question about those "Famous Men"

[Nicole M]

A couple years back, when I used Famous Men of Rome with my oldest, I enjoyed reading an encyclopedia article about each famous guy, so I would have the straight dope on him, and so I would be able to ask questions and discuss the presentation of each fella... that kind of thing. It was a useful exercise.

 

This year I am planning to use Famous Men of the Middle Ages with my youngest and already I'm a bit perplexed. The picture we have of Alaric from FMoMA, for instance, is pretty radically different from the one you get reading the encyclopedia article. He doesn't seem like quite such a bad guy. I mean, check this out:

 

"After Stilicho was murdered in August 408, an antibarbarian party took power in Rome and incited the Roman troops to massacre the wives and children of tribesmen who were serving in the Roman army. These tribal soldiers thereupon defected to Alaric, substantially increasing his military strength."

 

This is from the Encyclopedia Britannica. Um. Yuck. Not that I have a romantic view of the Romans or anything, but this makes you wonder about stuff like this, in the Famous Men book:

 

"The chiefs gave a cry of delight for they approved of the king's proposal [to conquer Rome]. In those days fighting was almost the only business of chiefs , and they were always glad to be at war, especially when there was hope of getting rich spoils."

 

So they fought because they just liked it! No other motive.

 

And then there's the business of the actual sack of Rome. According to the encylopedia:

 

"Although the Visigoths plundered Rome, they treated its inhabitants humanely and burned only a few buildings."

 

Frankly, after reading that article, you're pretty much on Alaric's side. So then you read FMoMA and he sounds like a big jerk, wrecking everything, though he did spare the Christian Churches (thanks, buddy!).

 

Do you wrestle with this? Do you wonder about how much doubt to cast on our sources? Do you ask questions with your children, modeling the "take it with a grain of salt" approach?

 

On the one hand, I like great stories. And the point (for me) is to familiarize my boys with key figures, not to drag them into a big debate about how we do history. But on the other hand, I do want my boys to be able to recognize bias and point of view, without casting judgment. And that's the hard part. Children, mine, anyway, react emotionally to stories, so I think it's important to be careful about how to approach this. My youngest will be in 6th grade, and I think it's appropriate to start looking at motives and point of view in our sources.

 

How do you all handle this?

[CactusPair]

:lurk5:

I'm bumping this up. Great topic.

[dragons in the flower bed]

How do you all handle this?

 

Since the first chapter of Famous Men of Greece refers to the gods we worship in the past tense, I had to warn my kiddo about it before I assigned it. Since then, we've discussed it during narration. My 8yo requires constant rephrasing during narration. He says, "So, um, then, the guy made a sword, and the guy's name was Jake," and I say back, "Jake made a sword," then he says that to me. This is where I catch and filter out any oddities. I aim to do it socratically. "Do you think mister-other-character would have told that story the same way?" or, "What would someone who thinks that do?"

 

So, in this way, we've discussed at length the worldview from which these were written. When he reads the Famous Men series aloud to his siblings, he edits on the fly, often in goofy ways. At freshly-turned-eight, sometimes he still isn't sure how to compensate, in his own mind, for the author's bias, but he recognizes when it is important to do so. I think that's a good start.

[Nicole M]

Since the first chapter of Famous Men of Greece refers to the gods we worship in the past tense, I had to warn my kiddo about it before I assigned it. Since then, we've discussed it during narration. My 8yo requires constant rephrasing during narration. He says, "So, um, then, the guy made a sword, and the guy's name was Jake," and I say back, "Jake made a sword," then he says that to me. This is where I catch and filter out any oddities. I aim to do it socratically. "Do you think mister-other-character would have told that story the same way?" or, "What would someone who thinks that do?"

 

So, in this way, we've discussed at length the worldview from which these were written. When he reads the Famous Men series aloud to his siblings, he edits on the fly, often in goofy ways. At freshly-turned-eight, sometimes he still isn't sure how to compensate, in his own mind, for the author's bias, but he recognizes when it is important to do so. I think that's a good start.

 

Well! What you describe here... that stuff, we do all the time, and have done, for years! :D Thank you for this. I guess as I was writing the question, I was still sorting out what I was asking, and didn't realize that it is about worldview, and yes, we're good on that whole piece. I guess what I'm seeing this year is a whole new level, where it's clear that I will need to do more research and be a little more intentional about how to approach the material.