s/o evil history books thread

[Lovedtodeath]

.

Edited June 15, 2010 by Lovedtodeath

[Lovedtodeath]

 

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

Quite witty, and I thought of 4 different ways of taking this.

[Mrs Mungo]

This is how I took the turn of events: Bill said that some people use TCoO (particularly conservative Christians) because they like the prejudice message. So redheadeddaughter quoted a conservative Christian author who was talking about "one blood", providing an example of one not liking that message.

 

Hm. It gets really problematic when you use a Dominionist for that purpose.

 

Quotes from his book:

Slavery as it existed in the South … was a relationship based upon mutual affection and confidence.

 

Slave life was to them [slaves] a life of plenty, of simple pleasures, of food, clothes, and good medical care.

 

A direct quote from Wilson source:

[N]othing is clearer – the New Testament opposes anything like the abolitionism of our country prior to the War Between the States. The New Testament contains many instructions for Christian slave owners, and requires a respectful submissive demeanor for Christian slaves. See, for example, Eph. 6:5-9, Col. 3:22-4:1, and 1 Tim. 6:1-5.

. . .

The reason why many Christians will be tempted to dismiss the arguments presented here is that we have said (out loud) that a godly man could have been a slave owner. But this 'inflammatory' position is the very point upon which the Bible speaks most directly, again and again. In other words, more people will struggle with what we are saying at the point where the Bible speaks most clearly. There is no exegetical vagueness here. Not only is the Bible not politically correct, it was not politically correct one hundred thirty years ago.

. . .

This entire issue of slavery is a wonderful issue upon which to practice. Our humanistic and democratic culture regards slavery in itself as a monstrous evil, and acts as though this were self-evidently true. The Bible permits Christians to own slaves, provided they are treated well. You are a Christian. Whom do you believe?

 

So, according to Wilson, being anti-slavery=being a secular humanist.

[lovemyboys]

No, that is most def. not me. :)

 

I've no doubt you would've answered a query to this effect. Lots of Danas in the world. :001_smile:

[Lovedtodeath]

Oh, I see. Well, no wonder my explanation made no sense. I had no idea who Wilson was. :001_rolleyes: :blush5: I am glad I didn't. :tongue_smilie:Thank you.

[Mrs Mungo]

Oh, I see. Well, no wonder my explanation made no sense. I had no idea who Wilson was. :001_rolleyes: :blush5: I am glad I didn't. :tongue_smilie:Thank you.

 

He's also part-author and editor of the Omnibus, a resource used by *many* here on TWTM. You see the problem?

 

eta: from the Veritas Press catalog describing Omnibus:

 

Omnibus is a Latin term meaning "all encompassing." Completing Omnibus I will provide the student a full credit in Ancient World History I, Doctrine and Theology I, and Ancient Literature I. Combining these disciplines will have students grow in their appreciation of the unity of all knowledge, and all the material is taught through a biblical worldview.

 

So, is this the Biblical worldview in which slavery is condoned by God or the one in which we're all one blood? Can the two even be reconciled?

Edited June 15, 2010 by Mrs Mungo

[Lovedtodeath]

Yikes.

[Mrs Mungo]

Yikes.

 

I know. I thought I'd cut to the chase a little. You see what Spycar was saying?

[redheadeddaughter]

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

 

And nothing to me, really?

 

Sorry Mrs. Mungo... I had to run and take the kids to Jamba Juice. A long- promised and put off errand. So I only responded to the Wilson comment to begin with. I am now back and ready to blab.

 

Yes, I think I could have put all of that better. I meant not only Christians... the entire HS community. Secular or providential or catholic or eastern orthodox or mormon or waldorfy/wicken or whatever combination you can think of really. I would love to see more unity and acceptance coming from all corners. I think it would aid us in protecting the freedom we have to homeschool.

 

I used the Wilson quote mostly to show how deceiving it can be reference authors and books out of context. It's a tricky business. I was (an am) quite happy with the topic of "evil history books" in order to keep us all informed. I think the original poster had a sense of humor about it, and was well-intentioned. It was the "depraved" comment that really sent the ants up my pants.

[Lovedtodeath]

Thank you Mrs. Mungo. You are awesome.

 

I used the Wilson quote mostly to show how deceiving it can be reference authors and books out of context. It's a tricky business.

Yes. I hate it though, (sorry, I digress into a personal pet peeve.) that every quote often is accused of this, even when the context makes no difference when I do see it in context. sigh.

