s/o evil history books thread

[Lovedtodeath]

I personally think there existed, in some previous times, an air of civility that is completely absent now. Sin has (and will always exist) but in this country, there seems to be a need for basic mannerly behavior to be taught. Older authors exhibit this in their language and modern authors do not. That is one (out of many) reasons I often choose older books.

 

As for TOG, it should be said they do not use any kind of "textbook" approach. They do not use any of the objectionable writings as the "main" history book. My 2 years of experience would classify it as a "literature immersion program" for history and worldview.

:iagree:I see no difference between a "history" book and a "literature" book when one is using this approach. I agree about the air of civility as well.

[justasque]

>>1. Naivety....

>>2. This was already mentioned but a lot of hs'ers would rather explain the wrong in a books presentation of Native Americans than explain the wrong (in their view) of a books presentation of gays....

>>3. This goes along with #2 but TOG offers around 900 books just in their primary resources. They cannot have an easy job.

 

1. Naivety makes sense. Not everyone has the reading skills or the history background to do a critical analysis of every book they use! I certainly don't. I'm not claiming to have all the answers, especially when it comes to history (or science)! I'm just asking questions to learn more. But that's kind of why I personally would rule out a book with the passages that a previous poster linked to. If the books has stuff that is that blatantly wrong, what other subtle things are there that I might miss? It's *because* I am *so* not a history expert that I want to use sources that I generally trust.

 

2. I guess I'm used to buying things from places like Rainbow Resource, who make an effort to describe any potential problem areas up-front, so that each family can decide whether a particular resource is appropriate for them. I went on the TOG web site and, at least at first glance, there was no warning that the book might have some sections that might be problematic for some families. The description didn't mention anything at all.

 

Stories from the history of the United States beginning with a full account of exploration and settlement and ending with the presidency of Woodrow Wilson, this book has 99 chapters under seven headings: Stories of Explorers and Pioneers, Stories of Virginia, Stories of New England, Stories of the Middle and Southern Colonies, Stories of the French in America, Stories of the Struggle for Liberty, and Stories of the United States under the Constitution. Another winner from H.E. Marshall that is used beginning in Year 2, Unit 2 and continues through Year 3 Unit 4 (There are a handful of pages that can be used in Year 4, Unit 1, but we won't assign them. However, feel free to use them if you own the book already.) Questions in the Student Activity Pages are directly tied to this title, so it won't be easy to substitute, although it is available for free online. 636 pages PB

 

Amazon is a bit better:

"This Country of Ours: A Classic United States History Book" is a well-known children's history book of the United States by the best-selling British author, Henrietta Marshall. This classic book tells the story of America from the start of the settlements to 1912, ending with the presidency of Woodrow Wilson. In " This Country of Ours: A Classic United States History Book," Marshall tells a riveting story of America's history that can't help but engage the attention and hearts of young readers. Because she wrote a hundred years ago, Marshall sometimes used words that we wouldn't choose today (such as "savages"). Despite such usages and a few historical inaccuracies, " This Country of Ours: A Classic United States History Book " is a great tool for helping children to understand how perspectives of history change and that points of view influence the retelling. Marshall wrote with an engaging, delightful, and interesting style, weaving in some of the Christian morals and biblical truths that influenced the founders of our nation. Filled with about 100 years of history which is broken down into regions, " This Country of Ours: A Classic United States History Book " remains an excellent read.

 

3. I realize one curriculum can't please anyone, and one "school in a box" program can't be a perfect fit for every child.

 

Please understand - I am in no way bashing this curriculum or the people who use it. I came across this thread, found it interesting, and was surprised that homeschoolers would use a book that seemed so out-of-date and inaccurate in its portrayal of Mormons and Native Americans (going by the passages linked by a previous poster). Of course we all pick and choose, and use material we disagree with for discussion (Tintin comes to mind in my house), but these passages seemed to go a bit further than that, and since there are other Christian curricula out there which don't use this book, I assume there are other/better choices that can be made, so I wondered why TOG chose this one, and how those who use TOG felt about this choice.

 

FWIW, I'm using History of US, and so far I've been very happy with it. I haven't found anything offensive, the stories are interesting, and the author is very careful around the difficult conflicts that are inevitable in the study of history. Not trying to push this series in any way, just kind of surprised at the difference in accuracy and tone between the two books.

 

Just out of curiosity, I looked at some more of the book:

 

They [the Spanish] came in all the pomp and splendour of warfare; they brought also the Cross of Christ, threatening the heathen with death if they did not bow to Him and be baptised.

 

The section on Florida mentions "the Thimagoes", apparently a Native American tribe. When I googled it, I only found references to this tribe in Marshall's books, which I find strange if it is/was a real tribe.

 

I liked the section on Ben Franklin.

 

The section on Salem seemed to be somewhat inaccurate about the facts. The intro paragraph was interesting:

WE have all read stories about witches, but we do not really believe in them. They are exciting enough to read about, but we know they are merely bad-fairy sort of folk who are only to be met with in books, and not in real life. We should be very much astonished, and rather frightened perhaps, if we thought that witches were real, and that we might some day meet one.

 

I don't have time right now to look further. Interesting stuff!

[siloam]

There is NO defense to the long and sad and unjustifiable actions against Native Americans in this country. Whether they termed themselves "Providentialists" or not... I believe many (not all) of those who perpetrated these crimes over the course of our history had little or no belief in any higher power. They justified their actions under the cover of religion and it was disgusting. They were a law unto themselves. My arguments went in a different direction altogether. But much less important today. Just know that here we do agree.

I agree.

 

I do like providential material, but don't define providential the same way. To me providential is looking at the ways we know God worked in history (via Bible) and at times looking at ways he possibly working in history (like using the Great Awakening to unite the colonies before the American Revolution). But this is speculation. God hasn't stated He did this, it is just an interesting thought, but it assume it was God's will for America to come into being and honestly I can't say that was his perfect will, because He hasn't stated it. It was obviously his permissible will because America exists today.

