What exactly is the "controversy" over the Hakim History of the US books?

[melissel]

I saw this mentioned a few times in my recent research about American history, but I wasn't able to discern exactly what the problem was. Is it that many perceive the books to have a liberal slant of some kind? Can someone point me to a thread or link where I can find out more?

 

Thank you!

[Karen in CO]

Most history books have a "slant" of some sort. Hakim does not take a providential view of American history. She also presents our forefathers as flawed people. I was actually shocked by some of things I have read that they did in her books because I had never heard them before (inviting a tribe over for peace talks then serving them poisoned wine, for instance). Whether you think she presents a balanced view or a biased view really depends on what your view of America's founding is. Some people are also annoyed by her chatty style while others like it.

 

of course, somebody may have been talking about some other "controversy" but that is what I have heard most often.

[Cheryl in NM]

I researched this on the internet and, from what I remember, she doesn't have reliable resources for some of her "facts". I know homeschooler's like her books because they are story-like, similar to SOTW. Hewitt Homeschooling and Sonlight use her books, but they supplement them. I would just do some internet research. As with any text, if something sounds wrong to you research it and find out the truth!:001_smile:

[patchfire]

The other complaint I have heard is that she presents what is perceived as stringent criticism of Ronald Reagan.

 

Of course, any discussion of more recent history is going to invoke ire from one side or another, IMO.

[Spy Car]

Count me among those who find the "chatty" style annoying.

 

I haven't seen anything "controversial" in terms of content from my point of view, but my "previews" never last long (as her writing makes me "nutso").

 

Bill (who will probably have to bite that bullet one day)

[Judy in WA]

It may be chatty, but my daughter found it mind numbingly boring. She made it through the first 6 volumes before she had had enough.

 

She was able to finish the series by listening to it on tape. Our local library has a complete copy. If you can't find it, you can download it from audible.com.

 

Judy in WA

[littlebug42]

Here are links to two articles online criticizing this series. For us, as Catholics, have read many citations, including the second article, about anti-Catholic sentiment, so we choose to skip them.

 

 

http://www.textbookleague.org/121hakm.htm

 

 

http://www.rchistory.com/Review_History_of_US.pdf

[calandalsmom]

As a catholic I can admit the catholic church thru out history has done some poitively shambolic things and its almost impossible to paint some of them in a nice glowy light. Galileo not withstanding it hard to make the Inquisition look attractive.

 

I like what I know of Hakim. Excellent pictures, engaging style, good content.

[Mama Lynx]

She does have a somewhat liberal bias. She's a big fan of progressivism.

 

However, you're going to have bias in any history text.

 

I don't find her bias to be anything that terrible. We just discuss those topics, and her bias.

 

I do *hate* her writing style, though. Hate. My 11 year old dislikes reading the text, but doesn't mind listening to them. I think the layout of the text distracts him.

[littlebug42]

I realize that there are things about the Catholic Church that should not be glorified but many materials out there have a prevailing Catholics are evil sentiment and my children should be able to learn the facts of history without their faith constantly being attacked.

[stripe]

I saw this mentioned a few times in my recent research about American history, but I wasn't able to discern exactly what the problem was. Is it that many perceive the books to have a liberal slant of some kind? Can someone point me to a thread or link where I can find out more?

Well, you will note that she herself says her perspective is that the US is the best country ever, or something like that, which I think is an interesting bias, which hardly puts her in the wildly un-American camp.

 

(I have only perused one book, so I can't say more.)

[Peggy in Va]

As a catholic I can admit the catholic church thru out history has done some poitively shambolic things and its almost impossible to paint some of them in a nice glowy light. Galileo not withstanding it hard to make the Inquisition look attractive.

 

I like what I know of Hakim. Excellent pictures, engaging style, good content.

 

:iagree:

[Peggy in Va]

Here are links to two articles online criticizing this series. For us, as Catholics, have read many citations, including the second article, about anti-Catholic sentiment, so we choose to skip them.

 

 

http://www.textbookleague.org/121hakm.htm

 

 

http://www.rchistory.com/Review_History_of_US.pdf

 

First, let me say that I am not looking to start an argument or a debate. You certainly are entitled to use whatever books you choose to teach history.

 

However, I would just like to point out that the "review" from the Textbook League is dated and incorrect. Unless of course, you are using the 1999 edition of HOU.

 

I just happened to be writing up lesson plans for the book they reference, so I had the 2nd book (revised 3rd edition) sitting in front of me. The pages that they reference and the errors they point out seem to have been removed from the book (at least this one) when the revised 3rd edition came out in 2005.

