Has anyone used "Don't Know Much About History" by Kenneth Davis?...

[happykids]

I am thinking about using this to supplement US History. Is it worth reading?

Any opinons?

Thanks!

Sabrina in NY

[Hoggirl]

when he was in 4th grade I think??? I am not sure how you were wanting to use it, but I think it is designed for younger kiddos. He like the question and answer format of the book.

 

OH NO! DISREGARD this!!!! I read the title incorrectly!! A thousand pardons!!!!! Sorry! this author does have a kid version for American History! Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa! I wish I could delete my entire DUMB answer!!!

[Anna]

Yes, for high school the version for big kids/adults is fine as supplemental reading.

[Ame E.]

I think I'd use it as a hook to get them interested in the topic.. it's pretty clearly written.... I'd have them read it the way people read magazines.. flip through it and see if there was anything in there that caught their fancy. I would not use it as a primary text..

[hswarden]

it's not appropriate for people who wish to study history.

[happykids]

.

[hswarden]

Sorry I did not see your question, happykids. It seemed to me that this book was written to prepare high school (God forbid college!) students to take a standardized test and write a couple of essays, not to gain any depth of understanding and certainly not to gain any appreciation of American history. There is a very strong current of the author's personal opinion, much more opinion, in my opinion, than history. I have learned to adore history by reading the stories of men and women, as much as possible in biographies or in-depth writing about events or eras, and particularly by reading the work of the people themselves or other who knew them (eyewitnesses.) This takes more time, but it's worth it. There was nothing in this book that had the flavor of "according to someone who was there, such and such was the motive or reason this happened." Instead, a 21st century, politically-correct view of the reasons for long-ago events is given as fact. Sure, there are some historical inaccuracies; I have never found a history book that didn't conflict in some way with someone else's book. But it's the breezy, offhand manner of "I'll just tell you what you ought to know and think about this complex issue" that really bothered me about this book. I would give you an example or two, except that I threw it away. Many reviewers on Amazon, regardless of the stars-count, mention some of these same points, so I don't think it was just me in a bad mood, or because I was comparing Ken Davis to David McCollough.