D'Aulaire books a bit racist

[...................]

Has anyone else had to purge these books for the reason of racism? I understand that the original authors lived so very long ago that the Whites of their time generally did have racist attitudes and a lack of vision when it came to equality.

 

But recently God brought two things into my heart. One is that my dd is now dear friends with a little girl from Haiti.

 

Around the same time I began reading John Piper's "Bloodlines" and realizing the subtle racism that still exists among some of my very Southern born and bred Christian friends.

 

Then my dd's friend happened to pick up D'Aulaire's George Washington. She did not finish reading it. I later picked up the book and felt saddened and ashamed. The book shows George as a true hero (as indeed he was) but shows the slaves

 

1. Faceless in the fields

2. Longing to dance in the ball

3. Lined up with smiles to welcome him home

 

But the book never explains or addresses the evil of slavery or why a great hero would own slaves. Perhaps many feel that parents can obviously just add that in.

 

But I am getting rid of this book now because I was not there to explain the book to my dd's friend, and my heart aches to think what in the world she felt about those pictures and the caption "his many slaves kept everything spic and span"

 

I guess I'm a little shocked that I never realized before.

[FairProspects]

Yeah, we dropped them for the same reasons. They were written in the 30's and times and attitudes were very different. I know some people like them, but they were not a good fit in our house. The Abraham Lincoln one is even worse.

[Crimson Wife]

We use them but discuss the racist attitudes as artifacts of the authors' times. Just like we often have to discuss the one-sidedness of modern "politically correct" books.

 

The analogy I use is that if veganism became the standard 150+ years from now, would DD like future people to condemn her for eating meat even though it is considered morally acceptable today?

[FairProspects]

If you purge these books, you might as well purge an entire section of American History.

 

Yes, racism is wrong, slavery is wrong, but that doesn't mean it didn't exist. I would simply keep those books on a specific shelf, or set aside somewhere, so if your daughter/friends do want to read, you'll have to get it for them and therefore have an opportunity to provide your own preface to them.

 

I don't think it's wrong for the books to "never explain or address the evil of slavery or why a great hero would own slaves"; I think that's your job, since every parent would have a slightly different approach.

 

I respectfully disagree. There is a difference between not specifically addressing the evils of slavery, and illustrations depicting slaves without faces, as if they are sub-human and not people worthy of individual features. The latter strikes me as institutionalized racism by the author/illustrator (which makes sense given the time period when the books were written, but they are still not books I would choose to use for our studies). FWIW, I think the illustrations in these books are more offensive than the text.

[swellmomma]

If you purge these books, you might as well purge an entire section of American History.

 

Yes, racism is wrong, slavery is wrong, but that doesn't mean it didn't exist. I would simply keep those books on a specific shelf, or set aside somewhere, so if your daughter/friends do want to read, you'll have to get it for them and therefore have an opportunity to provide your own preface to them.

 

I don't think it's wrong for the books to "never explain or address the evil of slavery or why a great hero would own slaves"; I think that's your job, since every parent would have a slightly different approach.

 

:iagree: Use those bits as conversation starters, explain to your dc WHY you feel that slavery was wrong. Are you reading those because you are working through American history or did you just pick them up? Study the civil war, underground railroad etc as a way to show the fight for freedom of the slaves, right on up to now having a black president. NO matter what your political viewpoints are, the fact that he is the first is a huge step, given that 100 yrs ago they were the faceless ones in the field kwim.

 

Don't censor the books for being historically accurate, teach why they had slaves, why it was wrong, how it changed, how people today STILL feel that blacks should be slaves and how to deal with that prejudice and bigotry. YOu can even extend it outside of the US and look at apartheid etc.

 

Banning the books does not change the history, nor does it improve the future. Learning the history of what happened etc DOES.

[Hedgehogs4]

Those books do reflect the time of the author's writing. I think it's also a good opportunity to point out how the attitudes towards slavery and segregation have evolved over time, not just that slavery was wrong, but that people's attitudes, even after slavery was abolished had a long way to go.

[FairProspects]

Those illustrations are a perfect relfection of the attitude/thoughts of the people in that time period (even some people today).

 

I think that in the child's best interest, discussions about those illustrations should happen when the child has the maturity to really think about those kinds of things.

 

But throwing away the books (and therefore almost an entire time period of literature) because of the text/pictures doesn't help anything. Unless you want to keep the child in a bubble.

 

Well, I agree that these discussions are best left for an age when the child has maturity to think about such issues. That is actually why I feel the opposite way in that pictures such as these should be kept from a young child who is still forming opinions about the world, but that they would be more acceptable for an older child who does have the logic to rationalize their intent and consider the bias of culture. I do not want my child to think even casually that I consider pictures of this nature to be acceptable, and by presenting them at a time before the child can carefully consider bias, I am doing exactly that - presenting them as normal.

 

Where did the impression come from that choosing not to use the D'Aulaire books is keeping a child in a bubble or throwing away and entire time period of literature? That is a rather large jump in conclusions.

 

Just because I do not choose to use the specific D'Aulaire books because of their illustrations does not mean I don't use plenty of other less personally offensive classics from the same time period. I happen to not like this particular set of books for the reasons stated above.

 

We all have our own "bubbles" in what we choose to present and choose to leave out. Personally, I choose to leave books out of our grammar stage studies that show subtle signs of institutionalized racism. Fortunately, I live in a free country and that is my right just as it is your right to have a different opinion and make different choices. :D

[LucyStoner]

I think it is good to have books like that to illustrate that racism existed and still exists. Just don't let it go unremarked. And don't underestimate your kids and when they are able to learn about it. My 8 year old and I have had many conversations about racism and other forms of discrimination. Teach the full picture. The worst thing we can do is teach our children a whitewashed version of history that omits all references to the continuing legacy of racism. That said, certainly put away anything that you don't want to share now or that you don't want to make your family members uncomfortable with.