 

Again, not looking to debate - just clarify for others who may read this thread.

[stripe]

Oh. (Per textbook league link) Hakim paints "too rosy" a picture of the Moors. I didn't know that was the issue. Well, good thing all the other historical narratives balance out that little "problem."

[Julie in MN]

Here's my (probably too wordy) view on the series. My dd went through volumes 2-10 for her American History (along with Sonlight questions, Oxford quizzes, etc.). I liked the series enough to use it obviously, but added a little bit extra to balance some things. I should say that I firmly believe no history is unbiased, or anything close to that. And I have the view that my kids should understand the world they live in and be able to converse knowledgeably about its prominent views. Overall, I felt Hakim taught my dd a huge amount of basic American history in one year. Here's what I'd say I people are worrying about, more or less:

 

1. The first book is totally theoretical and we skipped it. This one is a problem for many Christians, since it accepts evolution unquestionably. It also looks at the world/European history leading up to the age of exploration differently than I chose to teach it. (Admittedly, I didn't read it all.)

 

2. The series is only about America of course, so there is sometimes a missing connection to other world events, including issues affecting the World Wars & other things important to understanding our own events.

 

3. The general coverage of America as a Christian nation isn't totally ignored & seems to "try" to be unbiased. Certainly, there have been good & bad choices throughout, and I don't argue with that. However, like most of modern culture, there's kinda this feeling that other people don't have quite as terrible flaws as Christians have had from time to time. There is, on the other hand, much more of a focus on Native Americans, Blacks, and (as far as times they didn't have certain rights) women.

 

4. It's pretty biased toward the North in the Civil War. Sonlight's notes provide hundreds of pages on this issue, which was kinda overkill for me, but made some great points. For instance, I remember John Holzmann saying that some Northern states didn't allow blacks to live in their state at all, making it hard to quantify whether harsh discrimination was worse than total banishment.

 

5. As far as politics, Hakim seems to prefer the protester over the person working for quiet change from within. I'm thinking of men like Amos Fortune & Booker T as folks I like to look at as character models, and she would probably choose differently. Often things like unions, gun control, abortion, government programs, and women working are presented as pretty one-sided, leaving out a more conservative look at the repercussions of making these choices. You might also get the impression that democratic presidents are far more interesting than republicans :) In our dealings with other nations, she tends to leave out events that happened before or after, such as I don't think she mentioned our offering to let Puerto Rico be independent or how some countries we attacked were murdering thousands of their own people. I don't know if she's trying to take the underdog's side or probably just in agreement with the popular culture (or possibly trying to make them happy, I suppose).

 

6. The arts are valued as a part of our American culture, with some emphasized more than others, but technology isn't given much coverage.

 

7. It's conversational but not written as a "story" so if you really want to retain all the info in the text and the side bars, it takes some concentration. It really is a lot of info. It's also not written as an analysis, so if you are ready to have your student to "analyze" history, you would need to add there. The intended audience is kinda confusing to some. She starts writing to a rather young audience, and then steps it up a bit, but still -- it's a lot for those age groups. And it could seem youngish to older kids & adults. But as for me, I think we can learn lots either way.

 

8. I read somewhere that Joy Hakim wanted the texts to be acceptable to schools & so sometimes the odd little topics may be due to that?

Edited June 3, 2009 by Julie in MN

[Spy Car]

Oh. (Per textbook league link) Hakim paints "too rosy" a picture of the Moors. I didn't know that was the issue. Well, good thing all the other historical narratives balance out that little "problem."

 

LOL :lol:

 

Yea. A too positive view of Muslims and Islam is not something I'll lose sleep over living in this society.

 

Bill

[~blessedmom~]

Here's my (probably too wordy) view on the series.

 

 

NO.....thank you for that take on things! Your insight helps immensely. I was considering using these, but I have had some reservations. Now I have to do some pretty good research.....:confused: I don't want to teach my son "political correctness," but rather an accurate history.....hmmm....don't know if this will do it.

Edited June 3, 2009 by ~blessedmom~

[Orthodox6]

One point made already is that "an accurate history" does not exist which pleases all people ! For example, I never had heard of "providential history" until I started homeschooling. It took only five minutes to realize that I never could teach such a perspective to my children, even though it and some related viewpoints dominate the homeschool publishing field for history and geography. Nor could I teach a Marxist view of history to them, a "white means right" view of history, a "morals are naught but relative constructs" analysis of historical events, and right on down the bookshelf of choices. To study history is to analyze the record (including what is NOT recorded by omission) of people, societies, and events. Just can't do that without applying ones social/cultural/religious/whatever "filters" to the data.

 

I had figured that I would use Hakim when my dd reaches whatever year it would suit. Now I'm not sure. Probably, though, it may be the one most easy to "correct" using my family's particular set of filters.

 

 

 

 

NO.....thank you for that take on things! Your insight helps immensely. I was considering using these, but I have had some reservations. Now I have to do some pretty good research.....:confused: I don't want to teach my son "political correctness," but rather an accurate history.....hmmm....don't know if this will do it.

[sagira]

One point made already is that "an accurate history" does not exist which pleases all people ! For example, I never had heard of "providential history" until I started homeschooling. It took only five minutes to realize that I never could teach such a perspective to my children, even though it and some related viewpoints dominate the homeschool publishing field for history and geography. Nor could I teach a Marxist view of history to them, a "white means right" view of history, a "morals are naught but relative constructs" analysis of historical events, and right on down the bookshelf of choices. To study history is to analyze the record (including what is NOT recorded by omission) of people, societies, and events. Just can't do that without applying ones social/cultural/religious/whatever "filters" to the data.

 

:iagree: Great post.

[~blessedmom~]

One point made already is that "an accurate history" does not exist which pleases all people !

 

Oh, I'm not trying to find that.....nor am I standing in "condemnation" of these books. From what I've read of the reviews they sound interesting and engaging. I'm just looking for what fits our family best. I would never judge another family's method of educating their children....or someone else's political persuasion, for that matter.

 

I was just interested in other's opinions of these books because I haven't been able to get my hands on them yet. I appreciate everyone's insights on this board very much.

[Karenciavo]

She's very emotional, "Oh, murder most foul! Oh, woe! Oh, tragedy! Never was a murder more terrible for a nation." (chap. 31, Book 6) She's also liberal (no mistaking her disappointment that the US didn't join the League of Nations) Despite those types of things I do still use them. We counter act that with some good old fashioned conservatism.

[Spy Car]

She's very emotional, "Oh, murder most foul! Oh, woe! Oh, tragedy! Never was a murder more terrible for a nation." (chap. 31, Book 6)

 

That's a little rhetorical flourish to open a chapter on the murder of Abraham Lincoln. And is supposed to recall the murder of Julius Caesar (who is referenced in the very next line).

 

I may not be a huge fan of Joy Hakim's writing style, but this quote out of context, gives a very false impression.

 

Bill

[Novafan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orthodox6

One point made already is that "an accurate history" does not exist which pleases all people ! For example, I never had heard of "providential history" until I started homeschooling. It took only five minutes to realize that I never could teach such a perspective to my children, even though it and some related viewpoints dominate the homeschool publishing field for history and geography. Nor could I teach a Marxist view of history to them, a "white means right" view of history, a "morals are naught but relative constructs" analysis of historical events, and right on down the bookshelf of choices. To study history is to analyze the record (including what is NOT recorded by omission) of people, societies, and events. Just can't do that without applying ones social/cultural/religious/whatever "filters" to the data.

 

:iagree: Great post.

 

Agreed. :iagree: Excellent post.

[Tammyla]

My ds found her writing style babyish.

[Ali in OR]

See if your library has this set and then you can preview a few volumes for yourself. I did this before purchasing the set and found that I don't mind the writing style. We used volumes 2-5 this year as part of Biblioplan and I have learned a lot. I have not read anything that I felt a strong need to contradict or explain in a different way (unlike say A Child's Story of America). Maybe it's just that her bias matches mine. Maybe the early volumes have fewer issues than the recent history volumes. I remember reading a thread similar to this one before I had seen the books and being a little concerned about the series, then when I actually read the books I found them to be a great history source for us. So don't just take someone else's word--evaluate them for yourself.

[melissel]

Thank you all! What a great thread. I really appreciate your insight. Writing style is easy to evaluate, but it was the more "behind the scenes" stuff I was worried about, like the anti-Catholic points made. I fully recognize that no history text is unbiased, but I'm grateful to those of you who were able to point out biases in these works, because I would never have spotted that kind of thing. It sounds like something that would work for our family, but I will get a book or two from the library and feel it out directly.

 

Thank you!

[Maria/ME]

I'd just like to add that I rec'd this book from the library and LOVED it! History Lessons: How Textbooks Around the World Portray U.S. History. It is somewhat related to this discussion in that EVERY history book will have a bias.

 

It seems we all agree here on what we'd like in a history book. I'm willing to bet if we each got together and wrote a book (Bill can do the actual writing, of course ;) ) it would STILL look nothing like what we want!

 

History is so much more fluid than other subjects! The best that I can come up with is to teach my daughter the accepted textbook view but also the larger picture that I think it is important for her to see. The way I learned history (after ps) was to read a wide variety of history books and THINK for myself. It's given me my own (different from anothers, no doubt) view of what I think history looks like and means to me.

[Mommy22alyns]

I'd just like to add that I rec'd this book from the library and LOVED it! History Lessons: How Textbooks Around the World Portray U.S. History. It is somewhat related to this discussion in that EVERY history book will have a bias.

 

 

 

Fascinating!! I'll have to check my library for it (though I'd bet they won't have it so I'll have to find it used).

 

I'm just watching all these US history threads since we don't need a curric. yet - just waiting for that one right one. :001_huh:

[Orthodox6]

Splendid idea ! We can title the book, The Blind Men and the Elephant Explain U.S. History . :D

 

It seems we all agree here on what we'd like in a history book. I'm willing to bet if we each got together and wrote a book (Bill can do the actual writing, of course ;) ) it would STILL look nothing like what we want!

[stripe]

Some only approve of books making casual references to "the old days, long, long ago, before Our Saviour was born on earth and lay asleep in a manger" (Dickens).

 

And of course, let us reflect back on the arrival of Columbus to American shores: "When the natives saw the white sails of the vessels, they rushed down to the shores, yelling with astonishment, for they never had seen a ship before, and of course were terribly frightened. Some thought they were great birds with white wings, some thought the 'Great Spirit' had come. They were glad to see Columbus and his men, and they said to them in their strange language, 'Welcome, white men' " (Pratt). It's important to note these historically neutral facts.

 

Some seem to believe that we should try as much as possible to distinguish between the radically different characters of Muslims and Christians! Muslims, we are assured, had "such an attitude towards life [that] did not encourage the Faithful to go forth and invent electrical machinery or bother about railroads and steamship lines" (van Loon). Let us neutrally describe the Crusades as pitting "the hero of the First Crusade, the model crusader, the perfect knight [who was of] high birth, fine character, and military courage" against "the Turks, a savage race who had risen to great power" (Synge).

 

Furthermore, whereas Muslims had military "had to do with the conduct of those Mohammedan soldiers who went forth to do battle for the true faith. The Prophet promised that those who fell, facing the enemy, would go directly to Heaven" (Van Loon), as opposed to the Christians, who believed instead that

"[d]angers would beset their way, sufferings would be their lot, but their reward would be for ever. 'Go then on your errand of love,' he cried, full of zeal and enthusiasm. 'They who die will enter the mansions of heaven, while the living shall behold the sepulchre of their Lord.'

Suddenly a great cry broke from the assembled crowds. 'It is the will of God! it is the will of God!' they shouted passionately" (Synge).

 

 

I very much doubt that there is one history resource that would meet with the Hive's collective approval.

[Maria/ME]

Splendid idea ! We can title the book, The Blind Men and the Elephant Explain U.S. History . :D

 

LOL! Then, at least, we'd have four different bias in one, saving much time for the average reader! Perhaps we need a Parallel History book?? Similar to a Parallel Bible. Different translations side by side?

[Julie in MN]

Perhaps we need a Parallel History book?? Similar to a Parallel Bible. Different translations side by side?

 

Oh, excellent idea :hurray:

[Spock]

LOL! Then, at least, we'd have four different bias in one, saving much time for the average reader! Perhaps we need a Parallel History book?? Similar to a Parallel Bible. Different translations side by side?

 

My 16yo is currently reading BOTH Hard Left: Straight Talk about the Wrongs of the Right and Smear Tactics: The Liberal Campaign to Defame America (as free choice reading). He wanted to know what each side had to say about the other.

 

Since it is not possible to find a book that is unbiased, even on the rare occasions that the author even tries to be unbiased, we have resorted to trying to find books on both sides to compare as a way of approaching the truth for high school. Our family is such an odd mixture of conservative and liberal (depending on the topic) that it is impossible to find a book that agrees completely with us. In addition, I really don't think it is good to use exclusively books we agree with at that level. High schoolers need to be exposed to other viewpoints in order to understand both what they believe and why, and what others believe and why. They also need to hear opposing viewpoints as expressed by those who believe them, not as represented by others.

