TCoO Head on

[Lovedtodeath]

Tee hee. Me too. I liked that yours had a caption. That was great.

[Mom-ninja.]

I was at a party the other day, and there was some awesome bean dip. I forgot to ask for the recipe though.

[MariannNOVA]

Tee hee. Me too. I liked that yours had a caption. That was great.

 

Thank you - btw, that drawing is all over if one does a google search, BUT the first caption I found, well, I would have been permanently banned - as it had NOTHING to do with the horse.;)

[MariannNOVA]

[Lovedtodeath]

 

Thank you - btw, that drawing is all over if one does a google search, BUT the first caption I found, well, I would have been permanently banned - as it had NOTHING to do with the horse.;)

ROFL I found it!

[Spy Car]

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.

 

I represent no one but myself.

 

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?

 

Because the truth of the assertion was questioned...and, uh, you keep bring it up.

 

Are you looking for consensus?

 

Not necessarily. I think the truth is obvious, but if anyone cares to agrue that This Country of Ours doesn't contain elements that are racist and bigoted I'm all ears :bigear:

 

 

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?

 

I would assume anyone who has read This Country of Ours would notice the bigotry and racism. That's why I'm shocked that it is being used as a history spine. And, truth told, I'm disappointed that more people haven't spoken up after encountering the racism and bigotry in TCoO.

 

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?

 

We will see.

 

Bill

[Lovedtodeath]

 

We will see.

:D

[justasque]

So, if I understand both sides correctly (and although I've been reading it all I'm not sure I fully understand a lot of it, especially anything that goes back a while as I am new to the WTM boards), Bill & Co. are saying that no one has said that TCoO does not contain racist language. Which they are equating with everyone agrees that TCoO contains racist language. These statements are similar, but not quite the same thing. Because, of course, there could be (and quite possibly are) posters who disagreed, but did not state their disagreement in their posts, perhaps for fear of being thought of negatively in some way.

 

Bill & Co.'s opponents are saying that, as I hear it, while they did not say that TCoO is not racist, that doesn't mean that they in fact agree that it is racist. That is, silence on the matter does not mean agreement with the statement.

 

It also sounds like some folks are feeling uncomfortable with the idea that this book, which is part of a program they have positive feelings about, is being portrayed negatively, and they are feeling like that is a criticism of their choice to use it, or to use TOG, or to consider using it in the future, or perhaps a criticism of the writers of TOG.

 

On the other hand, to my ears, Bill & Co seems to be very negative about the book itself, but not deliberately bashing anyone for using it. For them, saying things like "I don't understand why anyone would use this book as a spine" seems to be a literal statement - they are genuinely curious about people who have read the book and still see some merit in it, and they want to understand that. However, others seem to be hearing this kind of statement as a criticism of people who do use the book as a spine. That seems like one of those "it's hard to understand tone on the internet" things.

 

There seems to be much more sensitivity about TCoO than about, say, Hakim, which has also been critiqued on the thread but without the ensuing hurt feelings and such. It seems like TCoO (maybe because of the association with TOG or CM or whatever) inspires a kind of personal loyalty that Hakim fans are lacking; it would be interesting to explore that.

 

Me, I'm fascinated by the whole discussion, though baffled by the board politics part (and having no clue about everyone's religious background and how that plays out). For me, saying "this isn't a great book, can we find a better one" is a *good* question to be asking, and not a criticism of anyone who is using the book as 1) an example of a problematic book, or 2) something that they know is not ideal but fits their budget, or makes life easy because it comes in a "complete curriculum" program, so they are making it work as best they can.

 

Oh - and my poll answer would have been "have read only parts of the online book, both the problem areas pointed out by others and a sampling of the rest so as to determine context, and found nothing to tempt me to use it with my dc, so am unlikely to read the rest, unless we find ourselves in a co-op class or other activity that uses it, in which case we will talk, talk, talk about the issues, but as of now I'm unlikely to buy it if I see it at the thrift shop." But that answer wasn't there!

 

(BTW, Anything in quotes or italics are paraphrasing, not actual quotes. And no, I'm not going to re-read the threads to get actual quotes - it's been hard enough to follow the discussion the first time through!)

Edited June 23, 2010 by askPauline

[MariannNOVA]

ROFL I found it!