 

Back to Guerber, it doesn't paint the Europeans as evil, but neither do I remember it painting them as saints. It doesn't cover the Great Awakening (a religious event). My feeling is the book is much more neutral, just stating what happened. I know that the way in which things are stated can be taken as bias, but it seems to avoid that. For example I was glancing through a chapter on Columbus and it stated that he was having trouble collecting tribute from the Native Americans and that the Native Americans often rebelled. But that is all it states. It doesn't make a judgment on either side. The chapter is about how Columbus fell out of favor with Spain.

 

Hope this helps given answers and not inflame arguments.

 

Heather

[Spy Car]

Naiveté makes some sence in how a particular book might end up in a parents hands. I read This Country of Ours believing, naively, that it might be a good history book to use with my son.

 

But upon reading it, the naiveté vanished. This is not a work whose innacuracies, bigotry, and flat-out racism are somehow masked. It leaps off the page, as anyone who bothers to read the sections I lined to will immediately see.

 

So can we get "suckered" into ordering a book that proves to be objectionable when we are just operating in a spirit of good-will? You bet!

 

But the publishers of TOG must be familiar with This Country of Ours. If they are too naive to see the blatant racism they don't belong in the education business. And if they are not naive (as I would assume) then they are guilty of something worse than poor-judgement in selecting this work for inclusion in TOG.

 

Beyond that, I think there is a duty among parents who discover these sorts of materials in use, to speak up about them. It is one thing to be fooled, it is another thing to be complicit in being silent while this smut is disseminated.

 

Bill

Edited June 13, 2010 by Spy Car

[TracyP]

Pauline,

 

I cannot defend TCoC - I have never even read it. That is not my goal. It sounds like TOG may need to make an update in the future.

 

My new RR catalog came last week. P. 835 describes TCoO: 99 exciting stories from American history...(lengthy description of the 7 parts the book is grouped into)....great supplementary reading or read aloud. Recommended for 5-9 year olds.:confused:

[Sophia]

I read This Country of Ours and I think: This a racist and deeply bigoted work. And one quite inappropriate for use as a history text for children.

 

And so I'm writing about what I'm thinking.

 

Read. Think. Write.

 

Now, I *think* some people are missing that second step. THINK.

 

And maybe the third step too, if they don't write to these Somerville folks and demand answers for why in the name of goodness they would include such foul works in TOG. WRITE!

 

Read. Think. Write.

 

Bill

 

(Cute :))

 

Far be it from me to cast a slur upon the name of one who is compelled to write to ToG and protest the materials used.

 

My purpose in responding to you was not to defend TCoO, but defend ToG, and their customers who trust ToG enough to guide them and their children through their history studies.

 

What lovemyboys said earlier bears repeating "Painting everyone who uses certain resources as depraved, racist, clueless, etc., sounds like authoritarian hyperbole, if I may say so. It ignores historical context and seems rather shrill and uninformed. There's a big difference between having dc read Mein Kampf for historical reference/discussion and using it as a text to indoctrinate them.

 

But then again, I don't go in for characterizing books that I don't personally care for or use as evil, as if my word should be the final authority. I would not presume to make that assumption for another family. Ime, homeschoolers don't usually go in for that kind of censorship."

 

You said "I think using this book as a history text is depraved. (Spycar)"

 

I'll grant it may not be what I choose, but to cast a slur upon people who do is something I'm not willing to do.

[stripe]

I'm beginning to suspect some people like the content.

 

And perhaps others have world-views that assume humankind is evil/depraved so they are unfazed that groups they presumably don't belong to (the non-elect) are characterized as murderous savages, or shifty dishonest horse-thieves or whatever other slanders Marshall might sling.

 

 

HSers in general seem obsessed with "the good old days". Typically this is because the nation was "more christian" "back then".

 

Of course that is all nonsense.

 

But that is why these ghastly books are preserved and lauded by conservative curricula. Because people prefer to continue to glorify what never was rather than think critically about what actually occurred.

 

I find the idea that it's "civilized" or "civil" to speak a certain way about certain groups of "uncivilized" people, to be a deceptive form of civility. Rather like a flowery insult. It may sound nice, and allow us to have a good chuckle at someone else's expense (while making us feel better about ourselves, somehow), but it has an awfully rotten meaning. And, ultimately, if we have to boost ourselves up by denigrating others, how civil or civilized are we?

[siloam]

I'm not familiar with TOG, or MFW, or HOD, but aren't they all basically offshoots of Sonlight? Aren't they basically trying to get in on Sonlight's market?

Nothing is every that simple. LOL!

 

MFW and HOD seem to me to be very religious focused. By that I mean they have other topics revolve around the Bible, use the Bible to teach phonics handwriting, ect... Another distinctive feature is they have hands on and the reading schedules are lighter than SL.

 

Winter Promise's creator actually was a SL user, but modified it, and everyone kept asking how she did so, which eventually lead to making a business out of it. It includes hands on, and lighter books as well as a lighter reading schedule. My kids need daily hands on and the SL book choices were way to emotional when covered back to back for my kids. SL doesn't work for us but WP does.

 

TOG is in a different playing field. It is patterned off of WTM, doesn't have a set schedule like the others and has way more of everything. You have to be able to pick and choose and say no to perfectly good stuff. You can also easily substitute books, where with the other companies you mess up the schedule by doing so.

 

Each fills different needs for different families.

 

 

I am not familiar with "providential" history, though I think I've heard the term before. Is it basically the idea that God loves America and wants America to lead the world, something like that? America is a wealthy, powerful country, but maybe in 100 years (or before, lol) China or India will be in that position.

Not in my book, by any means. I love the providential feel of TOG, but by that I mean the way they use the Bible as fact in the OT, looking for the hand of God at work as he stated it. Anytime after the period of the Bible you are speculating, because God has chosen not to tell us what He is up to.

