Drama of American History

[Aubrey]

So my branch only had one volume, the one about the Civil War, but I thought it might be nice for those of us who are previewing these to put our reviews all in one place, to help others who might be interested.

 

Slavery & the Coming Civil War

 

 

http://aubreylively.blogspot.com/201...ry-review.html

 

I went ahead & moved the whole thing over to my blog. :)

Edited June 25, 2010 by Aubrey

[MariannNOVA]

So my branch only had one volume, the one about the Civil War, but I thought it might be nice for those of us who are previewing these to put our reviews all in one place, to help others who might be interested.

 

Slavery & the Coming Civil War

 

I'm a couple of chapters in, & the text is pretty captivating. The details included are really interesting & a lot of them are things I didn't know, despite just having studied this pd w/ my dc. As far as bias, I see arguments for it going a smidge over the line...both ways. Like some kind of blockade runner or something, the writing is dangerous, & that makes it kind-of exciting.

 

The way the book is approaching the issues of the period is very thought-provoking. I kept dh up till the wee hrs of the morning w/ what he called "final exam essay questions." Which I think means he wanted me to stop, let him sleep, & ask later. :confused: But, for ex, I had never really realized that the N & S were colonized by two distinct groups of Englishmen. (Not that they were only English, but of the ones who were.) The book doesn't really go into this but touches on it enough that I thought to ask.

 

One thing I haven't liked so far: Today we find it very difficult to understand how human beings could treat other people in such a cruel fashion. We should realize that back in the 1500s and 1600s, people had less respect for human life than we do today. Masters were frequently cruel to their servants of any race or nation; harsh treatment was expected as the normal thing. But clearly, Europeans saw blacks as very different from themselves. They did not believe that blacks could reason as they did, were not as sensitive to pain, were not as capable of affection, grief, loyalty, and comradeship as whites were.

 

Today we understand that people of all races and ethnic groups are basically much the same in their feelings and the things that concern them. Human joys and sorrows are similar in people everywhere. But that was not so well understood in the sixteenth and seventeeth centuries. Among other things, different races and ethnic groups had far less contact with each other than they do in the United States today. Whatever the case, in that era many, if not most, Europeans were able to treat blacks with a cruelty they would rarely inflict on other whites.

 

I think one could argue that there's a touch of racism against Europeans, since obviously it was the *few* who were running slave ships, not the many, & since the author also goes into the cruelty slaves sufferend at the hands of other Africans, the Spanish (who I realize are Europeans but for whatever reason are often treated separately--maybe it's that big pond that separates them! hehe), Portuguese, Muslims, & S Americans.

 

That's not what bothers me, though. I get nervous when a text gets...can we call it time-ist? When it takes the approach that NOW we are so much smarter, more enlightened, etc. You know, I hope so. But...I think the part of us that will enslave other human beings is always there, w/ always the potential to rise to the surface, given the right circumstances. (Or wrong ones, rather.) I think we need to be careful to assume that we couldn't fall into the same kinds of blind indecency that previous centuries committed. After all, we're not *that* far removed from the 20th c, & things didn't look a *whole* lot better then. Kwim?

 

Overall (so far)...I think I love this book. (I've been interrupted by 2 phone calls & advice on bankruptcy, so if I get redundant, please forgive me.)

 

It's challenging, interesting, engaging. Yeah, it oversimplifies some stuff, but they tell you that up front. And it's for kids. And you could read it pretty quickly, so you had time to go deeper if you wanted. They do focus on slavery being the reason for the Civil War, but they let you know that they're *choosing* that reason to focus on. That seems relatively fair. More than I usually hope for in a book treating such a volatile topic. And I LOVE that they include quotes & comments from peripheral figures. For ex, we get the aging Jefferson's thoughts on the Missouri problem. Interesting!

 

 

I think it's a great idea, and I think that swimmermom3 (Lisa) may have started, albeit tongue in cheek, a social group for DAH. Or if it wasn't Lisa, someone else. Check and see - I am on the waiting list for some at my library.

 

ETA: I must have dreamed the entire thing or it was a suggestion that someone made - create a social group - b/c there is not DAH social group, unless there is and I missed it. Anyway, I will be happy to read and report. But I think that a separate place would be nore appropriate - such as a social group.

Edited June 24, 2010 by MariannNOVA

[Aubrey]

http://aubreylively.blogspot.com/2010/06/drama-of-american-history-review.html

 

I finished the book this afternoon & am less in love than I was. The full review is on my blog, so as to limit controversy here. I think it's thorough enough (w/ page numbers & quotes) to help people determine if it's a good fit for them or not.

 

HTH! :001_smile:

[Mrs Mungo]

I think it's a great idea, and I think that swimmermom3 (Lisa) may have started, albeit tongue in cheek, a social group for DAH. Or if it wasn't Lisa, someone else. Check and see - I am on the waiting list for some at my library.

 

ETA: I must have dreamed the entire thing or it was a suggestion that someone made - create a social group - b/c there is not DAH social group, unless there is and I missed it. Anyway, I will be happy to read and report. But I think that a separate place would be nore appropriate - such as a social group.

 

Are you thinking of the social group red flags?

[Aubrey]

Are you thinking of the social group red flags?

 

I'm not sure what she meant, but I looked for it earlier & didn't see anything. Anyway, I thought it would still be better out here where more people could see it. But then decided since it contains the words "conservative," "liberal," & "slavery," I'd move it to my blog. :lol:

[MariannNOVA]

Are you thinking of the social group red flags?

 

 

I wondered if that was it. Was that started quite recently? Last couple of weeks perhaps.

[Caraway]

Thank you for the review, it was quite helpful.

