D'Aulaire books a bit racist

[susankenny]

I have never read a first person slave narrative that opined about the joys of lining the drive, waiting for massa.

 

No disrespect, but neither of us have ever read this book, so to come up with a witty reply seems unnecessary. We don't have much to contribute to the conversation - persuading others that this book is in deed racist or vice versa. What I am asking for (and open to) is information using actual excerpts from this book that can help me to make an informed decision. Then again, my library probably has it. That would prove easier I'm sure.

 

 

Susan

[Sneezyone]

I don't think you have to read every John Grisham novel either to get a feel for whether you like his work. I am familiar with the author. The OP mentioned books... plural. You may not have anything to offer. Pls. don't speak for me.

Edited February 27, 2012 by Sneezyone

[susankenny]

I don't think you have to read every John Grisham novel either to get a feel for whether you like his work. I am familiar with the author. The OP mentioned books... plural. You may not have anything to offer. Pls. don't speak for me.

 

Let me rephrase it. The fact that you have read part of the Lincoln book two years ago doesn't really make your strong opinions against these authors helpful for me, (especially unhelpful with the book at hand).

 

Susan

[Iucounu]

.

 

Go ahead and actually look at the book. I have a copy in front of me; pg 47 has a unit of Minutemen, NOT a statue and they are without faces in the same manner as the slaves on pg 41.

 

Now the Indians on pg 31 do have faces so what subliminal message to you take from that?

 

Pg 51, faceless colonists bring food to the army at Valley Forge.

 

Pg 53, faceless cavalry follow Washington.

 

Pg 55, faceless French or Colonial naval personnel.

 

Pg 19, has Washington's own family as being faceless!!!!

 

The fact that the OP complained about slaves being depicted without faces on one page as being indicative of racism while 6 pages later Minuteman are depicted in exactly the same manner does go a long way to weaken her argument.

 

 

This should be one of many texts that parents use not the ONLY one.

 

Further I do not view facelessness as glorification, it is ARTISTIC style, nothing more.

Yep, in light of those facts the facelessness on the slaves couldn't possibly be seen as racist. Thank you for following up to clarify.

[Jim]

I guess you did. It came out long ago, and has been recirculated a great deal since. Women even have the right to vote in the U.S., for almost a century now! :) Do you make light of racism too?

 

 

Actually, it was a joke but I think the response goes right along with the discussion. Sometimes, an issue gets so emotional that one cannot see the forest through the trees. It's possible to be so focused on ones belief that thdey cannot see why someone else might have a different view. They are "locked in" to a view and that view can not and will not ever be changed regardless of the evidence presented.

 

I want my ds to know the truth about history, the good and the bad. To understand that peoples views change over time, sometimes over long, long periods of time. Past views may not make sense to us today but they existed and might have been common at the time. We might not want to simply condemn someone for their views. Instead, ask why they hold them. Consider their point of view. Even then, know what you might believe today may not be the final say. In the end keep an open mind.

 

History is all about learning from our past, the good, the bad, and the ugly.

[Crimson Wife]

I fail to see understand how my thinking that the truth is far more complex than the one-sided black-and-white narratives often presented somehow got twisted into my supposedly believing that both sides suffered equally. Of course they didn't! I have stated a number of times that I consider the past mistreatment of Native Americans shameful and teach my children this.

 

I just would like to see a more nuanced portrayal that acknowledges the savage acts on both sides and how those incidents exacerbated the conflict between the settlers and the indigenous peoples. It is important to provide the context for why people acted the way they did. Providing that context doesn't mean I condone the shameful mistreatment because I absolutely don't think it was justified. But it isn't a black-and-white issue where one side was 100% to blame and the other side was 100% innocent.

 

If someone wants to get their knickers in a twist because I prefer the complicated truth to a one-sided PC narrative, then that's their prerogative. I don't care much for ideological zealots, either conservative or liberal.

[FiveOaksAcademy]

I'm just not seeing any piling on here. So much for mobile mentality.

 

:confused:

 

Or is nobody supposed to have strong feelings that run counter to yours?

I do/and have in the past seen the piling. It is a regular thing when this topic comes up. Sorry you are so :confused:

 

All I did was applaud Jidf for her spot-on account of the way things go down when it comes to this topic. You can read into that whatever you choose.

[Jim]

I don't care much for ideological zealots, either conservative or liberal.

 

 

Here, here. We need more of that sort of thinking. At leeast that's my opinion.

[nmoira]

I do/and have in the past seen the piling. It is a regular thing when this topic comes up. Sorry you are so :confused:

No need to apologize, as I'm more amused than anything else. ;)

 

All I did was applaud Jidf for her spot-on account of the way things go down when it comes to this topic. You can read into that whatever you choose.

I see it as dismissive instead of substantive. The OP had some concerns about a book and some other posters have shared strong opinions about both it (for and against) and (sometimes tangentially) related issues. I don't see a problem here, certainly not one worthy of crying out "witch hunt."

[LucyStoner]

 

When I was in the 2nd grade the girl who sat next to me in class was black, and we were friends. She was one of my favorite friends in class, so naturally I wanted to invite her home to play. My mom refused. I couldn't invite her to play, and I wouldn't be allowed to go to her house, either. I couldn't invite her to my birthday party. After that I did not have black friends. If I had shown interest in a black man as a teenager, I would have been kicked out, most likely. I grew up that way, understanding that even though school was integrated, we were not to be.

 

That. is. racism.

 

When my daughter met a neighborhood girl this summer and wanted to have her over to play, I of course said yes. She is black. One day she rang the doorbell and asked if my dd could play and everything in me screamed "no--you can't come in--it's not right." I opened the door and smiled and said, hold on, I'll get her. They played wonderfully together for the next several hours in my dd's bedroom. I found myself weeping over the kitchen sink, ashamed of the painful reality of my upbringing and filled with grief that I had been taught such lies. I do not see things this way, and I know my children don't. The reaction I had was involuntary, and this memory of my second grade friend came back to me--something I had not thought of in many, many years.

 

Racism is not learned from pictures in books. It's about what we as parents live out in front of our children and give them as a heritage. It is how we speak about and engage with people who are not our skin-color or cultural background. Do we bless them, or reject them? The racism stops here, in my house, in my life.

 

My children will have to wrestle with the very real experience of racism in our own family, as their grandparents were confined to Japanese camps in WWII. They know what it means to be treated unjustly, and it is a very real part of their story.

 

 

Thanks for sharing your story. This is great. My parents, very progressive types who raised an interracial family (my older brother, my mother's oldest son is black and my mother is about 1/2 Lakota) reflexively freaked out when I brought home a boy from Turkey to watch a TV program he had expressed interest in when we were volunteering together. I was not interested in him, but the prospect that I might be was very uncomfortable in my parents. They learned a lesson that night confronting their own racism, as did the rest of the family (FTR, the boy and I were friends after that and my parents were not rude to him, the flipped after he left.)

 

I am not saying there is not nuance, I am saying that it is not as simple as saying things were a two way street.

[nmoira]

If someone wants to get their knickers in a twist because I prefer the complicated truth to a one-sided PC narrative, then that's their prerogative. I don't care much for ideological zealots, either conservative or liberal.

"Truth" is a loaded word. ;)

[FiveOaksAcademy]

I just would like to see a more nuanced portrayal that acknowledges the savage acts on both sides and how those incidents exacerbated the conflict between the settlers and the indigenous peoples. It is important to provide the context for why people acted the way they did. Providing that context doesn't mean I condone the shameful mistreatment because I absolutely don't think it was justified. But it isn't a black-and-white issue where one side was 100% to blame and the other side was 100% innocent.

 

If someone wants to get their knickers in a twist because I prefer the complicated truth to a one-sided PC narrative, then that's their prerogative. I don't care much for ideological zealots, either conservative or liberal.

 

Another good post!! We just finished the colonial unit of TOG. We had many discussions about this!! When we step back and view it from the "All have sinned" truth of the Bible and view it from the side of every nation, every people group, every individual as being in desperate need of God's grace, then we are able to see the truth of it all. The truth is, many of the settlers let self take over and mistreated the native Americans. The truth is, the Native Americans were not here playing patty-cake, having quilting bees, and singing Kumbaya with one another before the settlers came either. Discussing it from all sides is key. Taking books that were made at different points in history can be useful in teaching the changing views that people have had towards other humans.

 

I desperately hope in 100 years, people will gasp in shock at the small value that so many presently place on the lives of the unborn. I do believe they will find our newspapers, books, etc. to be quite useful tools in their study of history!!

[FiveOaksAcademy]

No need to apologize, as I'm more amused than anything else. ;)

 

I see it as dismissive instead of substantive. The OP had some concerns about a book and some other posters have shared strong opinions about both it (for and against) and (sometimes tangentially) related issues. I don't see a problem here, certainly not one worthy of crying out "witch hunt."

 

Glad you're amused. It is so interesting the rules here for what we're allowed to be amused at and make light of and what is a no-no. So hard to keep up with...

 

You saw it as dismissive and lacking substance. I saw it as a brief yet accurate depiction of what goes on here on a regular basis.

[Spy Car]

Another good post!! We just finished the colonial unit of TOG. We had many discussions about this!!

 

Is TOG still using This Country of Ours?

 

Bill

[Lang Syne Boardie]

Is TOG still using This Country of Ours?

 

Bill

 

Yes. (<-- links to Bookshelf Central)

 

I only own year 1 of TOG, so I don't know how they use it. As I said upthread, I keep this book out of sight lest my children read it on their own. Also, I don't want visiting homeschoolers to see it on my shelf and take it as my endorsement of the book for history lessons. It is on my shelf for bias and racism, not history.

[TheAutumnOak]

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.

 

Have to :iagree: with this one...

[ereks mom]

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.

 

Did the child ask questions about the way black people were portrayed in the book? I didn't get that from the OP's post. I'm wondering whether the child even noticed. I think that going to the parents to "straighten things out" would likely do more harm than good. It's probably best to leave well enough alone.

[nmoira]

Glad you're amused. It is so interesting the rules here for what we're allowed to be amused at and make light of and what is a no-no. So hard to keep up with...

 

You saw it as dismissive and lacking substance. I saw it as a brief yet accurate depiction of what goes on here on a regular basis.

It could indeed be dizzying, especially if one feels the need to ascribe motive and assign camps rather than take individual posters at face value.

[ereks mom]

We need to explore our mistakes in order to not repeat them. In the same way, we also don't need to beat ourselves up over what happened. First of all, none of my ancestors even lived in the US when these things happened. No one today is guilty of these crimes. Do I feel terrible that they happened? Of course I do, but I did not commit these crimes. I don't think the whole white race should be blamed for them today.

 

Today there is slavery in Africa. In the Sudan, many Christians have been enslaved by other Africans. This is still a part of our human condition and it is not limited to white people. I think it is wrong to blame a whole race for this when it is a problem throughout all of history and isn't happening right now in America.

 

As far as the Aztecs, Mayas, etc and the Spanish... I am not defending all of their actions. I am not saying that the Spanish were heroic in their expansion. But I will say that there was rampant human sacrifice going on. I can't think that people would be glad if the Aztecs were still practicing their religion today. There is good and bad in everything. History is full of that. We need to teach our children to take the whole picture in fully and then help to mold their opinions of what was good and what was evil. There is never just one side to a story in these historical time periods.

 

The need to rewrite history makes one wonder if we are teaching history or the world as we wished it.

 

Look for ways to be offended and you will find them but this is not necessarily a good thing or even accurate,

 

Racism is not learned from pictures in books. It's about what we as parents live out in front of our children and give them as a heritage. It is how we speak about and engage with people who are not our skin-color or cultural background. Do we bless them, or reject them? The racism stops here, in my house, in my life.

 

Agreeing especially with the bolded parts above

[Iucounu]

Did the child ask questions about the way black people were portrayed in the book? I didn't get that from the OP's post. I'm wondering whether the child even noticed.

Here's one book on the subject. There are others. Racism Learned at an Early Age Through Racial Scripting: Racism at an Early Age

 

ETA: Here's a link that may be helpful in detecting sexism and racism in books. Here's a study on media and learned racism.

Edited February 27, 2012 by Iucounu

[EMS83]

Abusive husbands are a poor analogy for the ebb and flow of civilizations throughout history, meant to paint anyone that doesn't see history your way as being on the side of wife beaters. Cheap. If you have to elicit the image of someone punching someone else, try a barroom brawl. That better captures the picture. Go back far enough in any nation or culture's history and someone invaded someone, conquered someone, or took their own land back. I'm not even touching the slavery part. Think that one has been poked enough.

 

And before we demand that others care about anything concerning ourselves, our views, or our personal history, please let's stop and think how much we care about other people's selves, views, and personal history. Regardless of your opinion on this or any other topic, the question that begs to be asked is: what are you trying to accomplish in expressing that opinion and why?

 

As for the book at hand, just talk to the girl, or her parents about it and see if it has affected her or not. Bring them the book to look at, if that will help them determine what to do or say. Explain your feelings. Or if you don't know what those are, figure them out, and then explain them. It's ok if they're mixed. See, the social mill refuses to accept mixed feelings as normal or acceptable. But they actually are perfectly normal and acceptable if handled maturely (denial doesn't count, either). If someone can't handle your mixed feelings, that reflects on them, not you. If you can't handle your mixed feelings, then you've got a problem. We all need to wrestle with our own feelings, not each others'.

[ScoutTN]

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.

 

Yes, this.

[TheAutumnOak]

Abusive husbands are a poor analogy for the ebb and flow of civilizations throughout history, meant to paint anyone that doesn't see history your way as being on the side of wife beaters. Cheap. If you have to elicit the image of someone punching someone else, try a barroom brawl. That better captures the picture. Go back far enough in any nation or culture's history and someone invaded someone, conquered someone, or took their own land back. I'm not even touching the slavery part. Think that one has been poked enough.

 

 

 

:001_huh: Still doesn't make the people doing the conquering right or excused because others did it...Not sure how taking your own land back would apply though...I do understand what the pp was trying to say by using the analogy of the abusive husband...Not so much to bring up an image of someone being punched, but to bring up an image of someone being blamed for fighting back...

 

Don't get me wrong...I am not saying that White people of today are resonsible for what happened in the past, but surely the people of the past are responsible for their actions...The problem comes in when people judge a particular set of people (White or Black people of today, but not limited to them) based on another set of people (White or Black people of the past or just plain old different people)...No, I do not blame ANY person who was not alive and involved for anything that has happened in the past, no race or people in particular...But I surely am able to look and say that the settlers of the past who had slaves and forced the Native Americans out of their homes were wrong, I don't care how many people throughout history have done the same...They were wrong too...

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

Did the child ask questions about the way black people were portrayed in the book? I didn't get that from the OP's post. I'm wondering whether the child even noticed. I think that going to the parents to "straighten things out" would likely do more harm than good. It's probably best to leave well enough alone.[/quote

 

Ereksmom- I am 90% sure that she did not get to that point in the book. Her English reading is still rather slow and my dd was nagging her to come and play. She looked perfectly happy and seems perfectly fine. I am definitely hloinh to leave well enough alone.

[momto2Cs]

For anyone who might be interested, here is a link to a library of slave narratives. While some of them do indeed paint a protrait of a terrible time in American history, some of them have a different tone, one in which the slaves actually valued their owners and considered them family.

 

Born in Slavery

 

Please, do NOT get me wrong on this. I think slavery to be an utterly vile practice, and I wish that it did not exist. I simply thought these narratives, which I had to read for a class on American cultures about a year ago, were fascinating. Some were heartbreaking, and others intriguing.

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

Finding an example of a faceless white military person on a stylized statue, designed to glorify that role, doesn't mean that depictions of slaves as faceless are free from racism. Unless you're suggesting that the facelesssness of the slaves is designed to glorify them somehow. :D

 

I think it's the suggestion that the slaves were uniformly happy in their role that rankles, not the mere suggestion that servants stood in a line when ordered to do so.

I'm a bit nonplused as to what you're missing here. No, the OP did not suggest rewriting history, and it's easy to attack someone's words when you take them out of context. The part that you've obviously discarded is this:

 

So, reading all of the OP's words together in context, she is finding fault with the multiple portrayals of slaves in servile roles, and even being happy in them, without any mention that slavery is wrong.

 

It'd be a bit like a children's book which showed a woman serving her husband dinner, bringing him slippers, mentioning that she longed to attend classes, etc., only to have the man of the house tell her that her place was in the kitchen-- and leaving it at that.

 

The OP is merely saying that she pays attention to the full set of messages sent to children in what they read. When the subtext is one of racism, without any explanation that it is bad, especially when it's portrayed as good, she has a problem. I agree.

 

 

:iagree:

 

Who is talking about rewriting histOry? If that book had been written by 99% of is here on this forum, there would be some mention about the slaves in the book, and the evils of slavery....they would have faces, they would not always look happy, or preferably, it would be left out altogether until the children are older and ready to discuss it.

[Karen in CO]

:iagree:

 

Who is talking about rewriting histOry? If that book had been written by 99% of is here on this forum, there would be some mention about the slaves in the book, and the evils of slavery....they would have faces, they would not always look happy, or preferably, it would be left out altogether until the children are older and ready to discuss it.

 

Nooo - Don't leave slaves out. That is even worse. Don't even ask me how old I was before I learned that the founding fathers had slaves. It wasn't in my history books. They only talked about slaves being on Southern plantations. :D I'm pretty sure 99% of us couldn't agree on what to add to any history book. We use lots of history books and lots of discussion.

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

!! I'm not saying not to teach little kids about slavery! I'm just saying, that of it doesn't fit in the scope of this book it would better to leave it out than put in confusing images with no commentary.

 

Not every book for 5 year olds Introducing Washington discusses slavery, and that's ok with me.

 

99% agree we would change the book. That's my point. Not to rewrite history.

Edited February 27, 2012 by Calming Tea

[Sebastian (a lady)]

I'm with you except for this. Population density and close proximity to domesticated animals meant that Europeans at the time had been exposed to more and generally more virulent diseases, not just different ones. We wouldn't expect the death rates from disease to be comparable.

 

I thought the book 1491 by Charles Mann did a good job of summarizing some of the research about pre-Columbian civilizations and the effect of contact with Europeans. The written record can be pretty sparse, but when you look at the comments of the earliest explorers regarding the settlements they saw and compare them with what was found in the 1600s when Europeans started arriving in much greater numbers, it does seem clear that there had been widespread epidemic throughout the continent.

 

One of the more provoking thoughts was that pigs, not native to the Americas, that got loose from Europeans, were able to spread contagions far and wide, which might account for the abandonded settlements that many Europeans later encountered.

 

I've only made it about half way through the book, but it has been a really interesting read.

[In2why]

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.

 

 

Nope you aren't the lone disenter. My kids are black, and we read the books and don't over analyze the illustrations. They have living history to learn from, as another poster stated, their great's helped found Hampton Institute, (now named Hampton Unversity) they were lawyers, doctors, teachers and statesmen in the late 1800's and we still own the "homeplace" where they had to hide farm animals from the soldiers during the civil war. More recently their grandmother was active in integrating the local schools, and their great uncle was a Tuskegee airmen. Their Aunt was a prominent heart surgeon before she died unexpectedly. They also have craftsman, carpenters, and can even trace family members who migrated north to New York for the city life. (Interestingly enough they mostly became domestics because there weren't necessarily more opportunities in the city.)

 

There are even famous artist that portray blacks without faces as part of the crowd. A brief search on African American art images will easily point that out. If my kids were bothered by that in a book, I would explain to them that we don't get worked up over stuff like that, there is enough racism, without having to go looking for it. We do come across materials that are racist, and we talk about that when we see it. We see overt racism that was a product of the times, and sly racism that is hurtful because the people who exhibit it had power. I teach them not to use race as an excuse or as a weapon. Both dilute reality. I teach them that there will always be some people who see them as less than, but that most people are kind and do their best. I teach them to stand up when they are others are being hurt, and never be silent with their truth, but that race will motivate them and not hold them back....Ever.

 

That is how we handle it, and I really like D' Aulaires, and we get a lot out of the books.

[Superfly]

We have a couple of these books, but I had not yet read them. After this thread I pulled them out to read, including Buffalo Bill, which was mentioned as being the worst. I find nothing wrong with these books. I guess that makes me a racist??? And not worthy of having other children play at my house? I am black/white/hispanic/comanche. I found the books to be very factual. The only line that I would have brought attention to is the one in Buffalo Bill that says something about the Indians being jealous of the white men wanting their land. All I have to do is ask the kids what they think about that, and they would be able to form their own thoughts on whether or not that viewpoint is valid. IMO, the "rightness" or "wrongness"of the historical events can easily be evaluated by the children. I found no subtle agenda here.

[In2why]

I'm going to agree. I don't get what the problem is with these books. I looked at the George WA book last night and all the people in the background are faceless. It is just how the illustrations were done. It was true on the one page with slaves in the field and it was true on the page with the minutemen.

 

We love D'Aulaire's books, but if a parent is using this as their child's ONLY exposure to George Washington then they have far bigger problems then faceless illustrations.

 

People are way too sensitive to stuff like this. Don't like the book's contents or its illustrations, don't buy it. But saying the books are racist is quite the stretch, imo.

 

 

Or that the people that own them are racist, or lacking in critcal thinking skills. If that is a person's opinion, that is one thing but it isn't my experience, and I won't own or apologize for it.

[In2why]

 

 

Art made famous by "The Cosby Show". It was on Claire and Cliff Huxtable's wall. It is showcased on many books about famous African American Art, and is still bought in print form. Again many famous African American works of art depicts faceless people.

[stripe]

to come up with a witty reply seems unnecessary.

What's wrong with being witty? Seems better than some other replies, to my mind.

 

I also doubt that any of us is teaching our children to think less of another.

That doesn't necessarily mean that everyone on this board is actively teaching against racism. What makes racists such boogeymen that we can't acknowledge there might be something lurking in our hearts or in the hearts of others in a less noxious form than Klan membership?

 

Racism is not learned from pictures in books. It's about what we as parents live out in front of our children and give them as a heritage. It is how we speak about and engage with people who are not our skin-color or cultural background. Do we bless them, or reject them? The racism stops here, in my house, in my life.

I think the issue is, having certain books and other material in one's home suggests that one finds value in it. Having a poster of big teethed pickaninnies eating watermelon is a choice one makes. It doesn't make one a racist merely to own something. So, to say, there are books, and then there is our life, suggests that our lives are somehow entirely separated from our literary choices -- which is even more problematic given that we are educating our children with these books.

 

My children will have to wrestle with the very real experience of racism in our own family, as their grandparents were confined to Japanese camps in WWII. They know what it means to be treated unjustly, and it is a very real part of their story.

 

Do you read your kids Cricket in Times Square aloud in dialect? (Me likee lice!) Do you show them yellowfaced cartoons for kicks? Do you expect them to identify with I.Y.Yunioshi in Breakfast at Tiffany's? Mightn't there be a time and a place to confront these images -- not necessarily when the child is very young and very impressionable, and higher quality, more relevant images of Asians and Asian Americans can be found?

 

I am not a big fan of these books but I am not sure I'd call them racist, but I do think it's good to be thoughtful about our choices.

[Sneezyone]

Ah Stripe, you read my mind.

[sweetpea3829]

If my kids were bothered by that in a book, I would explain to them that we don't get worked up over stuff like that, there is enough racism, without having to go looking for it. We do come across materials that are racist, and we talk about that when we see it. We see overt racism that was a product of the times, and sly racism that is hurtful because the people who exhibit it had power. I teach them not to use race as an excuse or as a weapon. Both dilute reality. I teach them that there will always be some people who see them as less than, but that most people are kind and do their best. I teach them to stand up when they are others are being hurt, and never be silent with their truth, but that race will motivate them and not hold them back....Ever.

 

That is how we handle it, and I really like D' Aulaires, and we get a lot out of the books.

 

Thank-you. Very well said. :001_smile:

 

I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the fact that some folks would choose to keep their child away from my family simply because of a book I might have on my shelf. It's very disheartening to hear that some folks choose to look at others with such a skeptical eye and assume the worst of them without even attempting to have a discourse.

[Spy Car]

Is TOG still using This Country of Ours?

 

Bill

 

Yes. (<-- links to Bookshelf Central)

 

Oh dear.

 

It is on my shelf for bias and racism, not history.

 

A purpose it should serve admirably! :D

 

Bill

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

What I am finding, as I wrestle through "Bloodlines" and look around me, is that there is subtle racism. All. Over.

 

I want to be

1. More on guard

2. More aware of the issues surrounding race

3. Actively anti-racist in my teaching of my children

 

Having the book just sitting on a shelf out in the open showed

That I was not "on guard," that I was not aware of the issues and feelings of people of color, and that in the past, I was not always actively anti-racist.

 

If I were just a passive happy white Mommy thinking I'm not racist do all the world is posies, since Im doing my part, then the book can sit on my shelf all it wants, and the discussions I had with my kids over it a few times would be sufficient. But to allow this book a free place in my library, is no longer ok because of the new heart that God has given me for this issue.

[pqr]

What I am finding, as I wrestle through "Bloodlines" and look around me, is that there is subtle racism. All. Over.

 

I want to be

1. More on guard

2. More aware of the issues surrounding race

3. Actively anti-racist in my teaching of my children

 

Having the book just sitting on a shelf out in the open showed

That I was not "on guard," that I was not aware of the issues and feelings of people of color, and that in the past, I was not always actively anti-racist.

 

If I were just a passive happy white Mommy thinking I'm not racist do all the world is posies, since Im doing my part, then the book can sit on my shelf all it wants, and the discussions I had with my kids over it a few times would be sufficient. But to allow this book a free place in my library, is no longer ok because of the new heart that God has given me for this issue.

 

 

I am most glad that you are upping your guard on racism because were you to replace the word white with any other ethnic group you might find yourself accused of it. Try it, read the bolded quote out loud and insert another ethnic group..... Of course you do realize that there may be white posters who have no issue with the book but take real umbrage at your characterization of those who might use it.

 

Incidentally now that that numerous posters have actually counted the number of faceless people in the book and shown that your reaction (to faceless people) was demonstrably wrong do you at least admit to this fact?

[LucyStoner]

Abusive husbands are a poor analogy for the ebb and flow of civilizations throughout history, meant to paint anyone that doesn't see history your way as being on the side of wife beaters.

 

No, it was not meant to paint anyone with the same brush or liken them to wife beaters. It was in fact just meant as an analogy to show that pointing to Native American attacks on European settlers is, in my opinion, very weak evidence that the violence undertaken in the European settlement of this country was equal or a two way street. It was likening the disparate levels of violence in each wholly different situation to each other, not the readers and figures of history to each other. I guess it is more of a simile to draw a point into focus than an analogy perhaps.

Edited February 28, 2012 by kijipt

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

I am white, and in my story above, I was the white Mommy. It is a fact that I am whIte and I was not saying that in any way against anyone but myself. I am not on A book witch hunt, nor do I have the desire or time to become a permanent and full time crusader against all racism. But I have my own path to take and my own story to tell and my own heart to judge. And the quote above was meant To just show where I am at.

