JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst Posted June 11, 2010 Share Posted June 11, 2010 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 this actually depends on your definition of peer. Adams and Jefferson lived in the US colonies at the same time, were both involved in our early government and struggle for independence. And both came from families that were involved in slavery. In Adams case (at least according to the rangers at the Adams National Historic Park) it was on his wife's side of the family. The slave in question was given the choice at Abigail's parent's death to remain the property of Abigail and Abigail would receive funds to care for this person or the slave could take the money themselves and choose to be free. The man chose freedom and then continued to work as John and Abigale's farm foreman. Adams frequently had to bite his tongue in debates about slavery to keep the peace between the colonies/states. The difference between the north and south at that time is in their distinct cultures. The southern economy and lifestyle was dependent on slavery. The difference was that Adams lived in a climate where freeing slaves was acceptable and successful. Jefferson lived in another climate altogether. (Wilberforce lived in yet a third climate.) This is the classic North/South struggle that you see from the debates about rights and freedoms in the Continental Congress, through the Civil War and the Civil Rights Movement. These men may be contemporaries but perhaps peers is going a bit far. I'm certainly not defending the institution of slavery, which sitting in my internet connected 21st century home is clearly wrong. I'm just not willing to impose my modern views on the people who lived 200+ years ago. Yes, you are correct-I am more than happy to teach my children that historical figures can be both great and flawed. In this case, I'm just not willing to go so far as to say Jefferson had a realistic choice where slavery was concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shelly in the Country Posted June 11, 2010 Share Posted June 11, 2010 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. I'm just taking issue with this one quote. Um, foot-binding IS bad. Very, very, very extraordinarily baaaad. Evil, even, to take something from the title of this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karenciavo Posted June 11, 2010 Share Posted June 11, 2010 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.... A voice of reason :thumbup1: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TKDmom Posted June 11, 2010 Share Posted June 11, 2010 :lurk5: I have nothing to add to this conversation. :D I'm just enjoying reading it. I never bothered to learn history when I was in school (I'm the product of two engineers and I was only interested in math and science). So I stand in awe of those of you who know so much about historical figures and their motivations. I gonna have to get to work if I want to be able to have intelligent conversations with dc by the time they get into high school. After we read our history pages today, DD asked me what the definition of communism is. I stumbled through an explanation, but then I started thinking and I really don't know the differences between communism, fascism, and socialism. I have no idea if I got it right. :glare: I should get off these boards and go read a book. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karenciavo Posted June 11, 2010 Share Posted June 11, 2010 After we read our history pages today, DD asked me what the definition of communism is. I stumbled through an explanation, but then I started thinking and I really don't know the differences between communism, fascism, and socialism. I know, I often have to ask my ds17, "Wait, is that communism or socialism? What's the difference again?" Which I had my 17 yo brain back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mommyfaithe Posted June 11, 2010 Share Posted June 11, 2010 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. Yep...Senile Evil History Queen here strikes again.... And Dr. kazam LOVES handing me back a book anbd telling "She can not read this one , in good conscience....:glare:" YIPES!!!! Faithe (who really needs a nap.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swimmermom3 Posted June 11, 2010 Share Posted June 11, 2010 Yep...Senile Evil History Queen here strikes again.... And Dr. kazam LOVES handing me back a book anbd telling "She can not read this one , in good conscience....:glare:" YIPES!!!! Faithe (who really needs a nap.) :lol::lol::lol:Yes, I think Dr. Kazam and Swimmer Dude must meet. Though, I am not sure it's safe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stripe Posted June 11, 2010 Share Posted June 11, 2010 I'm just taking issue with this one quote. Um, foot-binding IS bad. Very, very, very extraordinarily baaaad. Evil, even, to take something from the title of this thread. Of course it's bad. But it has nothing to do with bees! To randomly introduce weird behavior from "exotic" peoples in the middle of a natural history book about insects is unusual. It not only suggests a parallel between insects and non-white people, but it is fundamentally irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abbysfriend Posted June 11, 2010 Share Posted June 11, 2010 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 Hehehe, if you don't want anyone else to read it, can you (gasp) burn it instead? LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lovemyboys Posted June 11, 2010 Share Posted June 11, 2010 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: 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 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. I'm not familiar with these books, so I can only refer to the excerpts you include here. I think it strongly depends on the conversations that you have if you use these books. SWB has sections in SOTW that tell of the ancient (Aztecs?) tying a bead to the baby's hair to dangle in front of his eyes and boxing in his young head resulting in a cross-eyed, square-headed king (the ideal). Does that look like a crazy cruel custom to our 21st century eyes? Certainly. As with much of history, there are many things we disagree with today. But to read it and judge the peoples of those times by our standards and sensibilities is pointless and absurd, really. Someone mentioned considering the Battle of Okinawa in Truman's decision wrt the bombs. It also merits discussion that there were days in between the two bombs in which Hirohito could've decided to save his people. He didn't. You also don't lay out the nittygritty details of what slavery "looked like" with a 1st grader. It's enough for them to hear that the conquering tribe/foe often sold their captives into slavery -- world over. And in our house, this sometimes leads to discussions of "man's inhumanity to man" which is in our human nature. Since the beginning of time, again world over. So I get a bit weary of the evil European/American white male schtick too. That's just the past 500 years or so. And the evil in the last 500 years has not been exclusive to that group by any means. When we study history, we try to find original sources. As Sophia said, we always have a couple books going. We read from a variety of points of view and discuss them. If I filter all the books/info my dc ever see to be only from the pov I agree with (regardless of what it is), how do dc learn to deal with conflicting information or new ideas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redheadeddaughter Posted June 11, 2010 Share Posted June 11, 2010 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 isand mutually exclusive from finding racism abhorrent. inherently racist 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. Wow. By that definition you are relegating any and all who subscribe to historical Calvinism to the category of bigot. Am I misreading here? Pretty intense label that I would personally find offensive if I didn't believe you are likely trying to prevent a greater evil. I think the theological concepts you briefly refer to require a much greater investigation to be presented fairly...but that is an entirely different thread. There are people who believe God has a plan for all of mankind (not just America)... within the context of a fallen and sinful world. They are not all racists. It sounds like you have had some encounters with some who are. It saddens me. But it does not justify the label. As for William Bradford, I suggest reading Of Plymouth Plantation from cover to cover before declaring him evil. Archaic maybe. I've never heard a pastor use his words or story to justify any kind of killing, let along genocide. My goodness. There are many instances of mistreatment of Native Americans, but I would not put Plymouth at the top of my list to criticize. By and large they thought of themselves (rightly or wrongly) as missionaries. Although that was secondary to finding economic and religious freedom for their own families. They did not have any desire to destroy a people group. They wanted to convert them. (This might be offensive to some, I understand) And survive at the same time. They were surrounded by death and faced with the unknown. They were unique