s/o evil history books thread

[FO4UR]

So, what's the scoop on Christine Miller's updated Guerber series?

 

Obviously, there will be some YE, Christian bias. Is it "Providential?"

 

What other options for a fluid narrative World history series.

 

I'd like to keep the feel of CM to our history. (Pick up a book. Read a short chapter. Narrate.)

[siloam]

So, what's the scoop on Christine Miller's updated Guerber series?

 

Obviously, there will be some YE, Christian bias. Is it "Providential?"

 

What other options for a fluid narrative World history series.

 

I'd like to keep the feel of CM to our history. (Pick up a book. Read a short chapter. Narrate.)

 

Trying to remember. Yes I think it is. Not overly so, but it is there.

 

Heather

[ElizabethB]

Has anyone seen them lately? Didn't she just go through the whole series and redo them?

 

When I saw them I was not really looking at history and it was years ago.

[Dinsfamily]

I'm really interested in these too. I already have them tentatively scheduled in as supplements when my dc are older, but I'd like to see some more reviews.

Edited June 10, 2010 by Dinsfamily

[buddhabelly]

I'm afraid that I am not going to be able to resist responding to your title, rather than to your actual question. (Clears throat.)

 

The most evil history book that I, personally, have encountered, is called "The World of Columbus and Sons." It is by Genevieve Foster and could have been written by the slave traders, LOL. (The only reason that I still have it is that I don't want anyone else to read it! :lol:)

 

Julie

[Miss Sherry]

I'm afraid that I am not going to be able to resist responding to your title, rather than to your actual question. (Clears throat.)

 

The most evil history book that I, personally, have encountered, is called "The World of Columbus and Sons." It is by Genevieve Foster and could have been written by the slave traders, LOL. (The only reason that I still have it is that I don't want anyone else to read it! :lol:)

 

Julie

Now you have me curious so I am going to have to do some reading in"The World of Columbus and Sons" to find out what you are talking about. I have that book but I haven't read it. I've heard it's really interesting but I've never heard it called evil. :lol: Is the content so horrendous that a good discussion could not clear things up when using it with my dd ? Edited June 10, 2010 by Miss Sherry

[buddhabelly]

Now you have me curious so I am going to have to do some reading in"The World of Columbus and Sons" to find out what you are talking about. I have that book but I haven't read it. I've heard it's really interesting but I've never heard it called evil. :lol: Is the content so horrendous that a good discussion could not clear things up when using it with my dd ?

 

No, I'm going to have to go with Bill here and say that there is no overcoming the general bias of the book. I would go with the book "After Columbus: the Next 500 Years" instead. This gives the real story about how Columbus was actually arrested for being such a cruel governor of Hispaniola and causing the destruction of the Taino. (The name is perhaps not exactly right, but I need to get my child to bed here soon.) I guess you need to ask yourself why are you studying history? Why study slavery? It still exists today. Is it right? Is it ever justified? I believe that we study history (especially things like the Vietnam War) in order to learn from it. Really learn from it, as in don't repeat mistakes.

 

Much of the discussion of slavery is simply a justification for it. On p. 30: "How could it not have seemed to Prince Henry that slavery under these conditions could be wrong?" There is nothing about how many died, how they were packed into the ships like lumber with no fresh air and no exercise, nothing about how it is WRONG.

 

As we say, just my humble opinion! Going to bed now.

 

Julie

[Jen+4dc]

So, what's the scoop on Christine Miller's updated Guerber series?

 

Obviously, there will be some YE, Christian bias. Is it "Providential?"

 

What other options for a fluid narrative World history series.

 

I'd like to keep the feel of CM to our history. (Pick up a book. Read a short chapter. Narrate.)

 

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by Providential. I found the author's attitude (expressed here in the preface) to be rather pervasive throughout the book. You may read the preface here and decide for yourself:

 

http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product_slideshow?sku=667102&actual_sku=667102&slide=5&action=Next

 

Hope this helps you know if this would work for your family.:)

[Sophia]

No, I'm going to have to go with Bill here and say that there is no overcoming the general bias of the book. I would go with the book "After Columbus: the Next 500 Years" instead. This gives the real story about how Columbus was actually arrested for being such a cruel governor of Hispaniola and causing the destruction of the Taino. (The name is perhaps not exactly right, but I need to get my child to bed here soon.) I guess you need to ask yourself why are you studying history? Why study slavery? It still exists today. Is it right? Is it ever justified? I believe that we study history (especially things like the Vietnam War) in order to learn from it. Really learn from it, as in don't repeat mistakes.

 

Much of the discussion of slavery is simply a justification for it. On p. 30: "How could it not have seemed to Prince Henry that slavery under these conditions could be wrong?" There is nothing about how many died, how they were packed into the ships like lumber with no fresh air and no exercise, nothing about how it is WRONG.

 

As we say, just my humble opinion! Going to bed now.

 

Julie

 

:huh:

 

 

:smilielol5:

 

I love the sense of humor on this board...

[Donna T.]

This gives the real story about how Columbus was actually arrested for being such a cruel governor of Hispaniola and causing the destruction of the Taino. Julie

 

Julie, how do you know? How do you know that that book gives the real story? I'm not being snarky or argumentative. I just really wonder. How do any of us form our opinions beyond what books we read?

 

I personally think Columbus was "touched" in the head. He claimed to have heard a voice from heaven giving him his mission, which caused him to conclude that he was fulfilling the prophecies of Isaiah the prophet. That's a pretty bold conclusion.

 

I hate history :banghead:

[Violet Crown]

Much of the discussion of slavery is simply a justification for it. On p. 30: "How could it not have seemed to Prince Henry that slavery under these conditions could be wrong?" There is nothing about how many died, how they were packed into the ships like lumber with no fresh air and no exercise, nothing about how it is WRONG.

 

Not disagreeing with you, and I haven't read the book: but the quotation doesn't, standing alone, seem to be saying "Slavery under these conditions wasn't wrong." It seems to be using litotes to say "Obviously Prince Henry had to think that slavery under these conditions was wrong." Now I suppose that leaves the possible implication that there would be some circumstances under which Prince Henry might think slavery was right; but as it stands, the quoted sentence only seems to be asserting that, under the referenced conditions, even Prince Henry must think slavery to be wrong.

 

As for the mass deaths and the horrific conditions of slavery, I would want to know what age the book is intended for before judging it racist for omitting that information.