 

Personally I hope America isn't His representation, because if we are then we are overdue for judgment, such a poor representation we have been. :001_huh: I think anyone who assumes to know the mind of God in this way is very misguided. That doesn't mean that I don't talk about possibilities with my kids, like was the Great Awakening God's hand to help unite the colonies? We just don't know, but it is interesting to consider. If it was that doesn't mean that it was God's hand setting up America as His country either, it could just be a judgment on England, or simply the power needed to be broken up and not held by one country. God simply doesn't tell us.

 

Obviously we all have different definitions of just the term providential.

 

Heather

[Spy Car]

My purpose in responding to you was not to defend TCoO, but defend ToG, and their customers who trust ToG enough to guide them and their children through their history studies.

 

Trust ought to be earned. How in the world is someone to "trust" TOG when the use This Country of Ours and recommend woks like Van Loon?

 

Why would they? How could they?

 

What lovemyboys said earlier bears repeating "Painting everyone who uses certain resources as depraved, racist, clueless, etc., sounds like authoritarian hyperbole, if I may say so.

 

Defending the indefensible sounds bad to me Sophia.

 

It ignores historical context and seems rather shrill and uninformed. There's a big difference between having dc read Mein Kampf for historical reference/discussion and using it as a text to indoctrinate them.

 

As I mentioned, I read Mein Kampf as a child (hoping to get a better understanding of the evils of Nazism. But Mein Kampf is a primary source document. TCoO is not a primary source document, and if memory serves, refers to no primary source documents. There is a big difference.

 

I'll grant it may not be what I choose, but to cast a slur upon people who do is something I'm not willing to do.

 

Cute :001_rolleyes:

 

Bill

[justasque]

Pauline,

 

I cannot defend TCoC - I have never even read it. That is not my goal. It sounds like TOG may need to make an update in the future.

 

My new RR catalog came last week. P. 835 describes TCoO: 99 exciting stories from American history...(lengthy description of the 7 parts the book is grouped into)....great supplementary reading or read aloud. Recommended for 5-9 year olds.:confused:

 

Wow - thanks for doing that legwork, TracyP! Now my faith in RR is somewhat shaken. (And thanks for the heads up - I'll be watching my mailbox for the new RR catalog - I've already got the old one marked up and dog-eared with next year's choices!) As others have pointed out, perhaps TOG never even uses the chapters that we've seen issues with. My thoughts are mainly - why make do with something that flawed, if so many much better choices are available?

[nmoira]

TCoO is not a primary source document, and if memory serves, refers to no primary source documents. There is a big difference.

Unless one is using it for a study of a cross-section late Victorian (New) Imperialist attitudes in children's history books.

 

;)

[Avila]

My thoughts are mainly - why make do with something that flawed, if so many much better choices are available?

 

I think this is one of the issues. I don't think there are that many better choices for younger kids. I have a hard time finding any really good options for American history for kids under 4th grade, although there are a few Catholic spines that I have used and find acceptable for us. I don't like TCoO, and I didn't like it before this discussion came up, and I don't think using it is a good decision for these curriculum providers to be making, but I sure haven't seen too many alternates out there for younger children either.

 

The series Bill mentioned seems wonderful (thank you, Bill!). I checked the first one out of the library, and I am impressed. But I don't think I would use it for younger kids.

 

And just out of fairness to TOG, TOG is only ONE of the many companies out there using this book. Check out most of the CM lists, and you will find it on there. Even HO is using TSOM. And you really can use any of these programs and just sub out the books you find offensive. Really.

 

I think you have a lot of people who like the methodology of a program and use the recommended resources because it is easier than making the substitutions or because they don't know what to use instead. I am not sure why the PROGRAMS are recommending them. I would love to know the answer to that one.

 

ETA: I think the other issue with the CM programs is the cost involved. They tend to use things you can get free online, and that necessitates using older books. And while the Drama of American History series looks wonderful, you would be investing a small fortune to get them all new. (OTOH, I still like them a lot better than Hakim ...)

Edited June 13, 2010 by Asenik

[Lovedtodeath]

One thing I like about WinterPromise is that when they find what is out there to not be a good fit, they make their own. (Thus we have WinterPromise exclusives). I have done the same with a couple of books. I will not comment on ToG as I have never used them or looked seriously into using them.

[justasque]

I think you have a lot of people who like the methodology of a program and use the recommended resources because it is easier than making the substitutions or because they don't know what to use instead. I am not sure why the PROGRAMS are recommending them. I would love to know the answer to that one.

 

Yes, this makes sense. I know, too, that some of us have access to amazing public libraries and some don't. I don't have to worry about finding the one perfect book, because we can check out handfuls on any given subject. But all the more reason that the full-curriculum programs should make better choices, I'm thinking.

 

I was also wondering what level the programs use this book for? Some posters (if I remember right) said that they used it with older kids who would understand <old book = sometimes problematic> and could discuss the issues involved, but reading it I would put it at 2nd or 3rd grade level, at the most, and for those kids it's likely to be their first introduction to the subjects involved. If a kid's first introduction to Mormons or Native Americans implies that such people are "lesser" in some way, rather than people who share our basic values (love their kids and families, etc.), then that idea can become pretty deep-seated, though subtle.

 

My family has done early history mainly through historical fiction (which sometimes has issues but at least is not presented as fact), field trips, hands-on activities, library books, etc. I didn't use a "spine" until they were ready for History of US, which I like.

[siloam]

Bill,

 

I must admit I am disappointed in you. Not that you dislike that book, I don't like it either, but you attack TOG without even asking if TOG schedules it or how it treats the material. TOG also uses History of the US (though not the Civil War book) and that series is liberal, so TOG doesn't shy away from book choices that don't agree with their point of view. I see nothing in the Teacher Notes to support the point of view of this book.

 

I looked up the week where Mormons are covered, and the first thing that I notice is that it is not a major topic. The focus that week is on Polk and the Mexican-American War. This Country of Ours is not the main text used it is listed as an in-depth option for the D level. Some people use in-depth material and some don't. The chapter you linked is not scheduled. I which I could say that chapter isn't scheduled at all, but it is. In week 21 it is listed with Buchanan. I have the digital format so I searched the student pages and teacher notes for references to Mormon/Mormonism that week and the only one I found was a question at the R level about the war in Utah and how Buchanan had the governor replaced. Nothing about Mormons at all. I do which TOG would deal with the material in the book if they are going to schedule such a book.

 

Overall do I like that the book is in TOG? No. Having used TOG and the LG and UG levels for this time period I can tell you that the view of Mormonism we got was actually quite positive focusing on how essential they were to the pioneers moving west, with the only negative being how they were treated which forced them to continue to move till they found a home in Utah. At the D and R levels the Church History section does ask thinking questions that deal with the differences between beliefs, I am sure. I didn't check, but I would be surprised if they didn't. It is a Christian based curriculum. I find TOG tries to simply answer the questions and not make judgments on them, unlike Marshal. The other interesting thing is TOG did NOT have Our Country's Story scheduled in the classic version at all. That leads me to suspect that it was asked for, a popular demand kind of thing or they chose it to be contrary, and like others have suggested expose the child to other points of view (as SL does with History of the US in Core 100). Though if they are not dealing with the materiel then the second doesn't seem likely. I don't know. You would have to ask. All I know is I won't use it, but I often don't use their recommended books.

 

The beauty of TOG is that you can make it your own, that is why I use it. I agree that having the book there is disturbing. That people might have asked for it even more disturbing. I will have to go seach the TOG forums and see if the question has already been asked and answered, if not then I will have to ask it myself.

 

Heather

[justasque]

TOG also uses History of the US (though not the Civil War book) and that series is liberal,

 

I'd be interested in hearing more about concerns about HUS.

[Avila]

I'd be interested in hearing more about concerns about HUS.

 

This is a detailed review from the Catholic POV:

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

 

I don't like Hakim. I haven't read the whole series, but I have read two of the books and samples of other ones from our local library. I have many of the same concerns as in the review above. I find her tone to be condescending and demeaning in places. What other people find as charming and personable, I see as blatantly inserting her bias as the truth. It is OK to have a bias (all historians do), but I want them to admit it and not present it as fact. I just feel like she doesn't make much attempt to be balanced or fair.

 

I did not see the same problems in the one volume of Drama of History that I have been able to get ahold of, so I am hoping that holds true across the board so I can use that instead for logic stage American history.

Edited June 13, 2010 by Asenik

[elizabeth]

Simplicio and the Pageant of Philsophy is but one example of TOG that chaps my hide. Please know that as a student of a philosophy program that is outstanding and led to admission to three graduate schools with a stipend and TA position, these little predigested tidbits that distort what the greatest minds in history have thought about the important ideas are a grotesque caricature. I would not use this because it is in my opinion woefully mistaking breadth of coverage for depth of thought. Reading tidbits that judge the validity of thought by whether or not a person relies on faith is not in any way reading or doing philosophy. To even call this an introduction to philosophy is a misnomer as there are not readings that are exclusively original source material. For those who have youngsters who wish to learn philosophy I hope you utilize the original works. I can only say that this is for me the equivalent of texts that use revisionist history. Having read Kierkegaard , Nietszche, Wittgenstein I can objectively proffer that you are indeed being led down the garden path if these predigested, scripted type of analysis are going to pass for actual learning about philsophy. This is indoctrination not thinking. If that is what you want for your dc that is fine. For those who want their students to be able to take college level philsophy classes you will need to supplement with actual philosophy texts. That is my area of expertise and the only area in which I have looked deeply enough to comment on.

[Spy Car]

Unless one is using it for a study of a cross-section late Victorian (New) Imperialist attitudes in children's history books.

 

;)

 

Not really, since it is post-Victorian ;)

 

Now for a college level course looking at racism and bigotry in post-Victorian children's history books, and the revival of their use by contemporary homeschoolers in America, now you are talking!

 

Bill

[Lovedtodeath]

 

I did not see the same problems in the one volume of Drama of History that I have been able to get ahold of, so I am hoping that holds true across the board so I can use that instead for logic stage American history.

It is generally a problem for curriculum providers to suggest or use books that are out of print.

[nmoira]

Not really, since it is post-Victorian ;)

 

Now for a college level course looking at racism and bigotry in post-Victorian children's history books, and the revival of their use by contemporary homeschoolers in America, now you are talking!

 

Bill

:lol:

 

I didn't realize TCoO wasn't published until 1917.

[Avila]

It is generally a problem for curriculum providers to suggest or use books that are out of print.

 

Which is part of the reason I can't pick a program to go with, because I like OOP books. Not all OOP or older books have these issues. :D

 

I understand why the programs can't go with them. Just look at the issues SWB has when the Kingfisher goes OOP. But the CM people are choosing books that have been OOP because many of them base their programs on being able to get the books free online, and you can't do that with books currently out and copyrighted.

[Guest]

This is a detailed review from the Catholic POV:

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

 

I don't like Hakim. I haven't read the whole series, but I have read two of the books and samples of other ones from our local library. I have many of the same concerns as in the review above. I find her tone to be condescending and demeaning in places. What other people find as charming and personable, I see as blatantly inserting her bias as the truth. It is OK to have a bias (all historians do), but I want them to admit it and not present it as fact. I just feel like she doesn't make much attempt to be balanced or fair.

 

I did not see the same problems in the one volume of Drama of History that I have been able to get ahold of, so I am hoping that holds true across the board so I can use that instead for logic stage American history.