and very much set apart from the rest of the "white world." Indeed they were fleeing it. Separatist, by their own definition. It is an incredible story that is rarely taught accurately. Bradford was imperfect, but I would never put him in the same category as Hitler or Stalin. As for being naive: that is probably true! :) I haven't encountered a great deal of racism. Maybe the West Coast is different? But then again, I'm not the usual target for it, so it wouldn't be as apparent to me. Which is partly why I believe it is so important to teach a worldview to my children that promotes freedom. How to get there. How to maintain it. How to lose it. And also, who I believe to be the author and originator of true freedom. I think that is the essential building block of preventing racism or unjust intolerance in any form. Anyway. I've probably said too much and deviated from the original post quite a bit. I genuinely appreciate your contributions here. But I also felt the need to defend (a little at least) the theology being attacked. I would be a coward if I failed to defend my own faith from such a grossly inaccurate accusation. I am a Calvinist and I manage to find both slavery and the Holocaust equally reprehensible. I know many who agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted June 11, 2010 Share Posted June 11, 2010 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!! I would never throw stones at someone who was genuinely interested in learning more about history. It's a difficult subject to grasp. Primary source documents are a good place to start. Someone is claiming the south's fight in the civil war had nothing to do with slavery? Read the Articles of Secession for various states, their primary complaints are about how the north is impeding the slave trade. Such a person claim it's about state's rights? You can see in those Articles of Secession that many states wanted federal laws telling northern states that they had to return suspected runaway slaves. For the *south* it was about slavery, for the north it was about keeping the union intact. Sophia, I did not mean to imply that you were excusing anyone. I was merely using it as a jumping off point to explain that authors frequently do excuse their subjects in such a manner. :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: Absolutely, this is what true providential history adherents believe. All of history is according to God's perfect plan. Dominionists go even further. You can see a lot of that rhetoric in certain homeschool catalogs. 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. Personally, I use many books that I disagree with for discussion. However, I would not necessarily recommend them to a mom who just handed books off to her kids and didn't discuss them. kwim? 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. I agree. I think this actually depends on your definition of peer. Adams and Jefferson lived in the US colonies at the same time, were both involved in our early government and struggle for independence. And both came from families that were involved in slavery. In Adams case (at least according to the rangers at the Adams National Historic Park) it was on his wife's side of the family. The slave in question was given the choice at Abigail's parent's death to remain the property of Abigail and Abigail would receive funds to care for this person or the slave could take the money themselves and choose to be free. The man chose freedom and then continued to work as John and Abigale's farm foreman. Adams frequently had to bite his tongue in debates about slavery to keep the peace between the colonies/states. If you look back at my post, you'll see that I said John Quincy Adams, not John Adams, two different presidents. John Quincy Adams and Thomas Jefferson were definitely peers. The difference between the north and south at that time is in their distinct cultures. The southern economy and lifestyle was dependent on slavery. The difference was that Adams lived in a climate where freeing slaves was acceptable and successful. Jefferson lived in another climate altogether. (Wilberforce lived in yet a third climate.) This is the classic North/South struggle that you see from the debates about rights and freedoms in the Continental Congress, through the Civil War and the Civil Rights Movement. I disagree with part of this, especially that the economy was dependent upon slavery. There were plantations in the North using paid labor on similar farms. Sure, you make MORE money by employing children, illegal immigrants or slaves than you otherwise would, but you can make a reasonable amount of money paying a living wage. It is, in fact, better for the overall economy. When the Robber Barons of the 19th century fell, the labor movement was born, the middle class was born and things improved for everyone except the people on the tippy-top of the pyramid. The tippy-top are the only ones who took a financial hit. This is an argument I find *extremely* important because it has continuing resonance today, when worker's rights have been cut, companies are employing more and more illegal immigrants and children overseas, hurting the middle class and history is bound to repeat itself. These men may be contemporaries but perhaps peers is going a bit far. I'm certainly not defending the institution of slavery, which sitting in my internet connected 21st century home is clearly wrong. I'm just not willing to impose my modern views on the people who lived 200+ years ago. Yes, you are correct-I am more than happy to teach my children that historical figures can be both great and flawed. In this case, I'm just not willing to go so far as to say Jefferson had a realistic choice where slavery was concerned. Are you suggesting Jefferson (born 1743, died 1826, president from 1801 to 1809)-and John Quincy Adams (born 1767, died 1848, president from 1825-1829), men separated by only 20 years, both serving in Congress, both born into privilege were not peers? How are they not peers? Certainly, fighting the institution of slavery would take time, it was not something that would change overnight. However, I completely reject the notion that Jefferson had no person choice when it came to his own slaves. You also don't lay out the nittygritty details of what slavery "looked like" with a 1st grader. It's enough for them to hear that the conquering tribe/foe often sold their captives into slavery -- world over. And in our house, this sometimes leads to discussions of "man's inhumanity to man" which is in our human nature. Since the beginning of time, again world over. I agree with the latter. However, the conquering foe-style slavery was *completely* different from the commercial, institutional slavery instituted to farm plantations in the New World with (almost) free labor. If I filter all the books/info my dc ever see to be only from the pov I agree with (regardless of what it is), how do dc learn to deal with conflicting information or new ideas? I wouldn't recommend filtering books in that manner (if you even could), but I know you may not have been arguing with me. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sophia Posted June 11, 2010 Share Posted June 11, 2010 Whoa! Out of breath? ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted June 11, 2010 Share Posted June 11, 2010 There are people who believe God has a plan for all of mankind (not just America)... within the context of a fallen and sinful world. They are not all racists. It sounds like you have had some encounters with some who are. It saddens me. But it does not justify the label. It depends upon how people individually interpret it, I suppose. If someone believes that the intentional massacre of Native Americans, Indian Removal and the Holocaust were part of God's perfect plan, rather than evil perpetrated by man via free will and used by God for a greater good, then yes, I think that person is a bigot. I hardly think it's as harsh as believing Native Americans or Jews are not worthy of God. As for William Bradford, I suggest reading Of Plymouth Plantation from cover to cover before declaring him evil. Archaic maybe. I've never heard a pastor use his words or story to justify any kind of killing, let along genocide. My goodness. There are many instances of mistreatment of Native Americans, but I would not put Plymouth at the top of my list to criticize. By and large they thought of themselves (rightly or wrongly) as missionaries. Although that was secondary to finding economic and religious freedom for their own families. They did not have any desire to destroy a people group. They wanted to convert them. (This might be offensive to some, I understand) And survive at the same time. They were surrounded by death and faced with the unknown. They were unique and very much set apart from the rest of the "white world." Indeed they were fleeing it. Separatist, by their own definition. It is an incredible story that is rarely taught accurately. Bradford was imperfect, but I would never put him in the same category as Hitler or Stalin. I'm sorry, I obviously wasn't specific enough in what I was saying. I most definitely have read Plymouth Plantation and several other books on Bradford and Plymouth. Bradford did not purposely afflict the Native Americans with disease, much of the death had happened before the Plymouth colonists ever arrived. He is no Hitler and I never meant to equate the two. However, his view of history is just as racist, imo. Speaking of a Dutch trade enterprise to trade with an Indian village he said "But their enterprise failed, for it pleased God to afflict these Indians with such a deadly sickness, that out of 1,000, over 950 of them died, and many of them lay rotting above the ground for want of burial. . ." How about his description of an attack on a Pequot village? "It was a fearful sight to see them thus frying in the fire and the streams of blood quenching the same, and horrible as the stink and the scent thereof; but the victory seemed a sweet sacrifice and they gave praise thereof to God, who had wrought so wonderfully for them." Explain to me, a Native American, how this POV is not offensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt_Uhura Posted June 11, 2010 Share Posted June 11, 2010 Mrs. Mungo wrote: "I disagree with part of this, especially that the economy was dependent upon slavery. There were plantations in the North using paid labor on similar farms. Sure, you make MORE money by employing children, illegal immigrants or slaves than you otherwise would, but you can make a reasonable amount of money paying a living wage. It is, in fact, better for the overall economy. When the Robber Barons of the 19th century fell, the labor movement was born, the middle class was born and things improved for everyone except the people on the tippy-top of the pyramid. The tippy-top are the only ones who took a financial hit. This is an argument I find *extremely* important because it has continuing resonance today, when worker's rights have been cut, companies are employing more and more illegal immigrants and children overseas, hurting the middle class and history is bound to repeat itself." Food for thought .... thanks for posting! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shelly in the Country Posted June 11, 2010 Share Posted June 11, 2010 Of course it's bad. But it has nothing to do with bees! To randomly introduce weird behavior from "exotic" peoples in the middle of a natural history book about insects is unusual. It not only suggests a parallel between insects and non-white people, but it is fundamentally irrelevant. Oh ok, gotcha :001_smile:. At first I thought you were trying to say it was judgemental for people to label foot-binding "weird". Carry on :auto:. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PenKase Posted June 11, 2010 Share Posted June 11, 2010 I would love to download your minds and enjoy learning from them at leisure. I have learned a great deal already!!! Thank you all for imparting your wisdom and knowledge. I am humbled and realize that, although not unlearned, I still have a long, long way to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swimmermom3 Posted June 11, 2010 Share Posted June 11, 2010 Our first year of homeschooling, I received the American Indian Prayer Guide as part of a SL core. Given my personal frame of reference, I was very excited; I thought this book told about the various Native American tribes and had copies of their own particular prayers, many of which are absolutely beautiful and inspiring.:tongue_smilie: For me, the reality of the book was neither beautiful nor inspiring. To this day, the thought of that book or SL's 100 Gateway Cities makes my stomach clench and my palms sweat - they are evil in my opinion, the antithesis of much of what my family values. However, and this is where I have trouble with "Red Flag" social groups and "evil history" threads, there are many who would view these books as the heart and soul of their mission work. Understand, hopefully I am not making a character judgment either way. Books like the ones I have listed above that generate vastly different opinions, need dialogue like we are engaging in right now, even if it's hot!:D Anyone here not learn at least one new thing about history that they didn't already know by reading this thread? If I have a question about the suitability of a book, I post a new thread and ask my questions. Someone who is familiar with my likes, dislikes, values, and idiosyncrasies is bound to show up and give me solid information that helps me form my opinion. Better yet, are the posters who say, "I know we disagree on the basic points of this issue but I think you should look at the book for x,y, and z reasons. It might help clarify some of your questions." Looking at a list of "Red Flag" books is passive. Conversations like this increase knowledge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sophia Posted June 11, 2010 Share Posted June 11, 2010 Looking at a list of "Red Flag" books is passive. Conversations like this increase knowledge. :iagree: Excellent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted June 11, 2010 Share Posted June 11, 2010 Looking at a list of "Red Flag" books is passive. Conversations like this increase knowledge. I completely agree. I love conversation...obviously. :tongue_smilie: And Sophia, I never run out of breath! You should know me in real life! :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FO4UR Posted June 11, 2010 Author Share Posted June 11, 2010 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. I'm the OP. I used the term "evil" (tongue-and-cheek) so people would kinda have a clue about what posts I've been following and where I'm leading with asking about a book series. I'm not calling any particular book evil.;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redheadeddaughter Posted June 11, 2010 Share Posted June 11, 2010 It depends upon how people individually interpret it, I suppose. If someone believes that the intentional massacre of Native Americans, Indian Removal and the Holocaust were part of God's perfect plan, rather than evil perpetrated by man via free will and used by God for a greater good, then yes, I think that person is a bigot. I hardly think it's as harsh as believing Native Americans or Jews are not worthy of God. I'm sorry, I obviously wasn't specific enough in what I was saying. I most definitely have read Plymouth Plantation and several other books on Bradford and Plymouth. Bradford did not purposely afflict the Native Americans with disease, much of the death had happened before the Plymouth colonists ever arrived. He is no Hitler and I never meant to equate the two. However, his view of history is just as racist, imo. Speaking of a Dutch trade enterprise to trade with an Indian village he said "But their enterprise failed, for it pleased God to afflict these Indians with such a deadly sickness, that out of 1,000, over 950 of them died, and many of them lay rotting above the ground for want of burial. . ." How about his description of an attack on a Pequot village? "It was a fearful sight to see them thus frying in the fire and the streams of blood quenching the same, and horrible as the stink and the scent thereof; but the victory seemed a sweet sacrifice and they gave praise thereof to God, who had wrought so wonderfully for them." Explain to me, a Native American, how this POV is not offensive. Well, let me preface this response with a recognition that I understand maybe a little bit more why you feel so strongly on the subject. Although it is not the first time I have heard Bradford’s quote from his second-hand account of the Pequot War, the description never fails to make me just feel icky. On a whole bunch of levels. However…. I also think that while not disagreeing with your post, I do feel you’ve left some key information out. And omitting history can be a dangerous bias as well. First, you’ve failed to address the fact that theologically, you can believe God has a purpose (or a plan, as you say) within the context of a sinful world where without the involvement of a higher power, we would all be lost and given over to our basest natures. That is where the concepts of Total Depravity and Predestination come together. There are more ways of approaching these doctrines than I could ever lay out properly here, but suffice it to say the nature of God as good and the nature of man as inherently fallen are key to understanding where these “providentialists†are coming from. They believe God has a hand in history and what they want to do (and in fact they feel the Bible calls them to do) is to track His hand in history to mark His good works, of which there are many. The blame for atrocities, and the sin, falls firmly in the lap of the human race in any and all related theologies I've been exposed to. Again, I fail to do this theology justice (and I too, still struggle with the concept of free will on a regular basis) but my main point here is to highlight that there are many, many different views of God and Man’s Nature and I think your statements oversimplify and condemn too quickly. Secondly, your quotations from Bradford were in both cases, second-hand accounts of a people at war (the Massachusetts Bay Colony being the primary English component here, I believe). His language is archaic, as I’ve pointed out before. But you will find this same language in many accounts from that time period referring to things such as simple as it “pleased God†that corn grew that year or that a woman suffered a miscarriage. Strange to our ears, certainly. That was the way they talked about everything that happened. (Which doesn't make it right, of course) Here is Bradford again talking about the native tribes, this time from a first-hand account: “The condition of this people was so lamentable, and they fell down so generally of this disease, as they were (in the end) not able to help one another; no, not to make a fire, not to fetch a little water to drink, now any to bury the dear; but would strive as long as they could, and when they could procure no other means to make fire, they would burn the wooden trays and dishes they are their meat in, and their very bows and arrows; and some would crawl out on all four to get a little water, and some times die by the way, and not be able to get in again. But those of the English house, (though at first they first they were afraid of the infection,) yet seeing their woeful and sad condition, and hearing their pitiful cries and lamentations, they had compassion of them, and daily fetched them wood and water, and made them fires, got them victuals whilst they lived, and buried them when they died. For very few of them escaped, notwithstanding they did what they could for them, to the hazard of them selves.†Also, with regards to the description of the horrendous killings of the Pequot tribe, you failed to provide a context. Which, although would not justify the icky description, would prove informative. The "English" most definitely were at war with the Pequot. But were they not also allied with the Narragansett tribe against the Pequot in this instance? My understanding of this has been that the Pequot were viewed as an outside, invading tribe. It has been a while since I researched this properly (not since college in fact) but there are some very good reasons why it is difficult to form a complete view of history (or the players) from these accounts. If you believe them when they condemn themselves (as Bradford clearly does in his bloody account), then you must also give some credence to the same source if they show a justifiable reason for war. You cannot use the same source and pick only parts of it to believe. We do not (as far as I know) even have an account from a Native American POV because the English were the only ones to keep a written history of that period. Which really puts us at a disadvantage. But again, the original sources we do have are the best source of history for now. I still do not think this quote characterizes his feelings about the non-white population in general. Bradford frequently states a desire to not only live in peace with the native tribes, but wanting to befriend them (of course, likely with the motive to convert) and indeed reached out to them not only at the beginning of the colony when they were starving, but invited them to his wedding as well. This just doesn't sound like the behavior of someone who sees the Native Americans as "undeserving of God's love" in spite of his clearly Providential view of history. Now I feel I've defended Bradford quite enough for today. I do not like his language here, no matter how it fit within his time period and faith. I cannot justify it and do not wish to. I also do not care to defend the Pequot War and subsequent attack and slaughter as a "just war," as others might (and have). War or not... if it is true (and that fact seems irrefutable) it was a barbaric and reprehensible event. It is a blemish on our history, and should not be defended to the point of justification. But the entirety of the facts (as we know them) should be presented outside of a very inflammatory quote pulled out all by itself. I think this would help us find our common ground, rather than our differences. Resorting to rhetoric is always a bad idea. On either side. (I feel in this case, I am on your side. Although you might disagree with how I get there! :)) And when it comes to race I believe rhetoric and name calling and labels can be so terribly divisive that it causes more problems than it solves. Isn't the purpose of discussions like these to search for the truth? To come together where we can to teach our children to be intelligent and kind adults? To share our history with them in it's truest form (the embarrassing bits as well as those we can be proud of). I personally think that you believe this from reading your other posts. Again, I think our disagreement is mostly a case of semantics. I just wanted to lay out a few more facts for those interested in Bradford and/or Providentialism. And now, I shall go back to lurking for the weekend. And probably reading more of your very insightful posts! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted June 11, 2010 Share Posted June 11, 2010 (edited) First, you’ve failed to address the fact that theologically, you can believe God has a purpose (or a plan, as you say) within the context of a sinful world where without the involvement of a higher power, we would all be lost and given over to our basest natures. That is where the concepts of Total Depravity and Predestination come together. There are more ways of approaching these doctrines than I could ever lay out properly here, but suffice it to say the nature of God as good and the nature of man as inherently fallen are key to understanding where these “providentialists” are coming from. They believe God has a hand in history and what they want to do (and in fact they feel the Bible calls them to do) is to track His hand in history to mark His good works, of which there are many. The blame for atrocities, and the sin, falls firmly in the lap of the human race in any and all related theologies I've been exposed to. Again, I fail to do this theology justice (and I too, still struggle with the concept of free will on a regular basis) but my main point here is to highlight that there are many, many different views of God and Man’s Nature and I think your statements oversimplify and condemn too quickly. I don't know that you've answered my question. Do I think God has a hand in history? Yes. Do I think God has intentionally planned every event in history? No, I don't and I think it's offensive that people do think that way. I'm sorry if some people are hurt by that. Their views are equally hurtful to me. Secondly, your quotations from Bradford were in both cases, second-hand accounts of a people at war (the Massachusetts Bay Colony being the primary English component here, I believe).The first quote was about a Dutch trading group, it didn't have anything to do with war. His language is archaic, as I’ve pointed out before. But you will find this same language in many accounts from that time period referring to things such as simple as it “pleased God” that corn grew that year or that a woman suffered a miscarriage. Strange to our ears, certainly. That was the way they talked about everything that happened. (Which doesn't make it right, of course)Right, I agree that that's how they talked and thought about everything. That's exactly my problem. Forgive me, I'm cutting out the bit about them helping the tribe, I'm not calling Bradford or any of the people involved Hitler, I'm calling them racist, which they were. That doesn't mean they were not merciful at times, even to those they felt lower than themselves. There were white slave owners who were sometimes merciful to slaves, that doesn't make slave owning okay. Also, with regards to the description of the horrendous killings of the Pequot tribe, you failed to provide a context. Which, although would not justify the icky description, would prove informative. The "English" most definitely were at war with the Pequot. But were they not also allied with the Narragansett tribe against the Pequot in this instance? My understanding of this has been that the Pequot were viewed as an outside, invading tribe. It has been a while since I researched this properly (not since college in fact) but there are some very good reasons why it is difficult to form a complete view of history (or the players) from these accounts. If you believe them when they condemn themselves (as Bradford clearly does in his bloody account), then you must also give some credence to the same source if they show a justifiable reason for war. You cannot use the same source and pick only parts of it to believe. We do not (as far as I know) even have an account from a Native American POV because the English were the only ones to keep a written history of that period. Which really puts us at a disadvantage. But again, the original sources we do have are the best source of history for now.I disagree. As a matter of fact, we have a quote from one of the Narragansetts, "It is naught, it is naught, because it is too furious and slays too many men." Clashes between European methods of fighting (to kill and/or exterminate) and Native American styles of fighting (to embarrass and/or subjugate) happened *repeatedly* throughout the Indian Wars and the Indians were often *shocked* at the death tolls and atrocities that resulted. This *is* something that we know from history. Captain John Underhill complained that the Narragansetts fought "more for pastime, than to conquer and subdue enemies." It was a frequent complaint of Europeans of their Indian tribe allies. I still do not think