I just finished an online degre. Literally. I took my final final exam yesterday. It was a means to an end, and NOTHING like my undergrad degree in terms of providing the non-academic portinon of my education and growth as a person. I certainly hope that this is not teh wave of the future. Our society spends wy to much time in a virtual world as it is and needs to incresae, not decrease face to face , human interaction.

GREAT thread!

I'm talking about people texting in parks, while walking down sidewalks, in parking garages, etc. You're right noone is proabably going to attack you in Wal-Mart, but that was not what I was talking about. Just beacuse YOU don't "walk[ing] down dark alleys at night texting" doesn;t mean that there are not young girls who do not understand the risks they are taking.

I have no idea, but if you can be targeted while NOT distracted by a phone, why put yourself in a situation where you are not fully aware of what is going on around you?

dangerous moreso. you become a target

Very well stated. I concur, and you've pretty much summarized what I've been trying to say throughout the thread. Apart from our differing opinions on the "primary source" discussion, I think we are otherwise on common ground in this regard.

I witnessed this several years ago while on vacation in Chicago. Very sad actually. We were visiting the Museum of Science and Industry (fascinating place). We were there nearly all day and crossed paths with teh same family at least a half-dozen times throughout teh course of the visit. The young son (7ish) was enthralled at the place, the daughter (13ish) spend the ENTIRE time with her head down texting. I don;t think I saw her talke her eyes off her phone all day. I was amazed she did not trip and hurt herself as she was texting and walking the entire time. Really pretty sad when you think of all she missed that day. On an related note, as a parent of two daughters, I find this activity somewhat dangerous. I often see girls/women walking in parks, sidewalks, malls, parking lots, etc. texting and oblivious to everything around them and making them easy targets for predators. Personally, I'm disinclined to allow my daughters a phone at all (easy to say when they are still in grammar school). I'm proabbly also a little biased since I'm required to carry a blackberry for work and recieve e-mails and calls at all hours. I hate it, but my wife hates it even more as it often interrupts converstions, dinner, reading time with the kids etc. so I probably have a natural distaste for the leaash created by mobile devices. -CS96

Hey.... a topic upon which we completely agree! :)

we have "falling up," "a light in the attic," and " a giraffe and a half" all by SS and just as good. we also have "the giveing tree." it is excellent as well, but with a much different (somber) tone.

I second everything in this suggestion, but would add St. Paul's letter to the Romans. This gives perspective on how Christianity spread from just the Jewish world, to the Greeks and Romans. Then you can get into Roman history to understand how the emperor's conversion further spread Christianity across the Roman Empire allowing you to tie it all together.

I second everything in this suggestion, but would add St. Paul's letter to the Romans. This gives perspective on how Christianity spread from just the Jewish world, to the Greeks and Romans. Then you can get into Roman history to understand how the emperor's conversion further spread Christianity across the Roman Empire allowing you to tie it all together.

another quote from the same source you ref'd above: "But even discounting the prejudices of the interviewers, and making allowances for the subjects' inability to be candid, the narratives contribute greatly to the understanding of the lives of African Americans before and during the Civil War. Unlike the antebellum slave narratives, the WPA interviews cover a wide spectrum of people who suffered under slavery. Most subjects were under the age of fifteen when the Civil War ended, but they lived in seventeen states; hailed from cities and from the country, from small farms and large plantations; and worked in a number of tasks. Descriptions of clothing, food, living arrangements, family, and other aspects of daily life can all be found in the narratives." your own references tates their value is "in dispute." that does not mean teh same as "refuted." from one of your internet sources: "However, a blanket indictment of the interviews is as unjustified as their indiscriminate or uncritical use. Each kind of historical document has its own particular usefulness as well as its own inherent limitations for providing understanding of the past. The utility of the ex-slave interviews can only be determined in the context of the objectives of the researcher. For example, if one is interested in entering the perennial debate over the profitability of slavery, information obtained from the narratives will be highly impressionistic and much less valuable than that from other sources such as plantation records. Yet if one wishes to understand the nature of the "peculiar institution" from the perspective of the slave, to reconstruct the cultural and social milieu of the slave community, or to analyze the social dynamics of the slave system, then these data are not only relevant; they are essential." how can you be at a loss for my conclusions

Sarah, I respectfully disagree. Joseph was a high-ranking official in Egypt, before the Israelites were enslaved. Rome did NOT extend the rights and privileges of Roman citizens to conquered peoples, while not necessarily enslaved; they were without question second-class inhabitants. Does enslaving people for political expediency make it more palatable? I should think it might actually be WORSE. to Kathryn's postings; How does a 2005 analysis of 70-year-old recordings trump a firsthand account? I know several folks over the age of 80 with extremely sharp minds. Dismissing an account out of hand based on age is as bad as dismissing one due to race. Many of the justifications listed could be boiled down to "they were just old, poor, uneducated and misled "colored folk" How can their firsthand accounts been taken seriously" That perspective, in my viewpoint is unbelievably short-sighted and "flies in the face of good methodology." With whom does the bias really lie with respect to understanding the relative credibility of the narratives? It appears, on its face, that an “enlightened†academia has discounted firsthand accounts simply because they are incredulous that they did not support their hypothesis. This practice is what I would term the "height of irresponsibility." Ladies, I believe we will just have to agree to disagree. Regards -CS96