 

I REALLY wish that we could discuss these issues on the board. I was learning a lot when *that* thread disappeared. I am sorry that (IMO) the messenger got shot.

 

Again, thank you for the review.

[lovemyboys]

http://aubreylively.blogspot.com/2010/06/drama-of-american-history-review.html

 

I finished the book this afternoon & am less in love than I was. The full review is on my blog, so as to limit controversy here. I think it's thorough enough (w/ page numbers & quotes) to help people determine if it's a good fit for them or not.

 

HTH! :001_smile:

 

Thanks. This blogpost gives more perspective on this series, which really does require more time and research given its size (volumes), limited availability and price than others.

 

Serendipity that the one book available to you was one that mirrors a time period you are recently (and personally) familiar with. Thanks for sharing your insight.

 

:001_smile:

[Laura in VA]

Here are a few quotes from 2 of the 3 books I checked out of the library.

 

I really don't want to read the 3rd book, but if anyone needs even more quotes, I may oblige.

 

 

Progressivism, the Great Depression, and the New Deal (1901-1941)

 

p.22 "By 1900, if not before, it had become obvious to many thoughtful people that too many Americans were not getting their fair share of the growing American prosperity."

 

p.30 "Although there were some improvements, farmers, laborers, and the poor were still not getting anything like their fair share of the nation's wealth."

 

p.31 "But there was another side to the 1920's that was not so glamorous, for the prosperity was not equally spread..."

 

p.59 caption beside a photo of Harding- "...he proved to be weak and incompetent.'

 

P.58 of Coolidge- "He was a silent, unimaginative man who did as little as possible to disturb the seeming prosperity of the 1920s."

 

"Hoover was intelligent and a good organizer."

 

pp. 60-61 FDR- "one of the most dynamic president's the nation has ever had..."

 

p.82 "...despite New Deal programs, the nation's wealth was still unequally distributed- ordinary workers and farmers, who made up the majority of consumers, were hardly getting a fair share of the nation's income..."

 

p.84- "Thus Franklin Roosevelt, in America's greatest economic crisis of all time, saved both democracy and capitalism by reforming the free enterprise system."

 

The Middle Road: American Politics 1945-200

 

p.32 "Americans began automatically to see as enemies any nations, no matter how small, with communist governments, when hindsight has suggested that it might have been better to try to work with them.

Cuba presents a good example of this."

 

p.63 Iran hostage situation

"(Carter finally managed to get the hostages released on the last day of his presidency.)" - Are you kidding me??? They were released because of Reagan coming in.

 

p.65 "Ronald Reagan was not an especially thoughtful president, given to pondering ideas." So thinking about ideas isn't thoughtful???

 

p. 69 "His confident, winning personality and actor's skill on television caused many voters to overlook problems like growing budget deficits and questionable armed forays in Grenada, and elsewhere."

 

pp.81-82 regarding the Bush/Gore election

"As it happened the governor of Florida was George W. Bush's brother. Both sides appealed to the state and federal courts to resolve the issue. Ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court (where two of the justices and been appointed by Bush's father), in a five to four decision gave the election to Bush."

Edited June 25, 2010 by Laura in VA
left off a quotation mark

[swimmermom3]

Laura, thank you for the post. There are problematic points here that bother even my liberal tendencies. I may regret selling Hakim.:tongue_smilie:

[ElizabethB]

Thanks for the review.

 

If you have not yet read Albion's Seed, I think you will enjoy it.

 

Albion's Seed: four British folkways in America by David Hackett Fischer. Looks at 4 different waves of immigration into America and how their culture and beliefs shaped their region and shape America even now.

 

(from my looking for more big picture books like Albion Seed thread)

 

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=84362&highlight=Hackett+history+plants

[swimmermom3]

Thanks for the review.

 

If you have not yet read Albion's Seed, I think you will enjoy it.

 

Albion's Seed: four British folkways in America by David Hackett Fischer. Looks at 4 different waves of immigration into America and how their culture and beliefs shaped their region and shape America even now.

 

(from my looking for more big picture books like Albion Seed thread)

 

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=84362&highlight=Hackett+history+plants

 

Elizabeth, I am going to see if the library has this book and I think, Seeds of Change that you mentioned. Would it be do-able to bring the information down to the level of a 7th grader with a penchant for off-beat historical notes?

[ElizabethB]

Elizabeth, I am going to see if the library has this book and I think, Seeds of Change that you mentioned. Would it be do-able to bring the information down to the level of a 7th grader with a penchant for off-beat historical notes?

 

Seeds of Change, easy. It may even be written close to that level for ease of reading, although there are weighty issues discussed--drugs, slavery, etc.

 

Albion's Seed is written at a pretty high grade level, but the underlying points are summarized well and it is well written, so could be explained to that level, although it would take more work.

 

They both have plenty of off-beat historical notes, they are chock full of them!

[Sophia]

Here are a few quotes from 2 of the 3 books I checked out of the library.

 

I really don't want to read the 3rd book, but if anyone needs even more quotes, I may oblige.

 

 

Progressivism, the Great Depression, and the New Deal (1901-1941)

 

p.22 "By 1900, if not before, it had become obvious to many thoughtful people that too many Americans were not getting their fair share of the growing American prosperity."

 

p.30 "Although there were some improvements, farmers, laborers, and the poor were still not getting anything like their fair share of the nation's wealth."

 

p.31 "But there was another side to the 1920's that was not so glamorous, for the prosperity was not equally spread..."

 

p.59 caption beside a photo of Harding- "...he proved to be weak and incompetent.'

 

P.58 of Coolidge- "He was a silent, unimaginative man who did as little as possible to disturb the seeming prosperity of the 1920s."

 

"Hoover was intelligent and a good organizer."

 

pp. 60-61 FDR- "one of the most dynamic president's the nation has ever had..."

 

p.82 "...despite New Deal programs, the nation's wealth was still unequally distributed- ordinary workers and farmers, who made up the majority of consumers, were hardly getting a fair share of the nation's income..."

 

p.84- "Thus Franklin Roosevelt, in America's greatest economic crisis of all time, saved both democracy and capitalism by reforming the free enterprise system."

 

The Middle Road: American Politics 1945-200

 

p.32 "Americans began automatically to see as enemies any nations, no matter how small, with communist governments, when hindsight has suggested that it might have been better to try to work with them.

Cuba presents a good example of this."

 

p.63 Iran hostage situation

"(Carter finally managed to get the hostages released on the last day of his presidency.)" - Are you kidding me??? They were released because of Reagan coming in.

 

p.65 "Ronald Reagan was not an especially thoughtful president, given to pondering ideas." So thinking about ideas isn't thoughtful???

 

p. 69 "His confident, winning personality and actor's skill on television caused many voters to overlook problems like growing budget deficits and questionable armed forays in Grenada, and elsewhere."

 

pp.81-82 regarding the Bush/Gore election

"As it happened the governor of Florida was George W. Bush's brother. Both sides appealed to the state and federal courts to resolve the issue. Ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court (where two of the justices and been appointed by Bush's father), in a five to four decision gave the election to Bush."

 

You don't want to read the third one? But why?? ;)

[johnandtinagilbert]

Thank you, ladies for doing the ground work on these. I actually did print out Bill's list of alternate readings and planned on looking into them. I like bringing the variety of perspectives into our home for older students :)

 

Aubrey, thank you for the review. I believe it confirms 2 things for me: to each his own and that I will never use simply one book, but instead a group of books for our "spine." A singular spine for history, at least, is just too risky for this home schooler!

 

Thank you.

[swimmermom3]

Thank you, ladies for doing the ground work on these. I actually did print out Bill's list of alternate readings and planned on looking into them. I like bringing the variety of perspectives into our home for older students :)

 

Aubrey, thank you for the review. I believe it confirms 2 things for me: to each his own and that I will never use simply one book, but instead a group of books for our "spine." A singular spine for history, at least, is just too risky for this home schooler!

 

Thank you.

 

Tina, a question for you on the use of multiple spines. For 7th and 8th grade we'll be covering world history from the fall of Rome to modern times. We'll be folding U.S. history into that. This time around I am less concerned with the facts as opposed to the major concepts of the time being discussed but I don't want to spend a ton of time on the U.S. portion. Would picking two books like Howard Zinn and I think you mentioned Paul Johnson, work? Maybe not Paul Johnson now that I think of it but someone from a conservative viewpoint. Any ideas you have would be appreciated as it appears that you have given this topic a lot of thought.

[Mert]

slightly OT: Tina, could you point me towards this list? Thanks! :001_smile:

 

I actually did print out Bill's list of alternate readings and planned on looking into them. I like bringing the variety of perspectives into our home for older students :)

 

[TracyP]

Wow Aubrey! Great in depth review!

 

Thank you Aubrey and Laura, your comments are helpful. My library carries a few so I'm looking forward to checking them out.

[nmoira]

I'm only going to touch on one of the quotes, because it's all I have time for. :)

 

Progressivism, the Great Depression, and the New Deal (1901-1941)

 

p.22 "By 1900, if not before, it had become obvious to many thoughtful people that too many Americans were not getting their fair share of the growing American prosperity."

 

This is especially problematic if you pull it out of its context. The chapter this quote begins is the second of four which detail events and dynamics leading up to the Great Depression. The first chapter (relevant because the quote is in response to it) talks about the shift from agricultural to industrial and rural to urban; regulation of industry; low wages and the conditions for both farmers and industrial workers; overproduction of crops and falling prices; exorbitant prices charged by railway for shipping agricultural goods, etc.

 

There's a discussion of laissez-fair which includes the following:

 

 

 

"Businessmen understood well enough that while competition might benefit the country as a whole, it did not benefit them individually. So they worked out schemes to cut down on competition. They might quietly agree to keep their prices all the same, at a high level. They might combine several smaller companies into one gigantic one, thus getting a

monopoly

. In a pure sense, a monopoly controls the total production or supply of a commodity. For practical purposes, however, a monopoly is said to exists in one company can control the price of a commodity or service. [examples] While the competitive system might work in theory, in practice businessmen often formed ways around it."

 

 

If this offends you, you definitely shouldn't stick around for what follows. "By the late 1800s farmers and laborers had become conscious of what seemed to them to be the unfairness of the system and had begun to fight back." Strikes.

 

 

 

"Why when the farmers and laborers were the majority of Americans, could they not change things?

 

 

 

"To begin with, most Americans, especially businessmen, believed firmly in laissez-faire --- that in the long run the capitalist system would work to the benefit of everybody if government let business alone. But other businessmen simply did not care about the public good; they were interested solely in getting as rich as possible. The railroad baron Commodore Vanderbilt said, "Law?" What do I care about law? Haven't I got power?" Andrew Carnegie, the steel magnate, said, "The workers have no more say about their wages than does a piece of coal about its price."

 

 

"Unfortunately for the farmers and the workers, government officials generally took the side of business against labor." Followed by examples, including the Pullman strike.

 

 

 

"By 1890 is was clear to workers and farmers alike that they had to get government on their side. Thus began the battle for the mind of the government -- and the American people -- on a central issue that is still fought over today. That issue is whether government has a responsibility to see that all citizens are treated fairly, by setting limits on what corporations can do, or whether they should stay out of the way and let issues work themselves out without government interference.

 

 

So back to the quote (emphasis mine):

 

 

 

By 1900, if not before,

it had become obvious to many thoughtful people

that too many Americans were not getting their fair share of the growing American prosperity.

 

 

This begins the chapter and is in a paragraph introducing the muckrakers. This paragraph itself is a segue into Theodore Roosevelt and the Sherman Antitrust Act, and the chapter is about political progressivism. Is the statement false? No. Should it be there? I'd argue that it's very difficult to understand 20th Century politics without understanding that some people were very unhappy about their conditions within the capitalist system. To put it in terms of "fair share?" Well, it was viewed in those terms.

 

The Colliers of course do have a bias, but it's one that is probably disappointing to those seeking it unless they are on the extreme ends of the political spectrum. They view the American people as looking to take the middle road, and that when the pendulum occasionally swings noticeably to one side, it's not for long, and yes, they approve.

 

============

 

And the quote about the Supreme Court justices appointed by Bush Sr.? Although it's near the very end of the book... isn't that parenthetical comment a marvelous inducement to spur a bit of research, or perhaps even write a paper? The text is non-committal, but its a fact that many of us do have problems with the decision.

Edited June 25, 2010 by nmoira
typos

[Shelly in the Country]

If you have not yet read Albion's Seed, I think you will enjoy it.

 

Albion's Seed: four British folkways in America by David Hackett Fischer. Looks at 4 different waves of immigration into America and how their culture and beliefs shaped their region and shape America even now.

 

(from my looking for more big picture books like Albion Seed thread)

 

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=84362&highlight=Hackett+history+plants

 

Thanks for the book rec.! That sounds really interesting....so does the Thomas Sowell book in the thread you linked. Sigh. My Amazon wish list is entirely too long.

[Caraway]

Okay, I am beginning to see how we end up with those PS textbooks. :tongue_smilie:

[nmoira]

Okay, I am beginning to see how we end up with those PS textbooks. :tongue_smilie:

 

:lol:

[swimmermom3]

I'm only going to touch on one of the quotes, because it's all I have time for. :)

 

 

 

This is especially problematic if you pull it out of its context. The chapter this quote begins is the second of four which detail events and dynamics leading up to the Great Depression. The first chapter (relevant because the quote is in response to it) talks about the shift from agricultural to industrial and rural to urban; regulation of industry; low wages and the conditions for both farmers and industrial workers; overproduction of crops and falling prices; exorbitant prices charged by railway for shipping agricultural goods, etc.

 

There's a discussion of laisser-fair which includes the following:

 

 

"Businessmen understood well enough that while competition might benefit the country as a whole, it did not benefit them individually. So they worked out schemes to cut down on competition. They might quietly agree to keep their prices all the same, at a high level. They might combine several smaller companies into one gigantic one, thus getting a

monopoly

. In a pure sense, a monopoly controls the total production or supply of a commodity. For practical purposes, however, a monopoly is said to exists in one company can control the price of a commodity or service. [examples] While the competitive system might work in theory, in practice businessmen often formed ways around it."

If this offends you, you definitely shouldn't stick around for what follows. "By the late 1800s farmers and laborers had become conscious of what seemed to them to be the unfairness of the system and had begun to fight back." Strikes.

 

 

"Why when the farmers and laborers were the majority of Americans, could they not change things?

 

 

 

"To begin with, most Americans, especially businessmen, believed firmly in laissez-faire --- that in the long run the capitalist system would work to the benefit of everybody if government let business alone. But other businessmen simply did not care about the public good; they were interested solely in getting as rich as possible. The railroad baron Commodore Vanderbilt said, "Law?" What do I care about law? Haven't I got power?" Andrew Carnegie, the steel magnate, said, "The workers have no more say about their wages than does a piece of coal about its price."

"Unfortunately for the farmers and the workers, government officials generally took the side of business against labor." Followed by examples, including the Pullman strike.

 

 

"By 1890 is was clear to workers and farmers alike that they had to get government on their side. Thus began the battle for the mind of the government -- and the American people -- on a central issue that is still fought over today. That issue as whether government has a responsibility to see that all citizens are treated fairly, by setting limits on what corporations can do, or whether they should stay out of the way and let issues work themselves out without government interference.

So back to the quote (emphasis mine):

 

 

By 1900, if not before,

it had become obvious to many thoughtful people

that too many Americans were not getting their fair share of the growing American prosperity.

This begins the chapter and is in a paragraph introducing the muckrakers. This paragraph itself is a segue into Theodore Roosevelt and the Sherman Antitrust Act, and the chapter is about political progressivism. Is the statement false? No. Should it be there? I'd argue that it's very difficult to understand 20th Century politics without understanding that some people were very unhappy about their conditions within the capitalist system. To put it in terms of "fair share?" Well, it was viewed in those terms.

 

The Colliers of course do have a bias, but it's one that is probably disappointing to those seeking it unless they are on the extreme ends of the political spectrum. They view the American people as looking to take the middle road, and that when the pendulum occasionally swings noticeably to one side, it's not for long, and yes, they approve.

 

============

 

And the quote about the Supreme Court justices appointed by Bush Sr.? Although it's near the very end of the book... isn't that parenthetical comment a marvelous inducement to spur a bit of research, or perhaps even write a paper? The text is non-committal, but its a fact that many of us do have problems with the decision.

 

Moira, thank you very much for taking the time to respond to this especially since this is a volume I still don't have. The quote you pulled was indeed one of the ones I found problematic, but placed in context, it isn't an issue-at least to me. One of the things I meant to do was copy everyone's commentary on these books into a word document and keep a note book. I should have known to move faster on the other history thread commentary as well. So much good information lost from both sides. My youngest would enjoy working on the paper you mentioned above.

[Aubrey]

I'm only going to touch on one of the quotes, because it's all I have time for. :)

 

 

 

This is especially problematic if you pull it out of its context. The chapter this quote begins is the second of four which detail events and dynamics leading up to the Great Depression. The first chapter (relevant because the quote is in response to it) talks about the shift from agricultural to industrial and rural to urban; regulation of industry; low wages and the conditions for both farmers and industrial workers; overproduction of crops and falling prices; exorbitant prices charged by railway for shipping agricultural goods, etc.

 

There's a discussion of laissez-fair which includes the following:

 

 

"Businessmen understood well enough that while competition might benefit the country as a whole, it did not benefit them individually. So they worked out schemes to cut down on competition. They might quietly agree to keep their prices all the same, at a high level. They might combine several smaller companies into one gigantic one, thus getting a

monopoly

. In a pure sense, a monopoly controls the total production or supply of a commodity. For practical purposes, however, a monopoly is said to exists in one company can control the price of a commodity or service. [examples] While the competitive system might work in theory, in practice businessmen often formed ways around it."

If this offends you, you definitely shouldn't stick around for what follows. "By the late 1800s farmers and laborers had become conscious of what seemed to them to be the unfairness of the system and had begun to fight back." Strikes.

 

 

"Why when the farmers and laborers were the majority of Americans, could they not change things?

 

 

 

"To begin with, most Americans, especially businessmen, believed firmly in laissez-faire --- that in the long run the capitalist system would work to the benefit of everybody if government let business alone. But other businessmen simply did not care about the public good; they were interested solely in getting as rich as possible. The railroad baron Commodore Vanderbilt said, "Law?" What do I care about law? Haven't I got power?" Andrew Carnegie, the steel magnate, said, "The workers have no more say about their wages than does a piece of coal about its price."

"Unfortunately for the farmers and the workers, government officials generally took the side of business against labor." Followed by examples, including the Pullman strike.

 

 

"By 1890 is was clear to workers and farmers alike that they had to get government on their side. Thus began the battle for the mind of the government -- and the American people -- on a central issue that is still fought over today. That issue is whether government has a responsibility to see that all citizens are treated fairly, by setting limits on what corporations can do, or whether they should stay out of the way and let issues work themselves out without government interference.

So back to the quote (emphasis mine):

 

 

By 1900, if not before,

it had become obvious to many thoughtful people

that too many Americans were not getting their fair share of the growing American prosperity.

This begins the chapter and is in a paragraph introducing the muckrakers. This paragraph itself is a segue into Theodore Roosevelt and the Sherman Antitrust Act, and the chapter is about political progressivism. Is the statement false? No. Should it be there? I'd argue that it's very difficult to understand 20th Century politics without understanding that some people were very unhappy about their conditions within the capitalist system. To put it in terms of "fair share?" Well, it was viewed in those terms.

 

The Colliers of course do have a bias, but it's one that is probably disappointing to those seeking it unless they are on the extreme ends of the political spectrum. They view the American people as looking to take the middle road, and that when the pendulum occasionally swings noticeably to one side, it's not for long, and yes, they approve.

 

============

 

And the quote about the Supreme Court justices appointed by Bush Sr.? Although it's near the very end of the book... isn't that parenthetical comment a marvelous inducement to spur a bit of research, or perhaps even write a paper? The text is non-committal, but its a fact that many of us do have problems with the decision.

 

This is kind-of what I mean by "challenging." Some of these quotes make my hair stand on end, & while I think the overall leaning (of the book *I* read) is left, I think there's plenty in there that's liable to make lefties' hair stand on end, too.

 

And I *love* a book that can make me question my own assumptions. Even if I come to the same conclusions, a richer understanding of both sides is usually the result, & imo, that's good history instruction.

 

I don't think this book would challenge everyone, & I don't think everyone wants that in a book. (Series) But I do think I like them. Maybe. As dh put it last night when I read him the list of quotes I'd found in my vol that I thought were problematic, "Wow. The rest of that book must be REALLY good." :lol: I don't think *he* would like it, for ex. ;)

[Jumping In Puddles]

slightly OT: Tina, could you point me towards this list? Thanks! :001_smile:

 

:iagree: I would like that too, thanks!

[Jan in SC]

I can have ny dh review the Pilgrims & Puritans volume if anyone is interested. He was a history major and loves this stuff! He has already mentioned that the volume he is reading is upper elementary and lower middle school age, at best.

[swimmermom3]

Okay, I am beginning to see how we end up with those PS textbooks. :tongue_smilie:

 

:001_huh: No kidding! It also has me contemplating buying stock in the makers of Excedrine. It just shouldn't be this hard. That's a small whine, more like a whimper, really.

[swimmermom3]

I can have ny dh review the Pilgrims & Puritans volume if anyone is interested. He was a history major and loves this stuff! He has already mentioned that the volume he is reading is upper elementary and lower middle school age, at best.

 

That would be great, Jan. I did have a concern about the reading level. My ds will be in 7th and we'll use 4-5 of the books next year and the remainder in 8th grade. However, we already used much of Hakim in 4th grade, so I'm in a bind. I think this child is going to want depth and controversy by 8th grade...if not earlier.:tongue_smilie: It will be interesting to hear what your husband has to say.

[nmoira]

He has already mentioned that the volume he is reading is upper elementary and lower middle school age, at best.

That's good, because this is the level for which it is intended (5+). :001_smile:

 

 

Totally aside:

 

Did anyone notice that Marshall Cavendish (publisher of The Drama of American History) has a relatively new series entitled Drama of African-American History? Here are excerpts from reviews.

[nmoira]

 

That would be great, Jan. I did have a concern about the reading level. My ds will be in 7th and we'll use 4-5 of the books next year and the remainder in 8th grade.

You could always have him use it as a spine and require another, more in depth reading or research paper per volume. The student reading lists at the back of the volumes are pretty good, and a number of the suggestions are at a higher reading level than the text itself.

[swimmermom3]

That's good, because this is the level for which it is intended (5+). :001_smile:

 

 

Totally aside:

 

Did anyone notice that Marshall Cavendish (publisher of The Drama of American History) has a relatively new series entitled Drama of African-American History? Here are excerpts from reviews.

 

These look good and so does the Great Journeys series. But I really do not need any more resources...did you see...The Everyday Life in the Renaissance?

[nmoira]

did you see...The Everyday Life in the Renaissance?

I *had* to stop at Life in the Medieval Muslim World. I closed that tab immediately.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Does The Everyday Life in the Renaissance? look good?

[usetoschool]

This is kind-of what I mean by "challenging." Some of these quotes make my hair stand on end, & while I think the overall leaning (of the book *I* read) is left, I think there's plenty in there that's liable to make lefties' hair stand on end, too.

 

And I *love* a book that can make me question my own assumptions. Even if I come to the same conclusions, a richer understanding of both sides is usually the result, & imo, that's good history instruction.

 

I don't think this book would challenge everyone, & I don't think everyone wants that in a book. (Series) But I do think I like them. Maybe. As dh put it last night when I read him the list of quotes I'd found in my vol that I thought were problematic, "Wow. The rest of that book must be REALLY good." :lol: I don't think *he* would like it, for ex. ;)

 

When I read Hakim, I know what I am getting and where she stands and she names names and gives dates. I know these books are written to be simplified and just give a flow and make you think, as they state in the preface, but as I read them many of the statements give me a vague uncomfortable feeling, but because I am *not* a history scholar I can't put my finger on what, exactly, is the problem and what the slant is and what the facts are without much more research and quoting and fact finding than I have time for. If I were educating myself, I think they would be an jumping off point for research but I just want to be able to read a flow of history to the kiddos without having to question and background check every single statement.

 

They aren't really a story and definitely not literature, they aren't really an editorial and they aren't a textbook either. Just some guys talking about events and telling you how they and other historians have interpreted them. As I read it I think, well, yes, I suppose that could be some peoples legitimate perspective, but there is a certain slant to it, an overall world view that just sits wrong. People could quote and refute passages all day and still not get to the bottom of the facts of history because it isn't a "fact" book but a conversation book. Not saying that is bad, by the way.

[Aubrey]

When I read Hakim, I know what I am getting and where she stands and she names names and gives dates. I know these books are written to be simplified and just give a flow and make you think, as they state in the preface, but as I read them many of the statements give me a vague uncomfortable feeling, but because I am *not* a history scholar I can't put my finger on what, exactly, is the problem and what the slant is and what the facts are without much more research and quoting and fact finding than I have time for. If I were educating myself, I think they would be an jumping off point for research but I just want to be able to read a flow of history to the kiddos without having to question and background check every single statement.

 

They aren't really a story and definitely not literature, they aren't really an editorial and they aren't a textbook either. Just some guys talking about events and telling you how they and other historians have interpreted them. As I read it I think, well, yes, I suppose that could be some peoples legitimate perspective, but there is a certain slant to it, an overall world view that just sits wrong. People could quote and refute passages all day and still not get to the bottom of the facts of history because it isn't a "fact" book but a conversation book. Not saying that is bad, by the way.

 

:iagree: And that's what I mean about it not being for everyone. I'd likely be much less comfortable w/ it if not for dh's hist degree to lean on. And...I guess I was reading it more for *me* at the time. The hist discussions here have made me voracious. I've got a stack of books following me around the house, topics ranging from Native Americans to Columbus to the Civil War & pioneers/westward expansion. We're technically only studying the latter right now. :tongue_smilie:

 

I've asked ds9 to read it this afternoon to see what he thinks. I'm kind-of curious about the reading level & how the slant of it will sit w/ him.

[Kate in Arabia]

When I read Hakim, I know what I am getting and where she stands and she names names and gives dates. I know these books are written to be simplified and just give a flow and make you think, as they state in the preface, but as I read them many of the statements give me a vague uncomfortable feeling, but because I am *not* a history scholar I can't put my finger on what, exactly, is the problem and what the slant is and what the facts are without much more research and quoting and fact finding than I have time for.

I kind of feel this way about SOTW, but I do use it and feel that it has been an excellent spine for our history studies these past six years (we'll be starting vol 4 in the fall). I can only speak for those chapters that deal with my specific subject area of interest, Islamic history, but there is a distinct point of view. A couple of things I contacted the publisher about, and in one instance it was a matter of "artistic license" (my term, not theirs). In writing history for children, to make it engaging you often need to move beyond a simple listing of facts, and this is one area where viewpoint can become apparent.

[Kate in Arabia]

 

I *had* to stop at Life in the Medieval Muslim World. I closed that tab immediately.

Oh, you are terrible!! (But Amazon thanks you ;) )

[swimmermom3]

You could always have him use it as a spine and require another, more in depth reading or research paper per volume. The student reading lists at the back of the volumes are pretty good, and a number of the suggestions are at a higher reading level than the text itself.

 

<silence> :blushing:

 

 

 

 

But Moira, that would be...you know...too simple. Gasp! Then I would have to stop agonizing, stop researching, quit reading controversial threads, and...get on with it. I really don't have time for much more than reading the spine and one extra book since this is folded into world history. Thanks for the dose of reality.:tongue_smilie:

 

I *had* to stop at Life in the Medieval Muslim World. I closed that tab immediately.

 

Does The Everyday Life in the Renaissance? look good?

 

There was a Life in the Medieval Muslim World book? And I missed it? I only have The Story of Islam which will work but it would be nice to have a second source since Swimmer Dude is interested in this area of study.

 

:blushing: About the Renaissance book, the author's name sounded familiar. It turns out I have one book home from the library in that series and another from the Life in the Middle Ages book. I am wondering if the one at the publisher's website is a compilation of the four books in the Life in the Renaissance series. And that brings up another question. Could the same be done with the Drama in American History series if there were demand?

[nmoira]

But Moira, that would be...you know...too simple. Gasp! Then I would have to stop agonizing, stop researching, quit reading controversial threads, and...get on with it.

:lol:

 

And where's the joy in that?

 

There was a Life in the Medieval Muslim World book? And I missed it?

Yup. I've decided that it's Marshall Cavendish that's evil.

 

Edited to add: here's the link for the series on the Marshall Cavendish site.

 

Could the same be done with the Drama in American History series if there were demand?

Now *that* would be cool indeed. Edited June 25, 2010 by nmoira

[swimmermom3]

:lol:

 

And where's the joy in that?

 

Yup. I've decided that it's Marshall Cavendish that's evil.

 

Edited to add: here's the link for the series on the Marshall Cavendish site.

 

Now *that* would be cool indeed.

 

Oh yeah, thanks a lot for that link. I really, really needed it...not!:tongue_smilie: So, our library carries 36 Benchmark titles by Kathryn Hinds. She has books for the Goths, the Huns, the Vikings, and there are a series of 4 books for Egypt, Rome, Middle Ages, Medieval England, and the Renaissance. Of course, the one series our library does not carry is the one you linked. I am a bit skeptical about the quality of such prolific writings over such a great span of history. However, I do want to see the Muslim series because I am missing primary source work, I think.

[johnandtinagilbert]

slightly OT: Tina, could you point me towards this list? Thanks! :001_smile:

I don't know where it is here, but I have it in my records, so here it is.

 

 

• Clash of Cultures: Prehistory to 1638, Benchmark Books (New York, NY), 1998.

• The Paradox of Jamestown, 1585 to 1700, Benchmark Books (New York, NY), 1998.

• The French and Indian War, 1660 to 1763, Benchmark Books (New York, NY), 1998.

• The American Revolution, 1763 to 1783, Benchmark Books (New York, NY), 1998.

• Pilgrims and Puritans, 1620 to 1676, Benchmark Books (New York, NY), 1998.

• Creating the Constitution, 1787, Benchmark Books (New York, NY), 1998.

• Building a New Nation, 1789 to 1803, Benchmark Books (New York, NY), 1998.

• Andrew Jackson's America, 1821 to 1850, Benchmark Books (New York, NY), 1998.

• Hispanic America, Texas, and the Mexican War, 1835 to 1850, Benchmark Books (New York, NY), 1998.

• The Jeffersonian Republicans, 1800 to 1820, Benchmark Books (New York, NY), 1998.

• The Civil War, 1860 to 1866, Benchmark Books (New York, NY), 1998.

• Slavery and the Coming of the Civil War, 1831 to 1861, Benchmark Books (New York, NY), 1998.

• Reconstruction and the Rise of Jim Crow, Benchmark Books (New York, NY), 1998.

• The Rise of Industry: 1860 to 1900, Marshall Cavendish (New York, NY), 1999.

• A Century of Immigration: 1820 to 1924, Marshall Cavendish/Benchmark Books (Tarrytown, NY), 1999.

• Indians, Cowboys, and Farmers, 1865 to 1910, Benchmark Books (New York, NY), 2000.

• The United States Enters the World Stage: From Alaska through World War I, 1867 to 1919, Benchmark Books (New York, NY), 2000.

• Progressivism, the Great Depression, and the New Deal, 1901 to 1941, Benchmark/Cavendish (Tarrytown, NY), 2000.

• The Rise of the Cities, Cavendish/Benchmark (Tarrytown, NY), 2000.

• United States in World War II, Benchmark Books (New York, NY), 2001.

• The Changing Face of American Society, 1945 to 2000, Benchmark Books (New York, NY), 2001.

• The United States in the Cold War, Benchmark/Cavendish (Tarrytown, NY), 2002.

• The Middle Road: American Politics, 1945 to 2000, Benchmark Books (New York, NY), 2002.

 

 

 

 

Tina, a question for you on the use of multiple spines. For 7th and 8th grade we'll be covering world history from the fall of Rome to modern times. We'll be folding U.S. history into that. This time around I am less concerned with the facts as opposed to the major concepts of the time being discussed but I don't want to spend a ton of time on the U.S. portion. Would picking two books like Howard Zinn and I think you mentioned Paul Johnson, work? Maybe not Paul Johnson now that I think of it but someone from a conservative viewpoint. Any ideas you have would be appreciated as it appears that you have given this topic a lot of thought.

I will be happy to share what we used for that time. It is however, at my friends house. I should have it back this weekend. If you'll send me a pm (so I don't forget), I'll be happy to expound and share :)

[johnandtinagilbert]

Sigh. My Amazon wish list is entirely too long.

Yours and mine!

 

This is kind-of what I mean by "challenging." Some of these quotes make my hair stand on end, & while I think the overall leaning (of the book *I* read) is left, I think there's plenty in there that's liable to make lefties' hair stand on end, too.

 

And I *love* a book that can make me question my own assumptions. Even if I come to the same conclusions, a richer understanding of both sides is usually the result, & imo, that's good history instruction.

 

I don't think this book would challenge everyone, & I don't think everyone wants that in a book. (Series) But I do think I like them. Maybe. As dh put it last night when I read him the list of quotes I'd found in my vol that I thought were problematic, "Wow. The rest of that book must be REALLY good." :lol: I don't think *he* would like it, for ex. ;)

I like how you've described this. I feel the same way. I like the challenge, minimally at least, b/c I love the springboard it provides for our family. I don't like something that is over the top whitewashed either b/c its almost campy scary, iykwim?

 

I *had* to stop at Life in the Medieval Muslim World. I closed that tab immediately.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Does The Everyday Life in the Renaissance? look good?

sshhhhh stop giving us links!

 

:lol:

 

And where's the joy in that?

 

Yup. I've decided that it's Marshall Cavendish that's evil.

 

Edited to add: here's the link for the series on the Marshall Cavendish site.

 

Now *that* would be cool indeed.

Please don't use the word evil around here. I'd hate to have another horse enter the stable:tongue_smilie:

[nmoira]

 

Please don't use the word evil around here. I'd hate to have another horse enter the stable:tongue_smilie:

I'm reclaiming the word. :tongue_smilie:

[johnandtinagilbert]

 

I'm reclaiming the word. :tongue_smilie:

:D

[Mert]

Thanks for sharing, Tina! :D

[Luckymama]

Oh my goodness, those Marshall Cavendish books look intriguing. Off to check the library website....

 

 

My branch only has one, something Elizabethan, but it looks like I can get 15+ through the library system. I might request one. After I get through the pile of The World in Ancient Times volumes I brought home today :)

Edited June 26, 2010 by Luckymama

[Corraleno]

About the Renaissance book, the author's name sounded familiar. It turns out I have one book home from the library in that series and another from the Life in the Middle Ages book. I am wondering if the one at the publisher's website is a compilation of the four books in the Life in the Renaissance series.

Are they as good as they look? The photos of the Muslim World books look really stunning, are the Medieval and Renaissance books just as nice? How's the writing? How would you compare them to the World in Ancient Times series?

 

It looks like three of the 4-volume sets (Rome, Renaissance, Medieval Europe) have been released in a single volume, but they haven't done that with the Medieval Muslim World — $108 for four separate volumes, compared to $43 for one of the single volumes. :( I'd really love to have that set as well, because that's one of the topics I could really use some more resources on.

 

Jackie

[swimmermom3]

Are they as good as they look? The photos of the Muslim World books look really stunning, are the Medieval and Renaissance books just as nice? How's the writing? How would you compare them to the World in Ancient Times series?

 

It looks like three of the 4-volume sets (Rome, Renaissance, Medieval Europe) have been released in a single volume, but they haven't done that with the Medieval Muslim World — $108 for four separate volumes, compared to $43 for one of the single volumes. :( I'd really love to have that set as well, because that's one of the topics I could really use some more resources on.

 

Jackie

 

Jackie, now that I know they are in the library stack, I'll read one in the next day or two and start a new thread since I think I hijacked this one.

[Matryoshka]

There was a Life in the Medieval Muslim World book? And I missed it? I only have The Story of Islam which will work but it would be nice to have a second source since Swimmer Dude is interested in this area of study.

 

 

This has nothing to with medieval studies, but I found an interesting series on Islam called Introducing Islam. It looks like I'm going to be teaching world religions to the middle-schoolers at church next year :blink:, so I'm trying to brush up. There appear to be 8 volumes, of which I have the first two below checked out of the library (haven't read them yet though, but they look promising... )

 

The titles are:

Islam: The Basics

Islam, Christianity, and Judaism

The American Encounter with Islam

Heroes and Holy Places

Islamic Fundamentalism

Muslims and the West

What Muslims Think and How They Live

Who Are the Muslims?

 

Meanwhile, I'm trying very hard not to look at those Marshall Cavendish books everyone's drooling over... :glare:

[Jen S in Va]

Oh yeah, thanks a lot for that link. I really, really needed it...not!:tongue_smilie: So, our library carries 36 Benchmark titles by Kathryn Hinds. She has books for the Goths, the Huns, the Vikings, and there are a series of 4 books for Egypt, Rome, Middle Ages, Medieval England, and the Renaissance. Of course, the one series our library does not carry is the one you linked. I am a bit skeptical about the quality of such prolific writings over such a great span of history. However, I do want to see the Muslim series because I am missing primary source work, I think.

 

My library only has 28 of her titles. So far I see Egypt, Renaissance, Colonial (American) Life, Elizabethan England, Rome, Goths, Incas, Middle Ages, Vikings, but missing the Muslim ones as well. She's also got books out about cats and gerbils. I'm with you in your concern as she is not only covering a broad range of history, but also covering entirely different subjects.

[nmoira]

My library only has 28 of her titles. So far I see Egypt, Renaissance, Colonial (American) Life, Elizabethan England, Rome, Goths, Incas, Middle Ages, Vikings, but missing the Muslim ones as well. She's also got books out about cats and gerbils. I'm with you in your concern as she is not only covering a broad range of history, but also covering entirely different subjects.

I've put her Egypt series on hold. Hopefully some of these series are good, because I'd like to be able to have DD the Elder zip through them "for background," so to speak, during our next history iteration. Anyway, each book is only 80 or 90 pages long, and it's likely most of the research is done for her. For series of this type, the quality will depend nearly as much on the research staff and the editor as the author.

 

Hinds' bio is interesting enough. There are a few excerpts from her books on her site too. I just learned that Egyptian babies were usually nursed for three years. :tongue_smilie: