Armenian genocide, modern history....what to do, how to cover this?

[Halcyon]

We're up to about 1915 in modern history with my rising 5th grader (with rising 2nd grader listening in) and today discussed the Armenian genocide, and watched some videos on it. Wow. I don't know. I am a huge proponent of my children understanding modern history, and making connections with things they have studied in the past, such as slavery, but....I don't know. It's so very gruesome, and reveals a side of human nature that I am just not sure older is ready for (forget the younger--he knows how sensitive he is and left the room). Older was pretty much in shock, and we discussed also the current situation in the Nuba Hills in Sudan (not a parallel to the genocide, but certainly another instance where outsiders are not intervening sufficiently) and he couldn't believe that so many young children were living alone, without their parents to guide them, on just a bit of food while constantly in fear of bombing.

 

I know this has been discussed here before, but it's the first time _I_ have dealt with it and experienced it firsthand. Part of me is tempted to stop right here, and move into Ancients as planned in August. Part of me feels that this needs to be covered, but I don't see any way to cover it "lightly" ("Oh, and so millions of Armenians were killed by the Ottoman Empire....would you like peanut butter for lunch?")

 

Thoughts appreciated.

[regentrude]

I think at that age, I would really only mention bare facts and not try to go into depth about these topics. It is not just the Armenian genocide - it is large parts of the 20th century that are disturbing. WWI. WW2. Holocaust. Stalin's cruelties in the Soviet union. Vietnam. Rwanda.... all horrible topics that I would NOT wish to discuss in detail with a child. They have imagination, so sometimes mentioning things will suffice without going into depth. I reserve a deeper discussion for 8th and 12th grades, respectively. With a 5th grader,I would skip over the gruesome parts and focus on more child friendly aspects of history. I do not think I need to make them feel the full horror at this age.

 

ETA: Ancients is not more peaceful, really. The Iliad has a whole book that lists nothing but horrible ways people can be wounded and killed by sharp implements, in gruesome detail. And gladiator fighting is as bad as it gets. But you would probably choose not to emphasize this aspect ether.

Edited June 22, 2012 by regentrude

[Heather in VA]

It is awful. I have always just discussed it. I let them know that it is awful and let them talk. I've found the conversation doesn't seem to stray beyond what they are capable of handling if I let them ask the questions and steer the conversation. I do think you were right to let the 2nd grader leave. There is no need for him to handle something like this.

 

It's been a while since I've read SOTW 4 but if I remember correctly I was pleased with the depth she chose for these subjects - enough for a student that age to take them seriously and know these were horrible but important events - but not so deep it felt like dwelling in the sick and evil. My daughter was 6th grade when we read it.

 

Of course you need to gauge the maturity level of your child too. My older two are very mature and handled these topics well. My current 9 year old (rising 4th) will not be as able to handle it so we will wait.

 

(((((HUGS)))) It's hard.

 

Heather

[stripe]

Unless you're Armenian or live in a heavily Armenian area, I wouldn't emphasize the Armenian genocide more than any others, and there have been plenty in the 20th C. I think it's important to not fixate on any one, or to suggest that they will "never again" happen after the Nazis, patently false given all that has already happened and how little the world generally cares. I would use it as a call to action. But I don't think I've ever suggested to my kids that everything is rosy all over the world.

[justLisa]

When we get to topics of war, or genocide, I ONLY lecture. We do not read it from a book nor watch anything. I have far too sensitive viewers for that. When we discussed the German's invasion of Poland and starting the war, it is something near my heart and I know a great deal about, so we just talked about it. They remember so much more this way AND they can see how important it is to understand past human conflict. My husband's grandparents had to leave their home and hide in the woods as they saw armed German soldiers. My FIL was born 2 years after the war ended.

 

There is just no way to hide how horrible humans have been forever.

[Lori D.]

I think at that age, I would really only mention bare facts and not try to go into depth about these topics.

 

 

Totally agree! We did not cover those details until high school. We focused instead on all the great inventions, science and medical break-throughs, explorers, athletes, the arts, etc. And what about shifting towards memorizing states / capitals, or focusing on presidents -- or your state: the state history; the state's geographical features; animals/plants specific to the state; famous people from the state, etc.

 

Take a look at these past threads for ideas:

Sunnier side of modern history

What to do with a 3rd grader while the rest of the kiddos are on a 1850 to modern cycle

Modern history in the 4th grade?

[Halcyon]

Thanks all. I am going to have to curtail the videos, images and details I had planned, I think. Part of me almost feels, however, that to "gloss over" the horrible details is to gloss over the history itself--focusing on the details is what makes history come alive, and skimming it wouldn't do justice to what really happened in the 20th century at all.

 

Wondering if, like Lori D., I should just skip the horrible stuff altogether and focus on the positive.

[regentrude]

Thanks all. I am going to have to curtail the videos, images and details I had planned, I think. Part of me almost feels, however, that to "gloss over" the horrible details is to gloss over the history itself--focusing on the details is what makes history come alive, and skimming it wouldn't do justice to what really happened in the 20th century at all.

 

Wondering if, like Lori D., I should just skip the horrible stuff altogether and focus on the positive.

 

I do not think you can skip altogether, because wars have shaped the world as it is and you can not possibly teach history omitting everything bad.

I do, however, not consider an age appropriate treatment to be "glossing over". I see it as selecting the topics to dwell on in depth to enhance my child's understanding at their respective age.

I believe too much detailed focus on the bad too early is not only unnecessary, but does not accomplish anything. When I went to school, we had a mandatory overnight class trip to a concentration camp in 8th grade. It was disturbing, but not nearly as disturbing as it should have been, and I think it was pretty much lost on a large part of the class; going a few years later would have accomplished much more.

 

I agree that details make history come alive - but you can be the one who chooses which parts of history you want alive in your child's imagination. There are things I do not need a young child to imagine in graphic detail. To what purpose would I force certain pictures into a 10 year old's mind? Why does a child need to see what humans are capable of doing to one another?

I do not even think that all visual history materials available are appropriate even for high school age students. I believe that young people can grow up with a historic understanding and compassion even if they are presented with the information in an abstract way.

[stripe]

I believe too much detailed focus on the bad too early is not only unnecessary, but does not accomplish anything. When I went to school, we had a mandatory overnight class trip to a concentration camp in 8th grade. It was disturbing, but not nearly as disturbing as it should have been, and I think it was pretty much lost on a large part of the class; going a few years later would have accomplished much more.

 

 

This is such an interesting point. I was taken to a Holocaust museum on a field trip in 9th grade and I began to feel faint near a skin lamp and had to sit down because I was getting physically ill from all this horrifying material all around me, and it seemed genuinely surprising to all the adults there (inclusing museum staff) that anyone would actually be bothered by these materials. Well, if you can think about and then look at the evidence of human beings being not only murdered, but en masse, and then on top of it, having their bodies mutilated, with a cool, calm, dispassionate demeanor -- how is that healthy? How is that teaching something is horrible if one is supposed to gaze at it and move on?

[Karen in CO]

I didn't cover this until my ds was in highschool. The Road from Home is a good historical fiction covering it. We talked about stuff like this with my older dd this year, but didn't go into any detail. We started talking about genocides much, much earlier in history. Horrible Histories are actually a really good way to give kids an idea of history truths in an accessible way.

 

Even though we'd covered this in highschool, my ds had to write a report on the Khmer Rouge for a college class on Asian history. When he told me his topic, I apologized on behalf of the human race for what he was going to learn. He just about changed majors from International Relations after that. I don't think you are ever old enough for some topics.

[Halcyon]

This is such an interesting point. I was taken to a Holocaust museum on a field trip in 9th grade and I began to feel faint near a skin lamp and had to sit down because I was getting physically ill from all this horrifying material all around me, and it seemed genuinely surprising to all the adults there (inclusing museum staff) that anyone would actually be bothered by these materials. Well, if you can think about and then look at the evidence of human beings being not only murdered, but en masse, and then on top of it, having their bodies mutilated, with a cool, calm, dispassionate demeanor -- how is that healthy? How is that teaching something is horrible if one is supposed to gaze at it and move on?

 

So you're saying, in your opinion, that the details SHOULDN'T be "skimmed"? I am just trying to understand your perspective. I think it is SO important, even at this age, to teach that groups in power often do terrible things do weaker groups of people--I think it is a profoundly important thing to impart, even to a 4th-5th grader. However, my difficulty is that it is well nigh impossible to convey what happened without going into at least SOME detail. I think the idea of not using videos (which are good part of our history study--we often find a battle documentary or something on Netflix, or even a small intro on youtube) may NOT be the way to go. I can explain, calmly, what happened to the Armenians, that they were oppressed and starved and forced to move en masse without water and food...and I don't thiink that is nearly as traumatizing as SEEING those images...and I think that's okay--for this age. I think I made a mistake showing him videos today, in my zeal for conveying "what really happened".

[Trish]

I don't do genocide with 10-year-olds.

[Halcyon]

I didn't cover this until my ds was in highschool. The Road from Home is a good historical fiction covering it. We talked about stuff like this with my older dd this year, but didn't go into any detail. We started talking about genocides much, much earlier in history. Horrible Histories are actually a really good way to give kids an idea of history truths in an accessible way.

 

Even though we'd covered this in highschool, my ds had to write a report on the Khmer Rouge for a college class on Asian history. When he told me his topic, I apologized on behalf of the human race for what he was going to learn. He just about changed majors from International Relations after that. I don't think you are ever old enough for some topics.

 

 

I agree, in many respects. But my parents and my school taught me very, very little about genocide and I think that was wrong-I really do think I should have been taught, in a memorable but non-traumatizing way, about this, and I think it should have started fairly early. We talked about bullying and how that sort of "violence" can be linked to treatment of minority groups by people in power, and that really resonated with my older. He also noted the similarities between how African Americans were perceived in the time of slavery (and even today) and how the Armenians were perceived--subhuman, not worthy of consideration. I think, now that he is entering the Logic Stage, that this connections are critical, and finding the common thread in human behavior helps students understand the flow of history. Again, I think my problem is "how do I impart this information in a "gentler" way?" I wish there were more books addressed to the upper elementary grades about this sort of topic (war, genocide, etc.)

[Halcyon]

I don't do genocide with 10-year-olds.

 

 

In any form? No mention? How do you avoid it when discussing historical topics? What about the American Indians?

[Roadrunner]

I wouldn't discuss the details at all. I would explain that men turn into animals during the times of war (and unfortunately sometimes during the times of peace). I would go over what was going on at a time politically and mention the overall numbers of people who perished, but no details.

I grew up listening to the stories of torture of my family members in Stalin camps and I don't think it's appropriate to inflict that much of emotional pain on young people who aren't capable yet to deal with those emotions. Save the details for the high school.

[Alte Veste Academy]

If you were talking about high schoolers and said that, I would agree with you. But I have a hard time calling it "glossing over" when you are simply talking about making the subject age-appropriate. You aren't ignoring it and you *are* coming back to the same subject when they are older/more mature at which point you can do less, if any, moderating.

 

But don't skip it.

 

:iagree:

 

This is such an interesting point. I was taken to a Holocaust museum on a field trip in 9th grade and I began to feel faint near a skin lamp and had to sit down because I was getting physically ill from all this horrifying material all around me, and it seemed genuinely surprising to all the adults there (inclusing museum staff) that anyone would actually be bothered by these materials. Well, if you can think about and then look at the evidence of human beings being not only murdered, but en masse, and then on top of it, having their bodies mutilated, with a cool, calm, dispassionate demeanor -- how is that healthy? How is that teaching something is horrible if one is supposed to gaze at it and move on?

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree:I want my children to be shocked to their core, but not at age 9.

 

So you're saying, in your opinion, that the details SHOULDN'T be "skimmed"? I am just trying to understand your perspective. I think it is SO important, even at this age, to teach that groups in power often do terrible things do weaker groups of people--I think it is a profoundly important thing to impart, even to a 4th-5th grader. However, my difficulty is that it is well nigh impossible to convey what happened without going into at least SOME detail. I think the idea of not using videos (which are good part of our history study--we often find a battle documentary or something on Netflix, or even a small intro on youtube) may NOT be the way to go. I can explain, calmly, what happened to the Armenians, that they were oppressed and starved and forced to move en masse without water and food...and I don't thiink that is nearly as traumatizing as SEEING those images...and I think that's okay--for this age. I think I made a mistake showing him videos today, in my zeal for conveying "what really happened".

 

No, details shouldn't be skimmed...starting sometime in high school. You'll know when. Trust your knowledge of your kids. If it doesn't feel right now, it's not right. He's 9. Innocence lost can never be regained. Let him be 9.

 

ETA: You can still teach that the powerful sometimes do terrible things with bare bones facts. He doesn't have to feel the intensity of it now. He's not going out into the world to make his way on his own yet, so he doesn't need to be prepared yet in a visceral way, you know? You are outlining the main points of the big picture with a Sharpie right now. The details can be shaded in later.

 

In any form? No mention? How do you avoid it when discussing historical topics? What about the American Indians?

 

You mention it. As someone else said, you teach it, don't read multiple books about the details of it. For now. You will teach it in detail later. You will read books that make you cry. You will see museum exhibits that make you feel ill. As stripe said, it's appropriate to feel that way. But at 9? Protect them from the disgusting details.

 

For what it's worth, I've actually considered starting a thread about the evolution from parenting babies and protecting them to letting all the ugly bits of life in. I find it interesting that when I first started posting here 4 years ago, I was all about protecting them from anything ugly, especially the negative words and stereotypes found in older volumes about American history. I remember participating in lots of threads about shielding vs discussing. Well, that's because my oldest was 5. :tongue_smilie: Dur. Now he's nine and I go out of my way to tell him about things that are/were offensive. It's a different stage and my level of comfort has increased. When he is 12, it will be increased again. When he is 15, I can't think of much I won't be prepared to let in. But for now, he's 9 and I'm going to let him hold on to his innocence.

Edited June 22, 2012 by Alte Veste Academy

[stripe]

So you're saying, in your opinion, that the details SHOULDN'T be "skimmed"? I am just trying to understand your perspective. I think it is SO important, even at this age, to teach that groups in power often do terrible things do weaker groups of people--I think it is a profoundly important thing to impart, even to a 4th-5th grader. However, my difficulty is that it is well nigh impossible to convey what happened without going into at least SOME detail. I think the idea of not using videos (which are good part of our history study--we often find a battle documentary or something on Netflix, or even a small intro on youtube) may NOT be the way to go. I can explain, calmly, what happened to the Armenians, that they were oppressed and starved and forced to move en masse without water and food...and I don't thiink that is nearly as traumatizing as SEEING those images...and I think that's okay--for this age. I think I made a mistake showing him videos today, in my zeal for conveying "what really happened".

 

My point was, don't delve into details of horrors and expect kids to be unaffected.

 

I don't know WHEN to discuss horrors. But I think the act of showing horrors should be accompanied by a realization that they should horrify.

 

Another story: I took my kids to an exhibit on freedom. Part of it included information on Jim Cow, including a KKK uniform on a mannequin, a colored drinking fountain, a picture of a man with a scarred back from being whipped, and information on segregated bus seating. I started to explain to my daughter. She was so upset by the idea after a brief explanation (really just about the water fountains) that she told me she didn't want to hear more. She was very close to tears and extremely upset. I saw no one else in the exhibit who looked upset or shaken. In fact the tenor seemed to be upbeat -- maybe most people were happy that it was something of the past?

 

I think even to say that one person was killed, to really understand that, is a horrible thing. Even more so for genocide.

 

I think we rarely acknowledge the gravity of the situation. It would be better to present a general overview than produce gut-wrenching material because it simply is so awful.

[Karen in CO]

We also read lots of informal history books which promote discussion. I think my older dd first encountered the Holocaust in a DK history encyclopedia or maybe it was an Usborne. We talked about it.

 

Living out west, there are lots of historical markers for massacre sites. We talk about it. We have Creek Indian (Musckogee) ancestry. We talk about it. We've found slave records for ancestors. We talk about it. We have Viking ancestors, and we talk about them.

 

My older daughter was interested in the crusades so we pulled out Spielvogel to get some better information. We talked about it. Neither of my girls have formally studied a genocide, but we've talked about it.

 

Basically, if you don't want to feel like you're "glossing over it," cover it, but make sure you talk about it a lot. I'd save the pictures and videos for later. You're right about kids in the logic stage starting to make wonderful connections between things. It is one of my favorite parts of homeschooling.

 

For resources:

Take Me Back is a great book for a kid that likes history. The Century for Young People is a good resource also. I like the DK book about World War I. It does a good job of explaining how and why it started although The War to End All Wars by Freedman is better for older kids (and adults). For World War II, Stephen Ambrose's book, The Good Fight is really good. And completely different, but since you mentioned the link to slavery in an earlier post, I love books like Sugar Changed the World for following a thread through history. Books like that open up all kinds of ideas and discussions.

[Syllieann]

We are not to this point yet but I have considered how to handle it after much reflection on my own education. I think that we will gloss over it in the earlier years and then study those sections in greater detail in the older years. PBS has a series on it that could possibly be spread out over a junior or senior year to make up for all the glossing over in younger grades.

[Tasia]

For me, it would completely depend on the child and whether they wanted to learn more about it. My 11 year old has been absolutely fascinated by the Holocaust (and the Armenian genocide, and Stalin, but to a lesser extent) since he was 8 or 9 and has read everything he can get his hands on about it. He is partway through Mein Kampf. Last summer, he asked Dh to take him to the Holocaust Memorial Museum and they both learned a lot.

 

But, I wouldn't teach my 9 year old about those things yet. He's much more sensitive and doesn't know enough about history and the world to be able process what happened and why.

 

You know your son and you're the best person to decide whether it will hurt or help him to learn about this now.