You are correct, they believe EVERYONE that was not a Roman citizen was of lesser worth and not accorded the rights and priviledges granted to those who were. Every form of slavery that I have ever read of did EXACTLY this. The Egyptions enslaved the Isrealites because... they were Isrealites and not Egyptians. The Greeks enslaved anyone they conquered who was... not Greek, and so on with the Romans, etc. I don't find the American form of slavery so vastly different from any other form of slavery throughout history. I beleive that we have convinced ourselves as Americans that it was the worst injustice ever visited upon a people in the history of mankind. I'm not saying it wasn't an abhorrent instituion. I'm simply stating that attacking a curriculum based on a position assembled after studying a primary source is bad scholarship in general. Now should those sources be examined in detail for reliability. Absolutely, but that examination must be done honestly with an eye toward established pratice of lending weight to "time and place" over someones incredulity that someone, previously in bondage, would ever remark that it might not have been as horrific as you've been led to believe. Rememeber, that contemprary anti-slavery accounts were written with an agenda, just as contemporary states rights advocates did. when applying both teh time and place, and bias filters, one would have to assume that teh former slaves had no reason to portray their previous condition of bodage in a positive light. What did they have to gain? I'm not arguing for or against the curriculm, and certainly not for the defense of slavery as an institution. I am simply pointing out that the logic behid dismissing the Sonlight curriculum appears flawed. If you thoroughly deconstruct the arguement (which requires studying the sources carefully and firstly discounting them) and still decide the curriculum is off target, by all means do not use it. Until we do, however, apply the intellectual rigor required to evaluate teh argument, making broad generalization about the authors credibility is academically dishonest.

SarahW, I agree. that is a good page. this section in particluar captures the point I was trying to make: -------------------------------------------------------- Time and Place Rule To judge the quality of a primary source, historians use the time and place rule. This rule says the closer in time and place a source and its creator were to an event in the past, the better the source will be. Based on the time and place rule, better primary sources (starting with the most reliable) might include: Direct traces of the event; Accounts of the event, created at the time it occurred, by firsthand observers and participants; Accounts of the event, created after the event occurred, by firsthand observers and participants; Accounts of the event, created after the event occurred, by people who did not participate or witness the event, but who used interviews or evidence from the time of the event. -------------------------------------------------------- I'm not saying that the should be considered the one and only, comprehensive authority, only that, using the time and place framework, should not be dismissed out of hand. Consider this in the context of how many of us were taught about slavery in the US. I'm not sure I had a single primary source in my studies during my schoool years, only textbooks that "captured" the issue in about 1-2 chapters. not defending holzman or hakim, just of the opinion that discounting sources out of hand is not good scholarship

Kathryn, I find the very interesting. Admittedly, I am no expert on the slave narratives, but in my experience surrounding historical research, primary sources are always given considerable weight. Is there potential that this is a cricular argument. Is it possible that some have de-emphasized a primary source because of the supposed "value" (bad term for this discussion, but teh only one that comes to mind) of the source itself. Could it be that the those interviewed were deemed less worthy of creedence based on their race, social status, or education by those who take issue with the interviews? I find this a fascinating possibilty as it generally flies in the face of teh weight given to primary sources. Why? I'm not trying to argue the facts of your statement, just truly surprised to see professional historians dismissive of first-hand accounts. I would love to hear more on this. -CS96

The particualrs are not what I was addressing. I was adressing "just a fact" vs. "grand, sweeping generalizations." and teh logicl disconnect in your statements. I guess the fact that Roman slaves were used in gladitorial games doesn't register on the cruelty meter compared to how slaves were treated in the United States. (for example) Again, I make no apology for slavery. I just take umbrage with those that proclaim it to be the greatest evil ever imflicted upon a people and thus perpetuate some sort of cutural/collective guilt. It happened, we fought a war over it, many people died and we (hopefully) learned some very costy and painful lessons from it. I personally consider the holocuast and Stalin's purge two examples of horrific events that garner much little attention in proportion to their atrocity. As far as the study of history, by professional historians, it is common practice throughout academia in historical study to give considerable creedence to first hand (or primary source) accounts of historical events. As such, I do not believe the condemnation of the author's work is necessarily warranted soley due to his reliance on accounts from former slaves or thier children. You may discount his argument for other inconsistnecies, or take issue with the logic of conclusions he draws from these accounts, but debating the usefulness of the source is inconsistent with the manner in which history is studied.

hmmm...... while I do not disagree tha the institution of slavery was deplorable, I find it hard to reconcile your statements above. what about American slavery made it any more or less cruel forms of slavery practiced in other countries? stating something is "just a fact," does not make it so. it's a bit of a "grand, sweeping generalization" in my opinion.

I think this is because modern English has so many words draw from other languages, french, spainish, italian, Latin, gaelic, middle english.....

I bought the second edition on Kindle because I am overseas and the 3rd is not available. My wife purchased teh 3rd edition hardcopy. They are nearly identical in theory and practice. I cannot tell you what the references differences are since I dont; have them side by side, but can imagine that the are just as the PPs have commented.

I never said "foisted upon." Incentivized with money. much like the money associated with teh medicare reforms pursuant to the affordable care act, or interstate highway funds (in this case withheld) until states "got in line" and raised their leagl drinking age. Same paradigm, same 10th ammendment infringement from Washington.

IMO NCLB is WORSE than CC. My wife left public education largely due to the hassles associated with NCLB.

but why should there be any standardization at all?

NPLH, I read the article. While it is well written and generally free from emotional debate, I believe there are some subtle errors in the facts surroundoing the development of the CC standards. From what I've read, teh CC was developed "idependently" with federal funds, not by state governors. It was then offered to the state governors with federal "Race to the Top" funds as an incentive. To reiterate my previous comment, it is not necessarily about the standards themselves, it's about Washington working outside its Constitutionally established bounds. Educational curriculum is the purview of the local school board, particularly because that is the level at which parents wield the greatest influence.

agreed