 

For elementary school it is harder. At that level, we just look for well written books that try to be unbiased, and add commentary about the other side where needed. Since many of the well written books are older, sometimes omissions also need to be made.

[Audrey]

My 16yo is currently reading BOTH Hard Left: Straight Talk about the Wrongs of the Right and Smear Tactics: The Liberal Campaign to Defame America (as free choice reading). He wanted to know what each side had to say about the other.

 

Since it is not possible to find a book that is unbiased, even on the rare occasions that the author even tries to be unbiased, we have resorted to trying to find books on both sides to compare as a way of approaching the truth for high school. Our family is such an odd mixture of conservative and liberal (depending on the topic) that it is impossible to find a book that agrees completely with us. In addition, I really don't think it is good to use exclusively books we agree with at that level. High schoolers need to be exposed to other viewpoints in order to understand both what they believe and why, and what others believe and why. They also need to hear opposing viewpoints as expressed by those who believe them, not as represented by others.

 

For elementary school it is harder. At that level, we just look for well written books that try to be unbiased, and add commentary about the other side where needed. Since many of the well written books are older, sometimes omissions also need to be made.

 

I think that's a good way of looking at it -- reading from both sides. I would say, however, to steer clear of the obviously propagandist and woefully unresearched books (Ann Coulter and Al Franken spring to mind right away). There are decent books out there with definite slants, but which are researched and actually provide legitimate support for their claims. Unfortuntately, they are fewer and farther between than the "raging conservative/liberal" types.

[Spy Car]

I don't hold with the idea that reading from the hard-left and the hard-right somehow adds up in a happy "center". Instead it just give you two extreme views.

 

Bill

[Mama Lynx]

I don't hold with the idea that reading from the hard-left and the hard-right somehow adds up in a happy "center". Instead it just give you two extreme views.

 

Bill

 

Perhaps. I think there are good lessons, though, in seeing the extremes of an issue. Perhaps the best lesson is "ignore the extremists."

 

I definitely agree that high schoolers should read materials slanted in different directions. I hope that by graduation, my kids will have an understanding of what their own bias is, and how to spot and evaluate the author's bias in any piece.

[Spy Car]

Perhaps. I think there are good lessons, though, in seeing the extremes of an issue. Perhaps the best lesson is "ignore the extremists."

 

I definitely agree that high schoolers should read materials slanted in different directions. I hope that by graduation, my kids will have an understanding of what their own bias is, and how to spot and evaluate the author's bias in any piece.

 

I'm not saying never read extremists (especially as one reaches a certain level of maturity) but there remains something called good scholarship (not perfect scholarship) that aims at minimizing (rather than accentuating) an author's bias. And there is a value in reading the works of "historians".

 

Bill

Edited June 4, 2009 by Spy Car

[Mama Lynx]

I'm not saying never reading extremists (especially as one reaches a certain level of maturity) but there remains something called good scholarship (not perfect scholarship) that aims at minimizing (rather than accentuating) an author's bias. And there is a value in reading the works of "historians".

 

Bill

 

We are in agreement :001_smile:

[Spy Car]

We are in agreement :001_smile:

 

Well we've solved that :D

 

Another thing I like in a history text is when the tensions between opposing tendencies (or principles, values, or even freedoms) are presented in a fashion that make the reader (even a child) struggle a little, in the same way a reasonable person of the era might have struggled to balance one impulse and another.

 

To me this helps keep history "alive". And illustrates how some "tensions" are eternal.

 

Bill

[kellycbr]

Well we've solved that :D

 

Another thing I like in a history text is when the tensions between opposing tendencies (or principles, values, or even freedoms) are presented in a fashion that make the reader (even a child) struggle a little, in the same way a reasonable person of the era might have struggled to balance one impulse and another.

 

To me this helps keep history "alive". And illustrates how some "tensions" are eternal.

 

Bill

 

Bill, would you share with us some of the history texts?

 

Kelly

[susie in tx]

My girls (11 and 14) are currently using these, as we work to finish up Y2 of TOG. It's an upper grammar level book, but I'm having my D student read these anyway. She had been reading another text, This Country of Ours, but our discussions were not incredibly fruitful.

 

I don't know if it's the change in text or the time off, but we're having very nice discussions now. Neither girl seems to mind having to read these, even though it's more reading than if they were reading TCOO, and we're having a great time discussing.

 

Having personally had a public school education with all of the bias that holds, I'm not always sure what is and what is not biased in history texts. I appreciate conversations like this where I can be on the lookout for additional topics to discuss with my children.