TCoO Head on

[Aubrey]

ETA: http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/group.php?groupid=116 Social group created. Liberals & conservatives welcome. :D

 

It's a private poll, but I think it might help clarify some things.

 

I haven't read the book. I was hoping to cheat off of the reviews of those who have. (Dh gets really annoyed at this, because he reads things, & I cheat off of his summaries. Hehehe)

 

I'm wondering how many others have also been hoping to glean something from other boardie opinions on the book w/out actually reading it. ("Actually" not being intended as an insult; remember, I fall into this category.) ;)

Edited June 22, 2010 by Aubrey

[everettrj]

am thinking about "no I haven't, but will at least read it personally (not to dc yet) in order to base a fair opinion on it."

does that help muddy it up? :lol:

 

btw your tag = hilarious, I was thinking that just the other day about the 'evil history' ;)

[Karen in CO]

Aubrey,

I always advocate reading it for yourself. Really. It is free online. Here, now go read it. It is what I'm trying to teach my kids. I will admit that I did not read the whole thing..... :) I did read more than half of it. Your poll needs more options. ;)

[Lovedtodeath]

Well Aubrey if I liked it I would be afraid to vote in the poll. Someone might come searching my book shelves.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am kidding.... kidding!:leaving:

 

I voted the last... but I somewhat agree with Karen and might read it if I get bored. I am more interested in Our Island Story.

[Donna T.]

Aubrey,

I always advocate reading it for yourself. Really. It is free online. Here, now go read it. It is what I'm trying to teach my kids. I will admit that I did not read the whole thing..... :) I did read more than half of it. Your poll needs more options. ;)

 

You can also listen to it at Librivox. I've tried to provide the link but it's not linking properly. But, it's there and it's free. Librivox.com.

Edited June 22, 2010 by Donna T.

[nmoira]

 

Well Aubrey if I liked it I would be afraid to vote in the poll. Someone might come searching my book shelves.

:D

[Dinsfamily]

I didn't vote because none of the options fit me. I've only read the chapters that have been linked in the other threads. Before I knew it was online, I looked at our library intending to check it out but they didn't have it. However, I'm not sure if I'll ever read it since I don't use any of the curricula that schedule it. If I decide to switch to TOG (which I don't anticipate, but not out of the realm of possibility), I'd read it myself before making a decision about reading it to my dc.

[Aubrey]

LOL, after it was too late, I realized I hadn't included an option for myself, either, so I haven't voted!

 

Yes, Karen, at this point, I agree that I need to read it myself (which is why I can't vote), but I'd still argue that there's not time for that w/ every. single. book.

[TracyP]

am thinking about "no I haven't, but will at least read it personally (not to dc yet) in order to base a fair opinion on it."

 

 

Yep, that's my vote too.

 

I've made it to p.12 over the last week. Maybe I'll have an answer by 2011.:lol:

[SnowWhite]

I would imagine many of us wise hs mamas fit into your left-out category, Aubrey-

 

6) No, not yet, but I plan to read it if I ever consider using it in the future. I appreciate hearing everyone's thoughts regarding it and will be MUCH more cautious having already had a "heads up" regarding its antiquated bias.

[Karen in CO]

LOL, after it was too late, I realized I hadn't included an option for myself, either, so I haven't voted!

 

Yes, Karen, at this point, I agree that I need to read it myself (which is why I can't vote), but I'd still argue that there's not time for that w/ every. single. book.

 

There isn't time for every single book, but I have so far found time for every book I plan to assign to my kids. My teaching "method" involves lots of discussion (either that or I love to talk and don't have a teaching method :lol: ). I've found it a lot easier to talk about books with my kids if I've read them. It really only took a couple of times of me trying to fudge it with my highschooler before I realized that I really do have to read them too - even the textbooks. This of course means that my ds did not read Moby Dick or any Jane Austin and that I had to struggle through Paradise Lost. That's why I advocate that parents of the K crowd that is eager to teach their littles to instead spend time working away at their high school reading list.

 

This year my dd is reading the Sutcliff Illiad and Oddyssey, and I'm going to tackle Fagles or Fitzgerald - it has been a long time since college. I read the Sutcliff versions when my ds was in middle school. I might only make it through one this year, but I'll still be ahead.