 

Actually I am not that fond of Hakim's tone either; but she does say straight out at a number of points in the text that she as a historian must make some difficult choices about what to include and what to leave out, that all historians face this, and that inevitably the result colors what is left in. The teacher's guides (I have some for middle schoolers; have not read the elementary guides) also include various discussion questions and activities which ask kids to focus on the language of the text, asking, for instance, whether Hakim seems to approve of early women suffragists, how we can tell, what language the text uses, and whether the reader thinks this is acceptable for a historian to do.

 

This open discussion of the individual historian's role is one of the best I have seen in books aimed at students.

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

I'm beginning to suspect some people like the content.

 

And perhaps others have world-views that assume humankind is evil/depraved so they are unfazed that groups they presumably don't belong to (the non-elect) are characterized as murderous savages, or shifty dishonest horse-thieves or whatever other slanders Marshall might sling.

 

Maybe others are taken in my authority figures who come in sheep's clothing and they are taken in by something that isn't in line with virtue.

 

I don't know. It is very unsettling to me that in this day and age This Country of Ours is used as homeschool curriculum (in the first place) and that some people seem to find that acceptable.

 

To me it seems like the opposite of good.

 

Bill

 

Quite frankly this is just going overboard.

 

You may find this, or any other book, to be objectionable. It is certainly your right as a parent to exclude any book from your child's reading list that you oppose. By now we are all very aware of your opinion of this book and by extension any program that would include it.

 

Speaking up and letting people know your opinion of the text is one thing but to imply that all those who use either the book or the program are "depraved" is really narrow minded and bigoted. As you probably know none (or very few) of these people in real life you are in fact behaving as though you have been designated one of the Orwellian style thought police.

 

I homeschool because I don't want my children subjected to the thought police. I'm sure that we are all caring enough parents that we selectively choose the books we consider appropriate and clearly we don't want anyone else dictating our educational models or judging us based on what and how we study. I'm glad you've stepped in to replace the local authorities.

 

Now unless we want to hold a virtual book burning perhaps we can discuss the relative merits or problems with various texts intelligently without insulting those who use them or use programs that recommend them.

Edited June 13, 2010 by JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst

[siloam]

I did go search the boards, and while I didn't find anything posted by someone who worked for the company I did find a couple of posts by people who have done that level, that book.

 

They stated that it was a theme of the D level to question author bias. I went in and checked and on both weeks covered the child is reading out of 5 different texts, if they read both the history and history in depth scheduled. I also don't know in what week The Country of Ours begins, but that would be the week in which TOG would typically talk about the bias of the author, and the sort of things to keep any eye out for.

 

I wish I had time to go find the week it started and check, but right now I really don't. :D

 

Heather

 

[Lovedtodeath]

Which is part of the reason I can't pick a program to go with, because I like OOP books. Not all OOP or older books have these issues. :D

 

I understand why the programs can't go with them. Just look at the issues SWB has when the Kingfisher goes OOP. But the CM people are choosing books that have been OOP because many of them base their programs on being able to get the books free online, and you can't do that with books currently out and copyrighted.

But the preferred series is not in the Public Domain nor in print, which makes it nearly impossible to build a marketable curriculum around. Just saying... What about Landmark History of the American People? I never see anyone comparing this to History of US. Why is that?

[Avila]

But the preferred series is not in the Public Domain nor in print, which makes it nearly impossible to build a marketable curriculum around. Just saying...

 

Strangely enough, that pretty much is what the Artner Guide does with the old Landmark books (many of which are OOP), although one can argue about how marketable the Artner Guide is at this point. We may use it, but I am in no way worried about marketable. ;) That is what happens when you spend years at library book sales, I guess. And if the curriculum is popular enough, there may become enough of a market for the books and encourage somebody out there to reprint them. It has happened before.

 

But yes, you are right that to make a commercially successful curriculum, you have to be able to offer books that can be easily and economically purchased.

 

The fact that the Drama of American History is currently OOP will discourage wide usage, but it is still fairly available in libraries and you can still buy many of the volumes for a reasonable price online. So individual homeschoolers who are confident enough to do their own lesson plans and/or scheduling would still see it as an option.

 

I have the Boorstin Landmark book that Sonlight uses. I think it is probably not considered for the CM programs because its value as a living book may be questionable. It would certainly be another option for a logic stage history spine.

 

As far as the other stuff goes, I would hate to see this board turn into the kind of place where people are afraid to discuss programs or resources. I think a lot of people who use these programs are feeling attacked and unfairly called out personally. I don't think we can be personally responsible for every single resource a program uses, especially one with lists as long as TOG. We may not like something on the list, and we may not use it, but that doesn't mean the whole program is bad or the people who use it are negligent.

Edited June 13, 2010 by Asenik

[Shelly in the Country]

I also don't know in what week The Country of Ours begins, but that would be the week in which TOG would typically talk about the bias of the author, and the sort of things to keep any eye out for.

 

I wish I had time to go find the week it started and check, but right now I really don't. :D

 

Heather

 

 

 

I don't have time to go through every single week it is scheduled in, and the only "Year" I own where TCoO is used is Year 2 but...

 

From the "Glance into next week" pages before the first TCoO assignment in TOG:

 

"Note the resources may use unsavory terminology(i.e. "savages", "uncivilized", etc.) when referring to the inhabitants of another land. Additionally, the explorers are often praised for doing God's will when in fact they were at times cruel and corrupt."

Edited June 13, 2010 by Shelly in the Country

[Sophia]

HSers in general seem obsessed with "the good old days". Typically this is because the nation was "more christian" "back then".

 

Of course that is all nonsense.

 

But that is why these ghastly books are preserved and lauded by conservative curricula. Because people prefer to continue to glorify what never was rather than think critically about what actually occurred.

 

Sorry, but this generalization needs to go on the shelf right next to "Homeschooled children lack socialization skills."

 

As a conservative christian and ethnic minority born and raised in this country, I have no illusions that life would have better for me and my children 100 or 200 years ago.

[Sophia]

Yeah this. :iagree: Excellent post. TOG is a program that is very much focused on training up children in a Christian worldview. If the folks posting in this thread could read the Discussion notes in the TMs they would very quickly see that TOG is not a racist curriculum. Everything is discussed. I have not read or heard anything about the Somervilles that would indicate they are racist in any way. And the book in question is used for Logic stage students, not little ones. Logic stage kids are SUPPOSED to argue and debate and connect thoughts. I, too, will be reading TCoO to see how bad it actually is.

But...

I don't think the other posters are interested. They have passed judgment already. Based on ONE book. I think someone else mentioned in a different thread that this type of reasoning would "convict" many other literature/CM based history programs. I'd like to know if they take the time to pre-read their history books and categorically reject any book that has even one HINT of denegrating Christians in history.

 

:iagree::iagree:

[siloam]

Simplicio and the Pageant of Philsophy is but one example of TOG that chaps my hide. Please know that as a student of a philosophy program that is outstanding and led to admission to three graduate schools with a stipend and TA position, these little predigested tidbits that distort what the greatest minds in history have thought about the important ideas are a grotesque caricature. I would not use this because it is in my opinion woefully mistaking breadth of coverage for depth of thought. Reading tidbits that judge the validity of thought by whether or not a person relies on faith is not in any way reading or doing philosophy. To even call this an introduction to philosophy is a misnomer as there are not readings that are exclusively original source material. For those who have youngsters who wish to learn philosophy I hope you utilize the original works. I can only say that this is for me the equivalent of texts that use revisionist history. Having read Kierkegaard , Nietszche, Wittgenstein I can objectively proffer that you are indeed being led down the garden path if these predigested, scripted type of analysis are going to pass for actual learning about philsophy. This is indoctrination not thinking. If that is what you want for your dc that is fine. For those who want their students to be able to take college level philsophy classes you will need to supplement with actual philosophy texts. That is my area of expertise and the only area in which I have looked deeply enough to comment on.

 

 

I understand if you don't like them, but did you realize that often the student reads the actually philosopher's writing as well? They don't just do the pageant alone as the child's only exposure. If that was all they covered I would find that a turn off as well. But I do think it can be a fun way to review/tie up what has been read by the student (as a whole and not broken into pieces as the pageant does).

 

Heather

[elizabeth]

I find caricatures of philosopy /philosophers as offensive as others find outmoded history texts . The pageant alone shows me with what seriousness the study of philosophy and its greatest practitioners are held . The entire approach is not my cup of tea. I think as a whole the hsing curricula I have seen does a pathetic job with political science and philosophy. I do appreciate the time and attention you took for a courteous and informative response but remain convinced that philosophy cannot be done well with any of the curricula I have seen.

[felicity]

I am a long-time lurker here and I really hesitate to delurk on this thread...but I am anyway and I hope my input here is okay.

 

I am LDS (or Mormon) and I started out hsing using Ambleside. We loved it, even TCOO for the first few readings until I got uncomfortable having to substitute "savages" so many time. After that I found the chapter on Mormons. These are my ancestors HE Marshal was talking about. That's my family spoken of like that. Honestly, I cried. I threw the book away--the first time I'd ever done that.

 

I tried to continue using AO because I liked the other book selections (I had already taken out the Trial and Triumph book), but couldn't. It was tainted in my mind. And maybe that's my own problem and I'm being judgemental. All I could think of was that The Advisory read that book and thought it was okay for children. And it's not.

 

ToG is not something I've ever planned to use and I respect the families here that are doing their best to hs their children well. But that book. It hurts me that it's out there, with the section on Mormons scheduled or not, being read and being some families only exposure to Mormons.

 

Anyway, I'm sorry for intruding and the emotional sound of this post (not to mention the length). Usually I'm calm and collected. It's that book, I tell ya, the book.

[JudyJudyJudy]

Felicity, thanks for sharing.

[TracyP]

Thanks for de-lurking felicity! This is why this thread has been so excellent when it has been civil and nonjudgmental.

 

I posted earlier about naivety. This is not right but I think sometimes we don't always think about how something affects other people. I read the chapter linked on the Mormons and it is clearly offensive. I think if this discussion hadn't started I would have read that chapter and thought 'Geez, that was unnecessary' but would have gone on reading maybe not dwelling on it. This thread has made me think about it and felicity's post gives me even more to think about.

 

I think this is an important discussion and love the "red flag" idea for this very reason. "Flagging" a book will give a person the option to think about what someone else found offensive/hurtful/untrue/etc and then make an informed decision from there.

[lovemyboys]

No one (not me) painted everyone who uses This Country of Ours as a depraved racist. But that book contains bigotry and racism, and no one seems to be denying that fact.

 

This book is being used as a history text, not as a historical reference, by Tapestry in Grace. Is that acceptable to you?

 

I think it is reprehensible.

 

Bill

 

Bill, I just noticed this series of posts as well as the fact that you may not be able to respond right now.

 

 

Ftr, I'm not a TOG user or familiar with TCoO. What I saw across several posts was that you abhor this book. You've asked repeatedly (again here) if this book is acceptable to people -- a book which you characterize as depraved, racist, bigoted. You did imply that to continue to use it or even have it would be depraved. You've made your point.

 

My point, which is largely from observation and experience with homeschoolers for much of the past decade, is that even if a homeschooling family is using TOG and this resource or any resource for that matter, it is not the only resource and it is not being used in a vacuum. This is why I highlighted several points that redheadeddaughter made as well. And I will repeat that I have no intention of passing judgment on what another family chooses to include, I'm not there, I don't know how it's being used.

 

I didn't mean for you to take it personally when I referred to the repeated invective against one book as authoritarian and/or shrill. It just struck me as the type of behavior that we homeschoolers normally avoid. But I have run into a couple folks who will adamantly denounce a book or curriculum. That's unfortunate. Those of us who spend years homeschooling have enough self-doubt, challenges and schooling to do without our fellow(?) homeschoolers insulting our decisions and/or cherry-picking resources to criticize.

 

In one post, someone didn't care for the example of Mein Kampf that I made. So I'll use another -- Apologia Astronomy for grade school level. It was our spine several years ago and yielded a nice study of the solar system and more with fun little experiments, nice photos, etc. I didn't agree with some of the points made in the text so we skipped over or discussed.

 

A resource can be just that, a resource, without one's agreeing with all of it. Just because we are exposed to some material doesn't mean that we're indoctrinated by it. Who knows? We might come out richer on the other side for having had the discussion.

 

And that's the adventure I intend to have with my children .... rich, varied, inquisitive and joyful.

 

Wishing you well on your own journey if you start homeschooling too. :001_smile:

[elizabeth]

Posted 23 June 2009 08:42 AM Hide Post

Hi Deb,

Yes, we definitely take suggestions! Send to me at Dana@TapestryofGrace.com as it's my duty to review and choose books.

 

Dana C. in TN

Hmm would this be the same Dana as the poster in this thread calling herself redheadeddaughter? If not the same person, my apologies. If it is the same individual it would be nice and honest to state when you are working for a company that writes hsing materials to say so on threads where said company is being criticized and you move to defend it. Again if I am mistaken my apologies . I think that it is less than honest to defend or promote vigourously a program that any person benefits from financially without stating that you do work for the company in question. It is information that bears on how much crediblity to attach to the response.

[Mrs Mungo]

You stated correctly, it is ALL nonsense. Your characterization of conservative and/or Christian homeschoolers portrays as as a bunch of ignorant fools without any awareness of current issues or sensitivities. On the contrary, I think you have seen (on these forums) a great deal of those same conservative homeschoolers "think critically about what actually occurred" and indeed explained how they go about doing that.

 

There are homeschoolers who do address such things with their children and there are homeschoolers who do not. I'll address this in a moment.

 

 

I think I can speak for a great deal of them when I claim we see racism and slavery as a great and terrible sin. One that has existed for thousands of years and still exists today in varied forms.

The problem is recognizing racism when you see it. For example, I (not speaking for anyone else here) believe it is racist to state or imply that Indian Removal was inevitable because they could not conform to the world around them. It's not only racist, it is a lie. It is a lie that re-occurs *over and over and over* in history books.

 

Home of John Ross, (before it was enlarged) his home was *typical* of farmers in the area, white or Native American. Does this look like the home of someone who wasn't fitting in with the culture? This was his boyhood home, he later had a large plantation, did you know it was *raffled off* by the state of Georgia during one of his trips to Washington DC? Many (if not most) history books imply (or state outright) that ceded lands were used for hunting and gathering, this just is not TRUE. MANY Cherokees were wealthy land owners, check the census records. The Cherokees owned everything from mills to steamboats, and (perhaps most devastatingly for them) gold had recently been found on their lands. Removal of the Cherokees was an act of *jealous greed* on behalf of whites and implying it was inevitable because of lifestyle *is* directly racist, in my opinion.

 

The courts found *for the Cherokees* in the SCOTUS. Andrew Jackson chose to *ignore* his constitutional duty to enforce the law and removed them, anyway. Several Christian denominations at the time lobbied *for* the Native Americans, certain political groups fought for Native Americans (including Davy Crockett), these facts are *also* ignored (in other words, they aren't doing white people any favors either, imo). Ignoring all of that makes it easier to say "well, this was a sad but inevitable event." It softens the blow, it excuses it. Saying "all this is part of God's perfect plan for our country," (which certain curricula writers do) not only excuses it, but blesses it!

 

Last year, I helped teach in a history co-op. I showed the kids (kindergartners through seventh graders) photos of several types of Native American homes (a longhouse, a wigwam, a tepee) along with a few couple of different farmhouses. I asked them "what type of home do you think was typical for a Cherokee living in this time period," not ONE (except for my kids) chose a farmhouse. So, when I say that this is misleading children and parents are doing little to correct it, I'm speaking from experience.

 

I haven't seen or used ToG or the history book mentioned in this thread. I can't speak to what they do or do not say. I'm speaking *generally* to how US history books *tend* to address these topics and whether or not parents are combating this attitude.

 

I have repeatedly explained on this board why I think this is important and how one can fight this attitude. I don't think you fight it by ignoring certain authors, on the contrary, I think you must read such authors and then go through the exercises in bias. I discuss it *all the time* with my kids, from the time they are in first grade. eta: The other way you combat it is by providing balance. There are a lot of wonderful, free resources you can use to do this such as this lesson plan: http://www.nps.gov/history/nr/twhp/wwwlps/lessons/118trail/118setting.htm

 

I've taken that quote straight from SpyCars favorite author, Douglas Wilson. I do not agree with everything Wilson writes. But here he is spot on, I believe. As Christians, we consider ourselves "one blood."

Just a heads-up, SpyCar is not a Christian, it seems like you are thinking that he is. He can't speak for himself, forgive me for speaking for him in this case. Edited June 14, 2010 by Mrs Mungo

[redheadeddaughter]

There are homeschoolers who do address such things with their children and there are homeschoolers who do not. I'll address this in a moment.

 

The problem is recognizing racism when you see it. For example, I (not speaking for anyone else here) believe it is racist to state or imply that Indian Removal was inevitable because they could not conform to the world around them. It's not only racist, it is a lie. It is a lie that re-occurs *over and over and over* in history books.

 

Home of John Ross, (before it was enlarged) his home was *typical* of farmers in the area, white or Native American. Does this look like the home of someone who wasn't fitting in with the culture? This was his boyhood home, he later had a large plantation, did you know it was *raffled off* by the state of Georgia during one of his trips to Washington DC? Many (if not most) history books imply (or state outright) that ceded lands were used for hunting and gathering, this just is not TRUE. MANY Cherokees were wealthy land owners, check the census records. The Cherokees owned everything from mills to steamboats, and (perhaps most devastatingly for them) gold had recently been found on their lands. Removal of the Cherokees was an act of *jealous greed* on behalf of whites and implying it was inevitable because of lifestyle *is* directly racist, in my opinion.

 

The courts found *for the Cherokees* in the SCOTUS. Andrew Jackson chose to *ignore* his constitutional duty to enforce the law and removed them, anyway. Several Christian denominations at the time lobbied *for* the Native Americans, certain political groups fought for Native Americans, these facts are *also* ignored (in other words, they aren't doing white people any favors either, imo). Ignoring all of that makes it easier to say "well, this was a sad but inevitable event." It softens the blow, it excuses it. Saying "all this is part of God's perfect plan for our country," (which certain curricula writers do) not only excuses it, but blesses it!

 

Last year, I helped teach in a history co-op. I showed the kids (kindergartners through seventh graders) photos of several types of Native American homes (a longhouse, a wigwam, a tepee) along with a few couple of different farmhouses. I asked them "what type of home do you think was typical for a Cherokee living in this time period," not ONE (except for my kids) chose a farmhouse. So, when I say that this is misleading children and parents are doing little to correct it, I'm speaking from experience.

 

I haven't seen or used ToG or the history book mentioned in this thread. I can't speak to what they do or do not say. I'm speaking *generally* to how US history books *tend* to address these topics and whether or not parents are combating this attitude.

 

I have repeatedly explained on this board why I think this is important and how one can fight this attitude. I don't think you fight it by ignoring certain authors, on the contrary, I think you must read such authors and then go through the exercises in bias. I discuss it *all the time* with my kids, from the time they are in first grade. eta: The other way you combat it is by providing balance. There are a lot of wonderful, free resources you can use to do this such as this lesson plan: http://www.nps.gov/history/nr/twhp/wwwlps/lessons/118trail/118setting.htm

 

Just a heads-up, SpyCar is not a Christian, it seems like you are thinking that he is. He can't speak for himself, forgive me for speaking for him in this case.

 

When I referenced Wilson as SpyCars favorite author, I was being sarcastic. He included Wilson as one of the evil sources in a previous post. :) A lame attempt at humor, I agree.

[redheadeddaughter]

Posted 23 June 2009 08:42 AM Hide Post

Hi Deb,

Yes, we definitely take suggestions! Send to me at Dana@TapestryofGrace.com as it's my duty to review and choose books.

 

Dana C. in TN

Hmm would this be the same Dana as the poster in this thread calling herself redheadeddaughter? If not the same person, my apologies. If it is the same individual it would be nice and honest to state when you are working for a company that writes hsing materials to say so on threads where said company is being criticized and you move to defend it. Again if I am mistaken my apologies . I think that it is less than honest to defend or promote vigourously a program that any person benefits from financially without stating that you do work for the company in question. It is information that bears on how much crediblity to attach to the response.

 

No, that is most def. not me. :) I don't work for any company except my own family. That keeps me pretty busy. I also do not use TOG currently. I have used it and am likely to again at a later stage... albeit with my own book choices.

[Mrs Mungo]

When I referenced Wilson as SpyCars favorite author, I was being sarcastic. He included Wilson as one of the evil sources in a previous post. :) A lame attempt at humor, I agree.

 

I was aware of your sarcasm, I wasn't addressing that so much as your discussion of us having a Christian duty to get along and not have divisions among us.

 

And nothing to me, really?

[Lovedtodeath]

 

I was aware of your sarcasm, I wasn't addressing that so much as your discussion of us having a Christian duty to get along and not have divisions among us.

I took it as pointing out that Christian authors do indeed say that we are "one blood"; there is no room for racial or cultural prejudice.

[elizabeth]

No, that is most def. not me. :) I don't work for any company except my own family. That keeps me pretty busy. I also do not use TOG currently. I have used it and am likely to again at a later stage... albeit with my own book choices.

 

My apologies for any confusion that my inquiry might have caused.

[calandalsmom]

I took it as pointing out that Christian authors do indeed say that we are "one blood"; there is no room for racial or cultural prejudice.

 

Well that's quite a modern turn of events, if it is the case. Christians have quite a history of both racism and cultural superiority. One does wonder why they did bother to save the savages at all given the attitudes some expressed.

[Lovedtodeath]

:banghead:

 

I was just trying to explain someone else's post. That is how I took it. I am sorry I got involved at all.

Edited June 15, 2010 by Lovedtodeath

[Mrs Mungo]

I took it as pointing out that Christian authors do indeed say that we are "one blood"; there is no room for racial or cultural prejudice.

 

Okay, I took it as an admonishment that we should have no divisions.

 

I'm not sure what to think of arguing it the way you describe.

 

We aren't really different races, therefore these racist textbooks aren't that bad? :confused:

[Lovedtodeath]

 

We aren't really different races, therefore these racist textbooks aren't that bad? :confused:

:lol: Okay, I will refrain from trying to explain someone else's posts.

[Mrs Mungo]

:lol: Okay, I will refrain from trying to explain someone else's posts.

 

I don't think the problem is with you, it's with me. I think the problem is that I'm not understanding the connection between the two sentiments. I'm a Christian, so I don't think all Christians are racist or culturally insensitive in the first place. Was the statement in question just aimed at Bill (if so, that's kind of a rude assumption)? Or is there a connection that I'm missing?

[stripe]

Ah, but some of us are human, whereas others of us are not. ;)

[TracyP]

Well that's quite a modern turn of events, if it is the case. Christians have quite a history of both racism and cultural superiority. One does wonder why they did bother to save the savages at all given the attitudes some expressed.

 

I really think I shouldn't wade into this but .....here I go. I don't think it is even fair to call the people who were behind some of the horrible things that happened at the beginning of the USA Christians. Really I'm no judge (I'll leave that to God) so I can't say - but actions speak louder than words.