Spin off- Why is it so hard to find a good history program

[Homemama2]

I agree, I have yet to find a history prog that does everything and says everything I want. I think your best bet might be to find a spine you can live with, and fill in with lots of great living books (I look at the catalogs for SL, WP, VP, HOD and others). HOD is what I "think" I'd probably like most, except they are on a different history cycle than I am :001_smile:. Some others you might check out are Truthquest, and Biblioplan (I didn't read all the replies so someone might have said these). I think you'll find real 'living' books much less dry than textbooks, though.

[TXMary2]

If you want something from a christian perspective then it is going to have bias. Just like a secular program will have bias. For me, I don't care about the bias too much because I supplement no matter what. If our textbook has one bias, the History Channel program we watch will have another. IMO it all balances out.

[stripe]

We're reading through a vintage book called The Golden History of the World by Jane Werner Watson, illustrated by Cornelius Dewitt. From all that I have skimmed over so far, this book seems to give a pretty un-biased view of different events in world history.

 

I like DeWitt's illustrations too (for the human body book) -- but I have a question for you. I received his illustrated Golden Encyclopedia as a gift and from an early entry, I was a bit repulsed by the outdated/racist language. How's this one?

[Spy Car]

I don't have to worry about middle school American history, because we're just finishing up 4 1/2 years of the stuff, and that's quite enough till high school. :tongue_smilie:

 

But if you don't like Hakim (and honestly I've never warmed to her books - hate they layout for one thing), I thought I might mention another series called the Drama of American History by James Lincoln Collier & Christopher Collier. Much nicer layout and no sidebars, has color pictures, and they do get into the causes and effects of historical events.

 

Although as we approached modern US history and the middle school years, I didn't use the Collier books as much as I thought I would - I ended up more with awesome non-fiction books that just addressed the topic at hand but weren't necessarily part of a series. But that may be why it took me a ridiculous amount of time to get through US History. The Collier series would do it faster.

 

Now, as soon as I finish reading the kids a book entitled The End of the Cold War (such fun bedtime reading at our house!), it's off to Sumer for us. :D We're using K12's Human Odyssey as a spine, it looks wonderful!

 

Thank you for mentioning the series the Drama of American History. I've never seen this previously, but it is available from my library system and I've ordered up the volumes on the Federal Era and the Civil War to read.

 

I appreciate it :001_smile:

 

Bill

 

Just a quick follow-up. I should probably wait to get all the way through the first volume I'm reading of Drama of American History: Slavery and the Coming of the Civil War before posting, but what an exciting find!

 

Thank you so much for the suggestion Matroyshka. I'm finding this very fair minded, smartly written, well explained, not patronizing and highly interesting.

 

I'm surprised this work seems virtually unknown in our community, but I've got a feeling that is going to change.

 

I'm off to read more.

 

Bill

[jewel7123]

Just a quick follow-up. I should probably wait to get all the way through the first volume I'm reading of Drama of American History: Slavery and the Coming of the Civil War before posting, but what an exciting find!

 

Thank you so much for the suggestion Matroyshka. I'm finding this very fair minded, smartly written, well explained, not patronizing and highly interesting.

 

I'm surprised this work seems virtually unknown in our community, but I've got a feeling that is going to change.

 

I'm off to read more.

 

Bill

 

Are the Drama of American History books Christian or Secular in bias? Thanks

[Spy Car]

Are the Drama of American History books Christian or Secular in bias? Thanks

 

So I just finished reading my first book from the series (not the first in the series, as I've gone out of order and deliberately picked a potentially divisive period to test the waters) and I must say that I'm astonished at the lack of bias in the work.

 

Where there are differences of opinion, the authors make the case for both sides in as fair-minded a fashion as I can imagine possible. No one is vilified, and no one is unduly glorified.

 

This is a book I can imagine a conservative Southerner and a liberal Californian could both find wholly acceptable to use with their children. More than "acceptable" actually, rather than both could feel enthusiastic they had such a good resource. Sometimes when you "offend no one", the result is pablum. This is not one of those instances.