 

:lol: Yup, but BANNED, right?:tongue_smilie:

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

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?

 

We will see.

 

Bill

 

Sorry-dead horse. Not worth my time to continue in this circle.

[Lovedtodeath]

:lol: Yup, but BANNED, right?:tongue_smilie:

:iagree:

 

So, if I understand both sides correctly

In answer to askPauline:

 

Sorry-dead horse. Not worth my time to continue in this circle.

:iagree:

[Heidi]

I haven't read TCoO but I've read parts and will read the whole thing.. probably. We'll see if I share it with my kids. I love Ambleside and will be starting yr. 1 in a few weeks. I'd like to not stray from the book selections if at all possible. Here are my thoughts:

 

I'm a Mormon and I thought the chapter on Mormons was very entertaining! Yeah, it was way off, but everyone knows that now, and at least there was a chapter on Mormons. I'm more put out when the Mormons aren't mentioned at all in an American history text, personally. My high school history text got a lot wrong on the Mormon chapter (not as bad as TCoO though). And? A local church was preaching stuff like that to the kids in my school (1997ish).. "Mormon night" once a month, and I'm pretty sure no Mormons were actually there. Racism and bigotry is alive and well; I want my children to understand why people are like that and learn how to deal with it when it's aimed at them.

 

From what I've read of TCoO, it seems written in a very engaging way and it is fairly comprehensive. I'm not aware of the of racism in it yet, as I haven't read it all, but I'm not a racist person... and I will be the one reading it to them. We'll discuss the language, her point of view, and move on. I think my children will take on my attitude and teachings towards other cultures and people and not be affected by Marshall's attitude. In the meantime, hopefully they'll be intrigued by the rest of American history.

 

And then again, I might finish reading it and decide it's not for us. I'm not convinced yet.

 

ETA: Just read the first chapter... does she refer to the indians as savages throughout the entire book? I guess I need to read it already!

ETA: just read "How the red-men fought against their white brothers". No mention of savages. It didn't sound racist at all. Perhaps she refers to the Indians as savages in the first chapters because that is how the explorers described them...

Edited June 23, 2010 by hmsmith

[Corraleno]

ETA: Just read the first chapter... does she refer to the indians as savages throughout the entire book? I guess I need to read it already!

ETA: just read "How the red-men fought against their white brothers". No mention of savages. It didn't sound racist at all. Perhaps she refers to the Indians as savages in the first chapters because that is how the explorers described them...

 

Well, there's plenty of stuff like this, throughout the book:

 

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 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."

 

There are also issues of omission, like stating that the first Spanish colonists were slaughtered by Indians, without a single hint that Columbus and his men ever harmed a hair on the "dark-skinned savages" that inhabited the islands.

 

Etc.

 

Jackie

[Mrs Mungo]

There seems to be much more sensitivity about TCoO than about, say, Hakim, which has also been critiqued on the thread but without the ensuing hurt feelings and such. It seems like TCoO (maybe because of the association with TOG or CM or whatever) inspires a kind of personal loyalty that Hakim fans are lacking; it would be interesting to explore that.

 

To reword your statement, it would be interesting to explore why Hakim's fans don't mind criticism while fans of TCoO cannot bear any criticism.

 

BUT this is not actually the case. Several people in the "opposing camp" have not even read the book.

[Corraleno]

Reading a narrative history can give one that feeling, but if the 'what's and 'why's encased in that narrative are, not just simplified (b/c *any* history for this age will be drastically simplified), but wildly off base, then you haven't increased your knowledge, you've acquired a whole set of misapprehensions... and the more engaging the narrative, the more ingrained those misperceptions will be.

I do not want to teach my children mythology instead of history - I want the stories they absorb to well rooted in fact....

 

... I cannot envision studying history with them through such a distorted lens or using such casual, ongoing second-hand ugliness as a vehicle for discussing bigotry.

Thank you Eliana, for stating so elegantly and concisely the point that many of us have been trying to get across for several days now.

 

So I, personally see no redeeming value in this text and am still baffled that anyone would find it tolerable let alone *desirable*, but much of the world is incomprehensible to me. :) ...and I do not assume that anyone who uses, defends, or loves this text is any less upstanding a human being than I am. I am condemning the text, not its users.

:iagree: with all of this.

 

Jackie

[Heidi]

 

BUT this is not actually the case. Several people in the "opposing camp" have not even read the book.

 

That's not what the poll says. :001_huh:

 

Just printed TCoO. Will be reading soon. :lurk5:

[TracyP]

To reword your statement, it would be interesting to explore why Hakim's fans don't mind criticism while fans of TCoO cannot bear any criticism.

 

BUT this is not actually the case. Several people in the "opposing camp" have not even read the book.

 

That's not what the poll says. :001_huh:

 

I think the fact that most TCoO fans haven't posted may show that they actually don't mind the criticism. The most vehement supporters seem to have not actually read the book. For some reason (or maybe many reasons) those people who read and enjoyed the book don't seem to want to get involved. Maybe because they think it is silly, maybe they don't want the hassle, I couldn't say. But I think Mrs. Mungo is right.

[woolybear]

I can't vote either. I own the book. It is in two programs I will be using next year (Ambleside and TOG) and I plan to read at least some of it over the summer and then decide about it.

 

Had I not read the "evil history" thread, I might not have looked as closely as I now will. I do not just take what is spoon fed to me from a curriculum, but I also do not pre-read every book. Sometimes, I just have to deal with it on the fly (as I am reading aloud). That may include editing at that moment. It also includes talking about and discussing what we are reading. And then we may drop that book from our readings.

[Lostinabook]

To reword your statement, it would be interesting to explore why Hakim's fans don't mind criticism while fans of TCoO cannot bear any criticism. .

 

As far as I know, people who don't like Hakim don't feel the need to call people & curricula that use the book depraved, bigoted, or racist. The criticism I've seen has been for the books & author rather than for the users.

 

Disclaimer: We use Ambleside so I bought TCOO. I read it aloud so that I could edit it on the fly, but found it so BORING that we quit using it after a few chapters.

[Joy at Home]

As far as I know, people who don't like Hakim don't feel the need to call people & curricula that use the book depraved, bigoted, or racist. The criticism I've seen has been for the books & author rather than for the users.

 

Disclaimer: We use Ambleside so I bought TCOO. I read it aloud so that I could edit it on the fly, but found it so BORING that we quit using it after a few chapters.

 

 

I agree. It's gone beyond being critical to the book and extending to those who use it and the company who schedules it. I don't recall opinions on Hakim's books becoming as vitriolic as these discussions have been. If I were to make the statement that I can't see how anyone but left wing nuts wishing to study revisionist history would use Hakim, I bet it wouldn't sit well.

[Spy Car]

As far as I know, people who don't like Hakim don't feel the need to call people & curricula that use the book depraved, bigoted, or racist. The criticism I've seen has been for the books & author rather than for the users.

 

This Country of Ours has been criticized on its merits (or demerits, in this case) as a book. This has been repeated again and again. Conflating a criticism of the book into a criticism of a person by people who don't like the criticism of the book is something I can't stop, but I wish I could.

 

Bill

[Lovedtodeath]

 

This Country of Ours has been criticized on its merits (or demerits, in this case) as a book. This has been repeated again and again. Conflating a criticism of the book into a criticism of a person by people who don't like the criticism of the book is something I can't stop, but I wish I could.

I think the other thread has helped you to understand where people are getting that idea.

[Sophia]

Conflating a criticism of the book into a criticism of a person by people who don't like the criticism of the book is something I can't stop, but I wish I could.

 

Bill

 

I think you can do it.

You have already stopped using the word depraved to describe the users.

It might also be a good idea to not say it "doesn't reflect well" that readers of Marshall's book didn't raise hell a long time ago.

 

I did not like Hakim, and sold it without any kind of judgement to the person who bought it and uses it.

 

It's really that easy.

[Spy Car]

You have already stopped using the word depraved to describe the users.

It might also be a good idea to not say it "doesn't reflect well" that readers of Marshall's book didn't raise hell a long time ago.

 

 

"Depraved" described my impression of the *book*. Misrepresenting my words is a debating trick among those who chose not deal with the true topic at hand.

 

Bill

[Sophia]

I guess I'm not supposed to lift quotes from locked threads?

You did say "using the book is depraved."

That transfers the depravity from the book to the user.

That's not a misrepresentation.

 

It's ok to say it was a poor choice of words. Happens to people all the time.

[Lovedtodeath]

I don't know when not being a Christian (as one forum member stooped so low to include in an attack) or not being a "homeschooler" has to do with seeing racism and bigotry in educational materials and questioning their use.

 

One might have hoped that people who do fit the former categories would have read this work and raised hell along time ago. It does not reflect well on those who have been silent.

You are bad-mouthing Christian homeschoolers who have kept silent about the use of TCoO.

 

You might also keep in mind that there are a large and varied group of Christian homeschoolers. We have liberals, conservatives, Catholics, Protestants, Restorationists... and some of them either are or have once been your friends.

 

The way TOG uses TCoO is to teach children about different viewpoints and to teach them to question things. It is used as a comparison text along with other books. There is no reason to "raise hell" about that.

 

Now, it is strange that it goes on being scheduled in CM resources, but since I don't use or plan to use any of those curriculums this Christian homeschooler hasn't made it my business.

Edited June 23, 2010 by Lovedtodeath

[Avila]

"Depraved" described my impression of the *book*. Misrepresenting my words is a debating trick among those who chose not deal with the true topic at hand.

 

Bill

 

Can I ask an honest question? What do you think the topic at hand is?

 

You are debating the book. OK. Debate over for the most part. What is there left to say?

 

Other people are debating HOW you are choosing to the debate the book and what you call conflating your criticism of the book to the people and programs who use it.

 

It is OK to criticize the book. It is not OK to extrapolate that to the people who use it. That is my own value judgement, but that is also the impasse, I guess.

 

Are you trying to call the programs and people who use this book evil or are we misunderstanding you here?

Edited June 23, 2010 by Asenik

[Lovedtodeath]

I guess I'm not supposed to lift quotes from locked threads?

You did say "using the book is depraved."

That transfers the depravity from the book to the user.

That's not a misrepresentation.

 

It's ok to say it was a poor choice of words. Happens to people all the time.

:iagree:Thank you!

 

Are you trying to call the programs and people who use this book evil or are we misunderstanding you here?

It is a repetitive pattern of misunderstanding.

[Susan in TX]

Well, there's plenty of stuff like this, throughout the book:

 

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 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."

 

I read the first volume of the book series that Bill recommended, The Drama of American History: Clash of Cultures. To me it seems that its portrayal of Native American's isn't much better:

 

"...many Indian groups had rituals of torture. This was especially true of the Iroquois of the eastern woodlands. Prisoners of war were sometimes tortured to death in the cruelest of ways. Their joints might be broken one after the next; they might be roasted slowly, a bit at a time, first one foot, then the other, then the hands..."

 

And there is no judgement made against the conquering Spaniards:

 

"...very soon after the well-published voyages of Columbus, other daring and ambitious men began to colonize the Carribbean Islands. They went on to conquer the large, advanced civilizations of the Inca of Peru and the Aztec and Maya of southern Mexico. These conquests were utterly amazing: Within a few short years a handful of Spanish conquistadores subdued whole empires of tens of thousands of people."

 

"...the Europeans were simply curious, and on a few occasions they kidnapped Indians and carried them back to Europe as curiosities..."

 

In some ways, I find the morally neutral tone of this book to be more offensive than TCoO.

 

Susan in TX

[Corraleno]

I read the first volume of the book series that Bill recommended, The Drama of American History: Clash of Cultures. To me it seems that its portrayal of Native American's isn't much better:

 

"...many Indian groups had rituals of torture. This was especially true of the Iroquois of the eastern woodlands. Prisoners of war were sometimes tortured to death in the cruelest of ways. Their joints might be broken one after the next; they might be roasted slowly, a bit at a time, first one foot, then the other, then the hands..."

 

And there is no judgement made against the conquering Spaniards:

 

"...very soon after the well-published voyages of Columbus, other daring and ambitious men began to colonize the Carribbean Islands. They went on to conquer the large, advanced civilizations of the Inca of Peru and the Aztec and Maya of southern Mexico. These conquests were utterly amazing: Within a few short years a handful of Spanish conquistadores subdued whole empires of tens of thousands of people."

 

"...the Europeans were simply curious, and on a few occasions they kidnapped Indians and carried them back to Europe as curiosities..."

 

In some ways, I find the morally neutral tone of this book to be more offensive than TCoO.

 

Susan in TX

I appreciate the heads-up on those books, too.

 

Jackie

[johnandtinagilbert]

"Depraved" described my impression of the *book*. Misrepresenting my words is a debating trick among those who chose not deal with the true topic at hand.

 

Bill

 

Come on, Bill. You're an intelligent man. Do you not see how many of your statements can be perceived? Really? Seriously, asking...really?

 

To be clear, YES there are perspectives in the book that are racist in nature, according to my 21st century perspective. There are parts that are one-sided in description. This book is not perfect, nor does it singularly paint an accurate picture of history. That's why many people use it in concert with other selections. We've covered that already.

 

I am "not dealing" with your original thoughts on portions of the book, that for you, disqualify it's use. I agree that there is questionable materials (even bigoted); however I disagree that users of any material can be defined by the materials, which is what your comments imply. You have to see that. I really believe its been laid out nicely for you. At least, I certainly tried.

[johnandtinagilbert]

I read the first volume of the book series that Bill recommended, The Drama of American History: Clash of Cultures. To me it seems that its portrayal of Native American's isn't much better:

 

"...many Indian groups had rituals of torture. This was especially true of the Iroquois of the eastern woodlands. Prisoners of war were sometimes tortured to death in the cruelest of ways. Their joints might be broken one after the next; they might be roasted slowly, a bit at a time, first one foot, then the other, then the hands..."

 

And there is no judgement made against the conquering Spaniards:

 

"...very soon after the well-published voyages of Columbus, other daring and ambitious men began to colonize the Carribbean Islands. They went on to conquer the large, advanced civilizations of the Inca of Peru and the Aztec and Maya of southern Mexico. These conquests were utterly amazing: Within a few short years a handful of Spanish conquistadores subdued whole empires of tens of thousands of people."

 

"...the Europeans were simply curious, and on a few occasions they kidnapped Indians and carried them back to Europe as curiosities..."

 

In some ways, I find the morally neutral tone of this book to be more offensive than TCoO.

 

Susan in TX

ah...moral neutrality, sometimes my friend, others my foe. I guess I find much of this discussion perplexing b/c we DISCUSS everything in our house. No matter if we agree or not, we discuss, so our moral compass filters everything. I defer to my original post...that's a no brainer!

[Lostinabook]

This Country of Ours has been criticized on its merits (or demerits, in this case) as a book. This has been repeated again and again. Conflating a criticism of the book into a criticism of a person by people who don't like the criticism of the book is something I can't stop, but I wish I could.

 

Bill

 

Here are examples of things you've said:

 

"I think using this book as a history text is depraved."

 

and

 

"I'm still not sure what kind of depravity is going on (total or otherwise) that a history book that displays the raw-throated bigotry of This Country of Ours can appear as a history spine for TOG, or on the list for Ambleside Online and there is not a peep of protest."

 

and

 

"There is a vast difference between teaching ones children that there are racists out there in the world, and using history textbooks filled with vile bigotry as ones teaching materials."

 

and

 

"I think the publishers of TOG should be ashamed of themselves for the inclusion of these works in their program."

 

and

 

"I'm sorry to doubt motives, but I've come to believe that some homeschool publishers use materials like these because they share the anachronistic values in books like these and seek to perpetuate them in children."

 

and

 

"I would deeply suspect offerings from a publisher who included these works in their programs."

 

 

 

I've never seen such nastiness directed at a publisher such as Sonlight because they utilize Hakim's work. And I've never seen anyone call users of Hakim's work "depraved."

[lionfamily1999]

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.

How do you download from there? I'd rather not play this from my computer, can I transfer it to my MP3?

[ChrisOR]

I'm posting on the WTM forums for just the second time (intro post is on the general forum). Reading this thread finally encouraged me to start posting. :)

 

My husband and I are not racist, and are very bothered when elderly relatives use offensive and outdated words. We both took almost enough history at public university to minor in history, and we love history.

 

TCOO includes interesting details from history that I've never read in a text. My kids and I loved the chapter describing how two spies hid from the British for years, living in a house complete with secret passages and were amazed when one of them came out of hiding to lead a leaderless militia.

 

We are reading TCOO because we follow Ambleside Online pretty closely. I didn't pre-read, but do read aloud and edit as I see fit. Yes, the terms of "savage" and "redskin" bother me because they are outdated and offensive. I edit those terms to read "Native American" or "Indian." I also edit longer derogatory descriptions (such as those others have quoted here).

 

I have had several conversations with my husband about the book, and we've decided that the book opens up discussions with our kids that are valuable. We've talked about how they were deceived by explorers. We've talked about why the native Americans were called savages, as they were defending their land, as any of us (and anyone in history) would. We attended a university lecture recently in which the professor described the "human family as a rough crowd throughout history." So true. We all are alike in that shared decription.

 

Its not without reservation that I have used the book, but have not known a book to substitute that provides the interesting details with a more complex literary style. I do welcome suggestions ... sounds like the Hakim books are equally debatable. What about the Sonlight selection written by the library of Congress librarian (sorry, can't recall his name)?

 

I'd like to share an anecdote that I think shows how our discussions about the book have led to my kids personalizing what they've learned ... mind you, its not especially "deep" but as Charlotte Mason said, "its not how much they know as much as how much they care." My 7 year old said, "I wouldn't want to be called a paleface." I pointed out that the native Americans don't want to be called savages or redskins either. That made sense to her! Then my 9 year old said, "So the Washington Redskins' name is rude."

[MyFourSons]

How do you download from there? I'd rather not play this from my computer, can I transfer it to my MP3?

 

I know for other books on librivox, they have zip files of the entire book you can download, the files for these are usually found above the individual chapter files. I have downloaded these to my hard drive and then burned them onto discs.

[DianeW88]

Ok, well, I don't think I can answer the poll questions correctly, because I have only read some of the chapters of the book online.

 

However, being a Latter-day Saint (Mormon), I naturally chose that chapter to read, because I consider myself to be well informed on the history of the LDS church. That particular chapter was riddled with inaccuracies as well as the author's personal (and negative) opinions on the church. It made me laugh, however, and it might be something I would read to my kids to show them an example of blatant bias in a history textbook.

 

I also took a look at the chapter on the Salem witch trials and found that to contain more opinions stated as facts than I would prefer in a textbook. The author states that the girls accusing the townspeople of witchcraft were making up stories. That may be true. However, there have also been theories that the girls had been under the influence of hallucinogenic drugs (in plant form) that one the girl's housekeepers (not sure off the top of my head of her relationship with the children) had given them.

 

Anyway, I don't know if that theory had surfaced at the time the book was written or not. I suppose the point I'm trying to make is that the book might be interesting as an anecdotal type of reading in relation to history, but I would not use it as a spine of any sort or teach my children that it was "history in truth".

 

It actually might be fun to use it with older kids as an exercise for picking out bias in an article or book. "What do you see in this chapter that is stated as fact, but instead is merely the author's opinion on the subject?"

 

Diane W.

married for 22 years

homeschooling 3 kiddos for 16 years

Edited June 23, 2010 by DianeW88

[lovemy9kids]

As someone who is doing Y3 next year, what spine would you recommend?

I'd like something fairly accurate and unbiased (don't we all!) Is there something close? Or could I just skip that and just do the in-depth reading?

Any suggestions?

[lionfamily1999]

I know for other books on librivox, they have zip files of the entire book you can download, the files for these are usually found above the individual chapter files. I have downloaded these to my hard drive and then burned them onto discs.

Do you have to have a program to unzip files?

 

I saw their instructions right after I'd posted, but I can't unzip files generally.

[MyFourSons]

Do you have to have a program to unzip files?

 

I saw their instructions right after I'd posted, but I can't unzip files generally.

 

Do you have a Mac or PC? I have a PC and I just use the Windows prompts. After I click on the link, I select "Save" and save them to my desktop so they are easy to find. Once they are done downloading, I click on he "Open" button. When the folder opens, there is usually an "extract all" button at the top of the window. This unzips all the files at once, with a prompt for you to select where to save them. I'm not sure if older versions of Windows are like this, or what to do with a mac.

 

HTH, if not there's always google! :)

[Lovedtodeath]

As someone who is doing Y3 next year, what spine would you recommend?

I'd like something fairly accurate and unbiased (don't we all!) Is there something close? Or could I just skip that and just do the in-depth reading?

Any suggestions?

Eggleston has two books that HOD uses for American History. You may also be interested in this post:

Just to clear up any misunderstandings. My family decided NOT to use TCoO even though it was listed on my website. My girls just don't like that author and it wasn't "complete" enough for our needs. We wanted something more narrative than History of US as our spine so we are using An Elementary History of Our Country. We will balance that out with selected readings from A Younge People's History of the United States (which isn't nearly as beautifully written as the original) and A History of US (mostly for my elder daughter).

 

Also, my take on history is that we read from such a wide variety of books (many never get listed on the website) that I don't have to worry too much what bias our spines have since the kids spot them no problem. I know this works because my teen now actively seeks out 2nd ,3rd and even 4th "opinions" whenever he is reading about a topic regardless of what subject it is for. We also discuss the importance of history and the biases found therein on a nearly daily basis.

 

Just clarifying,

Gina

(owner of the SecularCM site)

Edited June 23, 2010 by Lovedtodeath

[Spy Car]

Are you trying to call the programs and people who use this book evil or are we misunderstanding you here?

 

I think I've been absolutely clear. I find the racism and bigotry contained in This Country of Ours deeply disturbing. I question the appropriateness of using a work like This Country of Ours as a history spine because it is highly inaccurate and it includes stereotypes that are hateful to me.

 

I would question the judgement of a curriculum provider in including a work like this in a program aimed at children. And I have.

 

I have discussed my concerns with the publisher of TOG. He assures me he and his family are vigorous opponents of racism and bigotry. I accept that on his word.

 

I also said publicly that the line between questioning a book and the motives of a publisher for including that book in their program and calling them racists for having done so (which I NEVER did) might seem blurred if I were on the other end of this. And for any pain I caused him or his family I am truly sorry.

 

That does not change in the slightest degree my feelings about This Country of Ours.

 

I will repeat (hopefully for the last time) that owning or using TCoO does not make a person a racist in my eyes. I never said otherwise. People may have different judgements about what book they use and how they use them. I don't see this books value as a history spine as I think the authors racist and bigoted commentary is unsuitable for use with children, and the work is inaccurate, making it more of a "fable" than a history book.

 

Bill

Edited June 23, 2010 by Spy Car

[Avila]

I think I've been absolutely clear. Bill

 

I don't think you have been, or I wouldn't have asked. ;)

 

I did want to give you a chance to say that clearly, and you have. And I apologize for assuming otherwise.

 

I hope from reading some of the other responses that you understand where people may have gotten that impression and why people are upset. I think that is what people would like to see acknowledged. You may think you are saying one thing, but we have all been hearing another.

[johnandtinagilbert]

I also said publicly that the line between questioning a book and the motives of a publisher for including that book in their program and calling them racists for having done so (which I NEVER did) might seem blurred if I were on the other end of this. And for any pain I caused him of his family I am truly sorry.

Bill

I appreciate this comment and would say that in addition to the Somervilles your comments offended some users of the book in the same way. My hope is you can see how it may be "blurred" by families who use this book too, not just publishers who list it and at the same time you finally realize that some can use this book, even though you disagree with their choice, and remain outstanding home schoolers.

[johnandtinagilbert]

I don't think you have been, or I wouldn't have asked. ;)

 

I did want to give you a chance to say that clearly, and you have. And I apologize for assuming otherwise.

 

I hope from reading some of the other responses that you understand where people may have gotten that impression and why people are upset. I think that is what people would like to see acknowledged. You may think you are saying one thing, but we have all been hearing another.

:iagree:

[Spy Car]

Come on, Bill. You're an intelligent man. Do you not see how many of your statements can be perceived? Really? Seriously, asking...really?

 

I think I'm very clear about what I say. No one has ever accused me of being less than forthright no matter how much they might disagree with me.

 

If I had meant to say anyone who uses TCoO is a racist I would have said so. But that IS NOT WHAT I BELIEVE. If people, for reasons beyond me, want to extrapolate meanings into my words that I don't believe and haven't expressed it aggrieves me.

 

When I can see my words might reasonably cause offense to another person were I in their situation and they in mine, then I offer sincere apologies.

 

To be clear, YES there are perspectives in the book that are racist in nature, according to my 21st century perspective.

 

But they are also racist from an early twentieth century perspective. It would simply be untrue to say everyone in 1917 was a racist and used the sort of inflammatory language favored by Henrietta Marshall.

 

And why use a book that is "racist in nature" as a history spine?

 

There are parts that are one-sided in description. This book is not perfect, nor does it singularly paint an accurate picture of history.

 

We are in agreement on this point, except "less that perfect" strikes me as a gross understatement.

 

 

I am "not dealing" with your original thoughts on portions of the book, that for you, disqualify it's use.

 

Because I've had to deal with repeated assertions that I've called people people racists for using TCoO, which simply is not so...no matter how often it is repeated.

 

I agree that there is questionable materials (even bigoted); however I disagree that users of any material can be defined by the materials, which is what your comments imply.

 

I'm implying no such thing. I don't know how many time I have to repeat myself.

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

I don't think you have been, or I wouldn't have asked. ;)

 

I did want to give you a chance to say that clearly, and you have. And I apologize for assuming otherwise.

 

I hope from reading some of the other responses that you understand where people may have gotten that impression and why people are upset. I think that is what people would like to see acknowledged. You may think you are saying one thing, but we have all been hearing another.

 

I think people sometimes hear what they want to hear.

 

Hopefully any confusion about my position has been made clear. But I'm not overly-confident about it.

 

Bill

[Avila]

I think people sometimes hear what they want to hear.

 

Hopefully any confusion about my position has been made clear. But I'm not overly-confident about it.

 

Bill

 

I can only speak for myself, but it wasn't what I wanted to hear. And I don't have a habit of reading into things willy-nilly. So I think there is a misfire in communication here that has sadly derailed an opportunity to discuss some serious issues.

 

I am taking you at your word now. And as I said before, I apologize for assuming and not just asking you when it first came up.

[Spy Car]

I can only speak for myself, but it wasn't what I wanted to hear. And I don't have a habit of reading into things willy-nilly. So I think there is a misfire in communication here that has sadly derailed an opportunity to discuss some serious issues.

 

I am taking you at your word now. And as I said before, I apologize for assuming and not just asking you when it first came up.

 

I appreciate the post. I didn't think you were anything but sincere in the question. My comment about people hearing what they want to hear was not directed at you. Virtually from the get-go in the original thread people expressed their feelings insult that I was calling them racists, when in actuality I was criticizing the bigotry and racism in TCoO. And tried to repeatedly make clear. As I'm still doing.

 

Over and over the mischaracterizations (intentional or not) were repeated, so feeling like there has ben a "misfire of communications" is a sentiment we share.

 

Bill

[johnandtinagilbert]

I think I'm very clear about what I say. No one has ever accused me of being less than forthright no matter how much they might disagree with me.

 

If I had meant to say anyone who uses TCoO is a racist I would have said so. But that IS NOT WHAT I BELIEVE. If people, for reasons beyond me, want to extrapolate meanings into my words that I don't believe and haven't expressed it aggrieves me.

 

When I can see my words might reasonably cause offense to another person were I in their situation and they in mine, then I offer sincere apologies.

 

 

 

But they are also racist from an early twentieth century perspective. It would simply be untrue to say everyone in 1917 was a racist and used the sort of inflammatory language favored by Henrietta Marshall.

 

And why use a book that is "racist in nature" as a history spine?

 

 

 

We are in agreement on this point, except "less that perfect" strikes me as a gross understatement.

 

 

 

 

Because I've had to deal with repeated assertions that I've called people people racists for using TCoO, which simply is not so...no matter how often it is repeated.

 

 

 

I'm implying no such thing. I don't know how many time I have to repeat myself.

 

Bill

Thanks, Bill for responding. I imagine you are exhausted from this discussion. I too will take you at your word that you do not believe users of TCoO are racist. And I continue to appreciate your apology and phone call to Mr. Somerville. It's nice to see someone put their money where there mouth is.

 

To keep a clear conscience, I want to say, although I have found your posts forthcoming, I did easily read into them (in this topic area) assertions about users...assertions that went beyond the book and more toward users. So, just to avoid the drawing out of misunderstanding, I would encourage you to add a wee bit of caution in your posts. I really can easily see how people were offended by your posts, even if they did not fully understand your intent.

 

I thank you, again and head out. I have spent entirely too much time here today!