[Mrs Mungo]

Yes, I think I could have put all of that better. I meant not only Christians... the entire HS community. Secular or providential or catholic or eastern orthodox or mormon or waldorfy/wicken or whatever combination you can think of really. I would love to see more unity and acceptance coming from all corners. I think it would aid us in protecting the freedom we have to homeschool.

 

I agree and I think it's definitely possible. I think there are many organizations that make it more difficult, rather than less. I see a desire for division more often from Christian organizations than from secular organizations. I cannot tell you how disheartening I find it that our benefactor here was not invited to the HEAV conference. It speaks volumes. The fact that CCs are the ones separating themselves and making Doug Wilson statements makes it a seriously tough argument to make from a CC perspective.

 

I used the Wilson quote mostly to show how deceiving it can be reference authors and books out of context. It's a tricky business. I was (an am) quite happy with the topic of "evil history books" in order to keep us all informed. I think the original poster had a sense of humor about it, and was well-intentioned. It was the "depraved" comment that really sent the ants up my pants.

I would not use the word depraved. I would rather think people using these books without a real understanding of history and some heavy discussion with their kids are misguided or uninformed. I wish more people took the time to investigate the worldview (whatever meaning of the word you wish to subscribe to) of those who write homeschool curricula. Edited June 15, 2010 by Mrs Mungo

[Lovedtodeath]

 

I wish more people took the time to investigate the worldview (whatever meaning of the word you wish to subscribe to) of those who write homeschool curricula.

Well, if you are using it or recommending it that is. :D I don't care to investigate every writer.

[Mrs Mungo]

Well, if you are using it or recommending it that is. :D I don't care to investigate every writer.

 

Right, I agree. :D

[redheadeddaughter]

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

 

You are correct, obviously. My objections was to the CC comment. I don't think they are less or more likely to address these issues. I've seen Republicans and Democrats display racists attitudes. I don't think that kind of attitude is limited by political or religious beliefs, sadly. Which is why I said it was utter nonsense. (bolding my response b/c I'm figuring out the quote system here on the board)

 

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

 

Again, agree completely. I've seen this implication even in well-accepted and widely used picture books. (One we used today, The First Americans, even had a paragraph towards the end that summarized the takings in this light... I did have a really neat conversation with my boy about it actually. I think more in depth in light of your comments this week. We also had to talk about the Disney portrayal of Native Americans in Davy Crockett.) These are ongoing conversations I think we'll need to have on a great deal of topics for a long time. I hope forever. I love talking to my kids.

 

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

 

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

 

Interesting. I love this forum for just this reason. But again, I didn't disagree with you to begin with. Alot of history has been either ignored or explained inaccurately (Christian history too). That is why we need so many resources at this stage of the game. Hopefully someone soon will write the perfect American History book. So far I haven't seen it.

 

I think the writers who talk about "God's plan" are not meaning what you think they mean. It really is a generic statement meant to show an acceptance of things we don't understand ("His ways are higher than our Ways..." kind of approach) and is more of a statement on the character of God as unchanging and all-powerful rather than a pawn in the game of free-will moving humans. I realize why this doesn't sound good to you. You have a unique perspective Mrs. Mungo. But I don't know anybody who shares that theology who would disagree that humans make big, awful, and sinful mistakes. So to be fair to that POV, you'd have to include their approach to the world and God as an entirety, and not just that "perfect plan" part, before you condemn. But I get your meaning... when looked at like that, it does seem to "bless" something that should never have been tolerated in the first place.

 

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

 

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

Again, I agree it's a widespread problem. In TOG's case, I think they make a valiant effort to combat things like this in their notes, while still using resources most people have access to. The book itself is problematic.

 

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

 

I like.

 

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

 

Whew. I come back from Jamba Juice and this thread has taken on a whole new life!

[Mrs Mungo]

You are correct, obviously. My objections was to the CC comment. I don't think they are less or more likely to address these issues. I've seen Republicans and Democrats display racists attitudes. I don't think that kind of attitude is limited by political or religious beliefs, sadly. Which is why I said it was utter nonsense.

 

[/b]Ah, I see. I agree that it is nonsense to condemn any single group of people, it's a common problem. However, it's worthwhile to remember that the thread started because a poster wanted a non-providential history book. That's why the focus has been on providential history books.

 

Interesting. I love this forum for just this reason. But again, I didn't disagree with you to begin with. Alot of history has been either ignored or explained inaccurately (Christian history too). That is why we need so many resources at this stage of the game. Hopefully someone soon will write the perfect American History book. So far I haven't seen it.

I agree.

 

I think the writers who talk about "God's plan" are not meaning what you think they mean. It really is a generic statement meant to show an acceptance of things we don't understand ("His ways are higher than our Ways..." kind of approach) and is more of a statement on the character of God as unchanging and all-powerful rather than a pawn in the game of free-will moving humans. I realize why this doesn't sound good to you. You have a unique perspective Mrs. Mungo. But I don't know anybody who shares that theology who would disagree that humans make big, awful, and sinful mistakes. So to be fair to that POV, you'd have to include their approach to the world and God as an entirety, and not just that "perfect plan" part, before you condemn. But I get your meaning... when looked at like that, it does seem to "bless" something that should never have been tolerated in the first place.

Which writers?There are a lot of different interpretations of what God's sovereignty means. I don't think we need a giant theological debate on them in order to agree that some people do think the way I describe and some people think the way you describe. Edited June 15, 2010 by Mrs Mungo
fixing quote boxes

[redheadeddaughter]

Hm. It gets really problematic when you use a Dominionist for that purpose.

It does get problematic... and I pointed out that personally I cannot come to agree with Wilson on quite a few positions. But in this case it is problematic because the problem in question is the depth of exegesis here, and not really racism. Racism exists in the "providential" community, just as is does anywhere. But here, Douglas (and his co-author, if you are referring to his book on the South?) is discussing a couple of different things. None of them would change his views on us all being "one blood" in the church and having the same worth before God. I stated his views on slavery and race in general, because they were applicable, and I believe it to be the most common view of the church (equal before Christ)... and I thought it would be funny, given spycars complete aversion to him.

The key issues involved are:

(1)The Israelites use of slavery (both foreign and domestic) and the laws listed in the Old Testament pertaining to that vs. the use of slaves during the early Church in Rome. Where of course, there were practically more slaves than freeman. The issue of race was not the focus (although you could argue with foreign slaves it was), but rather trying to wrestle with the very difficult portions of scripture that address slavery. And

(2) the issue of abolitionists. Wilson vehemently denounces Brown as an evil murderer and really doesn't like to see him lifted up as a hero. He spearheaded the abolitionist movement, and in the portions below, he (or his source) is discussing how that approach caused the violence of the Civil War (or so it is argued). In many an article discussing this issue, he has declared slavery evil, but also finds abolitionists who use Brown's methods just as sinful. He thinks slavery could have been abolished without the Civil War if the church had done it's job properly. Among many many other things I will never be eloquent enough to argue. The context of these quotes is important. He isn't arguing that slavery is good here. His arguments, in my mind, almost tend towards pacifism. I've read him at length on this issue and frankly, I'm still confused. But no, he would not equate being anti-slavery with secular humanism. :)

 

Personally, I feel that if the slaves in the South wanted to rebel and rise up against their owners, they would have been within their rights as Christians to do so. There is a place for civil disobedience. No matter how civilized the treatment, or if they were paid for the teeth they offered for dentures, or how generous a pension they received for their service... no one should own another person. End of argument. And I think that is what people find so offensive when they read Wilson and his ilk. In getting into the nitty gritty theological details, and focusing so much on Biblical Law, they seem (to me) to be ignorant of the bigger issue here. But every time I have thought Wilson ignorant, I have found myself feeling foolish when I read his defense.

 

He explained at the time of all the controversy (or at the height of it), that he and his pastoral friends were trying to discourage anti-abortionists from attacking abortion centers and doctors. And he then went on to describe Brown (the abolitionist) as having gone too far... and claimed these pro-lifers would be committing the same sin as Brown if they became too reactionary. So there is a great deal of "background" needed here in order to get to the bottom of it.

 

Quotes from his book:

 

 

 

 

A direct quote from Wilson source:

 

 

So, according to Wilson, being anti-slavery=being a secular humanist.

 

See notes above. My defense of Wilson is weak (it's all I could muster). But I do think the context is off a bit in these quotes.. Wilson does a much better job of laying out his positions on slavery (and why he thinks the Bible has laid out a peaceful way to combat it)... here.

 

Peaceful Shemeeshful. Give me a gun.

But at least I gave him context.

[Lovedtodeath]

Thank you Dana. Those links are food for thought.

[TravelingChris]

I don't come to this board anymore since my youngest is now in 9th grade but read this thread today. I have no American Indian heritage at all and I am a conservative politically. I consider President Andrew Jackson to be absolutely one of our worst Presidents ever and mostly because of his unconstitutional and immoral actions against the Cherokees. That said, I have also seen lots of ignorant comments in many Indian exhibits I have seen. In many cases, the deaths of Indians from diseases like measles is described as some kind of crime when in reality, people back then had no clue how diseases were spread and the measles was particularly devastating since it was totally unknown the population and no one had any immunity at all. Other diseases are thought to have been spread from the Americas back to Europe. Other misfacts I have seen is how advanced the Indians in the USA were. In fact, in the same time period they show ancient cluff dwellings, in Europe, huge cathedrals were being built, bridges and aquaducts were common, and castles were constructed. There are things to learn from different cultures but to suggest that Mesa Verde is particularly advanced in the world when in CHina, INdia, Europe, and Africa, there were even more advanced cultures at this time is simply misleading. Yes, they are the most advanced old structures in the USA but everywhere?

[Mrs Mungo]

There are *plenty* of debates against Doug Wilson and Federal Vision without me adding to the mix. The theology isn't something everyone here is going to agree on, not by a LOOOOONG shot. :lol:

 

Have you read Southern Slavery: As It Was?

slavery produced in the South a genuine affection between the races that we believe we can say has never existed in any nation before the War [the Civil War] or since.

 

I don't believe for a hot second that he was writing that slavery was not as bad as we've been led to believe in order to convince people not to murder abortion doctors. Historians, almost without exception, agree that there would have been no end to slavery without violence in that century. Brown is definitely a controversial figure, but his reaction was to the pro-slavery factions that were sneaking over the Kansas border and burning entire towns. Does Wilson put any blame there? Not that I can see.

[Mrs Mungo]

In many cases, the deaths of Indians from diseases like measles is described as some kind of crime when in reality, people back then had no clue how diseases were spread and the measles was particularly devastating since it was totally unknown the population and no one had any immunity at all.

 

Uhh...it is not true that at this point in history (we're not talking about the Dark Ages here) that people did not understand how disease was spread. Only 22 years later Jenner was experimenting with vaccinations. There is only one documented case of infected blankets being given to Natives.

 

Captain Ecuyer from Fort Pitt did in 1763:

Out of our regard for them (two Indian chiefs) we gave them two blankets and a handkerchief out of the smallpox hospital. I hope it will have the desired effect (William Trent).

However, it was proposed by others (and unknown whether such acts were carried out).

 

In a letter (1763) to Colonel Bouquet, Lord Amherst wrote,

Could it not be contrived to send the Small Pox among those disaffected tribes of Indians? We must on this occasion use every stratagem in our power to reduce them.

 

Reference for above

 

Other misfacts I have seen is how advanced the Indians in the USA were. In fact, in the same time period they show ancient cluff dwellings, in Europe, huge cathedrals were being built, bridges and aquaducts were common, and castles were constructed. There are things to learn from different cultures but to suggest that Mesa Verde is particularly advanced in the world when in CHina, INdia, Europe, and Africa, there were even more advanced cultures at this time is simply misleading. Yes, they are the most advanced old structures in the USA but everywhere?

Are you suggesting that no tribe in the Americas had ever conceived of architecture equaling a cathedral and no tribe in the Americas had ever conceived of aqueducts? That isn't true on either count.

 

The Aztec and Maya had amazing architecture and as for the latter:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapultepec_aqueduct

 

eta: Most tribes had no need for aqueducts as they lived in smaller populations.

Edited June 15, 2010 by Mrs Mungo

[FO4UR]

I wish more people took the time to investigate the worldview (whatever meaning of the word you wish to subscribe to) of those who write homeschool curricula.

 

 

:iagree: This is top priority imHo...which is why I started this whole thread in the first place. There are so many variables that I don't think I will ever find any author to match my beliefs/preferences, but the "biggies" must be compatible. I know my dc are the best and brightest children EVER:tongue_smilie:, but goodness...they are SO VERY influenced by the books we read!!! We carefully screen TV, friends, music, etc...school books, all the more...

 

 

It's EASY to insert "Native American" when I come across the term "Savage" reading alound, but next to impossible to combat a faulty attitude or impression given amongst the ideas of the author. It's that deeper level of thought which concerns me. Kids pick up on that, even if they can't verbalize it. In fact, it's that stage when they can't verbalize it that it's so damaging! I don't worry as much about a logic stage kid comparing TCOO to other things...that is a different ballgame entirely!

 

This has been as interesting thread! I am just reading and thinking as you all post...:bigear:

[Carol in Cal.]

But my understanding of the infectious disease issue is different from yours, and it's not one that I grew up with--I believe it is from fairly recent scholarly analysis (the last 20 years or so.)

 

Here in CA, by the time the Fathers came up the coast establishing missions one day's journey apart, there had already been sporadic contact and trading between NA's and E's. And there had been massive epidemics that killed off the vast majority of the NA's locally. This was largely unknown to the Spanish, but inferred in retrospect from concurrent observations that they made--which showed that the NA's that they met were, almost universally, showing signs of mourning customs--this was not understood by the E's at the time because it was so ubiquitous that they assumed that it simply reflected local custom, but it did not.

 

This was also true in New England. Squanto's entire tribe had died of disease, which is why he had attached himself to the one that met the Pilgrims after he returned from a trip (captive, I think?) where he learned English.

 

All accounts and scholarship that I know of indicate that the virulance of effects on Native Americans of what were only common childhood diseases back home was a surprise to the early European explorers. And also I believe that they missed it, to a large extent, because they came and went so much that they didn't necessarily witness it. I suspect (although I have not read any scholarly work on the subject) that they tended to assume that NA's were transient when in fact they were dead.

 

My conclusion is that the earliest and earli-ish infectious disease effects were profound, huge, and largely missed by and only accidentally caused by the E's. (And my views, though Christian and conservative, do not extend to believing that God caused this. I'm repulsed by any such suggestion, as well as by the apparent gloating that some E's did about that prospect.)

[justasque]

Are you suggesting that no tribe in the Americas had ever conceived of architecture equaling a cathedral and no tribe in the Americas had ever conceived of aqueducts? That isn't true on either count.

 

More importantly, it's not what I think of when I think of how advanced a civilization is. When your culture is all about living off the land, possibly moving with the seasons, etc., then building a cathedral really isn't a good fit with your lifestyle. If you compare it with today's "frugal living" vs. "McMansion" cultures, I don't think one approach is more advanced than another, it's more about what each family values, and how they feel it is best to spend their time/resources. One can find beauty, skill, craftsmanship, and technology in a really well-made shoe/moccasin, a beautiful woven basket, a nicely-presented meal made with love and shared with friends, or a well-built but temporary structure, just as much as in a cathedral. One is not more advanced than another.

[Mrs Mungo]

But my understanding of the infectious disease issue is different from yours, and it's not one that I grew up with--I believe it is from fairly recent scholarly analysis (the last 20 years or so.)

 

Here in CA, by the time the Fathers came up the coast establishing missions one day's journey apart, there had already been sporadic contact and trading between NA's and E's. And there had been massive epidemics that killed off the vast majority of the NA's locally. This was largely unknown to the Spanish, but inferred in retrospect from concurrent observations that they made--which showed that the NA's that they met were, almost universally, showing signs of mourning customs--this was not understood by the E's at the time because it was so ubiquitous that they assumed that it simply reflected local custom, but it did not.

 

This was also true in New England. Squanto's entire tribe had died of disease, which is why he had attached himself to the one that met the Pilgrims after he returned from a trip (captive, I think?) where he learned English.

 

All accounts and scholarship that I know of indicate that the virulance of effects on Native Americans of what were only common childhood diseases back home was a surprise to the early European explorers. And also I believe that they missed it, to a large extent, because they came and went so much that they didn't necessarily witness it. I suspect (although I have not read any scholarly work on the subject) that they tended to assume that NA's were transient when in fact they were dead.

 

I am sorry, I'm confusing you with two different time periods. Yes, what you say is absolutely correct. The incident(s) I describe happened 200-300 years later. :)

[Carol in Cal.]

I am sorry, I'm confusing you with two different time periods. Yes, what you say is absolutely correct. The incident(s) I describe happened 200-300 years later. :)

 

They were not the biggest epidemics though; those had already happened long before as you say. Just wanted to make sure that we understood each other!:001_smile:

[Mrs Mungo]

They were not the biggest epidemics though; those had already happened long before as you say. Just wanted to make sure that we understood each other!:001_smile:

 

Gotcha. I was only responding to what Chris had said:

In many cases, the deaths of Indians from diseases like measles is described as some kind of crime when in reality, people back then had no clue how diseases were spread and the measles was particularly devastating since it was totally unknown the population and no one had any immunity at all.

 

I thought she was referring to incidents like I described, which happened much later. It's true that MUCH more extensive epidemics happened before settlers (as opposed to explorers or traders) ever arrived.

[redheadeddaughter]

I agree and I think it's definitely possible. I think there are many organizations that make it more difficult, rather than less. I see a desire for division more often from Christian organizations than from secular organizations. I cannot tell you how disheartening I find it that our benefactor here was not invited to the HEAV conference. It speaks volumes.

 

 

 

I did not know this. Very sad. But I'm glad to hear that you have hope for the whole bunch of us... I do too.

As for the theology bit... I think it is relevant here only to the extent that it informs the worldview of a curricula. And it does, quite a bit. Which is, as you've pointed out, the purpose of the thread.

[Mrs Mungo]

I did not know this. Very sad. But I'm glad to hear that you have hope for the whole bunch of us... I do too.

 

Just for the record, I don't really know WHY the oversight, I am not a member of HEAV, I'm just judging by the omission and who the keynote speakers WERE. It's just an extrapolation on my part.

[Guest]

Just as an aside for anyone who may be interested, the information Mrs. Mungo detailed about Cherokees living in large farmhouses, planting orchards, farming, owning businesses, etc. is mentioned at some length in Hakim's History of US, as is Andrew Jackson's deliberate flouting of court rulings prohibiting the seizure of such properties.

[Jen S in Va]

Post deleted, because I found the information I was looking for.

Edited June 15, 2010 by Jen S in Va

[swimmermom3]

I know. I thought I'd cut to the chase a little. You see what Spycar was saying?

 

I think it is going to take some doing to pick my chin up off the computer. I try to keep a light tone on this board but I am very, very uncomfortable with what I have just read. "Deeply disturbed" would be more appropriate.

[justasque]

Just as an aside for anyone who may be interested, the information Mrs. Mungo detailed about Cherokees living in large farmhouses, planting orchards, farming, owning businesses, etc. is mentioned at some length in Hakim's History of US, as is Andrew Jackson's deliberate flouting of court rulings prohibiting the seizure of such properties.

 

That's good to know. I read the link someone posted (way above) of a Catholic critique of Hakim; basically it seemed to say "there's not enough emphasis on the contributions of Catholics". A valid point, but one could probably say the same about the series' coverage of the contribution of any particular group; one can only squeeze in so much to one series, especially one meant to be a sweeping overview of 400 years of history. I do like Hakim as a spine; she seems to at least try to see/convey the motivation of the folks on both sides of a disagreement, and to encourage the reader to look at things from various points of view rather than just a "good guys vs. bad guys" approach. Of course any book like this can only give a brief summary of any particular subject. I can (and do) add in extra depth to any aspect that interests my family. (The linked article discussed a few sentences here and there that were potentially problematic for other reasons, but, at least for me, didn't make the case for the kind of systemic problem like what folks have been seeing in TCoO.)

 

Are there other books/series out there that work well as a middle school spine? (I'm assuming TCoO is used in lower elementary grades?)

[swimmermom3]

:iagree: This is top priority imHo...which is why I started this whole thread in the first place. There are so many variables that I don't think I will ever find any author to match my beliefs/preferences, but the "biggies" must be compatible. I know my dc are the best and brightest children EVER:tongue_smilie:, but goodness...they are SO VERY influenced by the books we read!!! We carefully screen TV, friends, music, etc...school books, all the more...

 

 

It's EASY to insert "Native American" when I come across the term "Savage" reading alound, but next to impossible to combat a faulty attitude or impression given amongst the ideas of the author. It's that deeper level of thought which concerns me. Kids pick up on that, even if they can't verbalize it. In fact, it's that stage when they can't verbalize it that it's so damaging! I don't worry as much about a logic stage kid comparing TCOO to other things...that is a different ballgame entirely!

 

This has been as interesting thread! I am just reading and thinking as you all post...:bigear:

 

Paula, I am so, so glad you asked this question as I am feeling incredibly ignorant right now. I was thinking about Heather's comment earlier with regards to at least seeing how a resource was scheduled before trashing its use. I know what she is saying, but here, we may read a couple of chapters of a spine and then often, my kids want to keep going on their own. They would read right through the unscheduled chapters. I try to preread everything, but if chapters 1-7 look good to go, I might miss the bad stuff. Kwim?

[Aubrey]

Whoa. I missed the spin off. :svengo:

[redheadeddaughter]

. I read widely across many periods, genres, and countries and I am grateful to live in this time period and to have the privilege of selecting reading material from the best that many periods have to offer.

 

Well, I agree with this part anyway.