Drama of American History

[swimmermom3]

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:

 

Thanks for the recommendations. I will check them out. For your class, depending on their ages, you might want to check out World Religions from Curr-Click. We used this in conjunction with our ancient history studies last year and will finish it up this year. It is well done and covers a fair amount of material for the price.

 

Aubrey, my apologies. I'll open a medieval spine thread and in the meantime continue to read my Drama in American History books and report back. Thanks for continuing to push on this issue.

[TKDmom]

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. :)

 

All this discussion got me interested in the series, too. So I went to my library and checked out all 9 of the titles that were at our branch. I've only read through the first: Clash of Cultures Prehistory to 1638.

 

I don't think I can write a comprehensive review, but I wanted to share my impressions. The book focuses on the cultural differences between the white settlers and the natives--especially the Algonquians. After a brief discussion of what to call Native Americans, the author settles on the term Indians, noting that while inaccurate, it is in common use.

 

My ridiculously short summary of the book is this: The Indians didn't believe in ownership of land, they were at peace with their place in nature, and they were willing to accept the Europeans into their society (at first). The Europeans expected that the Indians would see how superior European culture and religion were, that they would convert and adopt English customs. When the inevitable clash came, the Europeans managed to drive the Indians off their land. If the Indians had understood European culture and warfare more fully, they would have been the ones to drive the Europeans out and history would have turned out differently.

 

I apologize that I do not have time to quote specific passages. The text was more nuanced than my summary makes it out to be. I liked this book, but it made me vaguely uncomfortable. After rereading Aubrey's post I can see that there seems to be an anti-European bias.

From a pp:

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.

 

This is exactly how I felt about it. I think they would be great books to use for logic stage history, but I'd be uncomfortable using them as my primary source. Luckily, my laibrary system seems to have most, if not all of the titles.

[Jen S in Va]

I've put her Egypt series on hold.

 

Hinds' bio is interesting enough. :tongue_smilie:

 

I have the Egypt series on hold as well--we just started our 1st pass through the Ancients, but only got one day in as my dad was admitted to the hospital, and that threw a wrench into all my plans for the past week. But he's coming home today, so we're back on track for Monday, I hope.

 

Interesting bio. She's a knitter, too, which makes her okay in my book:thumbup:;)

[Caraway]

 

Interesting bio. She's a knitter, too, which makes her okay in my book:thumbup:;)

 

 

It appears that she might be wearing hand knit socks in that photo. :tongue_smilie:

[Matryoshka]

It appears that she might be wearing hand knit socks in that photo. :tongue_smilie:

 

heh... looking at her site, I realize I have her Egypt series on my shelf upstairs (we're doing Egypt now). The thing is, I'm doubtful think I'm going to be able to get my kids to read it after all the other reading I've assigned (World in Ancient Times, then lots of historical fiction and biographies, Macauley's book on pyramids...). Their spine (K12HO) and myths I've been reading aloud. Too many good books!! (I guess that's not a horrible problem to have...)

 

I think my library has all her books - they look very familiar!

[swimmermom3]

All this discussion got me interested in the series, too. So I went to my library and checked out all 9 of the titles that were at our branch. I've only read through the first: Clash of Cultures Prehistory to 1638.

 

I don't think I can write a comprehensive review, but I wanted to share my impressions. The book focuses on the cultural differences between the white settlers and the natives--especially the Algonquians. After a brief discussion of what to call Native Americans, the author settles on the term Indians, noting that while inaccurate, it is in common use.

 

My ridiculously short summary of the book is this: The Indians didn't believe in ownership of land, they were at peace with their place in nature, and they were willing to accept the Europeans into their society (at first). The Europeans expected that the Indians would see how superior European culture and religion were, that they would convert and adopt English customs. When the inevitable clash came, the Europeans managed to drive the Indians off their land. If the Indians had understood European culture and warfare more fully, they would have been the ones to drive the Europeans out and history would have turned out differently.

 

I apologize that I do not have time to quote specific passages. The text was more nuanced than my summary makes it out to be. I liked this book, but it made me vaguely uncomfortable. After rereading Aubrey's post I can see that there seems to be an anti-European bias.

From a pp:

 

This is exactly how I felt about it. I think they would be great books to use for logic stage history, but I'd be uncomfortable using them as my primary source. Luckily, my laibrary system seems to have most, if not all of the titles.

 

Bonnie, I know what you mean about the vague uneasiness. Do you think, in part, it stems from the fact that since these books are not narratives, we do expect to see the hard, cold numbers backing up the statements? I mean this is not a typical format we encounter in reading history so is it offsetting?

[Jen S in Va]

It appears that she might be wearing hand knit socks in that photo. :tongue_smilie:

 

Ohhhhh, I think you may be right! :001_wub:

[TKDmom]

Bonnie, I know what you mean about the vague uneasiness. Do you think, in part, it stems from the fact that since these books are not narratives, we do expect to see the hard, cold numbers backing up the statements? I mean this is not a typical format we encounter in reading history so is it offsetting?

 

That may be part of it. I think it also has to do with the style of writing. Aubrey characterized it as "dangerous" the way they manage to play you against both sides. As I was reading, I found myself wishing that Powhatan and Opechancanough had managed to wipe out the Virginia colony. But then I thought, "Oh wait, who's side am I on? I might not be here if the Virginian settlers given up and left."

 

My oldest is entering 4th grade, so I don't have much experience with logic stage children. I imagine these books might lead to some interesting discussions, especially if you utilize the student and teacher book lists in the back.

Edited June 27, 2010 by bonniebeth4
misspelling

[Lovedtodeath]

What is it about this Drama series that is preferable to Hakim? I haven't seen anyone post that specifically, I don't think.:confused:

[swimmermom3]

What is it about this Drama series that is preferable to Hakim? I haven't seen anyone post that specifically, I don't think.:confused:

 

Hey Carmen!:grouphug: My older son used Hakim and enjoyed her books. However, my youngest prefers a different style of writing: cleaner, more orderly, and logical. Two of my three children do not care for texts that have numerous picture captions or side notes. Oddly enough, they are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Swimmer Dude is a nonfiction, practical guy, while Princess is very artistic and visual. Hakim is not for them. The one who likes Hakim, moves fast and is all over the place, a bit like Hakim's writing. It's really a matter of personal preference. I think for most people who aren't ultra conservative, Hakim is just fine. This probably isn't a lot of help. If I didn't think the Drama series was a better fit for Dude, we would have used Hakim; however, he's already done some of it in 4th grade.

[Lovedtodeath]

Thanks Lisa! :grouphug: I guess we will go with the original plan of Hakim and switch if it doesn't work.

[Kathryn]

First, I apologize for resurrecting a really old thread, but this had some great information on it, so I decided to post here instead of starting a new thread. 

 

After reading about these on here, I decided to check out a couple from my library. I chose "Clash of Cultures: Prehistory-1638" and "Slavery and the Coming of the Civil War: 1831-1861." I came away from them with the same feeling of uneasiness as others mentioned here. I am going to try not to repeat what others have said in this thread, adding my thoughts that haven't already been mentioned.

 

I was very disappointed with how poorly written and edited these books were. At times, it just made reading awkward, and at others it completely changed the meaning of a sentence so as to give incorrect information. A couple of examples:

 

"The first European explorer, a Portuguese trader named Ruy de Sequiria [sic] who arrived in Benin in 1472, was forced to throw himself down before a king who wore so much gold jewelry on his arms that he needed servants to raise them up" (Slavery p.12). Not only did they spell his name wrong, but the way the sentence is written makes it sound as if he was the first European explorer. At least, I hope that's just poor writing and not what they're trying to say.

 

"They usually built their settlements along the rivers that flowed east out of the Allegheny Mountains into the Atlantic, most frequently at the mouths of rivers, like the Saco in Maine; the Charles, which flows into Boston Bay; and the Housatonic, Thames, and Connecticut, which flow into Long Island Sound" (Clash p. 27). Not a single one of those rivers flows out of the Allegheny Mountains and with that awkward sentence, it looks like a very poor editing job.

 

I also came away from the first chapter of the slavery volume feeling that the authors were implying that slavery's beginnings in America were mostly the fault of the non-Europeans, that slavery was just something that fell into the lap of the Europeans. They stress that the English "had had no slavery at home since the thirteenth century" and spend a few pages outlining how the Africans already practiced a particularly harsh slave trade before Europeans came on the scene, and then go on to state that the "American Indians had used prisoners of war as slaves to work the gold and silver mines. The Europeans continued the system, enslaving thousands of Indians to work the mines and do other menial tasks." The next paragraph discusses the beginning of crop cultivation in the Americas and how thousands of workers were needed: "As the Indians did not make productive slaves, plantation owners turned to Africa, where there existed a ready supply of people already enslaved or liable to be" (quotes here from pp. 14-15).  I'm really not sure what they were getting at with this chapter, because the way it felt to me didn't really match the rest of the book, but the implication seemed to be that the noble Europeans had rid themselves of slavery some centuries before and then were reintroduced to it by their contact with those savage Africans and Indians.

 

I found the language dated for books written in the 1990s and 2000s. I know they explained their use of the word "Indian" by saying that most of them refer to themselves that way, but generally in academic works, the term "Native American" is preferred. The use of "blacks" instead of "African Americans" didn't warrant an explanation apparently. But, most strange of all was the use of "Eskimo" and "Mohammedan."

 

Other issues I have: I feel like the texts were constantly contradicting themselves. The frequent use of generalizations like "historians today agree" on something or "[in the 1820s] Americans by and large had been quite easygoing about sex, had drunk a great deal more alcohol than we do today, and were casual about religion" (Slavery p. 38) is disturbing. Also, if a specific historian's view is being relied upon, as happens often, I think middle-grade students are of the age where they should be told who exactly holds that view instead of "one important historian has said," so that they could investigate the matter further if they have questions; not to mention the fact that it's just bad writing not to do so.

 

I can see these being useful as a jumping off point for an in-depth issue analysis for a logic stage student who goes on to do a lot more reading to discuss the merits of the Colliers' premises. However, I would not recommend them as a spine.

[SarahW]

They stress that the English "had had no slavery at home since the thirteenth century" and spend a few pages outlining how the Africans already practiced a particularly harsh slave trade before Europeans came on the scene...

 

:001_huh: Or maybe the author has little understanding of the evolution of slavery laws from Medieval Europe to the Renaissance. harumph.

 

Can't let history get in the way of the idea that the Renaissance was ALL ABOUT personal self-determination. :001_rolleyes:

 

 

Thanks for writing this up Kathryn. I have a little while before I have to worry about American history for my kid, but when I get there I'll probably do a lot of :willy_nilly: . Posts like yours give me hope for my sanity. :001_smile:

[Kathryn]

 

 

:001_huh: Or maybe the author has little understanding of the evolution of slavery laws from Medieval Europe to the Renaissance. harumph.

 

Can't let history get in the way of the idea that the Renaissance was ALL ABOUT personal self-determination. :001_rolleyes:

 

 

Thanks for writing this up Kathryn. I have a little while before I have to worry about American history for my kid, but when I get there I'll probably do a lot of :willy_nilly: . Posts like yours give me hope for my sanity. :001_smile:

 

Ugh! I didn't expect this to be so hard! We use LOTS of books, so it's easier to spot huge biases/inaccuracies, but I'd love to find a "spine" that I'm mostly comfortable with, you know? I have placed a hold on a couple of volumes of "History of Us" and bought the Maestro books to look at (though they only go through 1815 I believe). I'd like to get my hands on K12's "American Odyssey." Most everything else I've seen mentioned here for American history, I have big issues with, though I am intrigued by a set for adult ESL learners at about a fifth grade level that Mandy in TN mentioned on this thread: http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/472425-what-did-you-use-to-get-started-in-american-history-younger-grades/

I can't find anywhere to preview them though. I did find in searching that the same author has another series written at an even lower level (third grade, I think it was) called "America's Story." [ETA: I forgot that I picked up Boorstin's "Landmark History..." at Goodwill a couple of years ago. I flipped through it quickly this weekend and it looks a little blah and the use of "Negro" throughout is a turn-off, but I'll read through it too.]

 

For world history, I've placed holds on a couple of volumes of the Oxford ancient and medieval series, and have in the mail two of the three K12 "Human Odyssey" books. I'm happy with using SOTW as a spine for the first sweep through world history, and college texts for the last. It's the middle I worry about (and first and middle for American).

[Farrar]

Kathryn, the Hakim books were too much for us at this age - just too detailed. One supplement we really liked that Stripe turned me on to were the Brown Paper School Bag USKids History books.

 

Also, for anyone interested, the Collier books all have cheap Kindle editions now.

[Iskra]

 

Also, for anyone interested, the Collier books all have cheap Kindle editions now.

 

 

Thanks for sharing this info Farrar.

[serendipitous journey]

This thread is interesting & timely for me -- thanks everybody!

 

RE the difference between historical and contemporary views on violence & empathy, which comes up at the beginning of the thread and is one I find key to understanding history: Pinker's "The Better Angels of Our Nature: The Decline of Violence" is an excellent resource for the teacher to read, and I plan to have the children read it in high school.

 

I should say that Pinker is not especially sympathetic to religious sentiment and is an Old-Earther and an evolutionist. Occasionally he simplifies or gets a bit lazy with his analysis, but the argument he makes is quite solid and the ideas are important -- the commentary towards the end is, as usual in books, where editorializing slips into the work under guise of analysis.

 

ETA: The book 1491 by Charles C. Mann, which gives a view of pre-Columbian American culture very different to standard history, has had a very strong impact on how I think about and teach the history of the early European experiences of America. I read it on the recommendation of a board member, and was convinced that the author offers insight into American history that is important, fundamental, and enlightening (if not always quite as well-proven as the author assumes & implies). I hope to read the sequel, 1493, this summer.

 

ETA #2: On why use the Collier books and not Hakim: it depends on one's goals and one's children. Cultivating an interest in and passion for history is an educational goal of mine and I use sources that further this aim (along with my aim of instilling a love for and empathy with our brothers and sisters of all times and places, and some other goals). So I source many materials according to this aim.

 

Similarly, in science I often work from Jeannie Fulbright's Apologia books though I am Old Earth, employ evolutionary theory, and am fundamentally opposed to her theology. Jeannie Fulbright's books have captured our imaginations, and I am grateful for her work.

[Kathryn]

Kathryn, the Hakim books were too much for us at this age - just too detailed. One supplement we really liked that Stripe turned me on to were the Brown Paper School Bag USKids History books.

 

Also, for anyone interested, the Collier books all have cheap Kindle editions now.

 

 

Thank you. I'm looking for both this time through (grammar stage) and looking ahead to next time through (logic stage). I figured that Hakim would be for next time if I like it, but I'm not sure yet since my son devours history books. Thank you, the USKids books look interesting and I'll put them on my list of supplements to look at. Right now, though, I'm trying to evaluate "spine" material.

[TKDmom]

Also, for anyone interested, the Collier books all have cheap Kindle editions now.

 

 

Thanks! I like to sample Kindle books. :)

 

Here's a link for anyone interested:

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&field-keywords=collier+drama+American+history&rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Acollier+drama+American+history

[zoo_keeper]

"The first European explorer, a Portuguese trader named Ruy de Sequiria [sic] who arrived in Benin in 1472, was forced to throw himself down before a king who wore so much gold jewelry on his arms that he needed servants to raise them up" (Slavery p.12). Not only did they spell his name wrong, but the way the sentence is written makes it sound as if he was the first European explorer. At least, I hope that's just poor writing and not what they're trying to say.

 

...

 

I'm really not sure what they were getting at with this chapter, because the way it felt to me didn't really match the rest of the book, but the implication seemed to be that the noble Europeans had rid themselves of slavery some centuries before and then were reintroduced to it by their contact with those savage Africans and Indians.

 

 

This post has been bugging me since yesterday, but I had to wait until I had the book in front of me. After perusing the passages, I think we need to be fair on a few points.

 

(1) Yes, they did spell the gentleman's name incorrectly. However, they spelled it Sequeiria (not Sequiria as you wrote) instead of Sequeira. You may think this is pretty nitpicky, but to call someone out for mispelling a name and then doing the same yourself is a bit ironic.

 

(2) Context is everything. The above quote when taken alone is a bit more damning than if you had put it in context with the sentence immediately preceding it discussing the first European voyages to Africa. In this case, I think it's pretty clear that Sequeira was the first European explorer to Africa. Sure, this prepositional phrase would have made the sentence above clearer, but given the context it might also have been rendered redundant.

 

(3) I guess this goes to show you how two people can interpret text quite differently. Is the concept of slavery in any form abhorrent? Most definitely. Was North America the first and last area slavery existed? No, of course not. I see nothing wrong with a book about slavery to give a bit of background on the practice. With regards to other specifics mentioned, the authors said it was paradoxical that Europeans who had abandoned the practice of slavery for several centuries would be the group to introduce the practice to North America (p.14). This does not imply that Europeans bore no responsibility for their choice to resume the practice. Further, the authors point out that the practices, once resumed by the Europeans/colonists, were much worse than the slavery that existed in Africa (pp. 13-14), They referred to the American treatment of slaves as "so cruel that it is hard to believe that humans would treat other humans that way" (p. 21). So Europeans/colonists freely chose to resume slavery and did so with a vengeance, and thus bear the responsibility for those choices. In short, I do not come away from the passages feeling that "slavery's beginnings in America were mostly the fault of the non-Europeans, that slavery was just something that fell into the lap of the Europeans."

[stripe]

The other issue I have with the Drama of American History is that SO much of it is centered around the Civil War. Like half of them!

 

Kathryn, the Hakim books were too much for us at this age - just too detailed. One supplement we really liked that Stripe turned me on to were the Brown Paper School Bag USKids History books.

 

Also, for anyone interested, the Collier books all have cheap Kindle editions now.

 

You know my kids aren't even interested in them? I honestly feel like turning my homeschool into a Brown Paper School. I think all their books are awesome. I am hoping to do Blood and Guts soon.

[Kathryn]

 

 

This post has been bugging me since yesterday, but I had to wait until I had the book in front of me. After perusing the passages, I think we need to be fair on a few points.

 

(1) Yes, they did spell the gentleman's name incorrectly. However, they spelled it Sequeiria (not Sequiria as you wrote) instead of Sequeira. You may think this is pretty nitpicky, but to call someone out for mispelling a name and then doing the same yourself is a bit ironic.

 

(2) Context is everything. The above quote when taken alone is a bit more damning than if you had put it in context with the sentence immediately preceding it discussing the first European voyages to Africa. In this case, I think it's pretty clear that Sequeira was the first European explorer to Africa. Sure, this prepositional phrase would have made the sentence above clearer, but given the context it might also have been rendered redundant.

 

(3) I guess this goes to show you how two people can interpret text quite differently. Is the concept of slavery in any form abhorrent? Most definitely. Was North America the first and last area slavery existed? No, of course not. I see nothing wrong with a book about slavery to give a bit of background on the practice. With regards to other specifics mentioned, the authors said it was paradoxical that Europeans who had abandoned the practice of slavery for several centuries would be the group to introduce the practice to North America (p.14). This does not imply that Europeans bore no responsibility for their choice to resume the practice. Further, the authors point out that the practices, once resumed by the Europeans/colonists, were much worse than the slavery that existed in Africa (pp. 13-14), They referred to the American treatment of slaves as "so cruel that it is hard to believe that humans would treat other humans that way" (p. 21). So Europeans/colonists freely chose to resume slavery and did so with a vengeance, and thus bear the responsibility for those choices. In short, I do not come away from the passages feeling that "slavery's beginnings in America were mostly the fault of the non-Europeans, that slavery was just something that fell into the lap of the Europeans."

 

 

1. I apologize for misspelling as I pointed out a misspelling. However, I am writing on a message board, not in a published book used for educating children.

 

2. Sequeira was not anywhere near being the first European explorer to Africa. My assumption is that they meant he was the first in Benin (which may be true, I don't know anything about Benin's history) and the sentence is just garbled, but to claim he was the first in Africa would just be false. I was using it as an example of how poor writing/editing change the meaning of a sentence and I stand by the fact that it does.

 

3. I stated that those were my feelings on how it could be interpreted and that that first section seemed out of character to the rest of the book. I did not say that they outright said that, just that it was a feeling I got and that I wasn't comfortable with it. I understand that others may have taken it differently.

[zoo_keeper]

Sequeira was not anywhere near being the first European explorer to Africa. My assumption is that they meant he was the first in Benin (which may be true, I don't know anything about Benin's history) and the sentence is just garbled, but to claim he was the first in Africa would just be false.

 

You are right, I got hung up on semantics without critically thinking about the content. I stand corrected that of course he was not the first European explorer to Africa and that the authors should have been more precise if they were referring to the first European explorer of a specific region of Africa.