Edited February 25, 2012 by kijipt

[Crimson Wife]

Any number of children are reared on this classical "superior" literature with a quick parental caveat that slavery is wrong.

 

But a steady diet of old school classics with archaic attitudes and POVs (as is often touted as the "best" by HSers wishing to shelter and use lit rich curricula) is a disastrous education for today's child. I have many times heard that you should make it a point to avoid books written after say 1960, in order to protect your children from the unsuitable. Never mind that the only portrayals of AA or indians tend to be stereotypical or subservient.

 

Are you okay with one-sided modern books that portray all Europeans as evil oppressors and all non-Europeans as perfectly innocent victims?

 

I have ancestors who were massacred in King Phillip's War including women and children. The Native Americans were the ones who broke the peace treaty negotiated decades earlier between the Pilgrims and Phillip/Metacomet's father Massasoit. There was some atrocious behavior on both sides during the conflict as was the case in later conflicts between the white settlers and the Native Americans. But my point is that it isn't the one-sided narrative presented in either old-fashioned Eurocentric texts or the modern "politically correct" ones.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

I'm willing to use starkly clear explanations of history, because I don't think we can learn from it if we aren't allowed to see it. I'd keep the books.

 

But I don't think that was the OP's real problem. I don't think she wants to whitewash or lie. I think she knows to have these discussions with her dc. She knows to create a different home culture where justice and acceptance are the order of the day.

 

The problem is that a friend of the family came by and picked up the book. Little friend is a child, a newcomer to the country, and sees people who look like herself being depicted as less than human in a book left out for anyone to see in a home where the people look like the people portrayed in the book as the actual characters of the story.

 

That was awkwardly stated, but does anyone see what I mean? She's in a white family's home looking at a picture book where white people are people, but people who look like her aren't really in the story except to support the white people. Plus, the book is about America's first president! This book might set the tone for the child's beginning education in American history. The wrong tone.

 

Yeah, I wouldn't want that to happen to a guest of mine, either.

 

OP, I have a copy of This Country of Ours by H.E. Marshall that I use in homeschooling. It isn't kept on my front room shelf, because I don't want visitors to pick it up and read it. I also don't want homeschoolers who come over to think I'm using it as-is instead of as an example of a horrible bias. If I found value in this D'Aulaire book on Washington I would keep it, but not out in plain sight.

 

Materials can be educational in one setting or purpose, and offensive in others. I don't leave the sex ed books on the coffee table, either. LOL

[Sneezyone]

I cant think of any children's book or piece of literature that I would be ashamed or distressed about a stranger, neighbor, friend or foe seeing on the shelf. There are many ways to teach about historical truths and figures that do not include inaccurate, racist portrayals of others. I choose those.

[usetoschool]

I wouldn't toss the book but I think I would go talk to the girl's parents and explain what you are feeling and what happened. I think I would want to get things straightened out in the little girls mind.

[LucyStoner]

Are you okay with one-sided modern books that portray all Europeans as evil oppressors and all non-Europeans as perfectly innocent victims?

 

I have ancestors who were massacred in King Phillip's War including women and children. The Native Americans were the ones who broke the peace treaty negotiated decades earlier between the Pilgrims and Phillip/Metacomet's father Massasoit. There was some atrocious behavior on both sides during the conflict as was the case in later conflicts between the white settlers and the Native Americans. But my point is that it isn't the one-sided narrative presented in either old-fashioned Eurocentric texts or the modern "politically correct" ones.

 

Frankly, I have not found these. What I see most often is books that tell the plain truth about the violence in the making and expansion of the US being called out one-sided and PC even when they are not one sided. The books I know of that get labelled as modern and one sided/PC do in fact show that the violence went in all directions.

[Tarreymere]

Slavery isn't just a racial issue. The ancient Greeks and Romans had slaves that were often of the same ethnicity as themselves. So did the Egyptians and many others. Let's not forget the serfs in the middle ages either. Slavery has many forms. Slavery continues to exist today and many slave owners are not a different color than the slaves they own. By addressing slavery only in the context of white southern Americans owning black Africans is to misrepresent the facts and does a disservice to all human beings. Why not rather address the fact that this is an ancient and on-going social evil that should concern all of us.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

I cant think of any children's book or piece of literature that I would be ashamed or distressed about a stranger, neighbor, friend or foe seeing on the shelf. There are many ways to teach about historical truths and figures that do not include inaccurate, racist portrayals of others. I choose those.

 

When your children are older than 7 you might want to teach them about bias, stereotypes, jingoism, or agenda-driven education. When that time comes you might find yourself purchasing something by D'Aulaire or Marshall. That's why I have those books.

[Sneezyone]

My children need only listen to their parents and grandparents for first-person narratives/accounts of bias, stereotypes, jingoism, and agenda-driven education. They've been learning since the day they were born. My great-great-great grandparents were part of the post-reconstruction westward migration. My great-great-grandparents were among the first blacks to settle in the pacific northwest, intermarrying with Native Americans. My aunt was the first black employee at Boeing. My grandfather was a black officer during WWII and none of that is captured by D'Aulaire. There are many ways to learn about history.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

My children need only listen to their parents and grandparents for first-person narratives/accounts of bias, stereotypes, jingoism, and agenda-driven education. They've been learning since the day they were born. My great-great-great grandparents were part of the post-reconstruction westward migration. My great-great-grandparents were among the first blacks to settle in the pacific northwest, intermarrying with Native Americans. My aunt was the first black employee at Boeing. My grandfather was a black officer during WWII and none of that is captured by D'Aulaire. There are many ways to learn about history.

 

Yes, there are. My family has Cherokee, Apache, and southern sharecropper stories to share. My German American relatives were relocated to camps within the U.S. during WWII, and they have those stories to share. These wounds are fresh for my family, too.

 

D'Aulaire doesn't capture anything about my Grandpa's experience in a camp or my other Grandpa's experience as a Native American in the deep south or other relatives' deaths on the Trail of Tears, but it does capture something about the way Americans of a certain time and place had their stereotypes so deeply ingrained that it was even passed on in educational materials for children in school! In colorful, beautiful storybooks that blur out faces or call "indians" savages!

 

That's what I mean!

 

That's why I use these books! Not to learn the history of the subject, but to learn the history of the people who have shaped public policy through their indoctrination of children in school by means of books like this!

 

Showing these things with books is not the only way. But it is one of the several ways I use, and it is a valid way.

 

I will not be placed in company with those who actually use Marshall, Eggleston, and others of that time as history resources to be just handed to children. I think that is wicked, and I wish companies like TOG and HOD would not use these books. I wish Ambleside and Old-Fashioned Education would purge their booklists. But that's not me. I have them on a non-public shelf in my home to make the point when I need to make the point.

Edited February 26, 2012 by Tibbie Dunbar

[mystika1]

I avoid books like this. There are plenty of ways to cover history for primary grades that are more age appropriate. I don't feel like my girls are in a bubble. Because I homeschool, most of the people in town think my girls are in a bubble anyway so who cares.:D We have used volume 1 of SOTW and didn't have problems with it. I don't know about the other volumes. I use lots of DK books for history from our library.

Penny

[woolybear]

I did feel that way about the George Washington book, but the others (as I recall) weren't as bad.

[Sneezyone]

Yes, there are. My family has Cherokee, Apache, and southern sharecropper stories to share. My German American relatives were relocated to camps within the U.S. during WWII, and they have those stories to share. These wounds are fresh for my family, too.

 

D'Aulaire doesn't capture anything about my Grandpa's experience in a camp or my other Grandpa's experience as a Native American in the deep south or other relatives' deaths on the Trail of Tears, but it does capture something about the way Americans of a certain time and place had their stereotypes so deeply ingrained that it was even passed on in educational materials for children in school! In colorful, beautiful storybooks that blur out faces or call "indians" savages!

 

That's what I mean!

 

That's why I use these books! Not to learn the history of the subject, but to learn the history of the people who have shaped public policy through their indoctrination of children in school by means of books like this!

 

Showing these things with books is not the only way. But it is one of the several ways I use, and it is a valid way.

 

I will not be placed in company with those who actually use Marshall, Eggleston, and others of that time as history resources to be just handed to children. I think that is wicked, and I wish companies like TOG and HOD would not use these books. I wish Ambleside and Old-Fashioned Education would purge their booklists. But that's not me. I have them on a non-public shelf in my home to make the point when I need to make the point.

 

We agree. I just find it unfortunate that folks encourage these materials to be used as 'literature' for young children without any thought to the messages implicit therein. If my daughter had gone over to someone's house and encountered such a thing she would not be coming back. It's not her job to raise others' consciousness or awareness re:racial issues, not in school and not out of it. Her job is to be a student, sister, daughter, citizen and friend. Nothing more, nothing less. It's nice that the little girls' relationship has had a positive impact on how the OP perceives some of the materials in her home but, on the flip side, the fact that it took that kind of interaction to open her eyes would be a huge red flag for me.

[Crimson Wife]

or call "indians" savages!

 

Some Native Americans *DID* behave in exceedingly savage ways (all the massacres). Ignoring that fact in an attempt to paint all Native Americans as totally innocent victims of the evil European oppressors is just as bad IMHO as the Eurocentric view found in the old books is. It's not a black-and-white issue. There was lots of horrible savagery found on both sides. That is what I teach my kids and what I make sure to discuss with my kids when we encounter one-sided narratives, either PC or un-PC.

[Superfly]

Despite all the modern PC texts, our entire culture is still completely saturated with subtle racism. I personally would keep the books. They are a piece of history. It is the little girls parents job to talk to her about race.

 

As a parent I concern myself more with modern brainwashing like Barbie cartoons. They are a perfect example of the bias that most people never notice. It never dawned on me what affect they may have on my DD until it was too late. When she was six she started having self-esteem issues. Then one day she started crying and told me she wished that a friend of mine(white) was her mother instead of me(mix). She had somehow decided that being white was beautiful, acceptable, preferable etc, and that having dark features was something to be ashamed of. That's when I realized that all those cartoons she was watching did not have any characters of color. Only blond haired Barbie ever wears pink(every girls favorite color). In the Prince and the Pauper, the brown haired girl is naturally the one living in poverty. Our culture is filled with tons of this stuff. We don't have tv anymore for this reason....among others. Dáulaire would be the least of my worries.

[Rivka]

Frankly, I have not found these. What I see most often is books that tell the plain truth about the violence in the making and expansion of the US being called out one-sided and PC even when they are not one sided. The books I know of that get labelled as modern and one sided/PC do in fact show that the violence went in all directions.

 

:iagree:

[Superfly]

Some Native Americans *DID* behave in exceedingly savage ways (all the massacres). Ignoring that fact in an attempt to paint all Native Americans as totally innocent victims of the evil European oppressors is just as bad IMHO as the Eurocentric view found in the old books is. It's not a black-and-white issue. There was lots of horrible savagery found on both sides. That is what I teach my kids and what I make sure to discuss with my kids when we encounter one-sided narratives, either PC or un-PC.

 

I agree with this. We try to avoid one-sidedness and deal with the facts. Many modern texts over-emphasize multiculturalism, diversity, and political correctness in a way that makes kids believe America was founded by evil oppressors. It paints a picture as though only Europeans have been responsible for slavery and exploitation throughout the world. This view downplays or ignores completely facts like Africans sold other tribes into slavery. This is what I was taught and believed for many years, and did not learn real history until I started reading history as an adult. Evil is a human condition and is not exclusive to any one people group. If anything, all this multiculturalism only works divide people by pointing out how different people groups are instead of focusing how we are all basically the same.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

Some Native Americans *DID* behave in exceedingly savage ways (all the massacres). Ignoring that fact in an attempt to paint all Native Americans as totally innocent victims of the evil European oppressors is just as bad IMHO as the Eurocentric view found in the old books is. It's not a black-and-white issue. There was lots of horrible savagery found on both sides. That is what I teach my kids and what I make sure to discuss with my kids when we encounter one-sided narratives, either PC or un-PC.

 

Who suggested ignoring anything? Who suggested that we should paint all Native Americans as totally innocent victims of the evil European oppressors?

 

Nobody.

 

What I (and others) are saying is to only leave books and materials within the reach of little children if the materials portray people as people. Lumping everybody all together as a race or ethnicity is wrong. Viewing people as people, and acknowledging that there are some good and some bad in any collection of humans but all are equal because all are people, is right.

 

My God, this is so pervasive.

 

This past week I was listening to a sermon by Paul Washer, an itinerant Baptist preacher who does missionary work all over the world. He was frustrated because he came back to the States to give a missionary report, and everywhere he went, the church people kept asking him how he teaches the gospel to a certain group of indigenous people living near the Amazon. Only they don't say that, they say, "Brother Paul, how do you manage to preach the gospel to A... Indians?" And he has to answer, over and over, "I don't preach the gospel to A... Indians. I preach the gospel to men."

 

Infuriating.

 

I just glanced through my two levels of Eggleston History books, which are recommended in Heart of Dakota curriculum. Both state over and over how keen the Europeans were to civilize the Indians. Well, that's racist and children of today shouldn't be taking in that message. Indigenous peoples of North America were civilized! They just weren't European!

 

This isn't difficult to understand. We don't have to paint the Europeans as evil or the "Indians" as savage. We have to learn to see people as people.

[Chelli]

Who suggested ignoring anything? Who suggested that we should paint all Native Americans as totally innocent victims of the evil European oppressors?

 

Nobody.

 

What I (and others) are saying is to only leave books and materials within the reach of little children if the materials portray people as people. Lumping everybody all together as a race or ethnicity is wrong. Viewing people as people, and acknowledging that there are some good and some bad in any collection of humans but all are equal because all are people, is right.

 

My God, this is so pervasive.

 

This past week I was listening to a sermon by Paul Washer, an itinerant Baptist preacher who does missionary work all over the world. He was frustrated because he came back to the States to give a missionary report, and everywhere he went, the church people kept asking him how he teaches the gospel to a certain group of indigenous people living near the Amazon. Only they don't say that, they say, "Brother Paul, how do you manage to preach the gospel to A... Indians?" And he has to answer, over and over, "I don't preach the gospel to A... Indians. I preach the gospel to men."

 

Infuriating.

 

I just glanced through my two levels of Eggleston History books, which are recommended in Heart of Dakota curriculum. Both state over and over how keen the Europeans were to civilize the Indians. Well, that's racist and children of today shouldn't be taking in that message. Indigenous peoples of North America were civilized! They just weren't European!

 

This isn't difficult to understand. We don't have to paint the Europeans as evil or the "Indians" as savage. We have to learn to see people as people.

 

We just got done reading this passage in HOD's Bigger, and Carrie (the author of HOD) actually has it in the key idea to point out this exact thought to the children. My dd8 and I had a very good discussion about this fact. About how advanced some Indian tribes were in government and medicines compared to the Europeans and how the Europeans saw them as "uncivilized" just because they weren't like them.

 

While HOD uses the Eggleston books they are NOT supposed to be given to the children to read on their own. If someone does that, then they are NOT using HOD correctly. I just wanted to point that out. While HOD uses the books, they use them very responisbly IMO.

 

The teacher notes in the HOD Bigger manual when we read about Columbus in the Eggleston books led to an AMAZING discussion between my dd and I about how Columbus claimed to be Christian but his attitudes and actions to the native people he encountered were not Christian-like at all.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

We just got done reading this passage in HOD's Bigger, and Carrie (the author of HOD) actually has it in the key idea to point out this exact thought to the children. My dd8 and I had a very good discussion about this fact. About how advanced some Indian tribes were in government and medicines compared to the Europeans and how the Europeans saw them as "uncivilized" just because they weren't like them.

 

While HOD uses the Eggleston books they are NOT supposed to be given to the children to read on their own. If someone does that, then they are NOT using HOD correctly. I just wanted to point that out. While HOD uses the books, they use them very responisbly IMO.

 

The teacher notes in the HOD Bigger manual when we read about Columbus in the Eggleston books led to an AMAZING discussion between my dd and I about how Columbus claimed to be Christian but his attitudes and actions to the native people he encountered were not Christian-like at all.

 

Thank you, Chelli, I am very glad to hear that. The last time I read a discussion on this, a HOD user was defending the books themselves and said nothing about the HOD notes. So glad to hear what you've said here.

[Walking-Iris]

I have read George Washington, Pocahontas, Benjamin Franklin and Abraham Lincoln to my ds in 1st and 2nd grade. He sort of liked the stories, but I did feel the same way as the op. When we started to read Buffalo Bill I couldn't finish it---that was the worst of the lot. We checked these out from the library and honestly the only one I even liked was Benjamin Franklin. I won't even bother with them for my younger children.

 

This idea that kids somehow NEED to know about D'Aulaire books is ridiculous. There's a ton of children's lit from that time period and others that will stand in their place. If you must introduce D'Aulaire to your kids then just stick with their books of myths.

 

As far as cutting out D'Aulaire essentially cutting out a period of history---that's laughable. I can think of a ton of books that would do the job of introducing young children to these particular historical figures and that time period without the racist bias. I also don't believe for one minute that the only course parents have at their disposal to introduce children to the subjects of racism past or present is to expose them to racially offensive material. (That stuff can wait until the child is older and has the maturity and background knowledge for intelligent analysis.)

 

Maybe some Native Americans behaved savagely---it doesn't make it okay to call them Savages (as if that's a proper noun). I think we can find ways to educate our children about the acts committed by others to others without resorting to name-calling and caricaturing.

Edited February 26, 2012 by Walking-Iris

[...................]

Well, I agree that these discussions are best left for an age when the child has maturity to think about such issues. That is actually why I feel the opposite way in that pictures such as these should be kept from a young child who is still forming opinions about the world, but that they would be more acceptable for an older child who does have the logic to rationalize their intent and consider the bias of culture. I do not want my child to think even casually that I consider pictures of this nature to be acceptable, and by presenting them at a time before the child can carefully consider bias, I am doing exactly that - presenting them as normal.

 

Where did the impression come from that choosing not to use the D'Aulaire books is keeping a child in a bubble or throwing away and entire time period of literature? That is a rather large jump in conclusions.

 

Just because I do not choose to use the specific D'Aulaire books because of their illustrations does not mean I don't use plenty of other less personally offensive classics from the same time period. I happen to not like this particular set of books for the reasons stated above.

 

We all have our own "bubbles" in what we choose to present and choose to leave out. Personally, I choose to leave books out of our grammar stage studies that show subtle signs of institutionalized racism. Fortunately, I live in a free country and that is my right just as it is your right to have a different opinion and make different choices. :D

 

:iagree:

 

It just seems to me that I can present many of the issues surrounding slaves, race, etc. without having cute little picture books that subtly (and not to subtly!) reflect the same attitudes that I pray and hope that will fade into the past more and more. By resurrecting these old titles and reading them to my children and keeping them in my personal library (which I tell my children is all of our favorite books, that I wish to pass down to future generations) I really think I would be dishonoring my God, by dishonoring people made in HIs image.

[...................]

I'm willing to use starkly clear explanations of history, because I don't think we can learn from it if we aren't allowed to see it. I'd keep the books.

 

But I don't think that was the OP's real problem. I don't think she wants to whitewash or lie. I think she knows to have these discussions with her dc. She knows to create a different home culture where justice and acceptance are the order of the day.

 

The problem is that a friend of the family came by and picked up the book. Little friend is a child, a newcomer to the country, and sees people who look like herself being depicted as less than human in a book left out for anyone to see in a home where the people look like the people portrayed in the book as the actual characters of the story.

 

That was awkwardly stated, but does anyone see what I mean? She's in a white family's home looking at a picture book where white people are people, but people who look like her aren't really in the story except to support the white people. Plus, the book is about America's first president! This book might set the tone for the child's beginning education in American history. The wrong tone.

 

Yeah, I wouldn't want that to happen to a guest of mine, either.

 

OP, I have a copy of This Country of Ours by H.E. Marshall that I use in homeschooling. It isn't kept on my front room shelf, because I don't want visitors to pick it up and read it. I also don't want homeschoolers who come over to think I'm using it as-is instead of as an example of a horrible bias. If I found value in this D'Aulaire book on Washington I would keep it, but not out in plain sight.

 

Materials can be educational in one setting or purpose, and offensive in others. I don't leave the sex ed books on the coffee table, either. LOL

 

 

This is much more my issue than the book itself. I haven't actually thrown the book in the trash yet= but if I keep it I will write with BLUE PEN loud and clear, the explanations and objections that I have inside of hte book (just like I did with a few theological books we have.) ...

 

OTOH...I ask myself, "Gee wiz. I can find a million other books about George Washington. And I can find a million other books about the pre Civil-War era. I should just get rid of it."

[stripe]

I think it's interesting that one may have a different response to racist books and items when one contemplates the effect on different people. It is interesting though that something might be okay for white kids but hurtful to black kids; to me that suggests the item is problematic for all. It's just we somehow might dismiss the impact on white children because it's not about them. But it is.

 

I'm a fan of their myths books but not the rest. I found the Lincoln book to be disturbing. I cannot just bring these sorts of materials into my home because I have a child who reads over my shoulder and takes books from the shelf.

 

But a steady diet of old school classics with archaic attitudes and POVs (as is often touted as the "best" by HSers wishing to shelter and use lit rich curricula) is a disastrous education for today's child. I have many times heard that you should make it a point to avoid books written after say 1960, in order to protect your children from the unsuitable. Never mind that the only portrayals of AA or indians tend to be stereotypical or subservient.

 

If there is something better I'd use it.

I could not agree with you more. I appreciate Sneezyone's posts too.

[Crimson Wife]

Who suggested ignoring anything? Who suggested that we should paint all Native Americans as totally innocent victims of the evil European oppressors?

 

The problem is that there aren't a lot of balanced portrayals out there that acknowledge the situation isn't black-and-white. I find myself constantly having to tell my children that the truth is actually far more nuanced than whatever book we're reading is portraying. One-sided narratives are rampant in both modern AND old books. If one is going to complete eliminate old books for whitewashing but not modern books that are also biased only in the opposite direction, that I have a problem with. Far better to use both and discuss that the truth lies somewhere in between.

[Sneezyone]

Bringing it back to the OP, chances are pretty darn good that other child never mentioned what she saw, thought or felt to her parents. I think the OP should probably tell the other parents what happened so that they can determine what, if any, impact it had on their child.

[...................]

Well in the end I'm just really glad I wasn't alone in being extremely concerned and disappointed in the homeschool world for thinking these books are the greatest thing since sliced bread.

 

I think I mostly agree with Tibbie's thoughts on this issue, though I am concerned about keeping the book. I would imagine that when the subject comes up about teaching my children the bias pervasive in our culture, I could just happily stroll over to AO or OFE and find hundreds of free books for the asking, with plenty of racist , anglo-centered, white superiority language- all free for the taking, cataloged, and with links. :tongue_smilie:

[Hunter]

What I like to do is teach children about the Declaration of Human Rights, and teach them the meaning of what a marginalized person is. Discrimination is so much bigger than color. Women are marginalized. Children are marginalized, mentally disabled people, overweight people, poor people, homeless people, etc. The list is endless.

 

Teach the child to look for examples of marginalization in all the books they read. Make it a part of book reports. It is actually almost impossible to find a book where there isn't a person being marginalized.

Edited February 26, 2012 by Hunter

[...................]

Sneezyone...Wow I feel really sad, that you said your dd would never come back. Really? Just because she saw one children's book that portrayed slavery without comment on its evils?

 

it would be hypocritical for me to start a thread about the offense of the book and then backtrack and say now, "oh it wasn't that bad after all..." It is bad, and it's bad that I had it just sitting around. It was part of our Early American History studies and the only other D'Aulaire book that I own is the Ben Franklin one which is pretty clean as I recall (I better go back and check!)...

 

but I'm just saying...so...you would be writing us off forever??

Not attacking you, as I agree with all your posts. Just a bit shocked.

[TGHEALTHYMOM]

We have some of the books and haven't read them yet. I always discuss slavery because it did exist. We are Christians, and it is hard to explain that many people did have slaves and not think it was wrong.

 

Egypt also had slavery, but we don't avoid this in Ancient history, so we don't avoid it in American.

 

We did watch the William Wilberforce movie and discussed it, as well as other movies like a favorite on Martin Luther King Jr. ( cartoon version) and I have a bi racial son ( Thai) so we experience racism as well. Even at the end of a week of VBS one year he broke down in tears telling me how some boys had called him names and treated him badly all week... it broke my heart.

I can't avoid the issues, but pray and discuss our World View when these issues come up.

[Sneezyone]

Sneezyone...Wow I feel really sad, that you said your dd would never come back. Really? Just because she saw one children's book that portrayed slavery without comment on its evils?

 

it would be hypocritical for me to start a thread about the offense of the book and then backtrack and say now, "oh it wasn't that bad after all..." It is bad, and it's bad that I had it just sitting around. It was part of our Early American History studies and the only other D'Aulaire book that I own is the Ben Franklin one which is pretty clean as I recall (I better go back and check!)...

 

but I'm just saying...so...you would be writing us off forever??

Not attacking you, as I agree with all your posts. Just a bit shocked.

 

Unfortunately, no, my kiddo would not be back and, yes, I find it sad also. I don't think I write anyone off. As an adult, I can handle myself but I would not knowingly put my kids in a position to to have their feelings hurt either. Would you? To me it's no different than sending my child back to a home where she'd seen a weapon brandished. I take it that seriously. I'd constantly be wondering about the jugdment and values of the other family and what my child might see there. Rarely do I get to know other parents well enough to give them the benefit of the doubt ater having been burned once. If your child goes on to make friends with another black child, great, but I don't feel like my kids should be emmissaries.

Edited February 26, 2012 by Sneezyone

[ElizaG]

I just glanced through my two levels of Eggleston History books, which are recommended in Heart of Dakota curriculum. Both state over and over how keen the Europeans were to civilize the Indians. Well, that's racist and children of today shouldn't be taking in that message. Indigenous peoples of North America were civilized! They just weren't European!

I used to get upset about this use of the term "civilized," until I noticed that the books [ETA: meaning the vintage textbooks we have on our shelves; I've never seen Eggleston's] said the same thing about the European barbarians. Even if it's sometimes been used as part of racist discourse, "civilization" does have a specific definition that's very relevant to us as classical educators.

 

-----

1. An advanced state of intellectual, cultural, and material development in human society, marked by progress in the arts and sciences, the extensive use of record-keeping, including writing, and the appearance of complex political and social institutions.

-----

 

Of course, some people are going to take issue with the idea that, say, 16th century Italy or China were more intellectually and culturally "advanced" than the Iroquois or Australian Aborigines. But whatever term you choose, there is a difference. And for many of us here, literacy, and the complex social institutions that go along with it, are things that we value for our families and our nation. I'm sorry if some find that offensive, but there's no way around it.

 

My children know that their fair skinned ancestors were considered "savages" not that long ago. And they also know that we'd prefer that they not return to that state. Otherwise, we wouldn't need to bother with formal curriculum. We'd just move back to the land and find people who could teach them in the course of everyday life about hunting and gathering, subsistence farming, and folklore. Which sounds good right about now. But as for me and my house, putting on a loincloth and running through the woods covered in blue paint is now something we just do on weekends. ;)

Edited February 26, 2012 by Eleanor

[nmoira]

Originally Posted by Tibbie Dunbar:

 

or call "indians" savages!

 

Some Native Americans *DID* behave in exceedingly savage ways (all the massacres).

I do trust you're not saying that there having been some "savage" acts justifies the use of the blanket or identifying term "savages."

 

Ignoring that fact in an attempt to paint all Native Americans as totally innocent victims of the evil European oppressors is just as bad IMHO as the Eurocentric view found in the old books is. It's not a black-and-white issue. There was lots of horrible savagery found on both sides. That is what I teach my kids and what I make sure to discuss with my kids when we encounter one-sided narratives, either PC or un-PC.

Regardless, there are some facts that can be teased out of any set of opposing narratives, including the fact that in this case "both sides" is inaccurate, as "Native American" is not a nationality per se and encompasses many groups and cultural practices.

[LucyStoner]

I do trust you're not saying that there having been some "savage" acts justifies the use of the blanket or identifying term "savages."

 

Regardless, there are some facts that can be teased out of any set of opposing narratives, including the fact that in this case "both sides" is inaccurate, as "Native American" is not a nationality per se and encompasses many groups and cultural practices.

 

:iagree:

[LucyStoner]

We have some of the books and haven't read them yet. I always discuss slavery because it did exist. We are Christians, and it is hard to explain that many people did have slaves and not think it was wrong.

 

I just use it as a lesson that the Bible can be misused and misconstrued. People have abused the Bible to justify horrible things. You have generations of Christians defending an abhorrent and violent crime with religion. Given that bloodshed has often resulted from religious conflict, I think it is a good reminder to kids to closely evaluate the source of what they are seeing and reading and if it adds up even when it comes under the cloak of religion. And then to celebrate the truth tellers, Quakers and others, who used the Bible to refute the absurd idea that slavery was moral.

 

My family had to leave a church when I was a child because my older brother is black. It is sickening to see this stuff alive and well, even in religious communities.

[kristinannie]

Some Native Americans *DID* behave in exceedingly savage ways (all the massacres). Ignoring that fact in an attempt to paint all Native Americans as totally innocent victims of the evil European oppressors is just as bad IMHO as the Eurocentric view found in the old books is. It's not a black-and-white issue. There was lots of horrible savagery found on both sides. That is what I teach my kids and what I make sure to discuss with my kids when we encounter one-sided narratives, either PC or un-PC.

 

 

:iagree: I think this is true. I feel like we have gone so far in the other direction. The truth is somewhere in the middle. I feel the same way about the conquistadors, the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, etc. I think that in an attempt to be PC, the truth has shifted in the other direction.

 

I have not seen the George Washington book so I can't comment on that. However, I am horrified by people who want to change the language in books (like the recent fight over Mark Twain novels...especially since Mark Twain was an abolitionist). This is a part of our history. It was a shameful part of our history. However, I don't think we can just cover it up either. I am not sure what I would do about the George Washington book. I guess I would have to see it before I could make a judgment as to whether to pros outweighed the obvious cons.

[LucyStoner]

:iagree: I think this is true. I feel like we have gone so far in the other direction. The truth is somewhere in the middle.

 

I wholly disagree. The truth is not "in the middle"- yes there are extremely awful things on each end but that does not average into the middle. Mainly because it is a mass distortion to claim that one side did not ultimately do considerably more damage.

 

The annihilation of millions of indigenous people from countless tribes and groups over time is not justified by comparatively small massacres of white people. There were thousands of languages and dialects spoken that are now lost because not only were people killed, the survivors were mostly forced to give up their heritage and their children forcibly kidnapped and sent to boarding schools. I don't seem to recall that any of my English and Hessian/German ancestors (first here in the 17th and 18th centuries, pre revolution) or their descendants being thrown into boarding schools by my Lakota ancestors or by any other tribe. I am tired of hearing that "it went both ways" as though this means it is 50-50 equal or "fair". No, it is not.

 

It's sort of like trying to say that an abusive husband who batters his wife straight into intensive care is also a dv victim because she fought back and got in a couple of bloody scratches.

Edited February 26, 2012 by kijipt

[mommymilkies]

I wholly disagree. The truth is not "in the middle"- yes there are extremely awful things on each end but that does not average into the middle. Mainly because it is a mass distortion to claim that one side did not ultimately do considerably more damage.

 

The annihilation of millions of indigenous people from countless tribes and groups over time is not justified by comparatively small massacres of white people. There were thousands of languages and dialects spoken that are now lost because not only were people killed, the survivors were mostly forced to give up their heritage and their children forcibly kidnapped and sent to boarding schools. I don't seem to recall that any of my English and Hessian/German ancestors (first here in the 17th and 18th centuries, pre revolution) or their descendants being thrown into boarding schools by my Lakota ancestors or by any other tribe. I am tired of hearing that "it went both ways" as though this means it is 50-50 equal or "fair". No, it is not.

 

:iagree: Many people around the world have been subjected to horrible behavior by someone, but I would never claim my Irish ancestors had it worse than the decimation of my Algonquin ancestors. And the Irish were TERRIBLY treated (and still are in many ways). I do not read most of the D'Aulaire books because of the rampant racism. We do discuss racism, but I do not read the racist viewpoint to my children as literature. I do have the Norse and Greek D'Aulaire books, but I will not read the Leif or Washington books ever again to my children.

Edited February 26, 2012 by mommymilkies
spelling

[JumpyTheFrog]

I see I'm not the only one hesistant to use older books from Ambleside Online's lists. I've thought about trying some of their free history recommendations, but I found myself wondering if racism would be a problem, with the books being written long ago. It sounds like it would be easier to just stick to something written more recently for elementary school.

[Crimson Wife]

The annihilation of millions of indigenous people from countless tribes and groups over time is not justified by comparatively small massacres of white people.

 

90% of the Native Americans who died did so not because of any deliberate actions of the European settlers but as the unintended consequence of not having any immunity to diseases inadvertently brought to the New World by the settlers. Any time there is contact between previously separated groups, there is the potential for widespread epidemics and mass casualties. The Black Death wiped out 1/3 of Europe's population and was inadvertently brought back to Europe by the Crusaders and traders who had traveled to Asia. I have never heard anyone refer to that mass epidemic as a "genocide", so I fail to see why the term is used to refer to the deaths of Native Americans caused by diseases brought from Europe. A great tragedy, yes, but not deliberate mass murder.

 

I do trust you're not saying that there having been some "savage" acts justifies the use of the blanket or identifying term "savages."

 

I do not condone the use of the term "savages" to describe Native Americans but I can understand why it was used in the past. When one group in involved in a conflict with another group and savage acts occur (such as massacres of women and children), it is easy to demonize the "enemy". Obviously, it is unfair to use a blanket characterization of an entire group, but when the memories of these massacres were still raw, I can understand why it happened. Not saying this kind of stereotyping was correct, just that I understand why it developed.

 

Of course it isn't 50/50, but it isn't 100/0 either. The truth does, in fact, lie somewhere in the middle.

[LucyStoner]

90% of the Native Americans who died did so not because of any deliberate actions of the European settlers but as the unintended consequence of not having any immunity to diseases inadvertently brought to the New World by the settlers. Any time there is contact between previously separated groups, there is the potential for widespread epidemics and mass casualties. The Black Death wiped out 1/3 of Europe's population and was inadvertently brought back to Europe by the Crusaders and traders who had traveled to Asia. I have never heard anyone refer to that mass epidemic as a "genocide", so I fail to see why the term is used to refer to the deaths of Native Americans caused by diseases brought from Europe. A great tragedy, yes, but not deliberate mass murder.

 

 

 

Why is it so important to you to make it seem that white settlers did not harm the various Native American tribes? There were hundreds of years of forced relocation, murder and war, intentional spread of small pox (essentially biological warfare). When it was all said and done, lands were "given" and then stolen over and over again. And that white settlers were taking land that was most often not truly theirs to take. Children forcibly separated from their parents and beaten for speaking their language and practicing their religion. In the 20th century. One of my grandfathers was housed in a school for Indian children. Not all that long ago really. If people were to round up thousands of white Christian children after killing or relocating their parents and beat them for practicing Christianity I would be willing to bet white people would call it something more than a great tragic accident. Have you read original period writings on manifest destiny? Yes, there was in fact intent. It was not a tragic unavoidable accident. Also, you are the only one on this thread to use the word genocide. I said annihilation. And given the numbers of indigenous people then and now and that so many tribes are literally GONE, I would say that it is fair word to use. My many white ancestors (primarily from Prussia and England, later from Ireland) migrated west right along with the westward expansion of the United States. I know that some of them were involved in the Indian Wars because they were in the army. Pretending it did not happen or was not all that bad does not make it so. It is what it is and I have to teach my children about it plainly and honestly so they learn about the vile consequences of people thinking they are inherently better or more important than others.

Edited February 26, 2012 by kijipt

[momto2Cs]

O.K., I'll be the lone dissenter here.

 

I actually just read both the Lincoln and Washington books to my kids last week (President's Day). We simply discussed both the idea/reality of slavery, and the portrayal of slaves in the Washington book. My kids seemed to fully grasp that the portrayal was consistent with the time period in which the books were written, and should not be a part of their own attitude.

 

With that discussion firmly in place, we were able to actually enjy the stories of our former presidents as children, and the jobs they held besides president.

 

I absolutely believe that older books can have a place in the home, as long as there is open discussion and a willingness to share the understanding that it portrays things as they used to be, not as they are or should be.

[Crimson Wife]

Why is it so important to you to make it seem that white settlers did not harm the various Native American tribes? There were hundreds of years of forced relocation, murder and war, intentional spread of small pox (essentially biological warfare). When it was all said and done, lands were "given" and then stolen over and over again. And that white settlers were taking land that was most often not truly theirs to take. Children forcibly separated from their parents and beaten for speaking their language and practicing their religion. In the 20th century. One of my grandfathers was housed in a school for Indian children. Not all that long ago really. If people were to round up thousands of white Christian children after killing or relocating their parents and beat them for practicing Christianity I would be willing to bet white people would call it something more than a great tragic accident. Have you read original period writings on manifest destiny? Yes, there was in fact intent. It was not a tragic unavoidable accident. Also, you are the only one on this thread to use the word genocide. I said annihilation. And given the numbers of indigenous people then and now and that so many tribes are literally GONE, I would say that it is fair word to use. My many white ancestors (primarily from Prussia and England, later from Ireland) migrated west right along with the westward expansion of the United States. I know that some of them were involved in the Indian Wars because they were in the army. Pretending it did not happen or was not all that bad does not make it so. It is what it is and I have to teach my children about it plainly and honestly so they learn about the vile consequences of people thinking they are inherently better or more important than others.

 

This is an example of the type of one-sided attitude I find problematic in many modern books. 90% of the Native American deaths were inadvertent, the tragic result of not having immunity against diseases brought accidentally to the New World. This wasn't biological warfare except perhaps in a few isolated instances that there is dispute over whether even happened at all. Yet I have seen these deaths called "genocide" not infrequently by PC modern authors.

 

The treatment of Native Americans by many Europeans was indeed truly shameful. I teach my children this. But I also teach them that it wasn't totally black-and-white. There were horrible acts of savagery on both sides, and these acts exacerbated the conflict.

 

It's a gross oversimplification to present a narrative that those evil Europeans were out to deliberately annihilate the poor innocent Native Americans just as it was a gross oversimplification when Eurocentric writers in the past presented a narrative about those savage Indians. The truth is far more complex.