 

[long rambling thoughts on history follows. I am apparently avoiding work and need more coffee ]

 

The first time a history book bit me was that one that SL uses from the Calvert people :ack2: I really didn't like it even though I was sure that I would because it was so highly recommended. Then later it was some highschool history book that covered World War II with lots of detailed information about the campains and casualties but noting about the causes or results.

 

Along the way, I realized that I couldn't just give a book to my kid and expect it to teach him. Now, I read the books and form opinions about them and read others and form more opinions. Eventually, I settle on something to use, even if it is Kingfisher and have a broad picture of the information. I pick some adult books on some of the more interesting topics so I can have a deeper understanding.

 

We do history reading for school then typically discuss it over dinner with the whole family full of people with varying amounts of historical knowledge (this varies between 2-4 adults 2-4 teens and 2 littles it is even better at holiday dinners when we have 20 people discussing hsitory ) . It is a terrific way for us to study history and has helped to prepare my ds to contribute to lively college discussions. He is taking history electives because as he learns more and more, he realizes that there is so much more to know. That is my goal in history and why I make sure I make time to read all of these books before I assign them.

 

[ okay now I'm done. I need more coffee, and I have to really get back to work. ]

[SophiaH]

There's not an option for "Currently reading it, so will withhold judgement until finished" either. :)

 

We read many of the AO books and we're nearly finished with Our Island Story, which dd and ds loved! AO schedules TCOO over a couple of years and we started reading it/listening to it on librivox in the spring. I tend to ignore much of the excitement such as has been going on here the last few weeks, so we'll keep at it until (and if) I don't see the worth in it anymore, just like we do with any other book. I'm either reading it aloud to, or listening in the car with my dd, so I'm right there to discuss anything that I believe needs more explanation. Plus, she's a huge history & mythology fan, so even at her young age she's become pretty astute at picking up inconsistencies/bias on her own and always asks questions when something doesn't jive. *shrug*

[FO4UR]

I vote: "I read enough to know I don't need to finish the entire thing...."

[sassenach]

I feel left out- what is TCoO?

[Lovedtodeath]

I feel left out- what is TCoO?

This Country of Ours by Marshall.

[Susan in TX]

When we were using Ambleside online (before it was Ambleside online) I used TCoO with my children. We only got through the first few chapters. I liked it. The kiddos did not. I was a bit disturbed by the mention of cannibalism and the archaic terms for Native Americans was a bit annoying. But I did not get the impression that the author was in any way racist...naive or ignorant perhaps, but not racist. But maybe that's because I take anything written that long ago with a grain of salt. I don't expect it to be totally accurate and I expect there to be some out dated language and attitudes.

 

Susan in TX

[Spy Car]

This of course means that my ds did not read Moby Dick

 

Say it ain't so :lol:

 

Bill

[Aubrey]

The poll numbers are interesting. Of people who've read the book, the majority like it fine. Or at least are not repulsed by it.

 

By the tone of the other threads, you'd never guess that. I know people felt like they couldn't say that they thought the book was ok, given the intensity of the feelings expressed against it, yet...

 

The silence of one group acts as a microphone to the other. I would love to hear from the silent group on this issue, but I do understand being uncomfortable speaking up. It has only been thanks to you guys here that I have learned to speak up at all.

 

So I'll accept your silence, consider the numbers, & read the book for myself. Is anybody interested in a social group/book club, to read it together? Maybe we could dissect the horse. ;)

[Aubrey]

Say it ain't so :lol:

 

Bill

 

We only read a ch of it in hs, & while I loved that one, I assumed I'd hate the rest. But I listened to Old Man & the Sea a few yrs ago. Between that & your recent lit posts, I'm almost willing to give MB a try. But TCoO first. :lol:

[Karen in CO]

Say it ain't so :lol:

 

Bill

 

I'm working on it - I haven't given up. I've been reading The Great Tradition. Melville is next, really. :D I made the most headway on it when we were in WA, I kept it with me to read on the ferries. It was perfect for the cold, misty rides. Maybe it will be a good antidote for the hot, dry winds we've been having.

[Jen500]

The poll numbers are interesting. Of people who've read the book, the majority like it fine. Or at least are not repulsed by it.

 

 

 

I take any poll on this board with a grain of salt...or just for entertainment value. (No offense to the 45 people who voted, including me :D)

[Lovedtodeath]

By the tone of the other threads, you'd never guess that. I know people felt like they couldn't say that they thought the book was ok, given the intensity of the feelings expressed against it, yet...

 

I think that they are afraid of being judged individually and as a group. (TOG users, WP users, Pagan, Conservative Christian, whatever group you could place them in.)

[Aubrey]

I think that they are afraid of being judged individually and as a group. (TOG users, WP users, Pagan, Conservative Christian, whatever group you could place them in.)

 

I'm not sure what you mean--that everybody is afraid of being judged? I'd agree w/ that. The emotion connected w/ all of this is fascinating. But one thing it tells me is that people are hurting, & the only way I know to help that is to talk. I think talking about issues can be more painful at first, but then it starts to get better. Like shoulder surgery.

[Avila]

I read it online before this big brouhaha started because I was looking at AO and Mater Amabilis, both of which schedule it. I didn't like it, and we don't plan to use it. Frankly, I don't like a lot of children's history books for any number of reasons. I am hard on history books, in general, I guess, because that is where my education really lets me be the most critical.

 

I do have Our Island Story on my shelf, but I don't really like it either. Someone gave it to me, and I thought maybe I could salvage a chapter or two for my daughter who likes English history. There really isn't much else out there for that.

 

But I think the argument that is stretching across, oh, four threads now is bigger than this one book anyhow.

[pdalley]

Read it. It's not that different than having elderly relatives in the South who talk that way. It's not right but it happened and I don't intend to gloss over the subject. Nor will I sugar coat it and act like those types of attitudes are ok. Living where we live it's pretty impossible not to have to teach our kids that racism and stuff like that was an accepted part of society at one time. It is not - nor will it ever be - an acceptable attitude to have in this home.

 

I have very literal minded kids and if there were not books such as this they would never believe me when I told them such backward notions existed and still exist. We take people as we find them in this house. Color, religion, etc - it's all just another part of a person and people are people and deserve to be treated as such.

 

They were spared my racist father's rantings. I wasn't. As a result I refuse to tolerate such nonsense but I think it's important for them to know it exists.

[Corraleno]

I checked the last option, although I've read quite a bit of it — enough to know I would never use this book with my kids:

 

Columbus is "a great man," "a prince" among men, "brave" and "cheerful," in contrast to his men, who were "fearful and superstitious," "utterly given over to gloomy terrors," and "robbed of all ambition." We're told that the first Spanish colonists on the island were slaughtered by the Indians; no mention whatsoever, of what the Spanish did to the Indians, other than a brief note that the Spanish court looked in wonder on "the dark-skinned savages" Columbus brought back with him. One of the reasons Columbus was such a great man was that apparently, before him, "no one had thought of ... sailing across the Sea of Darkness."

 

The "wily" Pequots, who "skulked about, murdering men and women," are portrayed as devious murderers, while the heroic English are patient and brave. The "English captain... was a big, splendid-looking man, very grave and majestic."

 

The British, defeated at Yorktown, "found some comfort in the thought that after all they had been beaten by their equals, by men of their own race."

 

The Mormons were "ignorant," "shiftless," and "idle" men who "stole horses and cattle and all sorts of things that belonged to other settlers."

 

"The Redman is silent and crafty," "sowing destruction and death, "rejoicing savagely over their victory...drunk with brandy and with blood," slaying colonists "often with unspeakable tortures." The white Governor, on the other hand, was "a man of action and courage as well as a wise ruler" who "marched against the savages."

 

Etcetera. This stuff is pervasive, and the bigotry is interspersed with fiction and inaccuracies. I can hardly imagine a less appropriate history spine for young children.

 

Jackie

[Aubrey]

I read it online before this big brouhaha started because I was looking at AO and Mater Amabilis, both of which schedule it. I didn't like it, and we don't plan to use it. Frankly, I don't like a lot of children's history books for any number of reasons. I am hard on history books, in general, I guess, because that is where my education really lets me be the most critical.

 

I do have Our Island Story on my shelf, but I don't really like it either. Someone gave it to me, and I thought maybe I could salvage a chapter or two for my daughter who likes English history. There really isn't much else out there for that.

 

But I think the argument that is stretching across, oh, four threads now is bigger than this one book anyhow.

 

Yeah, but I think the book serves as a good anchor for the conversation, to keep it concrete instead of (hopefully) personal.

[pqr]

The poll numbers are interesting. Of people who've read the book, the majority like it fine. Or at least are not repulsed by it.

 

By the tone of the other threads, you'd never guess that. I know people felt like they couldn't say that they thought the book was ok, given the intensity of the feelings expressed against it, yet...

 

The silence of one group acts as a microphone to the other. I would love to hear from the silent group on this issue, but I do understand being uncomfortable speaking up. It has only been thanks to you guys here that I have learned to speak up at all.

 

So I'll accept your silence, consider the numbers, & read the book for myself. Is anybody interested in a social group/book club, to read it together? Maybe we could dissect the horse. ;)

 

 

I suspect that is because the "shrill diatribes" from one segment of this board mean that most people do not want to be called debased, bigoted, racists etc. When these terms were used, and used repeatedly, the possibility of reasoned debate was eliminated. The comments made are not and cannot be, as some now ask, "water under the bridge" and it should be apparent to all they washed that bridge away.

 

I am not defending the book nor anything in it, but would have hoped that most people could have found better ways to discuss it and avoid the grandstanding. Then again most people would not feel it necessary to go over another board's forum and tell blatant falsehoods about what was said in this forum. The following was posted by a user who apparently joined simply to cause trouble over there and ended up getting banned after a mere two posts ---"a work that every person on "the other" board (The WTM Board)where the issue has been under discussion agrees includes deeply bigoted and racist elements."--- Now anyone who has followed the multiple threads devoted to this topic knows, for a fact, that the above comment is wholly untrue. A simple look at this poll serves to make that point.

 

Alas the opportunity for reasonable discussion on this topic was wasted early in the threads by the gratuitous use of inflammatory rhetoric.

Edited June 22, 2010 by pqr

[pdalley]

 

Etcetera. This stuff is pervasive, and the bigotry is interspersed with fiction and inaccuracies. I can hardly imagine a less appropriate history spine for young children.

 

Jackie

 

 

I would never use it as a spine and certainly not for young children. It's my understanding that as it pertains to TOG - which we use - it is for upper levels - Rhetoric is where I'd use it to point out bias - racism and falsehoods. Not as a spine.

[coffeefreak]

We bought it to use with Ambleside. It was God-Awful BORING!!!!! We didn't get to the offensive parts, and I didn't even know there WERE offensive parts until months after we used it because no one was talking about it here.

 

It's funny because when I was asking advice about Ambleside 2 years ago, all I received were rave reviews. No one posted to the contrary. Just like there's the curriculum d'jour (you know, the one EVERYONE is buying), there's also the curriculum everyone hates. TCoO has turned into that curriculum.

 

Dorinda

[Aubrey]

I am not defending the book nor anything in it, but would have hoped that most people could have found better ways to discuss it and avoid the grandstanding. Then again most people would not feel it necessary to go over another board's forum and tell blatant falsehoods about what was said in this forum. The following was posted by a user who apparently joined simply to cause trouble over there and ended up getting banned after a mere two posts ---"a work that every person on "the other" board (The WTM Board)where the issue has been under discussion agrees includes deeply bigoted and racist elements."--- Now anyone who has followed the multiple threads devoted to this topic knows, for a fact, that the above comment is wholly untrue. A simple look at this poll serves to make that point.

 

I believe that the "other board" was discussing a member of *this* board behind his back. I think *that* was unfair & low.

 

As far as the line you quoted, I think it was an accurate representation of what had been stated at that point. Those who disagreed w/ the idea that the book was bigoted did not speak up. Yes, this poll makes that point. That's why I posted it, to *see* if anyone disagreed w/ the bigotry claim. But I don't think it's fair to assume that the person who claimed that no one had disagreed w/ the point about bigotry was "spreading falsehood." It can be very difficult to read minds. ;)

 

Alas the opportunity for reasonable discussion on this topic was wasted early in the threads by the gratuitous use of inflammatory rhetoric.

 

This is a point where I agree w/ you. The opportunity for reasonable discussion was *derailed*--let's not say "wasted" since that would imply that one poster can make decisions about entire topics for all of us--because of "inflammatory rhetoric."

 

I don't think that rhetoric was intended to cause harm, but its intentions are not in question. The poster has apologized *repeatedly* on both boards. I'd like to take him at his word, accept his apology, & get on w/ the work of honestly approaching a problematic book.

 

I think that work is being done here.

[Parrothead]

I can't vote honestly. I've never read it, and really don't care to. Not because I think it is evil or worthless, I don't think it is relevant anymore. It was published almost 100 years ago. So much has changed since then, attitudes, lifestyles, wars, treaties, laws.

 

I'm sure some people find some worth to it, hence the 27 page debate. For me and mine it is useless.

[Parrothead]

Is anybody interested in a social group/book club, to read it together? Maybe we could dissect the horse. ;)

That might be interesting, and probably the only way I'd put in the time to read it.

[Lovedtodeath]

As far as the line you quoted, I think it was an accurate representation of what had been stated at that point. Those who disagreed w/ the idea that the book was bigoted did not speak up. Yes, this poll makes that point. That's why I posted it, to *see* if anyone disagreed w/ the bigotry claim. But I don't think it's fair to assume that the person who claimed that no one had disagreed w/ the point about bigotry was "spreading falsehood." It can be very difficult to read minds. ;)

 

 

 

This is a point where I agree w/ you. The opportunity for reasonable discussion was *derailed*--let's not say "wasted" since that would imply that one poster can make decisions about entire topics for all of us--because of "inflammatory rhetoric."

 

I don't think that rhetoric was intended to cause harm,

:iagree:Very good! I give you lots of green squares, gold stars, and a raise in my level of respect for you. (Not that it was low, you understand, this just takes it to a whole new level.) Good communication!

That is a skill I wish I had more of.

Edited June 22, 2010 by Lovedtodeath

[johnandtinagilbert]

Aubrey,

I know you're serious, but the social group thing had me in stitches. TOO funny!

 

I can't vote b/c my recommendation (or not) could not be given without preface.

 

Darn polls. So limiting!

 

From a non-controversial perspective, we did find it a boring read, plus, we hate reading off the computer.

[Parrothead]

I checked the last option, although I've read quite a bit of it — enough to know I would never use this book with my kids:

 

Columbus is "a great man," "a prince" among men, "brave" and "cheerful," in contrast to his men, who were "fearful and superstitious," "utterly given over to gloomy terrors," and "robbed of all ambition." We're told that the first Spanish colonists on the island were slaughtered by the Indians; no mention whatsoever, of what the Spanish did to the Indians, other than a brief note that the Spanish court looked in wonder on "the dark-skinned savages" Columbus brought back with him. One of the reasons Columbus was such a great man was that apparently, before him, "no one had thought of ... sailing across the Sea of Darkness."

 

The "wily" Pequots, who "skulked about, murdering men and women," are portrayed as devious murderers, while the heroic English are patient and brave. The "English captain... was a big, splendid-looking man, very grave and majestic."

 

The British, defeated at Yorktown, "found some comfort in the thought that after all they had been beaten by their equals, by men of their own race."

 

The Mormons were "ignorant," "shiftless," and "idle" men who "stole horses and cattle and all sorts of things that belonged to other settlers."

 

"The Redman is silent and crafty," "sowing destruction and death, "rejoicing savagely over their victory...drunk with brandy and with blood," slaying colonists "often with unspeakable tortures." The white Governor, on the other hand, was "a man of action and courage as well as a wise ruler" who "marched against the savages."

 

Etcetera. This stuff is pervasive, and the bigotry is interspersed with fiction and inaccuracies. I can hardly imagine a less appropriate history spine for young children.

 

Jackie

Oh, sheesh. It idn't even historically accurate if the above is a sampling. I've changed my mind and voted. IMHO, as a history text in this day and age it is worthless.

Edited June 22, 2010 by Parrothead

[Greta]

I would love to hear from the silent group on this issue, but I do understand being uncomfortable speaking up.

 

I'm one of the "silent" ones who voted that I liked it fine. (Liked it, not loved it.) Honestly, the biggest reason for my silence was that I wasn't even aware of the firestorm! My participation on these boards is sporadic, and I've been blissfully unaware of the argument.

 

We actually did not complete the book, but read up through the Revolutionary War. I chose it because: 1. it was free and that was really helpful 2. I like older books that use a broader range of vocabulary and more complex sentence structure, etc. than their modern counterparts do.

 

As far as *I* am concerned, that is justification enough. Others, obviously, might disagree. But for what it's worth, I just ordered a volume of Drama of American History to see if that will work better for us. (I bought it used, at a very good price! Price is, unfortunately, still a big consideration in my curriculum choices.)

 

I read TCoO aloud to my daughter, and we discussed it. I did not gloss over or excuse the author's racism, quite the opposite! This was the first time that my dd was exposed to some of these attitudes, attitudes which *have* shaped human history, and which I think she is old enough now to be exposed to (at least in this sort of controlled situation). I never thought of tossing it out because of the racism -- the racism was a history lesson unto itself. Incidentally, though I can't recall the particular passage at the moment, I also remember having one discussion that was a spin-off of something that the author said as a Protestant that didn't sit right with me as someone who is becoming an Orthodox Christian. But that, also, never made me consider tossing it out. It was just a bridge to further discussion.

 

Well, I guess that's my story. For what little it is worth. :D

[Aubrey]

I'm one of the "silent" ones who voted that I liked it fine. (Liked it, not loved it.) Honestly, the biggest reason for my silence was that I wasn't even aware of the firestorm! My participation on these boards is sporadic, and I've been blissfully unaware of the argument.

 

We actually did not complete the book, but read up through the Revolutionary War. I chose it because: 1. it was free and that was really helpful 2. I like older books that use a broader range of vocabulary and more complex sentence structure, etc. than their modern counterparts do.

 

As far as *I* am concerned, that is justification enough. Others, obviously, might disagree. But for what it's worth, I just ordered a volume of Drama of American History to see if that will work better for us. (I bought it used, at a very good price! Price is, unfortunately, still a big consideration in my curriculum choices.)

 

I read TCoO aloud to my daughter, and we discussed it. I did not gloss over or excuse the author's racism, quite the opposite! This was the first time that my dd was exposed to some of these attitudes, attitudes which *have* shaped human history, and which I think she is old enough now to be exposed to (at least in this sort of controlled situation). I never thought of tossing it out because of the racism -- the racism was a history lesson unto itself. Incidentally, though I can't recall the particular passage at the moment, I also remember having one discussion that was a spin-off of something that the author said as a Protestant that didn't sit right with me as someone who is becoming an Orthodox Christian. But that, also, never made me consider tossing it out. It was just a bridge to further discussion.

 

Well, I guess that's my story. For what little it is worth. :D

 

Thank you for sharing. :001_smile: You might find the other threads interesting!

[Aubrey]

Social Group created: http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/group.php?groupid=116

[coffeefreak]

Social Group created: http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/group.php?groupid=116

 

:lol:

 

You are a NUT!

[Aubrey]

:lol:

 

You are a NUT!

 

:confused1: This is like getting together w/ family. They're all laughing, & I can tell it's at my expense, but I can't tell why. Your comment is *completely* over my head.

 

But I take it all in a friendly tone. I mean, as long as we're laughing. Hehehe...right? We're laughing? :leaving:

[pqr]

I believe that the "other board" was discussing a member of *this* board behind his back. I think *that* was unfair & low.

.

 

There you may have a point but, in truth, what she offered was the chance for the others to defend themselves against a fairly vitriolic attack.

 

As far as the line you quoted, I think it was an accurate representation of what had been stated at that point. Those who disagreed w/ the idea that the book was bigoted did not speak up. Yes, this poll makes that point. That's why I posted it, to *see* if anyone disagreed w/ the bigotry claim. But I don't think it's fair to assume that the person who claimed that no one had disagreed w/ the point about bigotry was "spreading falsehood." It can be very difficult to read minds. ;)

 

.

 

...except that the line from the other board that I quoted was posted on 15 June and a quick persual of this board indicates that on 13 June this was posted.

 

"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. .... 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.

 

Further this was not the only post of the type so it would seem that the post on the other board was, on 15 June, demonstrably false. Not every person agreed, some stated that they needed to read the book, some made no comment and some opposed attacking a program based on a single book. There was NOT unanimous agreement. The statement was false.

Edited June 22, 2010 by pqr

[coffeefreak]

:confused1: This is like getting together w/ family. They're all laughing, & I can tell it's at my expense, but I can't tell why. Your comment is *completely* over my head.

 

But I take it all in a friendly tone. I mean, as long as we're laughing. Hehehe...right? We're laughing? :leaving:

 

Oh Aubrey, I thought it was a joke! I'm so sorry! Now I DO feel like we're family, because I don't get the jokes that are meant to be funny, and I always laugh at the wrong times at things that aren't meant to be funny. You know, where you hear crickets and everyone is staring at you.:tongue_smilie:

 

:lol:

 

Now I'm :leaving:

[Murphy101]

When we were using Ambleside online (before it was Ambleside online) I used TCoO with my children. We only got through the first few chapters. I liked it. The kiddos did not. I was a bit disturbed by the mention of cannibalism and the archaic terms for Native Americans was a bit annoying. But I did not get the impression that the author was in any way racist...naive or ignorant perhaps, but not racist. But maybe that's because I take anything written that long ago with a grain of salt. I don't expect it to be totally accurate and I expect there to be some out dated language and attitudes.

 

Susan in TX

 

Precisely.

I used it many years ago.

Our strongest feeling was mediocre.

I forget what grade - want to say 4/5 for someone but can't be sure.

Read it and moved on.

[Jen S in Va]

6) No, not yet, but I plan to read it if I ever consider using it in the future. I appreciate hearing everyone's thoughts regarding it and will be MUCH more cautious having already had a "heads up" regarding its antiquated bias.

 

:iagree: I'm in this category!

[Aubrey]

...except that the line from the other board that I quoted was posted on 15 June and a quick persual of this board indicates that on 13 June this was posted.

 

"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. .... 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.

 

Further this was not the only post of the type so it would seem that the post on the other board was, on 15 June, demonstrably false. Not every person agreed, some stated that they needed to read the book, some made no comment and some opposed attacking a program based on a single book. There was NOT unanimous agreement. The statement was false.

 

I appreciate your thoroughness & the fact that you're citing posts. I think that really helps facilitate discussion. :001_smile:

 

In the posts you've cited, I do not see a disagreement w/ regard to the book's racism. I see someone attempting to explain its use but not defending its content.

 

I think perhaps you're trying to say that not everyone agreed w/ Bill, & that that was clear. Yes. That's true. But I believe his point was that no one had disagreed w/ him *about the issue of racism.*

 

And if that's the case, it does beg the question, why use the book?

 

I think Tina has clarified it pretty well, that it's not about the book at all but simply comparing perspectives. I only add that so that someone new to the conversation doesn't necessarily feel obligated to run through it all again. :001_smile:

[Aubrey]

Oh Aubrey, I thought it was a joke! I'm so sorry! Now I DO feel like we're family, because I don't get the jokes that are meant to be funny, and I always laugh at the wrong times at things that aren't meant to be funny. You know, where you hear crickets and everyone is staring at you.:tongue_smilie:

 

:lol:

 

Now I'm :leaving:

 

I'm still lost. You thought the social group was a joke?

 

Actually...it hadn't occurred to me, but...I guess it is pretty funny. I can't articulate how, though. :001_huh:

 

But, yeah, I'm serious. I think after a discussion like this, it's important to know what we've been talking about. In an ideal world, we would have stopped everything & read the book right away. :001_smile:

 

No, I take it back. In an ideal world, we'd all agree, & reading would be unnecessary, as we'd just instantly upload information & be GENIUSES. :D

[Karenciavo]

Not every person agreed, some stated that they needed to read the book, some made no comment and some opposed attacking a program based on a single book. There was NOT unanimous agreement. The statement was false.

 

Right, and most of the people who commented simply said, "I am a member of that other board and strongly disagree with the statement that everyone agrees with Spycar." It wasn't talking behind his back, he had already posted.

[Aubrey]

Right, and most of the people who commented simply said, "I am a member of that other board and strongly disagree with the statement that everyone agrees with Spycar." It wasn't talking behind his back, he had already posted.

 

He hadn't posted on the TOG boards when people over there started saying that they disagreed w/ the statement that everyone agrees w/ Spycar. He wasn't a member of those boards. From reading the thread, it looks like he posted simply to have a chance to put his argument in his own words.

 

Why wouldn't those same people tell him to his virtual face (here) that they disagreed? I found that disappointing. I can't imagine finding out that someone was talking about me somewhere else, feeling that my position had been misrepresented & my character maligned. I don't know how else to describe what happened to Bill over there.

 

I am extremely conservative in my politics, the far end of Protestant in my faith. Still, the Christian side of this argument has not made sense to me. At all.

[TracyP]

Why wouldn't those same people tell him to his virtual face (here) that they disagreed? I found that disappointing. I can't imagine finding out that someone was talking about me somewhere else, feeling that my position had been misrepresented & my character maligned. I don't know how else to describe what happened to Bill over there.

 

 

:lol: That is exactly what happened to TOG.