Article on "wacky facts" in A Beka and BJU

[mommaduck]

Bartolome de las Casas? ...he;s the one that comes first to my mind. Here's his Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies Powerful, important reading.

Free at Gutenberg.

[PiCO]

LOL! We are few and far between, that's for sure! :D

 

Except, I am an agnostic.

 

Nice to meet you!

 

Technically I'm an agnostic as well, because how can one really know for sure? But the term feels too wish-washy for me personally, so I go with a stronger label ;).

[hsmom2011]

Wow! I knew BJU and A Beka were not for me, but I had no idea... :001_huh:

[TravelingChris]

I really can't get excited about the schools other parents choose for their children. In Belgium the money follows the student and I think it should be that way here. I am an old earth person and don't like people being taught young earth but parents have rights. I hate the wrong information being taught in public schools too and in private schools and in home schools. BUt I know that wrong information will be out there. I was watching a physics lecture with my dd and the professor pointed out how most textbooks have a wrong picture and a wrong explanation of how an airplane works.

 

Now, while I know the depression was bad, The Grapes of Wrath is an exaggeration. I liked the book but it is fiction, not a historical study. I would not want to have a book extolling virtues of KKK or Trail of Tears. However, I found out this year that one of my kids was very surprised that there was a slave cemetery here. I didn't understand why so I asked her. It turns out that through mostly non homeschooled experiences, she had formed in her mind an false image of slavery where all the slave owners beat to death their slaves or attempted to. I had to explain it by economics. Slavery was wrong but the same way you don't kill and abuse all your farm animals, they didn't abuse all their slaves either. They needed them strong to work so they weren't starving them. The slaves were quite expensive so there was every incentive to keep them nourished and healthy to get all possible work out of them. Now just like some people abuse their stock animals, some abused their slaves, but not most. THe abuse came from the practice of selling people and not respecting families and freedom/

[KrissiK]

Ok, I am not defending A Beka or BJU, (and I did just skim this thread) but these arguments against these so-called wacky facts don't hold water. Just for example, the paragraph cited did not in any way say the KKK was A-ok. And even the fact that the paragraph said they "gained respectability" didn't even show approval. Shoot, I'm sure in some communities Mob bosses and other criminals have "gained respectability". Look at some congressmen. And maybe God did bring some Native Americans to Christ in the Trail of Tears. Doesn't mean they approve. In "The Hiding Place" many people turned to Christ in the concentration camps because of Corrie ten Boom, but my saying that doesn't mean that I think the concentration camps were anything but deplorable. It just states a fact. Like I said, I'm not defending the publishers. I do use some of their stuff, but I agree with most of the common sentiment regarding bias. I just think the article that is being discussed doesn't prove a whole lot.

[nmoira]

 

Ok, I am not defending A Beka or BJU, (and I did just skim this thread) but these arguments against these so-called wacky facts don't hold water. Just for example, the paragraph cited did not in any way say the KKK was A-ok. And even the fact that the paragraph said they "gained respectability" didn't even show approval. Shoot, I'm sure in some communities Mob bosses and other criminals have "gained respectability". Look at some congressmen. And maybe God did bring some Native Americans to Christ in the Trail of Tears. Doesn't mean they approve. In "The Hiding Place" many people turned to Christ in the concentration camps because of Corrie ten Boom, but my saying that doesn't mean that I think the concentration camps were anything but deplorable. It just states a fact. Like I said, I'm not defending the publishers. I do use some of their stuff, but I agree with most of the common sentiment regarding bias. I just think the article that is being discussed doesn't prove a whole lot.

If your middle grader (when you have one) turned in a short essay about the KKK and saw fit to include the information quoted, would you judge that to be a fair representation of the historical significance organization? What if atrocities committed by them were omitted altogether or merely hinted at?

[mommaduck]

Ok, I am not defending A Beka or BJU, (and I did just skim this thread) but these arguments against these so-called wacky facts don't hold water. Just for example, the paragraph cited did not in any way say the KKK was A-ok. And even the fact that the paragraph said they "gained respectability" didn't even show approval. Shoot, I'm sure in some communities Mob bosses and other criminals have "gained respectability". Look at some congressmen. And maybe God did bring some Native Americans to Christ in the Trail of Tears. Doesn't mean they approve. In "The Hiding Place" many people turned to Christ in the concentration camps because of Corrie ten Boom, but my saying that doesn't mean that I think the concentration camps were anything but deplorable. It just states a fact. Like I said, I'm not defending the publishers. I do use some of their stuff, but I agree with most of the common sentiment regarding bias. I just think the article that is being discussed doesn't prove a whole lot.

What it doesn't mention is that there were a lot of Cherokee that were already Christian by the time the Trail of Tears happened. Basically, it's unbalanced history to imply that they were all heathens and the white man "saved" them by their abuses.

[coffeefreak]

The younger grades have similar issues, imo. But, if the bias is in your favor, then you are less likely to see it. If you were never taught the truth, then you are less likely to see it. The last convention that my dh attended with me (which, was a couple of years ago) found us at the A Beka table, dealing with issues like this. Not trusting my memory to explain these to you, I went to A Beka's website and used their "look inside" feature.

 

http://www.abeka.com/AbekaOnline/BookDescriptionPreview.aspx?sbn=108626

 

One of the pages available to view is page 47. They describe Jamestown, VA (founded in 1620) as the first lasting colony in Virginia. They also mention Plymouth, Massachusetts (1607). But, there is no mention that St. Augustine, Florida was the first lasting colony, settled in 1565. Why? Because it doesn't fit their "creation myth" of how the US came to be.

 

The next page describes how the King of England threw people in jail who did not believe as he did. There is no mention of the *fact* that by 1666 Puritans required membership in their church in order to vote (among other issues).

 

That sort of thing is *constant* in A Beka's history books. These aren't "religious beliefs," they are a deliberate omission of *facts* in order to support a narrative based on lies and deception.

 

The one I discussed up top is a current version. This stuff is throughout their history books, in particular.

 

Then I wish the author of the article had used the more current editions to back up the argument. Thanks for clarifying!

Dorinda

[Slartibartfast]

What it doesn't mention is that there were a lot of Cherokee that were already Christian by the time the Trail of Tears happened. Basically, it's unbalanced history to imply that they were all heathens and the white man "saved" them by their abuses.

 

:iagree::iagree:

 

By the time the Trail of Tears happened many tribes had already been working with European settlers for centuries.

[4wildberrys]

Ok, I am not defending A Beka or BJU, (and I did just skim this thread) but these arguments against these so-called wacky facts don't hold water. Just for example, the paragraph cited did not in any way say the KKK was A-ok. And even the fact that the paragraph said they "gained respectability" didn't even show approval. Shoot, I'm sure in some communities Mob bosses and other criminals have "gained respectability". Look at some congressmen. And maybe God did bring some Native Americans to Christ in the Trail of Tears. Doesn't mean they approve. In "The Hiding Place" many people turned to Christ in the concentration camps because of Corrie ten Boom, but my saying that doesn't mean that I think the concentration camps were anything but deplorable. It just states a fact. Like I said, I'm not defending the publishers. I do use some of their stuff, but I agree with most of the common sentiment regarding bias. I just think the article that is being discussed doesn't prove a whole lot.

I guess I will be the lone person to agree with you! I thought the arguments against these books were weak myself. There WERE kind slave masters---even though today anything to do with slavery is abhorrent to any of us. But it was the norm back then. Did the KKK have a different focus beyond racism when it first was established? Honestly, I don't know but reading that article made me want to find out. The biggest thing that made me laugh about the outrage of the author is that EVERY SINGLE textbook has bias!!! Every. single. one! The challenge is to find their viewpoint, and then read all the historical documents available to find the truth! Big job. But it's silly to just single out Christian publishers, as is SO popular today, because so many textbooks out there contain questionable if not completely inaccurate 'facts'. She did take a bit of liberty in selecting her quotes from these books without giving any background information at how they had gotten to the topic to begin with. :glare:

[stripe]

What it doesn't mention is that there were a lot of Cherokee that were already Christian by the time the Trail of Tears happened. Basically, it's unbalanced history to imply that they were all heathens and the white man "saved" them by their abuses.

And, um, I don't think the Trail of Tears was exactly a loving demonstration of Christian brotherly love. Nor was slavery.

 

It's not the issue of whether there is some bias in every book. It's whether the book is so far off the mark and so extreme, being so selective, that the misrepresentations obscure any redeeming value. And the issue of concern also is the extent to which an education is designed as basically propaganda, framing of a viewpoint that is vastly incompatible with the way the rest of the world understands the issues. And the quote is that the vast majority of slaveholders were kindly. Not that some were kind. And the quote that 10% of Africans are literate is from 2004. That's a pretty recent citation.

Edited August 10, 2012 by stripe

[4wildberrys]

The younger grades have similar issues, imo. But, if the bias is in your favor, then you are less likely to see it. If you were never taught the truth, then you are less likely to see it. The last convention that my dh attended with me (which, was a couple of years ago) found us at the A Beka table, dealing with issues like this. Not trusting my memory to explain these to you, I went to A Beka's website and used their "look inside" feature.

 

http://www.abeka.com/AbekaOnline/BookDescriptionPreview.aspx?sbn=108626

 

One of the pages available to view is page 47. They describe Jamestown, VA (founded in 1620) as the first lasting colony in Virginia. They also mention Plymouth, Massachusetts (1607). But, there is no mention that St. Augustine, Florida was the first lasting colony, settled in 1565. Why? Because it doesn't fit their "creation myth" of how the US came to be.

 

The next page describes how the King of England threw people in jail who did not believe as he did. There is no mention of the *fact* that by 1666 Puritans required membership in their church in order to vote (among other issues).

 

That sort of thing is *constant* in A Beka's history books. These aren't "religious beliefs," they are a deliberate omission of *facts* in order to support a narrative based on lies and deception.

 

How would you have felt about that, if you had been Jewish? How would you feel, if you lived in a predominantly Islamic area and the Koran was read to your children each day? The separation of church and state is there to protect *everybody*. Nobody is being "censored" because people can read whatever they wish, on their own time.

 

 

 

 

So, there is a prominent homeschool author whom I have heard speak on several occasions (and is not SWB). That person *repeatedly* affirms that Christians should not read the works of non-Christians, because you don't want those people informing your worldview. You can't learn anything from sinners. Christians should not read purely secular works of literature. So, it may not imply that they are "hacks," but there is *absolutely* an underlying current of, "they are too worldly, you should not read such works."

 

 

 

I'm anti-EM. I think its adherents are wacky. I would advocate for the removal of the program.

 

 

 

The one I discussed up top is a current version. This stuff is throughout their history books, in particular.

 

 

Every single history textbook does this!!! They all come from their belief system that shows up in the information they choose to include or omit! Go ahead and read many public school textbooks, and you will find massive amounts of information omitted because it's either offensive or doesn't fit with the viewpoint the kids are supposed to have after reading the book. This is EXACTLY why we use literature based history coupled with at least 2-3 factual sources.

[shanvan]

I guess I will be the lone person to agree with you! I thought the arguments against these books were weak myself. There WERE kind slave masters---even though today anything to do with slavery is abhorrent to any of us. But it was the norm back then. Did the KKK have a different focus beyond racism when it first was established? Honestly, I don't know but reading that article made me want to find out. The biggest thing that made me laugh about the outrage of the author is that EVERY SINGLE textbook has bias!!! Every. single. one! The challenge is to find their viewpoint, and then read all the historical documents available to find the truth! Big job. But it's silly to just single out Christian publishers, as is SO popular today, because so many textbooks out there contain questionable if not completely inaccurate 'facts'. She did take a bit of liberty in selecting her quotes from these books without giving any background information at how they had gotten to the topic to begin with. :glare:

 

:iagree: But I will say that when I used BJU history, I did watch out for some of the more fantastical comments and had discussions w/ Dc about bias and what we really believed. I know I'd do the same with a public school textbook too. But, I'm not into policing textbooks for other people and I do think some of the arguments were weak. If BJU or Abeka satisfies a family's history or science or whatever requirements, so be it. They have the right to determine what text they want to use, even if other people don't like it. I'd hate to imagine what would happen if the textbook police had to give their approval.

Edited August 10, 2012 by shanvan

[Kathryn]

And, um, I don't think the Trail of Tears was exactly a loving demonstration of Christian brotherly love. Nor was slavery.

 

It's not the issue of whether there is some bias in every book. It's whether the book is so far off the mark and so extreme, being so selective, that the misrepresentations obscure any redeeming value. And the issue of concern also is the extent to which an education is designed as basically propaganda, framing of a viewpoint that is vastly incompatible with the way the rest of the world understands the issues. And the quote is that the vast majority of slaveholders were kindly. Not that some were kind. And the quote that 10% of Africans are literate is from 2004. That's a pretty recent citation.

 

:iagree:

[Mergath]

Ok, I am not defending A Beka or BJU, (and I did just skim this thread) but these arguments against these so-called wacky facts don't hold water. Just for example, the paragraph cited did not in any way say the KKK was A-ok.

 

Really? We must have read different excerpts, because it sure sounded like they were quite fond of the KKK to me.

 

Of course, it wasn't that long ago that BJU and the KKK had a lot in common ideologically, so that might have something to do with it. :glare:

[Mrs Mungo]

Every single history textbook does this!!! They all come from their belief system that shows up in the information they choose to include or omit! Go ahead and read many public school textbooks, and you will find massive amounts of information omitted because it's either offensive or doesn't fit with the viewpoint the kids are supposed to have after reading the book. This is EXACTLY why we use literature based history coupled with at least 2-3 factual sources.

 

I don't use public school history texts for a reason! It is a MAJOR reason that we homeschool!!! But, at least they don't pretend it is out of piety. As a Christian, I find that abhorrent.

Edited August 10, 2012 by Mrs Mungo

[FaithManor]

I don't use public school history texts for a reason! It is a MAJORreason that we homeschool!!! But, at least they don't pretend it is out of piety. As a Christian, I find that abhorrent.

 

 

:iagree:

 

Faith

[4wildberrys]

I don't use public school history texts for a reason! It is a MAJOR reason that we homeschool!!! But, at least they don't pretend it is out of piety. As a Christian, I find that abhorrent.

 

Exactly ;). I guess I'm such a history purist, I find altering, omitting or misstating historical facts to effect a certain view on history just generally abhorrent, whether Christian or secular :glare: I continually shake my head in amazement at how much quicker the Christian texts get called on the carpet though.

[kroe1]

The younger grades have similar issues, imo. But, if the bias is in your favor, then you are less likely to see it. If you were never taught the truth, then you are less likely to see it. The last convention that my dh attended with me (which, was a couple of years ago) found us at the A Beka table, dealing with issues like this. Not trusting my memory to explain these to you, I went to A Beka's website and used their "look inside" feature.

 

http://www.abeka.com/AbekaOnline/BookDescriptionPreview.aspx?sbn=108626

 

One of the pages available to view is page 47. They describe Jamestown, VA (founded in 1620) as the first lasting colony in Virginia. They also mention Plymouth, Massachusetts (1607). But, there is no mention that St. Augustine, Florida was the first lasting colony, settled in 1565. Why? Because it doesn't fit their "creation myth" of how the US came to be.

 

The next page describes how the King of England threw people in jail who did not believe as he did. There is no mention of the *fact* that by 1666 Puritans required membership in their church in order to vote (among other issues).

 

That sort of thing is *constant* in A Beka's history books. These aren't "religious beliefs," they are a deliberate omission of *facts* in order to support a narrative based on lies and deception.

 

How would you have felt about that, if you had been Jewish? How would you feel, if you lived in a predominantly Islamic area and the Koran was read to your children each day? The separation of church and state is there to protect *everybody*. Nobody is being "censored" because people can read whatever they wish, on their own time.

 

 

 

The trouble with reading only a snippet of a text, is that it can be taken out of context, or it is unknown if other pertinent reading is somewhere else in the text.

 

Now I only have the third edition which was current the last time I taught A Beka New World History. On page 106 it is taught, "The Spaniards planted the first permanent European settlement, St. Augustine, in Florida in 1565. Three pages later, Jamestown is mentioned as the first permanent English settlement.

 

In regards to Puritans requiring membership to vote, I hardly see this as a deliberate omission of facts. Since most organizations require membership to vote, I don't really see the big deal. Even in our country now, one must be a citizen and registered in order to vote. Almost all religious denominations require a membership before one is allowed to vote in religious elections. Putting someone in jail, however, for a certain belief is more a historic notability, in my opinion.

 

And in regard to A Beka having a Christian agenda, there is no dispute about that. The title of the book is New World, History and Geography in Christian Perspective. That title is a big clue to me that there is a Christian agenda.

 

In a couple of quotes of my original post, although not Ms. Mundo's, there is mention that my oldest is only 11 so I wouldn't know better. No, my oldest is 32 so we've been at this schooling thing for many years. I've seen quite a few textbooks in my day, and I make my curriculum choices based on family needs. There is no perfect textbook. I am not a fundamentalist Christian so even some things in A Beka and BJU make me cringe. I get the same cringe on occasion when I read all textbooks.

 

What does excite me about A Beka and several other publishers is the rigorous academic expectations at a younger age, the quality photography and color in the texts, the rigorousness of memorization and tests, and the detail of immersion, especially in science.

 

Should someone be allowed to use similar publishers who have a Judaism, Islamic, or Catholic slant? Absolutely! Bottom line, parents should have a very active role in choosing what their kiddos learn. It should not be given just to those of us who have the time, money, and commitment to homeschool the way we want. All children, especially public school children, should be given the same options, in my opinion.

 

And if you think A Beka is not right for your family, so be it. Don't use it.

 

:)