 

Perhaps the context makes clear what isn't clear to me. As I said, I haven't read it.

[my2boysteacher]

Anyone looking for a book on Columbus may want to read Discovering Christopher Columbus: How History Is Invented

 

*disclaimer* I have not read the book in it's entirety, but from reading the intro through the 'look inside' feature it looks like a fresh approach to the story of Columbus.

[Capt_Uhura]

I bought that book at a library sale for $0.50. I haven't read it yet but perhaps I'll bump it to the head of the line for this summer.

[Donna T.]

Anyone looking for a book on Columbus may want to read Discovering Christopher Columbus: How History Is Invented

 

*disclaimer* I have not read the book in it's entirety, but from reading the intro through the 'look inside' feature it looks like a fresh approach to the story of Columbus.

 

Thank you. I'm ordering it.

[Tress]

Bumping this, because I'm also interested in hearing about the Miller/Guerber books.

 

I'm assuming because Memoria Press recommends them, they are okay. But...Memoria Press also uses The Courage of Sarah Noble for 2nd grade...and apparently that's an evil book :confused:.

[mcconnellboys]

You can always counter that with a good Betsy Maestro book, LOL. She socks it to the evil Europeans. I actually like reading a combo of things like Foster and Maestro in order to juxtapose viewpoints from authors in different time periods of history.

 

Foster also has some shorter books, like 1620 that cover world history. These are OOP, so far as I know, but you can still find them online pretty easily.....

 

No author is going to write without a viewpoint.....

[siloam]

Has anyone seen them lately? Didn't she just go through the whole series and redo them?

 

When I saw them I was not really looking at history and it was years ago.

Really? That seems odd, only because the publishers note seems to make a big deal about not changing but the bare necessities (racial slurs and inaccuracies) and lists the inaccuracies changed. Although now that I look at the title page it does say 2nd edition 2006 on my Story of the Great Republic. My Story of the Thirteen Colonies is 1st edition 2002.

 

Anyway, when it comes to US history you have to really work at being providential, IMO. I personally didn't think there was a whole lot in the Guerber texts, but they don't avoid religious topics either. They are also not super in depth, so they lack some opportunity, KWIM?

 

If you want to avoid reference to God at all then you might not like them, but baring that I don't really see anything in the last two books that would offed most people. Though given I am not offended there might be stuff I passed over. It isn't like covering MOH or TOG at the ancients level, where providential action, God at work, is a focus.

 

But they more conservative than they History of the US texts.

 

Heather

[mcconnellboys]

Well, in my view that perspective swings way, way too far the other way. Here's just one perspective that's a lot more middle of the road on what Columbus did and did not do:

 

http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/web/20060520-christopher-columbus-spain-ferdinand-isabella-hispaniola-india-bobadilla.shtml

 

There are actually numerous books being issued now with titles including Mysteries of History and Truth about History that include more recent interpretations by modern historians of many of history's troubling stories. History, like science, needs to constantly be re-evaluated. New documents come to light; mis-translations get corrected; new artifacts surface that change how things are viewed - and history needs updating.

 

Rather than taking one extreme view or another, it's generally better to read from a wide variety of sources and look at source documents, etc. to make up your mind about what you really think happened..... I think if you can't stomach one version of a story but adopt one that is radically opposite without doing the research to try to confirm that very different view as correct, you're still doing just as much disservice to yourself and your children....

 

All human beings are both bad and good. Some a little (or a lot) more skewed toward one extreme than the other. Taking very human people out of context for their environment, the time in which they lived, etc., does a disservice to everyone and renders all history study worthless, in my opinion. We can look back with our perfect hindsight and condemn nearly every single figure in history for something..... I would suggest that in light of our own personal lives that we not cast such stones....

 

Was Attila worthy to live? Was he insane? Did he provide a good service to those who followed him? Leave his mark on the world? Was Columbus worthy to live? Was he insane? did he provide a good service to those who followed him? Leave his mark on the world? Am I worthy to live? Insane? Provide good service? Leave my mark?

[buddhabelly]

The book I recommended, "Rethinking Columbus: The Next 500 Years" takes as its source the actual journal written by Columbus. He matter of factly states how the Taino were treated. They were enslaved workers on the island, and many of them died. It's all there.

 

So that's one way we know the truth. I now see that my quote from "The World of Columbus and Sons" was a terrible one (I was very tired last night.) There is no one quote that will reveal the overall bias of the book. I can quote a few, but it's the overall tone that is so terrible. It's more about what is NOT there, you know? What were conditions like on the slave ships? Not a word. Not one.

 

"None of the Africans brought to Portugal were ever mistreated." (p. 30)

 

"How could [Prince Henry] imagine a world without slaves? There had always been slavery since the beginning of time[..............] All Europeans who now sailed the Mediterranean might be captured by Moorish pirates and end their days in slavery. African tribes fighting one another sold the women and children they captured to Berber traders who went down to Morocco to the great inland trading center of Timbuktu." (p. 30)

 

So yes, the above things may or may not be true, that's not really the point. The point is that the whole book is written from the point of view that European whites do stuff, and because they are white and they have power in the world, it is somehow okay.

 

I am not an eloquent writer, but I just want to say one more thing about history books that were written a long time ago. One hundred years ago, perhaps more than fifty percent of the white population of the United States sincerely believed that black people were not as intelligent as whites, and somehow not entitled to the same privileges. There were many other beliefs in place, for example regarding the role of women in society. I just think that when choosing a history book for your children to read (it is less important if you are going to pick out snippets and read them aloud), you should be vigilant for these "assumptions" that we no longer believe.

Thanks for listening.

 

Julie

[FO4UR]

What an interesting turn this thread has taken....LOL!

 

That's good to know about the Christopher Columbus Book.

 

Providential... It's the difference between believing that God makes good out of the bad (a midstream Christian POV), and interpreting historical events as God's perfect plan. I don't think we can ever know if Christopher Columbus sailing the ocean blue in 1492 was God's *perfect* plan...it happened. Good things followed. Bad things followed. If we interpret this event as "all God's perfect plan" then we get into the territory of rationalizing evil as part of that plan. I'm sure someone else has a better explanation...

 

I like reading church history along with the rest of history...I am a Christian, and a Christian influence doesn't bother me at all. I strongly dislike having to sift through anti-Christian bias...(these people did evil in the name of God, so let's conclude that believing in God always leads to evil:glare:)...it's just as bad as the polar opposite.

 

The appeal of the Guerber books, for me, is that they go from Ancients to US history. My dc already like the short chapter/narrative format. I just don't want to buy the books and find sewage to wade through iykwim. (I wish there were a HS store nearby so I could browse....)

[Miss Sherry]

No, I'm going to have to go with Bill here and say that there is no overcoming the general bias of the book. I would go with the book "After Columbus: the Next 500 Years" instead. This gives the real story about how Columbus was actually arrested for being such a cruel governor of Hispaniola and causing the destruction of the Taino. (The name is perhaps not exactly right, but I need to get my child to bed here soon.) I guess you need to ask yourself why are you studying history? Why study slavery? It still exists today. Is it right? Is it ever justified? I believe that we study history (especially things like the Vietnam War) in order to learn from it. Really learn from it, as in don't repeat mistakes.

 

Much of the discussion of slavery is simply a justification for it. On p. 30: "How could it not have seemed to Prince Henry that slavery under these conditions could be wrong?" There is nothing about how many died, how they were packed into the ships like lumber with no fresh air and no exercise, nothing about how it is WRONG.

 

As we say, just my humble opinion! Going to bed now.

 

Julie

Wow. It doesn't even include the arrest of Columbus. There are some books I have purchased because I enjoy the writing style of the author or think that will be the case, but it is a shame when certain details are left out that would have given balance to the WHOLE story. It seems this is done in order to slant history toward a particular view.

[Sophia]

What an interesting turn this thread has taken....LOL!

 

That's good to know about the Christopher Columbus Book.

 

Providential... It's the difference between believing that God makes good out of the bad (a midstream Christian POV), and interpreting historical events as God's perfect plan. I don't think we can ever know if Christopher Columbus sailing the ocean blue in 1492 was God's *perfect* plan...it happened. Good things followed. Bad things followed. If we interpret this event as "all God's perfect plan" then we get into the territory of rationalizing evil as part of that plan. I'm sure someone else has a better explanation...

 

I like reading church history along with the rest of history...I am a Christian, and a Christian influence doesn't bother me at all. I strongly dislike having to sift through anti-Christian bias...(these people did evil in the name of God, so let's conclude that believing in God always leads to evil:glare:)...it's just as bad as the polar opposite.

 

The appeal of the Guerber books, for me, is that they go from Ancients to US history. My dc already like the short chapter/narrative format. I just don't want to buy the books and find sewage to wade through iykwim. (I wish there were a HS store nearby so I could browse....)

 

I don't believe you could call them providential.

 

From the Publisher's Preface in The Story of the Romans(2002) "In it Miss Guerber took the view that man developed slowly, through long ages of civilization, from a savage to a rational human being. Although, as we now know, the historical record supporting this view was non-existent, it was the common one of her day."

 

I'm guessing those who hold to a providential view also view man as created in the image of God, not as a savage (even back in her day.)

Savage may be used as an adjective, certainly not a noun.

 

From the author's notes in the same book, she writes "Government, laws, customs, etc., have been only lightly touched upon, because children are most interested in the sayings and doings of people."

 

I found that interesting. You know from the get go you will need to supplement with another book to educate your child thoroughly for that time period. (Personally we always do that anyway.) Doesn't mean she's glossing over history...just choosing to communicate what she thinks will appeal to children.

 

From her Story of the Thirteen Colonies book, Christine Miller gives several instances where she has changed the wording including changing "savages" to "natives" or "Indians."

 

hth,

[FO4UR]

I don't believe you could call them providential.

 

 

hth,

 

Thanks for that post. :001_smile:

[pqr]

This gives the real story about how Columbus was actually arrested for being such a cruel governor of Hispaniola and causing the destruction of the Taino. (

Julie

 

What exactly does it say about the reason for his arrest? I had always read that it was his tyranny and provoking a revolt by the Spanish, the bit about the Indians is new to me and not only would revise my view of the man but even of the Spanish authorities. It just seems atypical that the Spanish government would have acted based on his treatment of the Indians.

[Hillary in KS]

What exactly does it say about the reason for his arrest? I had always read that it was his tyranny and provoking a revolt by the Spanish, the bit about the Indians is new to me and not only would revise my view of the man but even of the Spanish authorities. It just seems atypical that the Spanish government would have acted based on his treatment of the Indians.

 

Yes, this is new to me as well. I took a Latin American history class at the Universidad de Costa Rica, which covered a great deal but not this. The idea of the Spanish government stepping in due to mistreatment of the Indians does not seem to match, due to their own mistreatment of the Indians.

[redheadeddaughter]

I've been reading these "evil history book" threads this week with fascination. It may not be needed, but I feel the need to defend the moms on here who DO use these books. Lot's has been shared already, but here's a view from the other side...

 

1) Some of these details on slavery and occupation (and a slew of other history topics) are very, very sad and very hard to explain to a small child. I agree the "entire" truth needs to be shared as much as possible. But by what age? In my case I've decided to take it gradually, using books that help me set the stage for the time period, and discuss the issues as needed (some of this depends on what other sources we are using) The Courage of Sarah Noble and The Columbus and Sons book are a few of those. For the record, I do not think I'm rearing racists. That would defeat all my educational (and religious) ideals. I also think there are plenty of home schoolers who use these books who are not racists. They are good, kind and honest educators who are committed to helping children become good, kind and honest citizens. I think to demonize a book (or an entire curricula) can improperly place these well-intentioned people in a bad and inaccurate light.

To give an example: My son (7) and I read through D'Aulaire George Washington book. We did this after a fairly complete survey of the Revolutionary War... for a first grader. When we got to the page where GW supposedly chopped down that cherry tree, we had a nice discussion about how that very likely didn't occur and how it came be be in that book (the biography written years after his death, etc.). He is learning not to trust any source completely, but question it and glean from it. I happen to like this process. The question of slavery came up not less than half a dozen times (mostly from the illustrations) and I'm doing my best to answer questions in a gentle manner.

 

2) These books are rarely used as the sole source of history. They are a small part of a much bigger plan. In a few years, when we approach American History again, I plan on using the Jackdaws original source documents extensively (along with the "evil" TOG or something similar to it). SWB recommended them in TWTM and it seems like a wonderfully honest way of approaching history. She suggests the students answer the following questions after reading the documents:

 

1) What does the source say?

2) Who is the author? (social position, profession, possible bias, age, other relevant personal facts)

3) What is the writer's purpose?

4) What does the writer gain from persuading his or her listeners of their particular view?

5) What events led to this piece of writing?

6) What happened as a result?

 

 

And hopefully I can limit the bias coming from any one source by expanding the pool I pull from. I also do not equate Providential history with a pro-slavery view of history. That is absurd. Maybe I am just stating the obvious and I misread the previous posts (they are beginning to blur). I just felt there are some moms out there who, sadly, need to be defended here... myself included!

[swimmermom3]

I'm afraid that I am not going to be able to resist responding to your title, rather than to your actual question. (Clears throat.)

 

The most evil history book that I, personally, have encountered, is called "The World of Columbus and Sons." It is by Genevieve Foster and could have been written by the slave traders, LOL. (The only reason that I still have it is that I don't want anyone else to read it! :lol:)

 

Julie

 

I think I have gone senile! I just told Bill today that Foster's books were fine. It's been two years since we last used them. How much gray matter can deteriorate in that time? Maybe we read the Caesar's book and I let my innocent baby read the other two we have on his own. You know this means that the Senile, Evil Mother Incarnate is going to have to read Columbus all night or at least until ...wait! Does anyone have some page numbers for me?

 

Child #3 will call me out on an evil history book for sure.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

I've been reading these "evil history book" threads this week with fascination. It may not be needed, but I feel the need to defend the moms on here who DO use these books. Lot's has been shared already, but here's a view from the other side...

 

1) Some of these details on slavery and occupation (and a slew of other history topics) are very, very sad and very hard to explain to a small child. I agree the "entire" truth needs to be shared as much as possible. But by what age? In my case I've decided to take it gradually, using books that help me set the stage for the time period, and discuss the issues as needed (some of this depends on what other sources we are using) The Courage of Sarah Noble and The Columbus and Sons book are a few of those. For the record, I do not think I'm rearing racists. That would defeat all my educational (and religious) ideals. I also think there are plenty of home schoolers who use these books who are not racists. They are good, kind and honest educators who are committed to helping children become good, kind and honest citizens. I think to demonize a book (or an entire curricula) can improperly place these well-intentioned people in a bad and inaccurate light.

To give an example: My son (7) and I read through D'Aulaire George Washington book. We did this after a fairly complete survey of the Revolutionary War... for a first grader. When we got to the page where GW supposedly chopped down that cherry tree, we had a nice discussion about how that very likely didn't occur and how it came be be in that book (the biography written years after his death, etc.). He is learning not to trust any source completely, but question it and glean from it. I happen to like this process. The question of slavery came up not less than half a dozen times (mostly from the illustrations) and I'm doing my best to answer questions in a gentle manner.

 

2) These books are rarely used as the sole source of history. They are a small part of a much bigger plan. In a few years, when we approach American History again, I plan on using the Jackdaws original source documents extensively (along with the "evil" TOG or something similar to it). SWB recommended them in TWTM and it seems like a wonderfully honest way of approaching history. She suggests the students answer the following questions after reading the documents:

 

1) What does the source say?

2) Who is the author? (social position, profession, possible bias, age, other relevant personal facts)

3) What is the writer's purpose?

4) What does the writer gain from persuading his or her listeners of their particular view?

5) What events led to this piece of writing?

6) What happened as a result?

 

 

And hopefully I can limit the bias coming from any one source by expanding the pool I pull from. I also do not equate Providential history with a pro-slavery view of history. That is absurd. Maybe I am just stating the obvious and I misread the previous posts (they are beginning to blur). I just felt there are some moms out there who, sadly, need to be defended here... myself included!

 

If you like the idea of Jackdaws, you might also want to check out the primary resources arranged for classroom use at the National Archives site. They also have tools for "reading" a primary document that is similar to the list you have above. One of my favorite tools is a page that walks a student through how to read a political cartoon.

[swimmermom3]

If you like the idea of Jackdaws, you might also want to check out the primary resources arranged for classroom use at the National Archives site. They also have tools for "reading" a primary document that is similar to the list you have above. One of my favorite tools is a page that walks a student through how to read a political cartoon.

 

Sebastian, thank you for the link. We were in the National Archives two years ago and my kids were fascinated. I didn't think to check the site for help with primary source material.

[HerdingCats]

Rather than taking one extreme view or another, it's generally better to read from a wide variety of sources and look at source documents, etc. to make up your mind about what you really think happened..... I think if you can't stomach one version of a story but adopt one that is radically opposite without doing the research to try to confirm that very different view as correct, you're still doing just as much disservice to yourself and your children....

 

All human beings are both bad and good. Some a little (or a lot) more skewed toward one extreme than the other. Taking very human people out of context for their environment, the time in which they lived, etc., does a disservice to everyone and renders all history study worthless, in my opinion. We can look back with our perfect hindsight and condemn nearly every single figure in history for something..... I would suggest that in light of our own personal lives that we not cast such stones....

 

Was Attila worthy to live? Was he insane? Did he provide a good service to those who followed him? Leave his mark on the world? Was Columbus worthy to live? Was he insane? did he provide a good service to those who followed him? Leave his mark on the world? Am I worthy to live? Insane? Provide good service? Leave my mark?

:iagree:

 

I am far less bothered by providential commentary and interpretations I don't agree with now than I was when my children were younger. It just becomes a topic for discussion and a lesson in discernment when reading any book. It prepares them to think for themselves and for the real world of academics in my opinion.

[Mrs Mungo]

Sebastian, thank you for the link. We were in the National Archives two years ago and my kids were fascinated. I didn't think to check the site for help with primary source material.

 

Personally, I don't think the Jackdaws that I've used have been all that for the price. Nowadays, you can find lots of primary source materials (or the texts of them) on the internet. Just fyi. :)

 

eta: I will have to *somewhat* disagree with this post (just quoting a bit):

I've been reading these "evil history book" threads this week with fascination. It may not be needed, but I feel the need to defend the moms on here who DO use these books. Lot's has been shared already, but here's a view from the other side...

It's been my experience through discussion on these boards that many homeschoolers use such materials *because* they are providential/dominionist in nature. There are *plenty* of people who subscribe to those beliefs, they aren't using them to balance a POV or discuss bias. Edited June 11, 2010 by Mrs Mungo

[Shawna in Texas]

I think I have gone senile! I just told Bill today that Foster's books were fine. It's been two years since we last used them. How much gray matter can deteriorate in that time? Maybe we read the Caesar's book and I let my innocent baby read the other two we have on his own. You know this means that the Senile, Evil Mother Incarnate is going to have to read Columbus all night or at least until ...wait! Does anyone have some page numbers for me?

 

Child #3 will call me out on an evil history book for sure.

 

We've only covered ACW and loved it. The rest were up for the next two years. This really disappoints me. I'm not sure what I want to do now. Honestly, she is at an age where we can discuss all sorts of historical things and have. I feel okay with certain things (because it leads to great discussions) that may be present and I can undoubtedly predict her reaction. But if the book reeks of it, I don't know if I want to bother with it. I wonder about Foster's other books.

 

I may be worrying for nothing, though. DD had read a Horrible History that had Columbus in it. She wrote a voluntary report on it.

[Sophia]

The book I recommended, "Rethinking Columbus: The Next 500 Years" takes as its source the actual journal written by Columbus. He matter of factly states how the Taino were treated. They were enslaved workers on the island, and many of them died. It's all there.

 

So that's one way we know the truth. I now see that my quote from "The World of Columbus and Sons" was a terrible one (I was very tired last night.) There is no one quote that will reveal the overall bias of the book. I can quote a few, but it's the overall tone that is so terrible. It's more about what is NOT there, you know? What were conditions like on the slave ships? Not a word. Not one.

 

"None of the Africans brought to Portugal were ever mistreated." (p. 30)

 

"How could [Prince Henry] imagine a world without slaves? There had always been slavery since the beginning of time[..............] All Europeans who now sailed the Mediterranean might be captured by Moorish pirates and end their days in slavery. African tribes fighting one another sold the women and children they captured to Berber traders who went down to Morocco to the great inland trading center of Timbuktu." (p. 30)

 

So yes, the above things may or may not be true, that's not really the point. The point is that the whole book is written from the point of view that European whites do stuff, and because they are white and they have power in the world, it is somehow okay.

 

I am not an eloquent writer, but I just want to say one more thing about history books that were written a long time ago. One hundred years ago, perhaps more than fifty percent of the white population of the United States sincerely believed that black people were not as intelligent as whites, and somehow not entitled to the same privileges. There were many other beliefs in place, for example regarding the role of women in society. I just think that when choosing a history book for your children to read (it is less important if you are going to pick out snippets and read them aloud), you should be vigilant for these "assumptions" that we no longer believe.

Thanks for listening.

 

Julie

 

Thanks for continuing to share your thoughts on this Julie. I want to publicly apologize for thinking you were joking before (Oops! :blush:) I have read and discussed Foster's books before with my children and did not find them evil, hence my surprise and hasty reaction.

 

Since you have taken the time to explain why you found this book evil, I would like to offer a different perspective. I read the whole page (30) that you referenced. Had I been reading this with my children, two points of discussion would have been addressed immediately.

 

1. Man is evil.

2.Man can be desensitized to just about anything.

At this point my history lesson has turned into a worldview lesson, but ime, they go together.

 

I do think Foster's style of inserting questions, “But how could he imagine a world without slaves?” is an excellent way to encourage children to think critically about what we accept in the world around us.

 

I know you feel “The point is that the whole book is written from the point of view that European whites do stuff, and because they are white and they have power in the world, it is somehow okay. “

but I would respectfully disagree. It isn't just European whites doing stuff and where does she say it's okay? Her questions about Henry are not meant to justify his actions but to explain that he was a product of the times.

 

“I just think that when choosing a history book for your children to read (it is less important if you are going to pick out snippets and read them aloud), you should be vigilant for these "assumptions" that we no longer believe. “

 

I'm not trying to be sarcastic here, but do you really think anyone here disagrees with the above statement? Seeing the usefulness of Foster's books does not mean I'm teaching my children to think like

the historical figures of that time nor that archaic assumptions are flying by me willy-nilly.

 

And it goes without saying that we are reading from more than one book when studying different time periods.

 

I am content in agreeing to disagree over what is best for our individual home schools, I just hate to see Foster get the “evil” label undeservedly.

 

Regards,

[Mrs Mungo]

Her questions about Henry are not meant to justify his actions but to explain that he was a product of the times.

 

This is *often* used to explain actions and is nearly always a cop-out (at best). There were men and women throughout history who opposed slavery, even when commercial slavery (which was extremely different from slavery of the past) was at its high point. This is used to justify the fact that some founding fathers owned slaves, even though some were adamantly opposed to slavery. I have a serious problem with the train of thought that excuses people from certain actions because they were products of their time.

[redheadeddaughter]

Personally, I don't think the Jackdaws that I've used have been all that for the price. Nowadays, you can find lots of primary source materials (or the texts of them) on the internet. Just fyi. :)

 

eta: I will have to *somewhat* disagree with this post (just quoting a bit):

It's been my experience through discussion on these boards that many homeschoolers use such materials *because* they are providential/dominionist in nature. There are *plenty* of people who subscribe to those beliefs, they aren't using them to balance a POV or discuss bias.

 

I am a serious newcomer compared to you and cannot claim to know any of the posters on this board well. So I'll rely on your own incredible (really... 7515?) experience here! I guess I can only speak for myself then when I say I share a providential perspective of history AND I'm using all my history resources (these included) to balance a point of view (or find a balanced perspective anyway). And I always discuss bias whenever I see it. Occasionally I will wait until the end of a chapter. But it always gets addressed. I can't help it. Isn't that true for most moms reading aloud any book? For instance: How can you see the word "savage" and not discuss it?

 

So the two ideas are not mutually exclusive. It is possible to believe in a providential view of history (this could be defined in different ways obviously) AND find racism abhorrent. In fact, I've never met anyone "in person" that disagrees with me. Even those terrible dominionists tend to find slavery and genocide disgusting no matter where they find it (in my experience). The issues are so upsetting and divisive, nearly every mom I talk to wants desperately to "get it right," when it comes to the topic. The reality is our children are more likely to pick up a bias from a parent than a history book, yes?

 

I am aware you can find some primary source material on the internet... I just love to hold things in my hand and see the handwriting myself. I want my children to experience that as well. Some of these documents changed history forever. I want them to understand the power of the pen in a tangible way. History is an expensive hobby for me! But I haven't been able to find any reviews on the Jackdaws... is there a particular reason you didn't find them a good value? Are the documents even legible as written?! That would be problematic.

 

Also... thank you for contributing so much here. This forum is priceless!

[swimmermom3]

We've only covered ACW and loved it. The rest were up for the next two years. This really disappoints me. I'm not sure what I want to do now. Honestly, she is at an age where we can discuss all sorts of historical things and have. I feel okay with certain things (because it leads to great discussions) that may be present and I can undoubtedly predict her reaction. But if the book reeks of it, I don't know if I want to bother with it. I wonder about Foster's other books.

 

I may be worrying for nothing, though. DD had read a Horrible History that had Columbus in it. She wrote a voluntary report on it.

 

Shawna, don't throw in the towel yet on Foster. I am rereading the Columbus book and taking notes. I asked my 15 yo son if he remembered anything "off" in her books. He loved her books and couldn't think of anything offensive. I suppose you could call us liberal secularists. We have talked with all of our kids about tolerance and understanding and they are into current events, especially human rights issues. That said, Foster isn't ringing any bells regarding being "evil."

 

However, we are not hypersensitive either. We look at the book's context and the time it was written in and sometimes make allowances.

 

On the

[Mrs Mungo]

Gah!! I was typing, my firefox shut down and I lost my post, so frustrating! Trying again...

 

I am a serious newcomer compared to you and cannot claim to know any of the posters on this board well. So I'll rely on your own incredible (really... 7515?) experience here! I guess I can only speak for myself then when I say I share a providential perspective of history AND I'm using all my history resources (these included) to balance a point of view (or find a balanced perspective anyway). And I always discuss bias whenever I see it. Occasionally I will wait until the end of a chapter. But it always gets addressed. I can't help it. Isn't that true for most moms reading aloud any book? For instance: How can you see the word "savage" and not discuss it?

 

I think it happens all the time that moms read right through the word "savage" without blinking.

 

*Many* history books imply (or outright state) that Indian removal was inevitable because the lifestyle of the Native Americans was inconsistent with modern life. This view *completely ignores* how (to pick an extreme example, there are many other examples) the Cherokees were living in Georgia at the time of Indian removal. Their removal was INEXCUSABLE and to try and soften the blow by pretending their lifestyle was incompatible with the world around them IS inherently racist, in my opinion. In the recent documentary "Story of US" on the History Channel the topic of Indian Removal was almost completely ignored, while the Donner party received extensive (if wrong) coverage.

 

Have you never attended a Thanksgiving sermon in which the pastor naively (or not?) quoted William Bradford? I've walked out on more than one who implied the deaths of millions of Native Americans were part of God's perfect plan for this nation.

 

How about the deaths of millions of Jews during the Holocaust? Was that part of God's perfect plan? Or was it man using his free will to create evil in the world? I think it was the latter. I firmly believe that the former view is inherently racist and mutually exclusive from finding racism abhorrent.

 

In fact, I've never met anyone "in person" that disagrees with me. Even those terrible dominionists tend to find slavery and genocide disgusting no matter where they find it (in my experience). The issues are so upsetting and divisive, nearly every mom I talk to wants desperately to "get it right," when it comes to the topic. The reality is our children are more likely to pick up a bias from a parent than a history book, yes?

I think you're naive. I'd recommend a search on the civil war but many of those threads have been locked and/or removed.

 

I am aware you can find some primary source material on the internet... I just love to hold things in my hand and see the handwriting myself. I want my children to experience that as well. Some of these documents changed history forever. I want them to understand the power of the pen in a tangible way. History is an expensive hobby for me! But I haven't been able to find any reviews on the Jackdaws... is there a particular reason you didn't find them a good value? Are the documents even legible as written?! That would be problematic.

Understand, I'm a history buff from a family of history buffs. I just don't think the Jackdaws are worth their price. They come with a weak activity guide (from my perspective) filled with vocab lists, word finds and large group activities.

 

The Tutaknhamun (their spelling) one contains the following "source documents": a photo of the back of the throne found in the tomb, a copy of a page from "News of the World" when Lord Carnarvon died, a little from Carter to his foreman, two of Carter's index cards, a sheet with several photos of objects from the tomb, a sheet of photos showing the unpacking of the tomb, an in color drawing of scenes from the wall paintings, a copy of a papyrus and a strip of line drawings of Egyptian people and how they are represented. Lastly, it has a cardboard model of the outer shrine to put together.

 

I have numerous books on Egypt and these are the sorts of things depicted in all of the books. They aren't faithful reproductions, they are photocopies. I don't think they are bad things to have, I just don't think they are worth $60. If they were $30, then I would likely recommend them.

 

All of the Jackdaws I have deal with ancient or medieval history, I quit buying them at that point because I just don't find them to be a good value. There are other ways to obtain copies of historical documents, if you really want them.

 

eta: We actually *do* read Columbus and Sons but with some discussion. :)

Edited June 11, 2010 by Mrs Mungo

[Sebastian (a lady)]

This is *often* used to explain actions and is nearly always a cop-out (at best). There were men and women throughout history who opposed slavery, even when commercial slavery (which was extremely different from slavery of the past) was at its high point. This is used to justify the fact that some founding fathers owned slaves, even though some were adamantly opposed to slavery. I have a serious problem with the train of thought that excuses people from certain actions because they were products of their time.

 

But condemning them for not being products of another time seems to also be wrong.

 

I've been called evil for being in the military. I've had other Christians ask how I could possibly suggest that it is appropriate for Christians to serve in an organization committed to killing other people. And maybe there will come a point in history where militaries seem as wrong headed and outrageously wrong as slavery does to us. But that won't change that I and dh have made our choice to join and continue in the military based on the circumstances that we have at hand.

 

Ignoring the historical context in which real people made real life decisions seems idealistic. For example, I don't think that it is irrational to consider the Battle for Okinawa when discussing Truman's decision to bomb Hiroshima.

 

To say that a historical figure might have found slavery to be a common danger for people in his time doesn't in my mind make the book evil. (BTW, I am a little amused remembering that I've also seen Foster's Augustus Caesar book taken to task for not being Christian enough.)

[Mrs Mungo]

Taking a person in the context of his time doesn't mean you agree with his choices

 

But condemning them for not being products of another time seems to also be wrong.

 

I'm sorry, I don't think I made myself clear. I don't think one should expect them to be products of another time. What one needs to do (in my opinion) is say "is this really a 'product of his times' thing or is it something he should have realized was wrong?" You can weigh Thomas Jefferson's choices regarding slaves with the choices of John Quincy Adams and William Wilberforce. They all lived at the same time. They were peers.

 

You can say that Thomas Jefferson was wrong to own slaves without diminishing the great things that he did. In fact, I think this is extraordinarily important. Politicians, past and present, are people. They are capable of stupid things, wrong things and great things, all at once. This sort of study of history makes kids realize that *they* can make a difference, no matter how flawed they are, because *everyone* has flaws, everyone makes mistakes.

Edited June 11, 2010 by Mrs Mungo

[swimmermom3]

 

eta: We actually *do* read Columbus and Sons but with some discussion. :)

 

Thanks, Mrs. M. It was bothering me that I couldn't remember anything that really stood out. So far in my rereading, I have encountered only a few minor things that would merit a quick discussion but certainly nothing that would require pitching the book.

[Miss Sherry]

Thanks for continuing to share your thoughts on this Julie. I want to publicly apologize for thinking you were joking before (Oops! :blush:) I have read and discussed Foster's books before with my children and did not find them evil, hence my surprise and hasty reaction.

 

Since you have taken the time to explain why you found this book evil, I would like to offer a different perspective. I read the whole page (30) that you referenced. Had I been reading this with my children, two points of discussion would have been addressed immediately.

 

1. Man is evil.

2.Man can be desensitized to just about anything.

At this point my history lesson has turned into a worldview lesson, but ime, they go together.

 

I do think Foster's style of inserting questions, “But how could he imagine a world without slaves?” is an excellent way to encourage children to think critically about what we accept in the world around us.

 

I know you feel “The point is that the whole book is written from the point of view that European whites do stuff, and because they are white and they have power in the world, it is somehow okay. “

but I would respectfully disagree. It isn't just European whites doing stuff and where does she say it's okay? Her questions about Henry are not meant to justify his actions but to explain that he was a product of the times.

 

“I just think that when choosing a history book for your children to read (it is less important if you are going to pick out snippets and read them aloud), you should be vigilant for these "assumptions" that we no longer believe. “

 

I'm not trying to be sarcastic here, but do you really think anyone here disagrees with the above statement? Seeing the usefulness of Foster's books does not mean I'm teaching my children to think like

the historical figures of that time nor that archaic assumptions are flying by me willy-nilly.

 

And it goes without saying that we are reading from more than one book when studying different time periods.

 

I am content in agreeing to disagree over what is best for our individual home schools, I just hate to see Foster get the “evil” label undeservedly.

 

Regards,

I agree. I do think that calling these books "evil" is really going overboard and a bit fanatical. I am a little disappointed that some of the story of Columbus and others is totally left out of some of the older books but then I do wonder if these books weren't originally meant for younger children than they are generally used for now so that certain information was omitted but intended to be addressed with other materials when the students were a little older. I don't think we should expect any one book to cover every detail of history anyway. When I first read the "evil" comment I wasn't sure if the poster was really serious or not. Edited June 11, 2010 by Miss Sherry

[Mrs Mungo]

Thanks, Mrs. M. It was bothering me that I couldn't remember anything that really stood out. So far in my rereading, I have encountered only a few minor things that would merit a quick discussion but certainly nothing that would require pitching the book.

 

Yeah, I just wanted to clarify that it wasn't a book *I* considered evil, I was just disagreeing with some of the points made in the discussion.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

I'm sorry, I don't think I made myself clear. I don't think one should expect them to be products of another time. What one needs to do (in my opinion) is say "is this really a 'product of his times' thing or is it something he should have realized was wrong?" You can weigh Thomas Jefferson's choices regarding slaves with the choices of John Quincy Adams and William Wilberforce. They all lived at the same time. They were peers.

 

You can say that Thomas Jefferson was wrong to own slaves without diminishing the great things that he did. In fact, I think this is extraordinarily important. Politicians, past and present, are people. They are capable of stupid things, wrong things and great things, all at once. This sort of study of history makes kids realize that *they* can make a difference, no matter how flawed they are, because *everyone* has flaws, everyone makes mistakes.

 

I think that is a great point that you can be flawed and still have a positive impact on your world.

 

I also think that the comparison with Wilberforce is a mighty comparison in that it highlights how out of synch with their peers people like Wilberforce were.

 

And of course there is the topic of good intentions feeding questionable behavior. A couple branches of my family tree seem to have been on the fringes of abolitionist circles in Kansas in the 1850s and 60s. I've read a little about John Brown because he was a neighbor of one portion of the family. Definitely a figure who was out of synch with his peers (and whether that was for good or ill is a mather of some debate).

[Mrs Mungo]

I think that is a great point that you can be flawed and still have a positive impact on your world.

 

I also think that the comparison with Wilberforce is a mighty comparison in that it highlights how out of synch with their peers people like Wilberforce were.

 

It's true of Wilberforce, but is it true of John Quincy Adams? He was president, just like Jefferson. He was adamantly anti-slavery, but did not campaign against it in the same way that Wilberforce did.

 

And of course there is the topic of good intentions feeding questionable behavior. A couple branches of my family tree seem to have been on the fringes of abolitionist circles in Kansas in the 1850s and 60s. I've read a little about John Brown because he was a neighbor of one portion of the family. Definitely a figure who was out of synch with his peers (and whether that was for good or ill is a mather of some debate).

John Brown is a good and bad example. One can definitely find varying depictions of him in the history books (depending upon time period and region). Is what he did right? Did it help to end slavery (many would say that he did)? Did the ends justify the means? Was he a revolutionary or just reacting to a bad situation? Kansas was being actively attacked by pro-slavery individuals, the Harper's Ferry raid didn't happen in a vacuum. It's a tricky, tricky question and calling it black *or* white is wrong. eta: Oh, I think he's a bad example *only* because he is so, incredibly controversial. Probably THE most controversial figure in American history. Questionable views from otherwise upstanding citizens are easier to debate, iykwim.

[PenKase]

Please forgive the hijack here, but where does someone like me, who so desperately wants to impart a solid knowledge of history but often gets stuck on what, when, where to impart said knowledge to my kiddos (ages 10 & 6), even begin to tackle this massive subject called history?!?!? You all seem to know where you're going. Any advice??? Thanks in advance for not throwing pebbles!!

Edited June 11, 2010 by PenKase
spelling error

[Sophia]

This is *often* used to explain actions and is nearly always a cop-out (at best). Is it? I don't know where other people go with it. I certainly was not intending to excuse Prince Henry's attitudes about slavery, just make it clear that it was what it was, and that he, like many people, allowed the times to influence his actions. (forgive me if I used too many commas. Still working on my first cup of coffee.) There were men and women throughout history who opposed slavery, even when commercial slavery (which was extremely different from slavery of the past) was at its high point. Absolutely. Which is why I included this statement {“But how could he imagine a world without slaves?” is an excellent way to encourage children to think critically about what we accept in the world around us.} as I want to challenge my children to do what is right in God's eyes, not man's. This is used to justify the fact that some founding fathers owned slaves, even though some were adamantly opposed to slavery. I have a serious problem with the train of thought that excuses people from certain actions because they were products of their time. As I hope I made clear, I was not trying to excuse him. :)

 

.

Edited June 11, 2010 by Sophia
clarity

[TracyP]

You can say that Thomas Jefferson was wrong to own slaves without diminishing the great things that he did. In fact, I think this is extraordinarily important. Politicians, past and present, are people. They are capable of stupid things, wrong things and great things, all at once. This sort of study of history makes kids realize that *they* can make a difference, no matter how flawed they are, because *everyone* has flaws, everyone makes mistakes.

 

:iagree:I thought this was a great point.

 

I may be naive as a newbie on these boards. Really I don't know anyone who would not use these "evil" books for teachable moments. It makes me sad to hear that may not always be the case. Are you saying some people argue that this stuff was "supposed" to happen? Now I feel really naive.:tongue_smilie:

 

I realize some books may be so off that they don't even merit the time of day but I am not overly sensitive to some of this. I wonder if it is just because I see the opportunity for discussion. Is there going to be any book (written above a 6th grade level) that does not need some discussion of the author's POV? I hear enough arguments about "interpreting" today's news. It is much harder to wade through something that happened 100 or 1000 years ago.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

I'm afraid that I am not going to be able to resist responding to your title, rather than to your actual question. (Clears throat.)

 

The most evil history book that I, personally, have encountered, is called "The World of Columbus and Sons." It is by Genevieve Foster and could have been written by the slave traders, LOL. (The only reason that I still have it is that I don't want anyone else to read it! :lol:)

 

Julie

 

So does this mean I should not consider it? Her books have good reviews on Amazon. Is there something I should know about these books? I appreciate your help:)

 

Update: I just read through the other posts and have a better idea. Any insights will be appreciated. I think if the Foster books are rich in language and a good read, then I would still find them useful and could use the sticking points as the basis of a good discussion with ds. I would also hope to use more accurate sources of history as well.

Edited June 11, 2010 by priscilla

[stripe]

Thank you for the thoughtful comments. I find so many of the books touted by CM fans to be so outdated, with such a fixation on depicting non-Europeans as savages and/or weirdos:

 

e.g.

HOW strange were those Ishogos! They were unlike all the other savages I met. What a queer way to arrange their hair! It requires from twenty-five to thirty years for Ishogo woman to be able to build upon her head one of their grotesque head-dresses.

Paul du Chaillu, The Country of the Dwarfs, "A Warlike Race of Savages" chapter

 

 

FAR away in the warm country lives a little brown baby; she has a brown face, little brown hands and fingers, brown body, arms, and legs, and even her little toes are also brown.

"The Little Brown Baby" chapter

 

It would seem very strange to you to be perched up so high on a camel's back, but Gemila is quite accustomed to it.

"Gemila, the Child of the Desert" chapter

 

IN this part of the world, Manenko would certainly be considered a very wild little girl. I wonder how you would enjoy her for a playmate. She has never been to school, although she is more than seven years old, and doesn't know how to read, or even to tell her letters; she has never seen a book but once, and she has never learned to sew or knit.

If you should try to play at paper dolls with her, she would make very funny work with the dresses, I assure you. Since she never wore a gown or bonnet or shoes herself, how should she know how to put them on to the doll? But, if she had a doll like herself, I am sure she would be as fond of it as you are of yours; and it would be a very cunning little dolly, I should think.....

It would be a wonderful thing to you and me to see all these strange or beautiful animals, but Zungo and his father have seen them so many times that they are thinking only of the meat they will bring home; and taking their long spears, and the basket of ground-nuts and meal which the mother has made ready, they are off with other hunters before the sun is up.

"The Little Dark Girl Who Lives in the Sunshine" chapter

all from "The Seven Little Sisters Who Live on the Round Ball that Floats in the Air" by Jane Andrews

 

Then, without being seen, they surrounded the little men, who were working away among the bushes with lighted torches to keep off the bees, as they dug out the honey. They were such men as the Portuguese had never seen before—naked indeed, like the men of Guinea, but not so black. They were filthy and small, almost as much like baboons as men; and their hair was twisted in beads, stuck here and there upon their heads like black peppercorns. But their language was the strangest part of them, for, as one of the old sailors put it, they "clocked in their speech like a brood hen."

"Vasco de Gama" chapter, Ian D. Colvin, South Africa

 

even Margaret Morley's The Bee People (p 91), ostensibly a book about bees:

Basketless, stingless, with no honeysac, and no serviceable nectar-gathering tongue, he is almost as helpless as a Chinese lady.

Only she is purposely made helpless, and he is born so.

A Chinese girl baby has as good feet as any baby, and they would grow as large as other people's if it were not the fashion for the mothers to squeeze the poor little tootsie-wootsies into small ugly shoes that hurt the babies terribly and make them as cross as crabs. It serves their mothers right, too, when they are cross. Think of crippling them all their lives so they can neither work nor do anything useful.

 

 

The cumulative effect of these sorts of descriptions is other than humanizing.

Edited June 11, 2010 by stripe

[FairProspects]

I think it happens all the time that moms read right through the word "savage" without blinking.

 

I agree, and as a person in the 21st century, I find this incredibly infuriating. However, "savage" is how contemporaries at many different points in history described other civilizations (Africans during the slave trade, the Irish up through parts of the 19th century, Native Americans in the New World) and I do think it is important to discuss imperialism in history, which created these kinds of derogatory words.

 

I used to just skip over uses of offensive words like "savage" until I was enlighted by an honest-to-goodness modern day imperialist, and then I realized there was a paradigm behind his use of the word. Now I feel these words are a often red flag, pinpointing a worldview worth examining and debating rather than just dismissing, even if the rhetoric couching that point of view is initially inflammatory.