this quote characterizes his feelings about the non-white population in general. Bradford frequently states a desire to not only live in peace with the native tribes, but wanting to befriend them (of course, likely with the motive to convert) and indeed reached out to them not only at the beginning of the colony when they were starving, but invited them to his wedding as well. This just doesn't sound like the behavior of someone who sees the Native Americans as "undeserving of God's love" in spite of his clearly Providential view of history. I'm sorry, but my history tells me otherwise. Please understand, this is not just the distant past for me. Within living memory Native Americans, people I personally know, were taken from their parents, "adopted" by white parents who stole their land and mineral rights, and placed into boarding schools to be forgotten. They had their language and customs beaten out of them. I completely and totally reject the notion that you put forward defending a long, long history of actions against Native Americans based on a providential history ideal. It is this history that makes a providential view of history an inflammatory and offensive one to me. I don't see how you can look at this course of history and claim I'm the one being inflammatory. That's really the bottom line. Do we have common ground? As Christians? As homeschoolers? As parents? I'm sure we do. Can we reach agreement on this topic? Probably not, so, I'll just stop here. eta: Just know, that when people ask if one curriculum or another has a providential view of history, this is why they ask. It is deeply offensive to some people. Edited June 11, 2010 by Mrs Mungo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FO4UR Posted June 11, 2010 Author Share Posted June 11, 2010 . I'm sorry, but my history tells me otherwise. Please understand, this is not just the distant past for me. Within living memory Native Americans, people I personally know, were taken from their parents, "adopted" by white parents who stole their land and mineral rights, and placed into boarding schools to be forgotten. They had their language and customs beaten out of them. I completely and totally reject the notion that you put forward defending a long, long history of actions against Native Americans based on a providential history ideal. It is this history that makes a providential view of history an inflammatory and offensive one to me. I don't see how you can look at this course of history and claim I'm the one being inflammatory. That's really the bottom line. eta: Just know, that when people ask if one curriculum or another has a providential view of history, this is why they ask. It is deeply offensive to some people. Yep. That's why I asked. ...and, please write down your family history and get it published. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redheadeddaughter Posted June 11, 2010 Share Posted June 11, 2010 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst Posted June 11, 2010 Share Posted June 11, 2010 Quote: Originally Posted by JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst I think this actually depends on your definition of peer. Adams and Jefferson lived in the US colonies at the same time, were both involved in our early government and struggle for independence. And both came from families that were involved in slavery. In Adams case (at least according to the rangers at the Adams National Historic Park) it was on his wife's side of the family. The slave in question was given the choice at Abigail's parent's death to remain the property of Abigail and Abigail would receive funds to care for this person or the slave could take the money themselves and choose to be free. The man chose freedom and then continued to work as John and Abigale's farm foreman. Adams frequently had to bite his tongue in debates about slavery to keep the peace between the colonies/states. Mrs. Mungo Quote: If you look back at my post, you'll see that I said John Quincy Adams, not John Adams, two different presidents. John Quincy Adams and Thomas Jefferson were definitely peers. JumpedInto...Quote: The difference between the north and south at that time is in their distinct cultures. The southern economy and lifestyle was dependent on slavery. The difference was that Adams lived in a climate where freeing slaves was acceptable and successful. Jefferson lived in another climate altogether. (Wilberforce lived in yet a third climate.) This is the classic North/South struggle that you see from the debates about rights and freedoms in the Continental Congress, through the Civil War and the Civil Rights Movement. Mrs. Mungo Quote: I disagree with part of this, especially that the economy was dependent upon slavery. There were plantations in the North using paid labor on similar farms. Sure, you make MORE money by employing children, illegal immigrants or slaves than you otherwise would, but you can make a reasonable amount of money paying a living wage. It is, in fact, better for the overall economy. When the Robber Barons of the 19th century fell, the labor movement was born, the middle class was born and things improved for everyone except the people on the tippy-top of the pyramid. The tippy-top are the only ones who took a financial hit. This is an argument I find *extremely* important because it has continuing resonance today, when worker's rights have been cut, companies are employing more and more illegal immigrants and children overseas, hurting the middle class and history is bound to repeat itself. JumpedInto...Quote: These men may be contemporaries but perhaps peers is going a bit far. I'm certainly not defending the institution of slavery, which sitting in my internet connected 21st century home is clearly wrong. I'm just not willing to impose my modern views on the people who lived 200+ years ago. Yes, you are correct-I am more than happy to teach my children that historical figures can be both great and flawed. In this case, I'm just not willing to go so far as to say Jefferson had a realistic choice where slavery was concerned. Mrs. Mungo Quote: Are you suggesting Jefferson (born 1743, died 1826, president from 1801 to 1809)-and John Quincy Adams (born 1767, died 1848, president from 1825-1829), men separated by only 20 years, both serving in Congress, both born into privilege were not peers? How are they not peers? Certainly, fighting the institution of slavery would take time, it was not something that would change overnight. However, I completely reject the notion that Jefferson had no person choice when it came to his own slaves. I am well aware that John Adams and John Quincy Adams are two different men. But, as John Adams and Thomas Jefferson considered each other to be their own contemporary-Adams going so far as to on his death bed express his joy that Jefferson, one of the last living signers of the Declaration of Independence, survived [sadly, Jefferson had died hours earlier, leaving only Carroll I believe.] -I think they are the more apt comparison. Jefferson and John Adams were political rivals and regular correspondents. John Quincy served in Congress while Jefferson was President but that is about as close as their political careers came-this as opposed to Jefferson serving as John Adams' Vice President. My apologies if I acted on the assumption you were referring to father rather than son-I did so because that is how I believe they would have viewed their own relationship. Only 22 years separate me from the daughter of one of my friends but I don't look at her as my contemporary. Thus the reason for my comparison of Jefferson and John Adams-a perhaps more historically accurate measure of the two men. John Adams was also an early abolitionist but sacrificed many of his views to preserve what he considered a greater good-the Union and the preservation of the nation. To say that the southern economy wasn't based on slavery is to ignore history. It may not have needed to be based on slavery and one could certainly argue that the South could have created an economy based on an alternate labor system. However, they did not. The slave owners were the ones at the tippy-top you describe above and they had no desire to fall, let alone create a middle class. Furthermore, their view of the people they enslaved, as incorrect as it was, meant that they viewed them as having no other possible place in society. Jefferson, as you said was a great man with flaws. He was a product of his times as well as his place. Unlike Adams, he was raised in a culture that, from its own perspective, needed slavery to survive. For whatever reason he was unable to overcome that culture and give himself over fully to his abolitionist views. I'm sure that I am in no position to play historian and do anything but guess as to why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lovemyboys Posted June 12, 2010 Share Posted June 12, 2010 I would never throw stones at someone who was genuinely interested in learning more about history. It's a difficult subject to grasp. Primary source documents are a good place to start. ........ Personally, I use many books that I disagree with for discussion. However, I would not necessarily recommend them to a mom who just handed books off to her kids and didn't discuss them. kwim? ...... I agree with the latter. However, the conquering foe-style slavery was *completely* different from the commercial, institutional slavery instituted to farm plantations in the New World with (almost) free labor. I wouldn't recommend filtering books in that manner (if you even could), but I know you may not have been arguing with me. ;) These last two were in response to things I'd posted. And no, they weren't in reference to you at all. I was in another section of the thread and I think your "conversation" was going on later..... no need for concern. I will say that the comment about slavery was rather in response to someone dealing with younger kids. I don't get into too much detail with a younger child. At most, we cover the commercial triangle which brought so many early slaves to the Southern hemisphere (hence the Spanish/Portuguese languages spoken there) and the later progression northward. But I will reiterate that I really dislike the idea of anyone judging for others what is/is not appropriate for their homeschool....however well-meaning it may be. We don't get our current day news from one source, I'd like to teach dc to evaluate and explore history from more than one source as well. Nobody's right 100% of the time. Anyway, interesting discussion. :001_smile: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted June 12, 2010 Share Posted June 12, 2010 (edited) I'm still not sure what kind of depravity is going on (total or otherwise) that a history book that displays the raw-throated bigotry of This Country of Ours can appear as a history spine for TOG, or on the list for Ambleside Online and there is not a peep of protest. I'll re-link to the description of Mormans. http://www.mainlesson.com/display.php?author=marshall&book=country&story=mormons&PHPSESSID=e869667d5a7dcf4918d577ced020c97d This gets a pass? Not one word from anyone to say this is not right??? Wanna read a chapter on murderous drunken "Redmen"? It is one of the few passages where Marshall doesn't refer to native Americans as "savages", but each mention is offensive it its own way. http://www.mainlesson.com/display.php?author=marshall&book=country&story=war The only time a (generic) African American is given direct voice it is this: "Massa Linkum was dead." And in context it is even more insulting: "As to the negroes they wept and cried aloud, and would not be comforted, for "Massa Linkum was dead," and they were left fatherless." This passes as "acceptable"? I'm incredulous and disappointed (frankly). Bill (who thinks this is depravity :glare:) Edited June 12, 2010 by Spy Car Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jld Posted June 12, 2010 Share Posted June 12, 2010 I'm not familiar with TOG or Ambleside, but I'm taken aback by the link that Bill posted on Mormons. It doesn't sound very objective (I'm not a Mormon, btw). Sounds pretty offensive, to be honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redheadeddaughter Posted June 12, 2010 Share Posted June 12, 2010 I'm still not sure what kind of depravity is going on (total or otherwise) that a history book that displays the raw-throated bigotry of This Country of Ours can appear as a history spine for TOG, or on the list for Ambleside Online and there is not a peep of protest. I'll re-link to the description of Mormans. http://www.mainlesson.com/display.php?author=marshall&book=country&story=mormons&PHPSESSID=e869667d5a7dcf4918d577ced020c97d This gets a pass? Not one word from anyone to say this is not right??? Wanna read a chapter on murderous drunken "Redmen"? It is one of the few passages where Marshall doesn't refer to native Americans as "savages", but each mention is offensive it its own way. http://www.mainlesson.com/display.php?author=marshall&book=country&story=war The only time a (generic) African American is given direct voice it is this: "Massa Linkum was dead." And in context it is even more insulting: "As to the negroes they wept and cried aloud, and would not be comforted, for "Massa Linkum was dead," and they were left fatherless." This passes as "acceptable"? I'm incredulous and disappointed (frankly). Bill (who thinks this is depravity :glare:) I have a question for you: Are you sure TOG even schedules these portions of the book in their program? I realize this may not change your opinion on the matter. It seems to be the fact that these programs even recommend the book that offends you. Depravity? I see ignorance and stupidity in the quotes you lifted and a whole lot of modern day arrogance about language and how it's changed for the better. But I've been face to face with people I would term depraved. I think the description is off here. I also don't think anyone is arguing the above passages are "acceptable." It is not right. I haven't seen any posters on any of the recent threads who say it is right. Do you also have a problem with Robinson Crusoe? The term "savage" is used fairly frequently and I've had that discussion with my 7 year old already. It's not kind or accurate (that's how I approach it with a younger student anyway). Although I don't think the author intended to write anything depraved. The big problem, it seems, is in finding a history spine that is acceptable across the board to everyone from all walks of life. I'm not sure such a perfect unbiased spine exists for that stage. I have to admit though, that your posts have sent me to this book I otherwise haven't cracked since I ordered it. I read several chapters last night and found them to be an entertaining and engaging read. I liked the style of the writer. Now, that doesn't mean I'm going to include it as a spine when I get to that stage. Especially in light of the portions you pulled out. But I might use portions as a read aloud. And I don't think that makes TOG or its users "depraved." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted June 12, 2010 Share Posted June 12, 2010 I have a question for you:Are you sure TOG even schedules these portions of the book in their program? I realize this may not change your opinion on the matter. It seems to be the fact that these programs even recommend the book that offends you. Scheduled or recommended would both fall into the category of unacceptable as far as I'm concerned. Depravity? I see ignorance and stupidity in the quotes you lifted and a whole lot of modern day arrogance about language and how it's changed for the better. But I've been face to face with people I would term depraved. I think the description is off here. Then we have a fundamental difference of opinion. I also don't think anyone is arguing the above passages are "acceptable." It is not right. I haven't seen any posters on any of the recent threads who say it is right. And yet This Country of Ours has gotten a "pass" as an acceptable American History text. How's that? Do you also have a problem with Robinson Crusoe? The term "savage" is used fairly frequently and I've had that discussion with my 7 year old already. It's not kind or accurate (that's how I approach it with a younger student anyway). Although I don't think the author intended to write anything depraved. Robinson Crusoe is not a history text. There are obviously works of literature with problematic language that may (or may not) warrant use on their merits, with a discussion of problematic elements. I'd suggest a history text like This Country of Ours falls into a very different class. The big problem, it seems, is in finding a history spine that is acceptable across the board to everyone from all walks of life. I'm not sure such a perfect unbiased spine exists for that stage. I don't think this is so. I've recommended "The Drama of American History" as a well-balanced series, and thus far even people with much more conservative political world-views than my own report being very happy with these books. Although an unhappy camper may eventually crop up. I have to admit though, that your posts have sent me to this book I otherwise haven't cracked since I ordered it. I read several chapters last night and found them to be an entertaining and engaging read. I liked the style of the writer. I agree. H E Marshall had gifts as a writer. So it is bigotry with flair. Stylish bigotry. Now, that doesn't mean I'm going to include it as a spine when I get to that stage. Especially in light of the portions you pulled out. But I might use portions as a read aloud. And I don't think that makes TOG or its users "depraved." The portions I pulled out could be duplicated ten-fold. They are but a few example of a great many. Sorry. I think using this book as a history text is depraved. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lovemyboys Posted June 12, 2010 Share Posted June 12, 2010 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! Well said. It's a worthy thing to defend the many parents here who use these resources. If we were debating a national curriculum with rigid guidelines and application, it would be a different conversation. But you make several excellent points (bold) for why homeschoolers aren't confined by those constraints. Intelligent, curious and informed parents are bringing history alive for their kids. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sophia Posted June 12, 2010 Share Posted June 12, 2010 What an intelligent, articulate and just plain sensible post. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted June 12, 2010 Share Posted June 12, 2010 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. 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sophia Posted June 13, 2010 Share Posted June 13, 2010 No one (not me) painted everyone who uses This Country of Ours as a depraved racist. No, but in your post to redheadeddaughter, you did say "I think using this book as a history text is depraved." You did not include 'everyone' or 'racist' so apparently just some people using it would be depraved but not racist? :confused: But that book contains bigotry and racism, and no one seems to be denying that fact. No, indeed. This book is being used as a history text, not as a historical reference, by Tapestry in Grace. Both types of books should be read critically and with discernment. Imo, it does not matter if you are calling it a reference book or a textbook. Is that acceptable to you? Yes. TOG's mantra is Read. Think. Write. Having met and listened to Marcia Somerville at a Tapestry Tea several years ago, I am confident she is not promoting a racist and bigoted view in using TCoO. I think it is reprehensible. Yes, I know. Bill . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TKDmom Posted June 13, 2010 Share Posted June 13, 2010 I'm not familiar with TOG or Ambleside, but I'm taken aback by the link that Bill posted on Mormons. It doesn't sound very objective (I'm not a Mormon, btw). Sounds pretty offensive, to be honest. Oh, it is incredibly offensive and totally inaccurate (I am a Mormon, btw). Reading that link has given me new insight to the way some people view Mormons. And I think the use of materials like this in curricula perpetuate stereotypes. I'd hate to think that this would be a person's only exposure to who Mormons are. :glare: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justasque Posted June 13, 2010 Share Posted June 13, 2010 Very interesting discussion. So here's my question: There are so many good history books out there to choose from. So many that are well-written, with good pictures, and based on primary sources. Why then would anyone putting together a curriculum choose to include a text as offensive as This Country of Ours? While it may have non-offensive parts, why not choose a book that is overall a better resource? We all only have so much money and so much time - why waste it on something that is so obviously flawed? If you were stuck on a desert island, you could make do with such a deeply flawed book if you had to, but we're living in a time of unprecedented wealth when it comes to non-fiction children's books. I'm curious why you think the curriculum authors chose this book, and why those of you who use it do so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jld Posted June 13, 2010 Share Posted June 13, 2010 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? 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. It seems unwise to take a country's present economic or military status and assume that a deity is backing it. As some others have mentioned, that sounds more like indoctrination than education. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elizabeth Posted June 13, 2010 Share Posted June 13, 2010 Oh, it is incredibly offensive and totally inaccurate (I am a Mormon, btw). Reading that link has given me new insight to the way some people view Mormons. And I think the use of materials like this in curricula perpetuate stereotypes. I'd hate to think that this would be a person's only exposure to who Mormons are. :glare:We have been fortunate to spend some time with the young adults who are here doing mission work. We are very upfront about our own theological beliefs but always offer a clean restroom and fresh lemonade to give them a brief respite from what is very hard work. We have enjoyed their company here many , many times. They know they are to consider our home and office a safe place should anyone be violent , threatening etc My thought about this is simple, that soul is someone's beloved child sent out to do hard work. I certainly cannot begrudge them the very things I want strangers to do for our child should she be in need of a haven for a few minutes. Basic human decency nothing fancy at all.On a less positive note as a Catholic who has been used to seeing the filthy "Chick tracts" all over our neighborhood I can only say, of course they use demeaning stereotypes as those who subscribe to those belief systems that tolerate no version of truth save their own, want their children to only be encouraged to be the" right" kind of Christian . What better way than to mock, deride and belittle other branches of Christianity rather than sticking to a plain old these are the differences and here is why we feel our interpretation is correct. That is not catchy enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swimmermom3 Posted June 13, 2010 Share Posted June 13, 2010 Very interesting discussion. So here's my question: There are so many good history books out there to choose from. So many that are well-written, with good pictures, and based on primary sources. Why then would anyone putting together a curriculum choose to include a text as offensive as This Country of Ours? While it may have non-offensive parts, why not choose a book that is overall a better resource? We all only have so much money and so much time - why waste it on something that is so obviously flawed? If you were stuck on a desert island, you could make do with such a deeply flawed book if you had to, but we're living in a time of unprecedented wealth when it comes to non-fiction children's books. I'm curious why you think the curriculum authors chose this book, and why those of you who use it do so?[/quote You ask tough, valid questions that do not have easy or simple answers. Some will choose these older texts because the material does in essence line up with that person's belief system. Some may not be comfortable with everything in the text but find it more palatable than a contemporary text that touches on topics such as gay rights. There are those who will choose the actual writing over the content. And then there is what is almost a reverse elitism, "Older text are always better." Do a search on the boards and you will find members who are looking to craft their children's plans based on what the Virgina elite were taught in 1789. I don't mean to sound so harsh on those who choose predominantly older texts, but I too am baffled by it. I get that the writing and thinking in some contemporary texts is appalling, but to the extent of preferring passages like the ones Spy Car linked to? Hope someone jumps in here and explains Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted June 13, 2010 Share Posted June 13, 2010 TOG's mantra is Read. Think. Write 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swimmermom3 Posted June 13, 2010 Share Posted June 13, 2010 Very interesting discussion. So here's my question: There are so many good history books out there to choose from. So many that are well-written, with good pictures, and based on primary sources. Why then would anyone putting together a curriculum choose to include a text as offensive as This Country of Ours? While it may have non-offensive parts, why not choose a book that is overall a better resource? We all only have so much money and so much time - why waste it on something that is so obviously flawed? If you were stuck on a desert island, you could make do with such a deeply flawed book if you had to, but we're living in a time of unprecedented wealth when it comes to non-fiction children's books. I'm curious why you think the curriculum authors chose this book, and why those of you who use it do so? Spy Car :seeya: Care to theorize why people do use the books? I know that about 6 months ago there was some discussion about this; however, I can't find the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted June 13, 2010 Share Posted June 13, 2010 (edited) Spy Car :seeya: Care to theorize why people do use the books? I know that about 6 months ago there was some discussion about this; however, I can't find the thread. 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 Edited June 13, 2010 by Spy Car Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JudyJudyJudy Posted June 13, 2010 Share Posted June 13, 2010 I disagree with part of this, especially that the economy was dependent upon slavery. There were plantations in the North using paid labor on similar farms. Sure, you make MORE money by employing children, illegal immigrants or slaves than you otherwise would, but you can make a reasonable amount of money paying a living wage. It is, in fact, better for the overall economy. Unfortunately, even after the Civil War was over, workers on farms and plantations in the South still were not paid a living wage. Slaves were replaced with sharecroppers or tenant farmers. Conditions were still very bad, and many families went hungry. Many of the descendants of these families, both black and white, are still struggling today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JudyJudyJudy Posted June 13, 2010 Share Posted June 13, 2010 Originally Posted by redheadeddaughter Do you also have a problem with Robinson Crusoe? The term "savage" is used fairly frequently and I've had that discussion with my 7 year old already. It's not kind or accurate (that's how I approach it with a younger student anyway). Although I don't think the author intended to write anything depraved. Robinson Crusoe is not a history text. There are obviously works of literature with problematic language that may (or may not) warrant use on their merits, with a discussion of problematic elements. I'd suggest a history text like This Country of Ours falls into a very different class. I believe that literature books with language such as this should be studied. Part of the studies should include the language and how things differed in the time period in which the books were written. History books are entirely different; they should not be filled with bigotry and stereotypes, and they should be written as accurately as possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TracyP Posted June 13, 2010 Share Posted June 13, 2010 Very interesting discussion. So here's my question: There are so many good history books out there to choose from. So many that are well-written, with good pictures, and based on primary sources. Why then would anyone putting together a curriculum choose to include a text as offensive as This Country of Ours? While it may have non-offensive parts, why not choose a book that is overall a better resource? We all only have so much money and so much time - why waste it on something that is so obviously flawed? If you were stuck on a desert island, you could make do with such a deeply flawed book if you had to, but we're living in a time of unprecedented wealth when it comes to non-fiction children's books. I'm curious why you think the curriculum authors chose this book, and why those of you who use it do so? 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 This conversation has been interesting and enlightening to say the least. I have not read TCoO but will in my "spare" ;) time this summer so I can form my own opinion. If I see it for as big a problem as you claim (it is not even worth discussion, the racism is embedded and cannot be skipped by skipping some chapters, etc.) I will absolutely write to them expressing my concerns. However, that will not change my stance that TOG is not indoctrinating my kids with a racist POV. I have read the notes TOG offers on this book. I can see that to not be true. So, why would they choose this book? 1. Naivety. I see this all the time and am sometimes guilty of it myself. Something I see as no big deal is offensive to others. I am learning all the time. I am also learning that I am sometimes too easily offended myself. I don't understand anyone that says they have it all figured out. How can you? 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. This is an extremely no win situation for a Christian company like TOG. They got beat up pretty bad for their choice of spine for year 4 because it mentioned gay marriage, drugs and had curse words. I don't envy them. 3. This goes along with #2 but TOG offers around 900 books just in their primary resources. They cannot have an easy job. I have heard 'why did you pick such an expensive book', 'you forgot to mention swear word on p.83', 'my son found this book to be dry', 'I don't think my dc should be reading Gilgamesh, Frankenstien, etc.', really it goes on and on. They are trying to please 1000's of people. People (me included) who want more than anything a Christian worldview of history. People who want a book to cover as long a time period as possible for as little money as possible. Please don't judge an entire family based on 1 book - in a curriculum they created for their kids and are now sharing with others (Somervilles) or for a book sitting on their shelves (my family). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shelly in the Country Posted June 13, 2010 Share Posted June 13, 2010 They are trying to please 1000's of people. People (me included) who want more than anything a Christian worldview of history. People who want a book to cover as long a time period as possible for as little money as possible. Please don't judge an entire family based on 1 book - in a curriculum they created for their kids and are now sharing with others (Somervilles) or for a book sitting on their shelves (my family). 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calandalsmom Posted June 13, 2010 Share Posted June 13, 2010 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovedtodeath Posted June 13, 2010 Share Posted June 13, 2010 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:. How so? 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..... Thanks. 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?No. I will not use Sonlight. TOG, MFW, and HOD all offer more and they are all different. IMO. Different enough that I have a preference. I think Sonlight has been easier to secularize, though that seems to be changing in their science. Of course, you forgot to mention my favorite, WinterPromise. I will not be considering TCoO for our history studies... but I won't judge you if you do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redheadeddaughter Posted June 13, 2010 Share Posted June 13, 2010 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. 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. 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. It would be just as ignorant to pretend we do not have atrocities occurring in "modern times" (as Paul Johnson refers to this period). No matter what authors you read, from any time period, a critical analysis is needed (barring a few picture books of course). The only attachment I have witnessed to the "past" has to do more with things like the agricultural society (cooking and gardening), time with family, pretty dresses, and other comparatively silly things. No true Christian wants to glorify anything but God. No time period, or author or crusty old history book. We are, as a whole, looking for tools. And we often have to pick from flawed choices... because as a humans we are all innately flawed. 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. Again, I am not sure I will be using this particular one. Still, nobody has addressed whether TOG even schedules any offending portions. 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. They are attempting to teach a worldview (again, I've never seen a history program without a worldview and it's refreshing to have a company state it's opinion from the get-go). But that worldview is decidedly not racist. In fact, in case there are any who question it (which surprises me here!) I think this basic tenant of Christian doctrine in America (whether Calvinist or not) shows how most of us cc feel (this from my experience): "And so we as Christians, and especially as American Christians, must denounce as a matter of biblical principle, every form of racism, racial animosity or racial vainglory. God created man in His own image, and has made from one blood all the nations of the earth (Acts 17:26). We are called to believe firmly that in... Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, male or female, slave or free (Gal. 3:28), black or white, Asian or Hispanic, tall or short. Jesus Christ has purchased men from every nation and tribe with His own blood, and His blood necessarily provides a stronger bond than ours does. Christ died on the cross to set all men free from their sins, and all forms of external slavery are built on the bedrock of slavery to sin. Therefore, the logic of the Great Commission requires the eventual death of slavery as an institution in any place where it might still exist... This indicates that slavery as an institution is inconsistent with the fundamental Spirit of the gospel, who is the Spirit of liberty (2 Cor. 3:17)." 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." And as for election, that is something nobody but God understands and knows. To claim this knowledge would be heresy and would not fall within the parameters of the historical Christian church at all. To claim that CC believe this (or have ever believed this) is utterly wrong. The issue of racism has divided the country, and has also divided the church. It is a great source of sadness for many people and my limited efforts here are an attempt to prevent racism from further dividing a people (in this case homeschoolers) where unity would better serve our purpose. These cries of racism and bigotry directed towards a long dead author have spawn a great deal of negativity towards a large group of Classical homeschoolers who spend a great deal of time and effort (have you seen the teacher preliminaries required in TOG!!! It's exhausting, but well worth it) in order to share a balanced and fair and thoroughly Christian view of history. And by Christian, I mean what the quote states above... that every race and creed and color are under the same requirements of God and colorless before him and before one another. We are brothers and sisters and share a great deal of love. These accusations are ridiculous. And now, I will return to lurking in the much more relevant and exciting thread about the current state of Israel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts