ISO of a book not to rewrite history but to do a better honest job

[momma aimee]

I have a freind reading Teaching What Really Happened: How to Avoid the Tyranny of Textbooks and Get Students Excited About Doing History (Multicultural Education Series) and I have NO intrest in a re-vritting of History to make it more PC :glare: THAT bugs me --

 

BUT I do feel that a lot of standardly taugh hisstory is overly biased (everything, is, to some extent, biased) -- my hubby said last night "YES the Civil wr was fought purely over slavery" -- ohhh what a great mis-education HE had -- white Americas have done bad things -- and non-whites have done good things that have been neglected -- but

 

...how do you find a balance -- or have you read any good books in this vein?

 

[Mrs Mungo]

I have a freind reading Teaching What Really Happened: How to Avoid the Tyranny of Textbooks and Get Students Excited About Doing History (Multicultural Education Series) and I have NO intrest in a re-vritting of History to make it more PC :glare: THAT bugs me --

 

That book isn't about re-writing history. It's about how much the history books get wrong.

 

BUT I do feel that a lot of standardly taugh hisstory is overly biased (everything, is, to some extent, biased) -- my hubby said last night "YES the Civil wr was fought purely over slavery" -- ohhh what a great mis-education HE had -- white Americas have done bad things -- and non-whites have done good things that have been neglected -- but

 

This is a subject that has been the topic of many extremely hot debates here. Go read primary sources (the Articles of Session, speeches made at the time, etc) and you will see that *for the South* it was over slavery and *for the North* it was to preserve the Union. Asserting anything else is whitewashing, imo.

 

Primary sources. That is the key to understanding history.

[FaithManor]

Agreeing with Mrs. Mungo here. Primary sources. I use as an example "the first Thanksgiving" which has been completely distorted into a virtual myth but is reiterated over and over by textbook publishers. If you read Governor William Bradford's diary, "On Plymouth Plantation", one gets the real story and it's not what it has been made out to be.

 

So, I tend to use the most reliable textbook source I can for a "timeline"...keeping important events in their chronological place so the sequences doesn't chop around. But, our great books study is what keeps us in touch with the current of the culture of each time period. In terms of American History, there is a lot to choose from; "Poor Richard", "Common Sense", Ben Franklin's Autobiography, George Washington's personal letters, "The Federalist Papers", "The Anti-Federalist Papers", our Constitution, etc. all demonstrate the issues at hand from the Colonist's perspective. Thankfully, prior to our last century, our world leaders, philosophers, theologians, etc. tended to be rather prolific writers and so there is a lot of primary source material. I have been wondering about the last 25 years of history...there does not appear to be quite so much.

 

Faith

[momma aimee]

thanks, I am not looking specfically at the Civil war, lol, that was an example i happen to have studied a lot living in the South :D But I jsut mean all hostory is biased by the vritter -- consider Pharoh's account vs Moses' -- it is inherent that history carry bias -- the cw is one that Dh adn I were taugh very differntly so it is easy to 'see' the conflict in educationsystem easily for us.

 

How do you approach use of primary sources with the younger kids. For example I remember reading the federlist papers in high school and being challanged -- and I was in AP English and AP History. I don't see using that with gradeschool kids?

[Mrs Mungo]

How do you approach use of primary sources with the younger kids. For example I remember reading the federlist papers in high school and being challanged -- and I was in AP English and AP History. I don't see using that with gradeschool kids?

 

We did history TWTM way. That means we started at the beginning in first grade. We didn't hit the more contentious bits of American history until fourth grade. We used SOTW, along with quite a few living books. All history books have have biases. BUT, if *you* are knowledgeable about the facts (having learned through primary sources), then you can shed some light on those biases.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

I think that good living books (ie, historical fiction and biographies) go a long ways toward showcasing the variety of perspectives on a historical period.

For the Civil War, for example, an elementary aged kid might read (or listen to) Shades of Grey, Across Five Aprils, Rifles for Watie and Thee Hannah. Even just Shades of Grey or Across Five Aprils on their own do a pretty good job of showing that there were different opinions on right actions in history.

 

Long text filled primary documents might be difficult, but there are some pretty good documentaries that use photos, drawings, newspaper accounts and letters. (I'm counting a news account of the period as a form of primary document.)

 

We once had a great afternoon looking at period newspaper advertisements from the Seattle area around the time of the Alaska Gold Rush. The ads gave us some insight into what people were thinking about.

 

You might also look at political cartoons from a certain era. A child that can't understand the working of the Declaration of Independence, might well understand the cut up snake drawing with "Join or Die".

[Denise in Florida]

It is not possible to have a completely objective history. Even the source material has social/cultural biases and is affected by the viewpoint of the author. The more emotional the topic (i.e, civil rights or vietnam war or feminist movement) the more difficult to tell 'what really happened' even for the participants.

 

That said, you might be interested in reading a good book on Historiography (the history of studying history). There are many good books on amazon that talk about how the historians time view point affects the same information. In other words, a 1860's historian's account of George Washington would be different from a 1930's historian's account of George Washington both of which would be read by a 2011's student.

 

Does this make sense?

 

It is a fascinating field to study. I hope you find what you are looking for.

[tearose]

You might want to look into historiography, which is the history and methodology of history. I am pretty sure that all history majors are required to take a class on it (it was definitely a requirement for me as an undergrad).

[Gratia271]

Primary sources. That is the key to understanding history.

:iagree:

 

Per the bias, there is bias inherent in everything. I have found it is a great springboard to discussion with my children which is typically the focal point in our household (and subsequent writing assignments).

[delaney]

Is there a list on here anywhere that has all of the first hand accounts to use? I would like to use them as discussion pieces with my older DD next year with year 3.

[Spy Car]

This is a subject that has been the topic of many extremely hot debates here. Go read primary sources (the Articles of Session, speeches made at the time, etc) and you will see that *for the South* it was over slavery and *for the North* it was to preserve the Union. Asserting anything else is whitewashing, imo.

 

Primary sources. That is the key to understanding history.

 

:iagree:

 

The idea that the primary cause of the Civil War wasn't slavey is pure revisionism and simply false.

 

Bill

[momma aimee]

It is not possible to have a completely objective history. Even the source material has social/cultural biases and is affected by the viewpoint of the author. The more emotional the topic (i.e, civil rights or vietnam war or feminist movement) the more difficult to tell 'what really happened' even for the participants.

 

That said, you might be interested in reading a good book on Historiography (the history of studying history). There are many good books on amazon that talk about how the historians time view point affects the same information. In other words, a 1860's historian's account of George Washington would be different from a 1930's historian's account of George Washington both of which would be read by a 2011's student.

 

Does this make sense?

 

It is a fascinating field to study. I hope you find what you are looking for.

 

THAT is kinda what I was thinging, nothing too indeppth i know people spend their lives looking at the topice, but it someine i feel it is necessary for me to maky myself aware of and to point out to my kids. I, personally, feeel we must also be careful not to judge people in the pasy by today's standards -- and this is true of Lit or History. JMO.

 

anyone have any begginer historiography suggestions?

 

Sounds like the avenuse i am looking for -- thanks for giving me a NAME for it. :thumbup:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and Bill -- LOL I disagree -- but that is not the topic of this thread. civil war as purely a simple fight of slavery is a simplification at best and joke at worst. :D

[Spy Car]

 

and Bill -- LOL I disagree -- but that is not the topic of this thread. civil war as purely a simple fight of slavery is a simplification at best and joke at worst. :D

 

Read the original source documents written by the successionist Southern states and you will find the claim that slavery wasn't the cause of succession and the war is simply a lie. A dam*able lie at that.

 

Bill

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Read the original source documents written by the successionist Southern states and you will find the claim that slavery wasn't the cause of succession and the war is simply a lie. A dam*able lie at that.

 

Bill

 

:iagree: When we visited the Capital and saw tons of original source documents it was very apparent that it was fought over slavery.

[Mrs Mungo]

You might want to look into historiography, which is the history and methodology of history. I am pretty sure that all history majors are required to take a class on it (it was definitely a requirement for me as an undergrad).

 

This is sort of funny that a few people said this, because the book she was griping about in her initial post is a book about historiography. :D

[tearose]

anyone have any begginer historiography suggestions?

 

Sounds like the avenuse i am looking for -- thanks for giving me a NAME for it. :thumbup:

 

Mark Gilderhus's History and Historians is a very basic introduction.

 

Here are a few books I remember from my historiography class 10+ years ago (had to look on Amazon a bit to jog my memory):

Telling the Truth About History - Appleby, Hunt, Jacob

What is History? - Carr

The Idea of History - Collingwood

Historiography in the Twentieth Century - Iggers

The Content of the Form - White

[momma aimee]

This is sort of funny that a few people said this, because the book she was griping about in her initial post is a book about historiography. :D

 

true -- but i read a good bit about it and it seems many people, college professiors and so on -- really doubt the author of the book i brought up in my first post.

 

I'll see if the libary has it and give it a chance -- :) -- but the buddy reading it is all about PC and being PC to the determent, imo, og the Founding Fathers simply due to them being white -- not a fight i want to start -- the book just looks 'over the top PC" to me -- has anyone here read it and can give me feed back -- i am jsut a bit tired of the anti-white, anti-Christian feel that some current education is taking -- you know. Again anyone read it and vant to give me some thoughts on it.

 

i admit i am new to all this. forgive me my blunders

[momma aimee]

Mark Gilderhus's History and Historians is a very basic introduction.

 

Here are a few books I remember from my historiography class 10+ years ago (had to look on Amazon a bit to jog my memory):

Telling the Truth About History - Appleby, Hunt, Jacob

What is History? - Carr

The Idea of History - Collingwood

Historiography in the Twentieth Century - Iggers

The Content of the Form - White

 

 

THANKS

 

I appercipate you takeing the time and makeing an extra effort for me

[Carol in Cal.]

Read the original source documents written by the successionist Southern states and you will find the claim that slavery wasn't the cause of succession and the war is simply a lie. A dam*able lie at that.

 

Bill

 

Yup. :iagree:

[Denise in Florida]

You are welcome.

 

Quote from momma aimee -anyone have any begginer historiography suggestions?

 

Sounds like the avenuse i am looking for -- thanks for giving me a NAME for it. :thumbup: end QUOTE

 

My dd19 is using The Pursuit of History by John Tosh, her professor says it is a standard text. I ordered it for her on Amazon.

 

 

It seems as if every time I start looking into any field (literature, farming, theology,etc.) I find out how much more there is to know. :lol: My kids and I used to follow the most amazing bunny trails when they were younger. This board is a great source of information.

 

Good luck.

Edited April 27, 2011 by Denise in Florida
odd formating huh?

[Jeanne in MN]

Here's an interesting read about how schools teach inaccurate history.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Lies-My-Teacher-Told-Everything/dp/0743296281/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1303870376&sr=8-1

[Heather in Neverland]

"History is written by the victors" ~ Winston Churchill

 

I do not believe there is such a thing as history in a vacuum. Every history book ever written has some sort of cultural/religious/political bias because histories are written by PEOPLE and PEOPLE without any bias whatsoever do not exist.

 

Primary sources are your best bet but you would have to read multiple sources from different sides of the same issue and try to synthesize them from there (which, of course, will draw in your OWN biases as you decide which view seems more credible).

 

Humans are notoriously unreliable narrators. :D

[Sebastian (a lady)]

Is there a list on here anywhere that has all of the first hand accounts to use? I would like to use them as discussion pieces with my older DD next year with year 3.

 

Not sure what you mean about ALL the first hand accounts. There are so many to choose from. The edition of WTM that I have suggests some Jackdaws. I haven't used those and have seen mixed reviews here on them.

 

Since year 3 includes the founding of the USA, you might look for something with foundational documents and speeches. I think what I have is called something like A Citizen's Handbook. It has things like The Mayflower Compact, The Declaration of Independence, speeches from Lincoln and Martin Luther King, Jr.

 

I'm also a fan of the primary documents available from the National Archives and state and local historical societies and archives. The National Archives has a "daily document". Today's, for example is a wanted poster for John Wilkes Booth. This section has lessons with docs for various periods of US history.

 

If you're looking for something older or not US based, there are other resources, like Fordham's Medieval Sourcebook. Many museums will have primary documents up on their websites.

 

I have also done pretty well in finding books that are anthologies of primary documents. Look for titles like Renaissance Reader or Medieval Sourcebook. I've picked these up for a few dollars each at library book sales. I think I have one on our shelves that has docs from a wider swath of world history. I'll see if I can lay hands on it tomorrow.

[Mrs Mungo]

true -- but i read a good bit about it and it seems many people, college professiors and so on -- really doubt the author of the book i brought up in my first post.

 

I'll see if the libary has it and give it a chance -- :) -- but the buddy reading it is all about PC and being PC to the determent, imo, og the Founding Fathers simply due to them being white -- not a fight i want to start -- the book just looks 'over the top PC" to me -- has anyone here read it and can give me feed back -- i am jsut a bit tired of the anti-white, anti-Christian feel that some current education is taking -- you know. Again anyone read it and vant to give me some thoughts on it.

 

i admit i am new to all this. forgive me my blunders

 

I don't think correcting revisionist history and being PC are the same thing. I don't think most current history books used in schools are anti-white or anti-Christian, I think quite the opposite.

 

How many times have people read in a history book that the Native Americans taught colonists how to plant *AND* that Native Americans could not be taught to settle down into an agricultural lifestyle and that's why they simply had to be removed from their lands? One of these things is a lie.

 

Re: Jackdaws-we have a few of these. I like them, but I'm not sure they are worth the cost. This is especially true now that so many of these things are available for viewing online.

[Mrs Mungo]

Here's an interesting read about how schools teach inaccurate history.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Lies-My-Teacher-Told-Everything/dp/0743296281/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1303870376&sr=8-1

 

That book is by the same author the OP complains about. ;)

[thowell]

So Mrs. Mungo and Bill what do you recommend to use for US history. I am just about to pull my hair out over this!!:willy_nilly:

[Spy Car]

So Mrs. Mungo and Bill what do you recommend to use for US history. I am just about to pull my hair out over this!!:willy_nilly:

 

Best I've seen for the "middle years" is "The Drama of American History" series by James Lincoln Collier and (his brother) Christopher Collier.

 

Very well written, thoughtful, and balanced. Many libraries carry this series.

 

Bill

[Mrs Mungo]

So Mrs. Mungo and Bill what do you recommend to use for US history. I am just about to pull my hair out over this!!:willy_nilly:

 

I use Hakim and lots of books.

[MischiefManaged]

Best I've seen for the "middle years" is "The Drama of American History" series by James Lincoln Collier and (his brother) Christopher Collier.

 

Very well written, thoughtful, and balanced. Many libraries carry this series.

 

Bill

 

:iagree:

 

I like Hakim's book set-up, but her style bugs me. Which is why i let the kids read it and not use it as a read-aloud, lol.

[KidsHappen]

That book isn't about re-writing history. It's about how much the history books get wrong.

 

 

 

This is a subject that has been the topic of many extremely hot debates here. Go read primary sources (the Articles of Session, speeches made at the time, etc) and you will see that *for the South* it was over slavery and *for the North* it was to preserve the Union. Asserting anything else is whitewashing, imo.

 

Primary sources. That is the key to understanding history.

 

As a southerner, I have to firmly assert that for the south it was also a matter of defending their homes from invading forces. I live in an area that was of great historical importance in the conflict and still to this day there is a huge feeling of loss for the homes that were distroyed and the families that were misplaced. Many that would not have otherwise been pulled into the conflict were forced to fight just to protect themselves, their families and their homes. This is a third an often overlooked aspect of the war.

[Spy Car]

So Mrs. Mungo and Bill what do you recommend to use for US history. I am just about to pull my hair out over this!!:willy_nilly:

 

:iagree:

 

I like Hakim's book set-up, but her style bugs me. Which is why i let the kids read it and not use it as a read-aloud, lol.

 

I just can not stand Joy Hakim's writing style. I get sea-sick every time I attempt it (as I did many times) because I once thought it was "the only game in town." DoAH (to my mind) is cleanly written, not patronizing, presents multiple sides in disputes so motivations and reasons are understood when there are conflicts. The books purposefully attempt to stay on theme. They are like college level American History intelligently brought down to a late elementary/middle school level.

 

I really like the books I've pre-read from this series. Sourcing them is the only potential problem.

 

Bill

[MischiefManaged]

As a southerner, I have to firmly assert that for the south it was also a matter of defending their homes from invading forces.

 

{{I think they are talking mostly about the reason anyone needed to BE invaded in the first place....but that's a guess. I'm just trying to get my post count up to sell a few books at this point, lol}}

[Spy Car]

{{I think they are talking mostly about the reason anyone needed to BE invaded in the first place....but that's a guess. I'm just trying to get my post count up to sell a few books at this point, lol}}

 

Uh, yea. The "invasion" only happened because there was a war in progress. And there was only a war because the Southern states wanted to preserve the institution of slavery.

 

Bill

[momma aimee]

As a southerner, I have to firmly assert that for the south it was also a matter of defending their homes from invading forces. I live in an area that was of great historical importance in the conflict and still to this day there is a huge feeling of loss for the homes that were distroyed and the families that were misplaced. Many that would not have otherwise been pulled into the conflict were forced to fight just to protect themselves, their families and their homes. This is a third an often overlooked aspect of the war.

 

ITA -- I grew up in the South and the conflict was much more complex than most care to admit. there is a famous text of some union fighters running into a lone 'rebell'. he was young and poor and obviously not a slave owner and they asked him whyt he fought a looseing battle and he replied "because sir you are in my yard; what would you have me do"

 

The North could have very well said "we do not want slaves" and gone on their own and left the South alone to do as it would... they did not.

 

none the less this is not yet another tired debate about the war between the states, but the war between the states is a great example of the history being written by the victors. :D

[Mrs Mungo]

I just can not stand Joy Hakim's writing style. I get sea-sick every time I attempt it (as I did many times) because I once thought it was "the only game in town."

 

I understand a lot of people don't care for her style. Like I said, we add in a lot of other books for balance. :)

 

Again, the Southern states seceded because of slavery. That has nothing at all to do with individual accounts of the war.

[Carol in Cal.]

 

The North could have very well said "we do not want slaves" and gone on their own and left the South alone to do as it would... they did not.

 

 

On the contrary. The North could not do that. They tried to do that, and the South initiated physical fighting in the territories to make them allow slavery to be spread there, and insisted on the Fugitive Slave Law. There was no way for the North to avoid being forced to be complicit in enforcing slavery short of this war.

[Spy Car]

The true cause of the war, and the assumptions upon which the institution of Slavery were built are clear when one reads the original source documents of the Southern secessionists.

 

To cite but one, read from the speech of CSA vice-president Alexander H. Stephens made on March 21, 1861 prior to the outbreak of full scale war (emphasis mine):

 

The new constitution [The CSA constitution] has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization.

 

This [slavery] was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. [Thomas] Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact.

 

But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away.

 

This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

 

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

 

Bill

[Carol in Cal.]

The true cause of the war, and the assumptions upon which the institution of Slavery were built are clear when one reads the original source documents of the Southern secessionists.

 

 

 

Yes, addenda after the fact by revisionists to the contrary, the original cause is clear.

[Spy Car]

Yes, addenda after the fact by revisionists to the contrary, the original cause is clear.

 

:iagree:

 

The cause of the war and the operating assumption behind slavery, namely that "the negro is not equal to the white man" are clear.

 

It is troubling to see the proliferation of home school materials that try to obfuscate (and even deny) the former truth, and even more troubling to see people reaching back to novels and "history" from nearly a century ago (or more) which reenforce the latter belief in an inequality of "the races."

 

It makes me shudder.

 

Bill

[mamakimberly]

yikes, Bill... just reading that document made me want to throw up.

 

:( God save us from ourselves (humanity). Sickening.

[Spy Car]

yikes, Bill... just reading that document made me want to throw up.

 

:( God save us from ourselves (humanity). Sickening.

 

Unfortunately these ideas and attitudes are still very much alive in the guise of "neo-Confederatism." And it is the "elephant in the room" of the American home schooling movement that (almost) no one wants to confront.

 

Bill

[Mrs Mungo]

Unfortunately these ideas and attitudes are still very much alive in the guise of "neo-Confederatism." And it is the "elephant in the room" of the American home schooling movement that (almost) no one wants to confront.

 

Bill

 

It's also the elephant in the room in politics at the moment. :glare:

[LibraryLover]

I so appreciate that you continue to take on important issues in such a calm and

articulate way.

 

 

Primary sources. That is the key to understanding history.

[KidsHappen]

ITA -- I grew up in the South and the conflict was much more complex than most care to admit. there is a famous text of some union fighters running into a lone 'rebell'. he was young and poor and obviously not a slave owner and they asked him whyt he fought a looseing battle and he replied "because sir you are in my yard; what would you have me do" :D

 

Yes, this was the aspect that I was talking about. This area was right in the middle of the conflict. Many people here did not wish to be involved in the war at all. Their concerns were keeping their families and homes safe but unfortunately in many cases they ended up having to defend themselves against both sides or simply becoming collateral damage. Very few people that don't live here realize this aspect of the war. Try to imagine a war between Canada and Mexico in which you don't wish to be part of but both sides show up in your front yard to fight it out.

[always cookin']

Our library does not carry them.

[mo2]

Our library does not carry them.

 

I just asked the same question on the K-8 board, but I haven't gotten an answer yet. :)

[momma aimee]

Yes, this was the aspect that I was talking about. This area was right in the middle of the conflict. Many people here did not wish to be involved in the war at all. Their concerns were keeping their families and homes safe but unfortunately in many cases they ended up having to defend themselves against both sides or simply becoming collateral damage. Very few people that don't live here realize this aspect of the war. Try to imagine a war between Canada and Mexico in which you don't wish to be part of but both sides show up in your front yard to fight it out.

 

 

That is a great way to put it.

[Mrs Mungo]

Yes, this was the aspect that I was talking about. This area was right in the middle of the conflict. Many people here did not wish to be involved in the war at all. Their concerns were keeping their families and homes safe but unfortunately in many cases they ended up having to defend themselves against both sides or simply becoming collateral damage. Very few people that don't live here realize this aspect of the war. Try to imagine a war between Canada and Mexico in which you don't wish to be part of but both sides show up in your front yard to fight it out.

 

But that has nothing to do with why the South seceded or the reasons for the war itself.

[Spy Car]

But that has nothing to do with why the South seceded or the reasons for the war itself.

 

Yea, it really doesn't. And it perpetuates the falsehood that Southerners who took up arms against the United States of America were some sort of innocent victims.

 

Bill

[LibraryLover]

The American Civil was was a tradegy; a bloody and terrible thing. We know innocent people died, we know families were devastated. The Brady photos are haunting... not easy to view. Nobody sees a 'win' in those. We know innocents were caught in the crossfire. That's a consequence of war, but not a cause of it.