've found my young kids enjoy history stories and information a lot, but as you say - their sense of chonology, and also often geography, is not developed enough to put it in the kind of perspective older kids and adults will.  They don't reat it as something measurable and quantifiable.

 

I don't really accept the neoclassical view on history at this age being about learning "facts" - some children will but not all.  Many people seem quite frustrated when they discover they have been doing history with young kids but they haven't retained names or dates, or really understood the geographical aspects.  And I suppose I also don't see a lot of value in just retaining those facts without being able to fit them together.

 

In my view, at that age what children can really get out of history is story, and that makes up for many of their other limitations.  So, while they may not have much of a sense of chronology in the abstract, if they hear, say, the story of the Egyptians or the British told well, the narrative form of the story can supply that deficiency - the chronology is build right into the story.  Maybe they can't tell you what the particular date Richard III lived or what else went on, but if they enjoy the story they will see how history moves along in cause and effect and will also remember what happened.

 

So - for under about grade 3 or 4, I've tried to treat history as stories.  I think to be effective, there has to be some significant narrative focus for the story, so I actually don't really like the history overviews like CHOW or SOTW for that age group - they are ok if you are looking for a series of short stories, but often the chapters take too many leaps to form a real narrative.  I find books and stories that are shorter than those books, more focused, but longer and more substantial than the individual chapters are better.  Often a narrower geographical focus seems to help.

 

Unfortunately, it can be hard to find books that really fit the bill.

 

 

 Do you have any favourites you could recommend?

 

 

For some of the issues Bluegoat mentioned, I like CHOW better than SOTW for younger ones.  I also like Island Story because it's easier to follow a story that stays with one people group or area.  I also like 50 Famous Stories.  Really you could just use Ambleside Online Year 1 and 2 and be golden, imho.  Then when you get to year 3 decide if you want to stay the course or switch to SOTW.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love history, so I start it young. My DD went through a colonial America obsession at around 6-8. My current 5 and 7yo boys worked through SOTW 1 with me last year (well the younger one sort of listened), and now they are the perfect ages for SOTW 2 and knights and castles. There are SO many great picture books available now to add to the fun, and even though it doesn't have to be a perfect four year rotation every time, I do think teaching real history young is a good idea. My younger ones don't have much concept of what AD 476 means in terms of how long ago that really was, but that's okay. They're getting some information about names and places, which will make the next rotation through easier to understand, and they're getting an appreciation for how fascinating other cultures are/were.

 

From a Christian perspective, I think teaching ancients alongside the Bible in early elementary school is important. Ancients weaves so well with Biblical history, and it really shows how the events of the Bible aren't a random collection of made-up stories but part of a bigger picture. We say to kids that history is generally true and that those things and people really happened, and by teaching them alongside the Bible, I feel like it really lends credence to the Bible too, in a child's eyes. Plus, teaching history helps kids understand the Bible -- they have a clue of what a Pharaoh was when they learn about Moses, and they have a clue about how the Roman Empire worked so they get a feel for why Jesus then. It's a small clue early on, but they're building spiraled layers of understanding.

 

In short, history, to me, is what adds a richness to early education.

 

(I don't do "community helpers" or the like either. Kids learn how a community works by living in and participating in it. They see cashiers at the grocery store, they hear the fire sirens, they learn what a librarian does by visiting the library and checking out books, they watch for the mail truck and run out to grab the mail. Plus, occasional field trips to the police station and such help too. No official units needed unless your child has a specific interest in something.)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup. Just like they can learn numbers before they understand higher math, and letters before they have reading comprehension, you can do some history before they understand chronology well. We are learning about "some of the first people" as I put it, right now. Does my DD understand when these people lived? Nope. But she gets that it was a long time ago, and they were some of the first people. wE are talking about how they lived, what they ate, how they traveled and she is really eating it up. Later, when she's older, we'll worry more about explaining HOW long ago. But even adult struggle to really understand that. 

 

However, you don't HAVE to teach history now. Bede's History of Me is a great introduction to the idea of history, if you want to check that out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Do you have any favourites you could recommend?

 

 

For some of the issues Bluegoat mentioned, I like CHOW better than SOTW for younger ones.  I also like Island Story because it's easier to follow a story that stays with one people group or area.  I also like 50 Famous Stories.  Really you could just use Ambleside Online Year 1 and 2 and be golden, imho.  Then when you get to year 3 decide if you want to stay the course or switch to SOTW.  

 

Yes, I also prefer CHOW for the same reason, it is just a little more narrowly focused, SOTW jumps around too much. I have found it a great first history for about grade 3, and might use it with a first stab at creating a timeline.  And Our Island Story is almost the most ideal kind of example, it really is a narrative that holds together over quite a long period of time.

 

I do also like 50 Famous Tales - it is shorter stories but I think great for the youngest students in K or grade 1 as a first intro to history.  Ambleside, as annoying as it can be, does have good history possibilities for young kids, I like Viking Tales as well for the 10 and under group (though older kids also seem to enjoy it.)  And books like Leif the Luck are great.  I've had good luck, if I think of a topic that might be interesting, with searching the catalogue.  So, I might search for something like Greyfriars Bobby and come up with a nice novel that could be a great read out loud option.

 

As far as other examples - I've largely gone with raiding the library or the used book shop, and sometimes the Baldwin Project.  Many of the best seem to be biographies.  They also tend not to be the newer books - I don't believe in being an antiquity snob about texts, but the newer non-fiction for kids often tends to be very light on text and heavy on pictures, with no connected narrative at all - more like the Usborne style.  The kids like those, especially for pictures, but as far as narrative, there isn't one.

 

Another less usual book my kids really enjoyed, which is more historical fiction really, is Letters to Horseface.  It's made-up letters, from Mozart to his sister, but really based on his tour of Italy as a youth. 

 

ETA - I also don't think there is anything wrong with doing some local history, especially if you have some great age-appropriate resources - take advantage of them, I say.  The local library will have things like that but I've also found the local museums to be a wealth of information, plus they can be visited.  We like to go to local history sites for visits as well.  I don't see this as quite the same as the social studies that are typical for lower elementary, and it does I think develop the concrete ability to visualize history.

Edited by Bluegoat
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

An argument for teaching history to young kids is that it is full of great stories and will provide scaffolding for when the names, places, events, and vocabulary become more complex later on. Not to mention it helps develop their sense of time and place, real and imaginary. (One educational philosophy, of course, is that this process shouldn't be hurried.) My little kids love history and get extremely excited and swept away by the stories I tell, even the 3 year old.

.

This!

I would say the earlier the better. But that doesn't mean full blown chronological history with timelines, etc. But I believe that the more familiar children can be with people who lived in the past the better. So what if they think the Ancient Egyptians, the Pilgrims and George Washington all lived next door to each other. The important part is that they know there is such a thing as Ancient Egyptians and perhaps associate them with the pyramids and mummies. And they need to know that there were people called Pilgrims and they had a ship called the Mayflower and that's why we celebrate Thanksgiving. IMO, it's all about exposure and literacy in the younger years and then, as they get older they can then put this knowledge in order in a timeline.

 

I think it fits with the classical paradigm perfectly. Young children memorize the definition of a noun and the "be" verbs and prepositions without having any idea what they are used for. But then, as they get older and start working with nouns, well, "a noun is a word that names a person, place, thing or idea" is right there in their memory. They have it. My kindergartner is going through SOTW and I don't expect her to remember any of it,consciously. But it's there. It's becoming part of her collective knowledge and when she sees it again, it will not be unfamiliar to her.

Edited by KrissiK
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those of you who don't like the strict chronology of SOTW 1 that results in jumping back and forth between civilizations, you can simply rearrange the readings by people group/civilization and work chronologically within the civilization.  It took me about half an hour to do so in the table of contents.  I made a different mark for each civilization  (China, India, Greece, the Americas, the Middle East, Egypt, etc.) and then marked each individual reading in the table of contents with the appropriate mark. First, cover the "how we know about history" and Mesopotamia chapters and finish with Rome.  You can cover the rest of the civilizations in any order you like. Yes, if you do there are readings that begin with a few sentence recap of something listed earlier in the book that you haven't gotten to yet, so just skip those sentences and dive right in or read them and say, "We haven't gotten to that yet, but we will." and then get on with the reading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a perfect world, I would have put all the historical events we read about on a timeline, one we would've kept in its original form, with additions, till high school graduation, with additions each year. So in 5 year old scribble we would've had some pictures, and then that 5 year old turned 16 year old would say, "I didn't really do that, did I?" But secretly believe. And we'd add to the timeline or refer to it in every history lesson. It would run down a wall in the house, so they would see it all the time. I don't live in a perfect world, but I do try to couch events in terms of "before Jesus was born " (we are Christian). Or " this was going on at the same time X (event with which they are fascinated ) was happening in the other country). I just talk about it. At first it is just stories, fascinating stories if you are using good resources. Later they will connect the dots. But don't make it something they hate, make it as fun as bedtime stories by the quality of the literature and the lack of worksheets. And it's been fun to pull out the story of the world lapbook we started (but didn't finish) when oldest was in 1st grade to show her now that we are doing ancients in 5th again.

Edited by MotherGoose
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We did Egypt at 5.5 because she was kind of obsessed with it. She knew the people we were studying lived long before anyone alive but obviously didn't fathom the scale. We haven't looked back, it's been awesome. It also allows her to catch historical references in everyday life and books and pop culture.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those of you who don't like the strict chronology of SOTW 1 that results in jumping back and forth between civilizations, you can simply rearrange the readings by people group/civilization and work chronologically within the civilization.  It took me about half an hour to do so in the table of contents.  I made a different mark for each civilization  (China, India, Greece, the Americas, the Middle East, Egypt, etc.) and then marked each individual reading in the table of contents with the appropriate mark. First, cover the "how we know about history" and Mesopotamia chapters and finish with Rome.  You can cover the rest of the civilizations in any order you like. Yes, if you do there are readings that begin with a few sentence recap of something listed earlier in the book that you haven't gotten to yet, so just skip those sentences and dive right in or read them and say, "We haven't gotten to that yet, but we will." and then get on with the reading.

 

I've tended to just skip some chapters with SOTW rather than try and rearrange them - there just isn't enough about most of the non-western cultures to really give a picture of what the story of that place is.  They are fine for a "50 Famous" type of story but there isn't much sense of any real historical narrative.  So I look at it as a history of the west - chapters about non-western cultures interacting with the west stay in, but ones that are just about that culture don't.

 

If I want to do, say, Chinese civilization, I look for a book on that topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've tended to just skip some chapters with SOTW rather than try and rearrange them - there just isn't enough about most of the non-western cultures to really give a picture of what the story of that place is.  They are fine for a "50 Famous" type of story but there isn't much sense of any real historical narrative.  So I look at it as a history of the west - chapters about non-western cultures interacting with the west stay in, but ones that are just about that culture don't.

 

If I want to do, say, Chinese civilization, I look for a book on that topic.

 

When using SOTW 1-4 with the Activity Books 1-4 there are long lists of supplemental fiction and non-fiction books related to each SOTW reading (there are several readings in each chapter.)  So, people who use them together are using books on each of those topics.  They're also getting related folklore, literature, biographies, geography and hands on projects. Rearranging the readings in SOTW gives you more of a picture than skipping them does.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you have taught him about Moses and Elijah, you have already taught him some history. You didn't wait to teach him about them for a later time when he'll understand more fully. You know he'll understand more later. 

 

When my son was 6, he told everyone that history was his favorite subject. I'm glad I didn't wait!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's different with every child, and I would try a small amount of history and do more or wait based on his interest.

 

I first tried teaching history at age 6.  I was going to start with American history, and tried starting with early exploration of Americas.  My child hated it...wasn't interested in the stories I had picked out.  I did one more lesson on the Pilgrims at Thanksgiving (just read a story book...didn't try to make a whole lesson about it).  He was only slightly more  interested, so I dropped it.  A year later, at age 7, he showed an interest in learning about Egyptians and Mummies, so I  got Story of the World and lots of library books about Egypt and Mesopotamia and ran with it, and he loved it.   I think a year made a big difference, and the fact that it started with something he was curious about already. 

Edited by goldenecho
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am starting SOTW with dd6, but it isn't the first history she has had.  We do lots of read alouds to include Seabiscuit, The Wright Brothers, The Bible, Dove and those are just recently. Reading adult books, I have to sometimes skip over some sections that I really don't think and a 6 year old needs exposed to, but she she gets so much from these and so what that sometimes she stops us very frequently to ask questions and we end up in discussions and I don't expect her to understand everything. 

 

She has the same issues with not having a grasp of time.  While starting SOTW this year I decided to start a timeline too and I include things we have read outside of SOTW.  She does understand a long time ago and a really long time ago and we often have discussions about times when there were not computers, TV's, cars, electricity, phones, times that most people lived a much more secluded life, farming, building their own houses, no grocery stores, etc.  It is fun and a great way to pass the time on car trip or quiet evenings, or rainy afternoons.

 

By the way we do lots of other types of read alouds too and she is reading chapter books on her own as well now.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...