 

The history is solid. Not overly detailed. As the author's point out in their preface they are going for a broad stroke outline (and one I feel is totally appropriate for this level). To "simplify" American History and retain a sense of accuracy is an achievement. And while "simplified" it is not light-weight. A child who knew nothing more about the history of America of the period covered that what's in this volume would be a good deal better informed than most of our fellow citizens, I'm sorry to say.

 

The only people I suspect might not be happy with this work are those who don't actually desire a balanced approach, and prefer more bias in their materials.

 

As to secular or Christian? I see nothing in the volume I read that would raise an eye-bow for a secular school-board, while it did not ignore the role (or better said, roles) of religion in American life. Very balanced.

 

There was one paragraph that might be cringe-worthy for the most conservative of Christians when it is mentioned that in the period between the nations founding and 1820 (when there was a discussed-in-the-book Christian revival) that the national mores had become rather loose, that:

 

"Americans, by and large had been quite easygoing about sex, had drunk a great deal more alcohol than we do today, and were more casual about religion: some early presidents, like Thomas Jefferson, did not really believe in God as presented in the Bible."

 

I know that taken out of context this single paragraph will worry some parents. All I can say is that it is not emblematic of the tone of the book. The next chapter goes on to speak in positive terms of the feeling of need (for many) for a Christian revival, "a general cleaning up of the society" in the 1820s.

 

So while I quoted from the singular problematic paragraph, I don't believe it reflects the book as a whole, nor should it necessarily scare anyone off. As I said before, I can see both liberals and conservatives being quite pleased with this volume.

 

For myself, I will admit there was one another cringe-worthy moment when I saw that in the early pages it is noted that 14th Century Timbuktu had a "Mohammedan" university, when the authors ought to have said an "Islamic" University ("Mohammedan" being a term of potential offense). I'd call that a poor word choice, but balanced against the fine-work in the rest of this volume it seem almost churlish to mention it.

 

If the rest of the series is this good, it is an option I think parents should strongly consider. Personally I'm not sure I would ever warm to Joy Hakim's series, and now that may never be necessary.

 

I'm extremely pleased!

 

Bill

Edited March 6, 2010 by Spy Car

[stripe]

I discovered the books are at my library, so I'll take a look. Count me in the perpetually underwhelmed and disappointed camp. Thanks, Matroyshka.

[Capt_Uhura]

WOOHOO My library has the Pilgrims and Puritans and my other nearby library has The AMerican Revolution in the series Matroyshka, whom I keep happily bumping into all subjects 8-), and Spy Car mentioned! Off to pick them up today.

 

And I learned a new word "churlish." Thanks SpyCar!

[Laboroflove]

I didn't see where anyone mentioned the Genevieve Foster books. It does gloss over information such as Columbus in The World of Columbus and Sons. It mentions taking some of the natives and his arrogance, but it doesn't speak of the cruelty inflicted upon his men or the natives. Yet I felt it was worth mentioning as a source. Sonlight gives this information through one of their books recommended (Pedro's Journal?) What I really want to offer though is a set of books for middle school american history: Critical Thinking in United States History. The books seek to teach students to critically evaluate viewpoints in history. Book one deals with Colonies to Constitution, two New Republic to Civil War, three Reconstruction to Progressivism, and four Spanish-American War to Vietnam.

It doesn't cover current, but it teaches the kids to think about what they are reading. The author is Kevin O'Reilly; the publisher is Midwest Publications/Critical Thinking Books and Software. Also, A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn is a great resource to give viewpoints of those without a voice in that period of history (the ugly side of history often not included - it's used in college courses). We are just delving into world history so I have no suggestions here - would love to hear recommendations by others.

[jewel7123]

Personally I'm not sure I would ever warm to Joy Hakim's series, and now that may never be necessary.

 

I'm extremely pleased!

 

Bill

 

Not sure why you don't like Hakim's series, but if someone had a dislike of Hakim's work because in their opinion it was extremely liberal and even possibly anti-Christian, would you say that the Drama of American History series would be better received by a person who held that opinion? In other words, do you think there is more of a secular bias in Hakim's series than is present in the Drama of American History series? Anyone who has read this series is welcome to answer this.......

[TracyR]

Tracy, I'm with you about the challenging of finding your comfort zone in teaching history, but I think you're not being realistic about textbooks.

 

To address your points:

1. History-telling involves spin and perspective, no matter who is doing the telling. When I lived in VA, a certain holiday was called Jackson-Lee-King Day, not Martin Luther King Day...

 

2. If a Catholic is offended by protestant texts, I'm not shocked. But I think, not being a history lover and only slightly informed, that certain groups would take issue with the statement that only the Catholic church existed through time. The anabaptists for instance have their chronology and history that goes all the way back.

 

3. Dry. Well sorry, but I think some curricula are written by people who just plain can't write. They are also expected to work within grade level specifications, vocabulary lists, etc. from the publisher.

 

4. Not up to date. Well come on. BJU updates every 10 years. Update faster and the schools are screaming over the cost of replacing all those textbooks.

 

5. Bizarre and bouncy content. Sorry, but that's thanks to standardized testing. Seriously, my teacher friend in a cs clued me into this about the funky BJU texts.

 

They are what they are, and I'm not saying I love them. But at least I can understand the limitations they're working with. These publishers aren't hiring topnotch writers to go write narrative style tomes to engage and delight our kids. They're hiring whoever will sit in some cubicle, whoever was on some staff at some university or elementary school, and they have to work within limitations, price points, and more. When you find the really good texts, the delightful ones, those are GEMS, the rarity.

 

I never stated that the catholic church has been the only church that has existed through time. But the Catholic church actually was the first church before the division took place during the Reformation. It was the only church that existed before that time. The anabaptists didn't form until the time of the Reformation as they broke away from the Catholic church as well.

The term Catholic didn't come around until around 1605 when the Reformation began. The term was used to divide the church even though the word itself means Universal.

 

The Catholic church was and is the church Christ created 2,000 years ago. Though its had its ups and downs in history ( as like all churches) are lead by humans. This was the church that Christ created.

[Lovedtodeath]

:grouphug:

[Nancy Ann]

I never stated that the catholic church has been the only church that has existed through time. But the Catholic church actually was the first church before the division took place during the Reformation. It was the only church that existed before that time. The anabaptists didn't form until the time of the Reformation as they broke away from the Catholic church as well.

The term Catholic didn't come around until around 1605 when the Reformation began. The term was used to divide the church even though the word itself means Universal.

 

The Catholic church was and is the church Christ created 2,000 years ago. Though its had its ups and downs in history ( as like all churches) are lead by humans. This was the church that Christ created.

 

 

Your forgetting about us Eastern Orthodox Christians:) What we now know as the Catholic church today was the part of the church that was from Rome. There were actually many patriarchs or bishops from differing areas that were all united. Rome was just one of these areas.

 

I understand your difficulty with history. I have similar problems. I have been happy with Story of the World and I use Truthquest history to get "living books" from the library. It seems a good combo. But, I don't consider all of history to be fact, much of history is very subjective and so I really appreciate The Well Trained Mind approach and teaching our children to read with discernment and critical thinking skills.

Edited November 18, 2010 by Nancy Ann

[thowell]

never mind!

Edited November 19, 2010 by thowell
not to argue!

[Heather in WI]

I'm curious. You're no longer homeschooling (according to your siggy), yet you resurrected a highly controversial thread that you started a long time ago. Why?

[thowell]

I'm curious. You're no longer homeschooling (according to your siggy), yet you resurrected a highly controversial thread that you started a long time ago. Why?

 

Just noticed that too...

[smilesonly]

I'm curious. You're no longer homeschooling (according to your siggy), yet you resurrected a highly controversial thread that you started a long time ago. Why?

 

:lol: As my dd read the first two pages and posed this exact question.;)

 

We've certainly had some engaging conversations after reading the first six pages.:auto:

[Lovedtodeath]

I thought OhElizabeth replied brilliantly on post #26. I don't see why it needed to be continued after that.:tongue_smilie: