TCoO Head on

[KrissiK]

I voted yes, I read it and overall liked it. The reason why I liked it... I've never read a book that gave an overall history of our country in narrative form in short chapters. I learned a lot about who came over during the colonial period and why and what happened. In a sense, it reminded me of SOTW in format.

[Jugglin'5]

:lol: That is exactly what happened to TOG.

 

Yes, it is interesting to see how we look at this differently. I think Bill was doing this to TOG, and Aubrey thinks Bill was the victim. I am not sure how to get around that difference. :001_huh:

[Shelly in the Country]

:lol: That is exactly what happened to TOG.

 

:iagree: Wow... I think the folks who brought this topic up on the TOG forums were doing so to give the Somervilles and the other people over at TOG a chance to defend themselves from the attacks mounted against them over here.

[Aubrey]

Yes' date=' it is interesting to see how we look at this differently. I think Bill was doing this to TOG, and Aubrey thinks Bill was the victim. I am not sure how to get around that difference. :001_huh:[/quote']

 

The main difference, imo, is that Bill is an individual; TOG is a company. TOG is discussed in many places across the internet, as WTM mods have indicated is appropriate for published materials.

 

I don't think it's inappropriate to question or criticize curric. The fact that some TOG'ers do is perplexing to me.

[Lovedtodeath]

 

Still, the Christian side of this argument has not made sense to me. At all.

The Christian side of this argument? :001_huh: Are you sure of everyone's religious affiliations? I really didn't see this divide.

[TracyP]

The main difference, imo, is that Bill is an individual; TOG is a company. TOG is discussed in many places across the internet, as WTM mods have indicated is appropriate for published materials.

 

I don't think it's inappropriate to question or criticize curric. The fact that some TOG'ers do is perplexing to me.

 

I see TOG as a person: Marcia Sommerville. She (and her dh) wrote this curric for their own kids - never planning on sharing it. I'm sure many feel the same way about SWB. BTW, I have come to agree with you that TOG put that book out there w/o a disclaimer and have to face how that may look to others. But TOG is not *just* a company to me and I don't think that is strange at all.

[Aubrey]

:iagree: Wow... I think the folks who brought this topic up on the TOG forums were doing so to give the Somervilles and the other people over at TOG a chance to defend themselves from the attacks mounted against them over here.

 

Letting TOG know about the discussion here was entirely appropriate, imo. I don't know if a forum thread was the best way to do it--if I were the owner of TOG, I think I'd have rather been informed privately, but that doesn't seem like a huge deal one way or the other.

 

That thread went far beyond *informing* TOG, though, to hanging Bill w/out a trial or jury or anything.

 

Again, there are many things that Bill has said that I disagree w/ him on. I believe it is more fair & honest to either a) address those to his face, b) leave his name out of what I say, or c) keep quiet. I know what y'all mean about how tenaciously he argues, & for the most part, I choose c. The only reason I'm doing differently now is because, imo, this has become a personal issue of justice. He raised a valid concern & was neither ignored nor answered.

 

I genuinely do not mean to offend by disagreeing on this point. I'd defend anyone in a similar situation.

[Aubrey]

I see TOG as a person: Marcia Sommerville. She (and her dh) wrote this curric for their own kids - never planning on sharing it. I'm sure many feel the same way about SWB. BTW, I have come to agree with you that TOG put that book out there w/o a disclaimer and have to face how that may look to others. But TOG is not a company to me and I don't think that is strange at all.

 

I see what you mean. But I think it's important to think about this from an outsider's pov, too. If this had been a DK encyclopedia in question, would Bill's comments have been as offensive? It's not fair to expect him to know the history & background & personality of the publishers.

 

The thing is, if someone said SOTW was racist, it wouldn't bother me. I adore SWB, but that accusation would just make me laugh, & having used all 4 vols of SOTW, I could defend it w/out taking comments personally.

 

If TOG represents more than a co to you, that's really good. But...I think perhaps it would have been nice to gently point that out. And if it's still treated as a co instead of an individual, there's a certain compliment in that: it's being treated on the same level as any other real, published curric.

[TracyP]

Letting TOG know about the discussion here was entirely appropriate, imo. I don't know if a forum thread was the best way to do it--if I were the owner of TOG, I think I'd have rather been informed privately, but that doesn't seem like a huge deal one way or the other.

 

A poster in the third post down actually gently suggested that as more appropriate but that could have been seen as "hiding" too.

 

That thread went far beyond *informing* TOG, though, to hanging Bill w/out a trial or jury or anything.

 

I agree and I believe that is why Marcia shut it down with a gentle scolding to those who were doing that.

 

Again, there are many things that Bill has said that I disagree w/ him on. I believe it is more fair & honest to either a) address those to his face, b) leave his name out of what I say, or c) keep quiet. I know what y'all mean about how tenaciously he argues, & for the most part, I choose c. The only reason I'm doing differently now is because, imo, this has become a personal issue of justice. He raised a valid concern & was neither ignored nor answered.

 

I genuinely do not mean to offend by disagreeing on this point. I'd defend anyone in a similar situation.

 

Sorry, I started this.:tongue_smilie:It just struck me funny.

[Aubrey]

The Christian side of this argument? :001_huh: Are you sure of everyone's religious affiliations? I really didn't see this divide.

 

I could be reading too much into the threads here, but on the TOG boards, there was a definite "Christian" side to the argument. Bill was even scolded for not approaching the owners according to their interpretation of Scripture.

 

As TOG is a Christian curric, I think some have taken questions about *it* as questioning their faith. So no, I'm not sure of *everyone's* affiliations, but those who have made arguments under the flag of Christianity, I have not understood well. :001_smile:

[Jugglin'5]

 

The only reason I'm doing differently now is because, imo, this has become a personal issue of justice. He raised a valid concern & was neither ignored nor answered.

 

.

 

:confused: Rather, the answers that have been given have not been accepted, or they have been ignored.

[Aubrey]

Sorry, I started this.:tongue_smilie:It just struck me funny.

 

You're right about the first point; I'd forgotten that. And, yeah, the way she shut down the criticism or whatever you want to call it of Bill was good.

 

This thread's starting to make me sweat. :001_huh:

[Karenciavo]

Someone said on the Evil History Books thread that they would ask about the book on the TOG forum. I don't know if Jewel7123 is the same person who made that statement. No one else mentioned this board or Bill until he registered and posted.

[Sophia]

Aubrey, if you read the TOG thread, you can see one person posted to let TOG know of the accusations being made and asked for a response. The three responses she got were not from people who frequent this forum, as far as I can tell. Then Bill posted.

 

I was one of the posters after Bill posted, and in response to what you said about "talking behind his back" I had already responded to Bill in a previous (now locked) thread to defend ToG.

My post to the Somervilles was one of support and I'm not sure why that should bother anyone.

[pdalley]

:confused: Rather' date=' the answers that have been given have not been accepted, or they have been ignored.[/quote']

 

 

:iagree:What were they supposed to do? They spoke via phone. The poster was reinstated to the board. They explained how the book was used in TOG and Scott explained why racism is such a personal issue to him. They declared the thread dead and did not tolerate poster bashing.

 

I'm really confused. All of this over a book? I'm a southern Christian - I thought I was the one who was supposed to be supporting book burning... Sheesh... better turn in my card...;)

[Shelly in the Country]

:confused: Rather' date=' the answers that have been given have not been accepted, or they have been ignored.[/quote']

 

Yup.

[M&M]

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.

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

 

 

:iagree:

Edited June 25, 2010 by M&M

[Spy Car]

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.

 

NOT ONE PERSON that I'm aware of that I'm aware of has argued that TCoO doesn't contain racist stereotypes and bigotry emanating from the author. NO ONE.

 

Some people may LIKE THE BOOK but NO ONE HAS ARGUED THAT IT DOESN'T CONTAIN BIGOTRY.

 

Bill

Edited June 23, 2010 by Spy Car

[pqr]

NOT ONE PERSON that I'm aware of that argued that TCoO doesn't contain racist stereotypes and bigotry emanating from the author. NO ONE.

 

Some people may LIKE THE BOOK but NO ONE HAS ARGUED THAT IT DOESN'T CONTAIN BIGOTRY.

 

Bill

 

But that is not what you said. What you said was ---"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."--- .

 

Simply because someone chooses not to argue with you does not mean that they agree. Some people simply do not want the brow beating to which you attempt to subject those who disagree with your proclamations.

[Ohdanigirl]

Am I the only one who hasn't heard of this book?

Googling now.

 

Danielle

[Lovedtodeath]

You're right about the first point; I'd forgotten that. And, yeah, the way she shut down the criticism or whatever you want to call it of Bill was good.

 

This thread's starting to make me sweat. :001_huh:

It should.

 

Simply because someone chooses not to argue with you does not mean that they agree. Some people simply do not want the brow beating to which you attempt to subject those who disagree with your proclamations.

I can somewhat agree with that...

 

But this makes no sense. Bill was not speaking untruthfully.

 

But that is not what you said. What you said was ---"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."--- .

 

 

[Spy Car]

:lol: That is exactly what happened to TOG.

 

To some degree I think this is fair.

 

There was criticism of TOG's use of TCoO by me on this forum. I hardly expected the uproar than ensued. this was not a premeditated attack on TOG. I knew next to nothing about TOG (aside from vague gleanings of the sort one gets frequenting this forum).

 

When I went to explore, I immediately saw a number of problematic works and authors, including This Country of Ours being used as a history spine. Being a work filled with bigotry and racism it gave me pause and cause for concern.

 

With hindsight, I wish I had called them the next morning to discuss their use of the book one-to-one. This does not in any way change my judgements about the book itself.

 

Bill

[Lovedtodeath]

To some degree I think this is fair.

 

There was criticism of TOG's use of TCoO by me on this forum. I hardly expected the uproar than ensued. this was not a premeditated attack on TOG. I knew next to nothing about TOG (aside from vague gleanings of the sort one gets frequenting this forum).

 

When I went to explore, I immediately saw a number of problematic works and authors, including This Country of Ours being used as a history spine. Being a work filled with bigotry and racism it gave me pause and cause for concern.

Understandable.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

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.

 

 

 

:iagree:

So true. I did read a lot of youth fiction when my kids were babes because I was working on an elementary ed degree and also really like reading kid lit. But it has gotten to the point that they are now getting ahead of me.

 

I can't keep up with every free time novel that they are reading. But I do pretty much read all of the school books that I'm assigning.

 

I had to pull a science book this year. Not because I disagreed with the content. But simply because my kids read it from cover to cover the first couple days and it was scheduled (with activity pages, no less) for about 10 weeks. Sorry, no. That isn't a good use of our time.

[pqr]

It should.

 

 

But this makes no sense. Bill was not speaking untruthfully.

 

Beating a dead horse here.... The claim about every person agreeing with him was patently false. (Post 42 of this thread lists dates). To claim that everyone who discussed the issue fell on the same side was untruthful.

[Spy Car]

But that is not what you said. What you said was ---"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."--- .

 

Simply because someone chooses not to argue with you does not mean that they agree. Some people simply do not want the brow beating to which you attempt to subject those who disagree with your proclamations.

 

Even PQR doesn't argue that TCoO contains deeply bigoted and racist elements.

 

Bill

[Lovedtodeath]

He said that everyone agrees (this book) includes deeply bigoted and racist elements. I saw no one disagreeing with that.

[pqr]

Even PQR doesn't argue that TCoO contains deeply bigoted and racist elements.

 

Bill

 

 

But I am not "every person" and do not claim to speak for this entire board.

 

 

Come on say it, your post on the other board was less than truthful.

 

He said that everyone agrees (this book) includes deeply bigoted and racist elements. I saw no one disagreeing with that.

 

There are plenty of posts that do not evidence agreement and therein lies the rub. 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 23, 2010 by pqr

[coffeefreak]

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

 

Funny, now I can't either. At the time, I really thought you were joking and teasing about the social group, because of how strongly everyone felt for/against the book. I said you were a nut because I would NEVER want to facilitate that kind of volatile discussion.

 

An ideal world would be very boring.:001_smile:

[Corraleno]

There are plenty of posts that do not evidence agreement and therein lies the rub.

There are plenty of posts saying ToG are not racists, that people who use the book are not racists, even that Marshall herself may be more a product of her time than a blatant racist. Please point me to the posts where someone says that TCoO does not contain any bigoted or racist material, because I must have missed those posts.

 

Jackie

[Lovedtodeath]

 

Thank you Jackie. I don't want to do it anymore.

[Spy Car]

But I am not "every person" and do not claim to speak for this entire board.

 

 

Come on say it, your post on the other board was less than truthful.

 

 

On the contrary. Every poster on that thread that read the book agreed it has racist and bigoted elements. Many people defended its use, saying it was a spring-board to discussion of bias or other rationales, but NO ONE contested the racism and bigotry and every person who posted on the subject (even if they liked/used TCoO) agreed that it DOES contain racist and bigoted elements.

 

Even *YOU* don't claim otherwise.

 

Bill

[coffeefreak]

Thank you Jackie. I don't want to do it anymore.

 

OMG Carmen LMBO!!!!!!!

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

There are plenty of posts saying ToG are not racists, that people who use the book are not racists, even that Marshall herself may be more a product of her time than a blatant racist. Please point me to the posts where someone says that TCoO does not contain any bigoted or racist material, because I must have missed those posts.

 

Jackie

 

On the contrary. Every poster on that thread that read the book agreed it has racist and bigoted elements. Many people defended its use, saying it was a spring-board to discussion of bias or other rationales, but NO ONE contested the racism and bigotry and every person who posted on the subject (even if they liked/used TCoO) agreed that it DOES contain racist and bigoted elements.

 

Even *YOU* don't claim otherwise.

 

Bill

 

Why is it so important to many posters to have everyone publicly admit that this book contains "racist and bigoted elements" ?

 

The longer this discussion goes on and the more this horse gets beaten it seems as if there is a movement to get some sort of unanimous agreement on what is "racist and bigoted." Why is this unanimous agreement necessary and what happens once it is achieved? What is in that other shoe that is going to drop?

 

If the original purpose was simply to observe that a single book contained elements that some vocal board members deemed to be "racist and bigoted" then I think we've been there and done that.

[Lovedtodeath]

Interesting, but the quoted members are not the ones pushing that issue.

[Spy Car]

Why is it so important to many posters to have everyone publicly admit that this book contains "racist and bigoted elements" ?

 

I don't care, except to make it clear what I wrote is indeed the case.

 

The longer this discussion goes on and the more this horse gets beaten it seems as if there is a movement to get some sort of unanimous agreement on what is "racist and bigoted." Why is this unanimous agreement necessary and what happens once it is achieved? What is in that other shoe that is going to drop?

 

I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

If the original purpose was simply to observe that a single book contained elements that some vocal board members deemed to be "racist and bigoted" then I think we've been there and done that.

 

It is too bad more people are not vocal about racism in children's history books, methinks.

 

Bill

[Corraleno]

Why is it so important to many posters to have everyone publicly admit that this book contains "racist and bigoted elements" ?

It's not. But pqr insists there were "plenty of posts" disagreeing with the assertion that there is racism and bigotry in TCoC, and that therefore SpyCar lied on the TOG website. No one here recalls seeing any such posts, hence the question.

 

Jackie

[Spy Car]

It's not. But pqr insists there were "plenty of posts" disagreeing with the assertion that there is racism and bigotry in TCoC, and that therefore SpyCar lied on the TOG website. No one here recalls seeing any such posts, hence the question.

 

Jackie

 

That's it.

 

Bill

[FO4UR]

It is too bad more people are not vocal about racism in children's history books, methinks.

 

Bill

 

:iagree: Kids pick up on EVERYTHING! EVERYTHING!!! They may not process it all properly, but they pick up on it!!!

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

It's not. But pqr insists there were "plenty of posts" disagreeing with the assertion that there is racism and bigotry in TCoC, and that therefore SpyCar lied on the TOG website. No one here recalls seeing any such posts, hence the question.

 

Jackie

 

That may be the most recent argument on the last few pages but many posts in the overall conversation have constantly included a variation on the theme of "prove to me that this book isn't racist, bigoted, etc." Hence my question-why is is so important that we come to a consensus about this book?

 

As to pqr's statement...I can only assume that it stems from what was actually posted on the TOG board-which was an assertion that could easily be interpreted to mean that the opinions given were supported by all members of this board. I will refrain from quoting directly as I take it that this would be a violation of policy of some sort so I suggest you head over there to have a look. I'm not sure that arguing racism or bigotry requires consensus. Surely one voice is enough to begin the discussion or lodge a complaint. Why assume to have been elected spokesperson rather than speaking only for yourself? I think that many folks here objected to being represented against their will.

 

But, as others have said, you may need to bury this horse-there is no productive conversation about books, content or curricula happening here.

[Sophia]

It's not. But pqr insists there were "plenty of posts" disagreeing with the assertion that there is racism and bigotry in TCoC, and that therefore SpyCar lied on the TOG website. No one here recalls seeing any such posts, hence the question.

 

Jackie

 

Actually, what pqr said is

 

"There are plenty of posts that do not evidence agreement and therein lies the rub. 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."

 

For instance, I did not condemn or defend TCoO because I have not read it. (I did defend ToG and the motives of Marcia Somerville)

 

My silence on this book does not mean that Bill can speak for me and include me in his assertion (Whoops, guess I shouldn't have quoted him from ToG's website?)

 

Now why would I not want Bill to include me in his 'every person' group?

 

Well, because there is an implication there that 'every person' thinks the book should not be used by ToG. I'm not willing to say that the book should not be used. Another poster described how she used it in her homeschool, and imo, it sounded worthwhile.

 

So, to sum up...silence does not mean consensus.

Edited June 23, 2010 by Sophia

[pqr]

Actually, what pqr said is

 

"There are plenty of posts that do not evidence agreement and therein lies the rub. 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."

 

For instance, I did not condemn or defend TCoO because I have not read it. (I did defend ToG and the motives of Marcia Somerville)

 

My silence on this book does not mean that Bill can speak for me and include me in his assertion "that every person on "the other" board where the issue has been under discussion agrees includes deeply bigoted and racist elements." (Italics are Bill's comments on the ToG forum.)

 

Now why would I not want Bill to include me in his 'every person' group?

 

Well, because there is an implication there that 'every person' thinks the book should not be used by ToG. I'm not willing to say that the book should not be used. Another poster described how she used it in her homeschool, and imo, it sounded worthwhile.

 

So, to sum up...silence does not mean consensus.

 

Thank you Sophia.

 

I believe that all that is left to be said is QED

[Spy Car]

That may be the most recent argument on the last few pages but many posts in the overall conversation have constantly included a variation on the theme of "prove to me that this book isn't racist, bigoted, etc." Hence my question-why is is so important that we come to a consensus about this book?

 

As to pqr's statement...I can only assume that it stems from what was actually posted on the TOG board-which was an assertion that could easily be interpreted to mean that the opinions given were supported by all members of this board. I will refrain from quoting directly as I take it that this would be a violation of policy of some sort so I suggest you head over there to have a look. I'm not sure that arguing racism or bigotry requires consensus. Surely one voice is enough to begin the discussion or lodge a complaint. Why assume to have been elected spokesperson rather than speaking only for yourself? I think that many folks here objected to being represented against their will.

 

But, as others have said, you may need to bury this horse-there is no productive conversation about books, content or curricula happening here.

 

NO ONE. Not you, not PQR, or any other person on this forum (or the TOG forum, for that matter) has denied that This Country of Ours contains bigoted and racist elements,

 

NO ONE. Not a singe person.

 

Bill

[Lovedtodeath]

 

:iagree: Kids pick up on EVERYTHING! EVERYTHING!!! They may not process it all properly, but they pick up on it!!!

You know what is funny? I read every Nancy Drew book. Every one. I never considered them racist. Someone mentioned that the criminals were often swarthy. I just defined the word in context. I had no idea that it had to do with complexion.

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

NO ONE. Not you, not PQR, or any other person on this forum (or the TOG forum, for that matter) has denied that This Country of Ours contains bigoted and racist elements,

 

NO ONE. Not a singe person.

 

Bill

 

That no one has disputed these accusations doesn't mean that those who do not dispute your arguments must therefore a) agree with you or b) wish to be represented by you.

 

So I ask again-why is it continually necessary to repeat that no one disputes the presence of racism and bigotry in a particular book? Are you looking for consensus? Do you think that no one has noticed this prior to the original thread? Or are you just outraged that no one has chosen this as their forum to point out these elements? Why must we limit our debate to the existence of these elements in a given work?

 

No one denies it publicly-therefore, if your original intention was to point out that racism and bigotry exist in TCoO-- job done. Now what? Is the horse finally dead?

[Lovedtodeath]

 

Is the horse finally dead?

Maybe if we would all stop trying to get the last word in...

 

[MariannNOVA]

[Lovedtodeath]

HEY! Are you trying to one up me? I can search for more smileys.

[Shelly in the Country]

I like pie.

[MariannNOVA]

HEY! Are you trying to one up me? I can search for more smileys.

 

I just couldn't resist. I thought the smiley you posted was THE BEST! I'm old and tired and it is my bed time!