 

.... you fail to miss the fact that I am not arguing in this issue, and that my quote you have there is about nobody but little old me.

 

As far as " at least admitting" to my "reaction being wrong" I haven't been following the entire thread, nor have I really been much part of the argument. Therefore I dO not know why you throw something at me, in such a way.

 

However I just got out the book and I see the page you are referring to. I agree that there are white faces, about the same distance away, without faces. So it must have just been that the authors decided not to take the time to put faces on groups of people sometimes.

 

But I still see the book as being one that is not going to be left out but either given away or tucked away as a reference.

 

As far as *me* characterizing all who use this book

As racist or wrong for using it, I don't think I've ever done that. I understand why some might use it, and I'm not really on

A racist hunt.

 

Please excuse typos as my iPhone is stuttering.

Edited February 28, 2012 by Calming Tea

[nmoira]

I thought the book 1491 by Charles Mann did a good job of summarizing some of the research about pre-Columbian civilizations and the effect of contact with Europeans.

 

[snip]

 

I've only made it about half way through the book, but it has been a really interesting read.

Thanks, I'll check it out. :001_smile:

[Hedgehogs4]

What's wrong with being witty? Seems better than some other replies, to my mind.

 

 

That doesn't necessarily mean that everyone on this board is actively teaching against racism. What makes racists such boogeymen that we can't acknowledge there might be something lurking in our hearts or in the hearts of others in a less noxious form than Klan membership?

 

This is exactly my point. I think I DID acknowledge that there was something "lurking" that I didn't even remember until I confronted it on my doorstep, or did you read that part? I think the battle against racism is fought in the lives that we live.

 

I think the issue is, having certain books and other material in one's home suggests that one finds value in it. Having a poster of big teethed pickaninnies eating watermelon is a choice one makes. It doesn't make one a racist merely to own something. So, to say, there are books, and then there is our life, suggests that our lives are somehow entirely separated from our literary choices -- which is even more problematic given that we are educating our children with these books.

 

Well, I agree. I would not have such things as you describe in my house. I just can't seem to find the horrible-ness in these particular books under scrutiny at the moment. I suppose you could see it when you are looking for it. I read it to my daughter the day before this conversation opened up. I had no inkling that these books could be found offensive. We certainly didn't pick up on THE ONE picture of black people in the book as being something to be offended about. (Maybe I'll take it to my next-door-neighbor who is black and openly ask her what she thinks. We have open discussions about such things, so I'm not being flip when I say this...she would tell me honestly.)

 

Do you read your kids Cricket in Times Square aloud in dialect? (Me likee lice!) Do you show them yellowfaced cartoons for kicks? Um...no...who does this? Do you expect them to identify with I.Y.Yunioshi in Breakfast at Tiffany's? Don't know...haven't seen it Mightn't there be a time and a place to confront these images -- not necessarily when the child is very young and very impressionable, and higher quality, more relevant images of Asians and Asian Americans can be found?

 

You might be surprised to know that I probably would read it as is. I am not a fan of censoring or editing. I would have the discussion with my kids. I also think that these things are relevant because if we shelter them constantly from who and what people really are / were / or think / thought, I don't think that we are being honest with them. Should I not let them know that their relatives could have been involved in the rape of Nanking? Should I shield them from the atrocities that the Japanese committed during WWII? Should I talk about how unjust it was that American citizens were confined, or how people abused Asians because of the war? Yes. all of the above. They will have to live with those realities but hopefully we are grounding them in a new reality, and in a new understanding of how to treat everyone who is a member of the human race.

 

I am not a big fan of these books but I am not sure I'd call them racist, but I do think it's good to be thoughtful about our choices. YES...EXACTLY. Isn't this the whole point here?

I think this conversation has gone way overboard on demonizing a few books which may or may not be considered offensive, then labeling everyone who can't see it as a racist and those who see it as non-racists. The polarization is so extreme that I don't think it's possible to determine what this thread is about anymore.

 

There is a point at which over-sensitivity can be just as damaging as a lack of sensitivity. Lovingkindness to our neighbors, regardless of their skin tone, and discernment in our teaching should be the guiding principles here. This is what I am aspiring to. I expect most of us are.

[pqr]

I think this conversation has gone way overboard on demonizing a few books which may or may not be considered offensive, then labeling everyone who can't see it as a racist and those who see it as non-racists. The polarization is so extreme that I don't think it's possible to determine what this thread is about anymore.

 

There is a point at which over-sensitivity can be just as damaging as a lack of sensitivity. Lovingkindness to our neighbors, regardless of their skin tone, and discernment in our teaching should be the guiding principles here. This is what I am aspiring to. I expect most of us are.

 

 

Very nicely put.

[pqr]

In your attempt at showing your Logical thinking, and ability to attack arguments you fail to miss the fact that I am not arguing in this issue, and that my quote you have there is about nobody but little old me. Sorry to disappoint.

 

.

No disappointment, and your explanation is valid. Understand, however, that those of us who do have it on our shelves and who do use it can read your comment as indicating that we are somehow insensitive, racist etc and that is pure BUNK! I use it and many others and that only indicates that I use many texts nothing more.

[Crimson Wife]

No, it was not meant to paint anyone with the same brush or liken them to wife beaters. It was in fact just meant as an analogy to people pointing to Native American attacks on European settlers as what is, in my opinion, very weak evidence that the violence undertaken in the European settlement of this country was somehow equal or a two way street. It was likening the disparate levels of violence in each wholly different situation to each other, not the readers of history to each other. I guess it is more of a simile to draw a point into focus than an analogy perhaps.

 

I think the more apt metaphor is a brawl that breaks out in a sports bar previously considered the "territory" of one team's fans. Fans of a rival team start to arrive. The bar is big and there's plenty of room for both so at first there is an uneasy truce. But as more and more "invaders" arrive, those who were there first start grumbling. Eventually, a few troublemakers go over and start a fight despite the official truce. The newcomers overreact, and even though both sides participate in the brawl, the newcomers wind up beating the c**p out of the original folks. Whereas they were at first content to share the bar, now the newcomers feel justified in claiming the entire bar save one small side room where they forcibly relocate those who were there first. The newcomers justify this to themselves by telling themselves it was the original folks who broke the truce and generally demonizing the "enemy". A very whitewashed version of what happened becomes "history".

 

Several hours later all the sports fans involved in the original brawl have gone home and been replaced by new ones. Those who now control the bar start feeling guilty about what happened. In an attempt to correct the whitewashed version, they go too far the other way and create a new narrative that not only places 100% of the blame on the newcomers but also imparts an evil motive to their arrival. It was all a vile plot to steal the bar all along.

 

What is the truth of the situation here? Clearly, it cannot be found in either of the one-sided narratives. The bulk of the blame has to go to the newcomers, without a doubt. There is no excuse for the net result of beating the c**p out of the original folks and forcing them into the small side room. But in order to understand why that happened, one needs to look at the entire situation including the things that the original folks did to exacerbate the conflict between the two groups.

 

There is a whole lot of room between 50/50 and 100/0. We can reasonably debate the precise share, but it is not helpful to call people hurtful names for pointing out the truth lies somewhere in between those two extremes.

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

Thank you for reading my explanation.

 

 

(I edited the logic part out because it was unkind. Please forgive me.)

 

Anyway, I can see why some might take that quote that way- and hopefully they won't.

[pqr]

Thank you for reading my explanation.

 

 

(I edited the logic part out because it was unkind. Please forgive me.)

 

Anyway, I can see why some might take that quote that way- and hopefully they won't.

 

Most welcome.

 

The logic part was fine, discussion/debate/argument the lines become blurred. No offense taken.

 

Regards

[nmoira]

 

Several hours later all the sports fans involved in the original brawl have gone home and been replaced by new ones.

This analogy would more workable if the parties in question lived in the bar and derived their income or other basic necessities from the bar. All parties in question here have a home to go to, and have livelihoods elsewhere. Their stake in the bar is only territorial interest the sense of a club house. And it wouldn't be one bar, but rather a succession of bars until there were none left.

[Sneezyone]

I think the more apt metaphor is a brawl that breaks out in a sports bar previously considered the "territory" of one team's fans. Fans of a rival team start to arrive. The bar is big and there's plenty of room for both so at first there is an uneasy truce. But as more and more "invaders" arrive, those who were there first start grumbling. Eventually, a few troublemakers go over and start a fight despite the official truce. The newcomers overreact, and even though both sides participate in the brawl, the newcomers wind up beating the c**p out of the original folks. Whereas they were at first content to share the bar, now the newcomers feel justified in claiming the entire bar save one small side room where they forcibly relocate those who were there first. The newcomers justify this to themselves by telling themselves it was the original folks who broke the truce and generally demonizing the "enemy". A very whitewashed version of what happened becomes "history".

 

Several hours later all the sports fans involved in the original brawl have gone home and been replaced by new ones. Those who now control the bar start feeling guilty about what happened. In an attempt to correct the whitewashed version, they go too far the other way and create a new narrative that not only places 100% of the blame on the newcomers but also imparts an evil motive to their arrival. It was all a vile plot to steal the bar all along.

 

And on a light note...I think I just sprayed Coke Zero all over my keyboard.:lol: