Jump to content

Menu

sonlight core d bizarre history


Recommended Posts

[/size][/font][/color]

No, it's not!

That's key.

If that's part of where all of this is coming from, then you really need to understand that.

 

 

Like I said, the confusion is evident.

 

 

Yes, yes it is. MANY others have proven that there are many erroneous "facts" in the notes AND in the texts!

 

And the only one confused is you. We have all repeatedly stated and proved that these "facts" are not just in the notes as you seem to keep implying. We've all also pointed out that what's included varies by date of publication and core.

 

No, we are not confused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 348
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

[/size][/font][/color]

No, it's not!

That's key.

If that's part of where all of this is coming from, then you really need to understand that.

 

 

Like I said, the confusion is evident.

 

I think what they are getting at - the information for the chart comes from a book assigned/used in the core? Which translates to while the note is geared toward the parent, the book is still used for the students as a RA or reader.

 

I totally get what you are saying and coming from though.

 

 

Otherwise, I'm still getting the feeling there is some master history book I'm supposed to be using because it is the only truly factual, non-biased account of the past. Which in my eyes doesn't exist.

 

As I stated in the other thread, books are written by people with views, and those books will reflect on that view point. If my take of the world differs from yours, we obviously won't agree on everything.

 

History might be facts like science - but no one can say it is presented totally without bias. But what a person views as "the best, most accurate book" is going to depend on their personal views.

 

To me, this is what is said in the Hornbook article posted - a person much take into account the climate of the time period the book was written in. An account of something a 100 years ago written today is going to have a different look than an account of that event written 50 years ago, which will differ than an account written at the time.

 

Basically, I don't have a history background, I'm not assuming I know everything - not by a long shot, but I can recognize that biases are there based on who is writing the words. A Catholic author is not going to type the same words as a Jewish one, who will differ from an atheist, and might differ from a conservative or liberal, and someone in another country cannot possible have the same take on something that happened yesterday in the US as someone in the US.

 

Those biases are there. Period. There is no totally neutral party (in my opinion) when it comes to pulling the information together to put it in a book. There can't be.... we are humans with free will/thought. But there is a group that views their outlook as the only true neutral presentation of all information - ignoring the fact that they are still viewing/presenting it thru their filter.

 

ANYWAY.

 

I'm a chocolate purist - keep the cherry bon bons please :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Y'all are freaking me out. After hours and hours and days of deliberation I decided to go with Sonlight for middle school. I have already purchased bits and pieces of core G for my dd for 6th, and am planning core H for 7th and then core 100 for 8th. After that we will likely move on for high school.

 

Does that mean I'm an ignorant teacher who is putting my children in danger of learning completely false history that will disable them for the rest of their lives?!?! Is it mainly core D that is the problem? I stayed away from core F because I didn't want that strong of a missions focus.

 

I needed something with lots of reading, that was already put together, and that would get done. Sonlight seemed to be the best choice of all the ones I considered.

 

Ugh!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Earlier, someone questioned my using TOG. Yes, I do (in addition to adding a lot more of my own books, videos, and websites). And yes, they do still recommend, among many hundreds of other books during Year 2, This Country of Ours.

 

I'm nursing a sick boy today too (and not feeling so hot myself) so best to you and yours.

 

Pleasantries aside (:D) I don't see how scheduling other books in anyway mitigates using This Country of Ours—a book rife with racist and bigoted characterizations—as the US History spine. It is a dense book, and a malicious one. The historicity is very poor, and the racism and bigotry are appalling.

 

I don't see how John Holtzman and Sonlight are worthy of censure for their strange choices but TOG is immune.

 

If I were attempting to defend my use of TOG, I'd start by pointing out that TOG is a history curriculum written by someone with a history background.

 

When I spoke to Mr Somerville, back in the time of the "evil history" kerfuffle, he made it sound as if he and his wife were almost unaware of the content in TCoO, and shifted the blame off to a person he made seem like a rogue employee (although he did not use that term).

 

I was assured they would read TCoO, and would act appropriately. I was quite frank that if they were putting out curriculum under there name, but were not vetting those materials in advance, then—in my estimation— they were acting irresponsably. I got no satisfying answer to that comment. He tried to create distance between his wife and himself and the use of TCoO.

 

Much time has passed since the kerfuffle. In that time I have been quiet, hoping the Somerville's would act on their word. If they are still scheduling TCoO it is disappointing to me.

 

If they are selling a very expensive curriculum without knowing the contents it is also disturbing. There is no excuse either way.

 

Finally, regarding This Country of Ours, I am much more satisfied with their explanations following Bill's questioning than I was with John Holzmann's explanations following the slavery question: it is included as a cheap single volume for those who want/need that, it is not even close to being the only viewpoint presented (for instance, turning to Week 31, there are 19 other books recommended just for Dialectic students), and the teacher's notes (instead of being the source of very bizarre claims) address the bias inherent in this one book. Having said that, I don't plan on using it and I hope they find a replacement for it soon.

 

I was not satisfied with any explainations I heard. Being a "cheap single-volume" is, frankly, a laughable excuse for using racist, bigoted, and inaccurate history texts. I wanted to extend "benefit of the doubt" at the time, allowing they might (somehow) have been unaware of the contents of TCoO, but that time has passed.

 

If TOG is still scheduling TCoO I'd say, shame on them!

 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Y'all are freaking me out. After hours and hours and days of deliberation I decided to go with Sonlight for middle school. I have already purchased bits and pieces of core G for my dd for 6th, and am planning core H for 7th and then core 100 for 8th. After that we will likely move on for high school.

 

Does that mean I'm an ignorant teacher who is putting my children in danger of learning completely false history that will disable them for the rest of their lives?!?! Is it mainly core D that is the problem? I stayed away from core F because I didn't want that strong of a missions focus.

 

I needed something with lots of reading, that was already put together, and that would get done. Sonlight seemed to be the best choice of all the ones I considered.

 

Ugh!

 

 

No you are not an ignorant teacher. *I* never said that. I said that *I* would never purchase a product that gets it so very wrong. But I also said that if you wanted to, go ahead. I might question the why part, but I wouldn't think you ignorant for it. Just be informed enough to know what to look for. That's all I'm asking.

 

And to clarify this--the OP's timeline is included in the notes. Notes that are geared towards parents and notes some wouldn't even use (of course, I question this. If I'm laying down $500 for a program, why would I not use as much of that program as I could?).

 

However, it is also about the fact that others have shown that this kind of information (not just the timeline, but other historically inaccurate information) is not just included in the notes but also in the texts.

 

That's what this is about. No one is confused on this end. We are simply wondering why anyone would use a whole program that gets the facts so very wrong. Ignoring the notes is one thing, IF it was limited to just the notes. But we've proved it is not just limited to the notes and that concerns us.

 

And you guys keep bringing up this straw man about "the perfect history curriculum". Please stop. No one said there was a perfect history curriculum and I've repeatedly maintained that I don't use any one single program. I use multiple sources that aren't programs at all. I research everything. I give many sources for that one fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Yes, yes it is. MANY others have proven that there are many erroneous "facts" in the notes AND in the texts!

 

And the only one confused is you. We have all repeatedly stated and proved that these "facts" are not just in the notes as you seem to keep implying. We've all also pointed out that what's included varies by date of publication and core.

 

No, we are not confused.

 

 

I like Tibbie have used bits and pieces of SL for many years, I would never consider the books that everyone is discussing "texts". They are works of historical fiction, you know, literature.

 

The texts used in the SL cores being discussed are Boorstin's Landmark History of the American People, SWB Story of the World, The Kingfisher Encyclopedia of World History and Hakim's Story of US. No, these are not textbooks in the traditional sense of the word, but they are non-fiction.

 

However, since I'm not a historian (my degree is in Biology) I do have to somewhat trust that the non-fiction books are basically true, and screen for bias that I'm aware of.

 

JMTC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And you guys keep bringing up this straw man about "the perfect history curriculum". Please stop. No one said there was a perfect history curriculum and I've repeatedly maintained that I don't use any one single program. I use multiple sources that aren't programs at all. I research everything. I give many sources for that one fact.

 

And others have written over and over that they do the same, incorporating many Sonlight books.

 

Someone might find it strange that others will pay for whole programs and only use parts of them, but it's a pretty common practice.

 

However, now that I've looked at the Little House, Long Shadow book, I've had a realization, and I'm guessing this thread is more about teams, as in who's on what team, than it is about curriculum.

 

I'm not much of a joiner, so I'll bow out of the teams thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like Tibbie have used bits and pieces of SL for many years, I would never consider the books that everyone is discussing "texts". They are works of historical fiction, you know, literature.

 

The texts used in the SL cores being discussed are Boorstin's Landmark History of the American People, SWB Story of the World, The Kingfisher Encyclopedia of World History and Hakim's Story of US. No, these are not textbooks in the traditional sense of the word, but they are non-fiction.

 

However, since I'm not a historian (my degree is in Biology) I do have to somewhat trust that the non-fiction books are basically true, and screen for bias that I'm aware of.

 

JMTC

 

 

That's fine. No one is calling into question SWB, Kingfisher, or Hakim--though I'm sure some have a problem with what they've written in the past (I seem to recall some discussion on other boards regarding Hakim and SWB for sure). I will admit to not having read Boorstin yet.

 

And I get that the books are literature. I know the difference. I wasn't the one who claimed confusion on this. All I'm saying is that we are not confused because other's have shown that the texts, the notes, and even the books (and let me add that I get the point of literature as well. But if you are going to claim it as historical literature you cannot be non-factual with it. You can change the names, but you shouldn't present it as fact), have been shown to give non-factual information. Now whether those texts are SWB, Hakim, Kingfisher, or Boorstin--that wasn't made clear. But what was made clear is that this kind of blatantly non-factual information is not just limited to those notes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

And others have written over and over that they do the same, incorporating many Sonlight books.

 

Someone might find it strange that others will pay for whole programs and only use parts of them, but it's a pretty common practice.

 

However, now that I've looked at the Little House, Long Shadow book, I've had a realization, and I'm guessing this thread is more about teams, as in who's on what team, than it is about curriculum.

 

I'm not much of a joiner, so I'll bow out of the teams thing.

 

 

I don't know where you got that assumption--about teams. I'm not on any team either, except the side that simply wants historical information presented factually. Not presented as providential, or opinion, or what they "think" happened or from one religious side or another. But factually. History is cool enough without having to add all these extras.

 

And for the record, this may make some faint but.... I LOATHE Little House on the Prairie (and even loathe more Jane Austen. :D)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but we did not trust SL to be accurate and then fall over in despair because our trust was betrayed. John Holzmann is not David Koresh. We are not cult followers or ignoramuses. You have got to try to understand that, please, if you are going to hang out with experienced homeschooling parents. John Holzmann has never been an authority on history to any of us SL users posting on this thread.

 

This kind of hyperbole makes me think this is more about a personal emotional response of defensiveness than a reasoned reply. No one is suggesting, or even implying a cult-like reality here. Sonlight is a trusted source for many homeschoolers. The IG notes are received in gratitude and used as a comprehensive guide for those who don't have the time or experience knowing which resources to check and double check with. That there can be found examples of anal-retentive homeschoolers on this forum should not be an indicator that all homeschoolers are equally inspired. In my own experience, many homeschoolers found themselves educating at home much to their surprise, as the local public and private schools could not accommodate the many needs of their children. For a parent who gets 5-6 hours of sleep per night and spends all day attending the needs of the family, an overwhelming percentage of time dedicated to one child, researching historical facts in first century America is as far down the list of priorities as researching the benefits of a grapefruit diet. One purchases information from an expert, and Sonlight advertises itself as that expert. They cannot deliver, and further, they're not accountable to anyone but their customers, customers who John Holzman himself explained as being rather ignorant about commonly understood information. Clearly my own experiences are nothing more than anecdotal, but so too is your idea that homeschoolers spending 10-20 years in the trenches, constantly researching and learning. If that was typical of homeschoolers, the Creation Museum wouldn't be a popular educational field trip.

 

You have not read the materials you are criticizing. You have not been in the homes nor witnessed the homeschooling methods of the people you are criticizing, and you do not know our students. You have not shared your home educating credentials or how you have handled modifying various materials to teach your own children, that I have seen. I would be interested in hearing those tales of experience from you, because then you would be in the same category as the rest of us, applying your own education and experience to the actual job of home educating your own children.

 

How much of the Sonlight curriculum would Sarah need to read to be qualified to respond to the idea that a book advertised as a true historical event is not actually a true historical event? What "category" of education would make her qualified to respond to the idea that teaching falsehoods is bad education?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what they are getting at - the information for the chart comes from a book assigned/used in the core?

 

No! That's the entire point. lol

 

It's just in the Parent's Notes section of the Instructor's Guide. The student would never see it and unless the parent is reading all of the notes, many of them would never see it either.

The literature books in the selection are pretty straightforward. Most of the readers are things like Newbery books (most of which show up in the various WTM lists, btw).

 

The history texts are things like Landmark History of the American People, the Usborne Book of World History or Hakim's Story of US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean, good grief, I've been looking through UEWH and I have found some inaccuracies in it. They're not egregious enough for me to get really mad about, but if I was to write an IG for a curriculum using UEWH then when it came to the pages where I see inaccuracies I would be sure to point out the inaccuracy and explain why I find it inaccurate and give some ideas on how to explain accurate information to the student. Isn't that just one of the things a curriculum seller should provide?

That's fine. No one is calling into question SWB, Kingfisher, or Hakim--though I'm sure some have a problem with what they've written in the past (I seem to recall some discussion on other boards regarding Hakim and SWB for sure). I will admit to not having read Boorstin yet.

 

SarahW obviously has issues with UEWH given this post earlier, and so then what are we mere parents supposed to trust?? We are rapidly running out of options.

 

And I find it interesting that she was homeschooled using BJUP "older" history books (which implied to me she thought them horrid), and yet, it was obviously enough to interest her into pursuing a career in the history field. They lit that fire - so shouldn't it be, "GO BJUP and Sarah's Mom for doing something so great!!!!!"

I don't know where you got that assumption--about teams. I'm not on any team either, except the side that simply wants historical information presented factually. Not presented as providential, or opinion, or what they "think" happened or from one religious side or another. But factually. History is cool enough without having to add all these extras.

 

And for the record, this may make some faint but.... I LOATHE Little House on the Prairie (and even loathe more Jane Austen. :D)

But there is no clear, "Just the facts ma'am" presentation of history. It will always be told with a filter.....

 

I love Little House on the Prairie and haven't actually ever been able to read anything by Jane Austen. I think that just threw me out of some homeschool mommy club....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No! That's the entire point. lol

 

It's just in the Parent's Notes section of the Instructor's Guide. The student would never see it and unless the parent is reading all of the notes, many of them would never see it either.

The literature books in the selection are pretty straightforward. Most of the readers are things like Newbery books (most of which show up in the various WTM lists, btw).

 

The history texts are things like Landmark History of the American People, the Usborne Book of World History or Hakim's Story of US.

So wait, the note is talking about a book NOT in the Core at all - just something, like, "Hey, you might want to read this book to learn XYZ?"

 

I confess, I didn't download the sample, nor do I have a catalog because they threw me off their mailing list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

No! That's the entire point. lol

 

It's just in the Parent's Notes section of the Instructor's Guide. The student would never see it and unless the parent is reading all of the notes, many of them would never see it either.

The books in the selection are pretty straightforward. Most of the readers are things like Newbery books (most of which show up in the various WTM lists, btw).

 

The history texts are things like Landmark History of the American People, the Usborne Book of World History of Hakim's Story of US.

 

NO! The OP is in the notes section only. How many times do we have to tell you this? The OP is located in the notes only. But others have proved that "facts" like the OP are located everywhere within the curriculum!

 

That's the point we are arguing.

 

Here, this illustrates WHY we want the facts to be, you know, factual:

 

935085_561957437182095_845885738_n.jpg

 

Read the ASKER's question and response carefully. I am NOT saying this came from Sonlight, but what I am saying is this:

 

Much like the asker and responder in this meme, Sonlight is giving a "fact" that the asker is questioning. The responder is trying to show the asker just how absurd their knowledge of what history is--yes, with sarcasm--and the asker proves their lack of knowledge with their answer. So now I ask you--do you want your child to be that asker?

 

I sure don't. Hence why I make sure what I am teaching them has factual basis in history.

(and you can search this website and find MANY who lack basic knowledge in historical fact.)

 

It does not matter where the false information is located. All that matters is that it can be located. It does not matter that YOU might not ever use the notes, all that matters is that there will be someone who does. And those people are teaching their child non-factual information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So wait, the note is talking about a book NOT in the Core at all - just something, like, "Hey, you might want to read this book to learn XYZ?"

Sort of.

It's presented as a table of info, within the guide, as a side-note that parents should know in order to better understand the information.

But others have proved that "facts" like the OP are located everywhere within the curriculum!

No, they've proven that fiction is fiction.

Which, as my 11 year old DD put it yesterday, when I asked if she knew that Phoebe the Spy was most likely complete invention---"Duh." ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So wait, the note is talking about a book NOT in the Core at all - just something, like, "Hey, you might want to read this book to learn XYZ?"

 

I confess, I didn't download the sample, nor do I have a catalog because they threw me off their mailing list.

 

No. The OP, that note, IS in the core, in the parent note section. There is no book reference to that note. It's just a note from the author of the program, presented as fact via a timeline that occurred during a specific time frame within the program.

 

It is also in the sample. The OP, the note, is only in the notes section of this one core. But others have shown that erroneous information similar to that can be located not just in the notes, but elsewhere in the whole program.

 

And that's what we are arguing about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No! That's the entire point. lol

 

It's just in the Parent's Notes section of the Instructor's Guide. The student would never see it and unless the parent is reading all of the notes, many of them would never see it either.

The literature books in the selection are pretty straightforward. Most of the readers are things like Newbery books (most of which show up in the various WTM lists, btw).

 

The history texts are things like Landmark History of the American People, the Usborne Book of World History or Hakim's Story of US.

 

 

You're partly right on the first point. It is only in the IG, *however* if you look at the schedule, this article is scheduled on Monday on Week 2. Even if parents don't read it aloud to their children, Sonlight is obviously drawing attention to it for those who just use the schedule. It's not buried in the back of the IG as it apparently had been previously.

 

However, on the history text issue, here is the page of what Sonlight considers history and geography (not read-alouds or readers that coordinate with history) for Core D. There are several fiction books included.

 

 

And an aside to those talking about bias or perspective: that's not with this is about. This is about outright inaccurate/made up "facts" being presented as truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sonlight doesn't even really analyze history or connect the dots, at least in THIS core. It's more exposure. The questions are comprehension questions, not discussion/analysis questions. This core is aimed at 3rd-5th graders.

 

 

<snip>

 

But do I feel comfortable continuing to use the Sonlight cores I've used this year and plan to use next year with my 3rd-4th grader? Absolutely. ....<snip>........He'll see this stuff again, and he'll read a lot of different viewpoints over the years. I always tell him not to believe something just because someone wrote it in a book.

 

 

This fits for me as well. I don't have the Core D IG -- I have the 2012 Condensed (1 yr) Core D+E IG and most of that core (which doesn't include Incans, Aztecs, Mayans, or any of the Marshall books, btw), without the American Indian Prayer Guide.

 

How reflective is this sample page of SL's worldview? I can't find any reference to this viewpoint in the D+E IG notes.

 

I have SL's Core P4/5 (2008), Core K (now A)(2009), Core 1+2 IG (now B+C)(2010), Core D+E IG (2012), and Core F (2011). I've also used SL's Science for the A,B, & C levels. I blend with other materials and another curriculum, and have pretty much reached the end of the line with SL -- I'm not keen on the science past C level, or the Cores past F (just looking at the catalog -- I haven't seen any of the upper cores). I'm not 100% sure what SL's worldview is, although I'm pretty sure I'm not quite in line with it. However, the materials I've received have been been a wonderful aid in our homeschooling experience. I've dropped or held off on a few books, made some substitutions. My general impression of the IG notes has been to present multiple views and encourage people to think and question. I believe John leans Old Earth and Sarita leans Young Earth and some books (such as the Marshall books) get added in (apparently with significant editing suggestions) to present a *different viewpoint* (although I haven't seen the viewpoint in the OP sample in any of the materials actually presented to the children).

 

I'm at a bit of a loss as to why the OP sample doesn't have a discussion included of the obvious flaws -- that is what I would expect from my other encounters with SL IG notes. <Shrug> The IG notes aren't something my ds sees at this level.

 

I don't know what we covered for history before 5th grade when I was in public school in the 70's -- what I remember is some library books I read on my own time, what I learned from family members' first hand experiences in the Great Depression, WWII and other events from 1900 on, or stories passed to them from their grandparents living in the mid-Atlantic area during Civil War times, and a couple memorable school field trips. That was about it. I would be comfortable with the Grade K-5 education my ds would get if I stuck with the Cores pretty much as scheduled -- even though we don't :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the schedule for history for Week 2. The history reading is this article, "North America Before the White Man," on Monday, three days of historical fiction (Pedro's Journal), two days of Children's Encyclopedia of American History, and one day of The Light and the Glory. Meanwhile (not on this image I C&Ped), the read-alouds and readers include Walk the World's Rim, A Lion to Guard Us (regular readers), and The Corn Grows Ripe (advanced readers):

 

sonlightcoredweek2schedule.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SarahW obviously has issues with UEWH given this post earlier, and so then what are we mere parents supposed to trust?? We are rapidly running out of options.

 

And I find it interesting that she was homeschooled using BJUP "older" history books (which implied to me she thought them horrid), and yet, it was obviously enough to interest her into pursuing a career in the history field. They lit that fire - so shouldn't it be, "GO BJUP and Sarah's Mom for doing something so great!!!!!"

 

 

 

Okay, no.

 

When I mentioned that I think there are mistakes in UEWH I did say that I didn't find them particularly egregious. On p. 66 it seems to imply that Shi Huangdi built the Great Wall of China. The accompanying illustration is similar to the popular photos of the wall you can go and see today. While Shi Huangdi did build a wall, he did not build the Great Wall of China. His wall is now mere archaeological remnants. This is MANIFESTLY different from quoting from Barry Fell as a source of information and saying that the Aztecs can teach us a lot about the Israelites.

 

If you want me to make a blog where I offer critiques like this, sure, I'm happy to share. But it doesn't really give me hope that it will be much appreciated when I see a general disregard for the basic facts of history, kwim?

 

And, honestly, I hate American history. It annoys me. I think this is because all of my American history came to me via BJU and all of their "Christian nation" nonsense. My interest in history sprung from a desire to learn things that BJU never covered. Like the etymology of the word "god" in English, and a desire to learn classical Greek. But because of BJU and their lack of historicity I actually wasted a few years playing around with "alternative" histories, of the sort John seems to be enamored with. I remember being especially fond of Pharaoh's and Kings by David Rohl in high school. Wow, looking that one up is an embarrassing blast from the past.

 

I don't really stop to think about that time in my life much, I've moved on. But now that I'm thinking about it, maybe the reason why I am so passionate about this topic is like the reaction an ex-smoker who struggled to quit has towards seeing someone pick up smoking. I know, personally, just how dangerous this stuff can be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, no.

 

When I mentioned that I think there are mistakes in UEWH I did say that I didn't find them particularly egregious. On p. 66 it seems to imply that Shi Huangdi built the Great Wall of China. The accompanying illustration is similar to the popular photos of the wall you can go and see today. While Shi Huangdi did build a wall, he did not build the Great Wall of China. His wall is now mere archaeological remnants. This is MANIFESTLY different from quoting from Barry Fell as a source of information and saying that the Aztecs can teach us a lot about the Israelites.

 

If you want me to make a blog where I offer critiques like this, sure, I'm happy to share. But it doesn't really give me hope that it will be much appreciated when I see a general disregard for the basic facts of history, kwim?

So looking in my version of the book, the one with the mask on, page 166 says.... and the whole section is title China's First Emperor.

 

The Great Wall of China

Shi Huangdi had a massive wall built to protect his Empire from attacks by northern tribes (later called the Huns). The Great Wall was made by joining together a series of smaller walls put up by earlier rulers. it is still the biggest man-made structure in the world.

So to me, it does not merely imply it - it says it flat out. He built the wall.

 

I personally, have no way of knowing that he didn't build it....

 

See, i'm screwed. :D

 

And, honestly, I hate American history. It annoys me. I think this is because all of my American history came to me via BJU and all of their "Christian nation" nonsense. My interest in history sprung from a desire to learn things that BJU never covered. Like the etymology of the word "god" in English, and a desire to learn classical Greek. But because of BJU and their lack of historicity I actually wasted a few years playing around with "alternative" histories, of the sort John seems to be enamored with. I remember being especially fond of Pharaoh's and Kings by David Rohl in high school. Wow, looking that one up is an embarrassing blast from the past.

 

I don't really stop to think about that time in my life much, I've moved on. But now that I'm thinking about it, maybe the reason why I am so passionate about this topic is like the reaction an ex-smoker who struggled to quit has towards seeing someone pick up smoking. I know, personally, just how dangerous this stuff can be.

Well, see, something good came out of it.

 

I can empathize with your position - I might not share a few things with it, but I can see where you are coming from.

 

I could say more - but I have to go grocery shopping because I have this 8yo girl that can eat a teenage boy under the table... she is going to want dinner. I apparently need some chocolate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think historical fiction is fine provided the author includes a note on what is factual and explains where things go into fiction. Ie: here's what we know, here is what we can't know, these characters are real, these ones are invented for the story etc. I've never assigned historical fiction without discussing these issues with my son. He knows full well that War Comes to Willie Freeman and My Brother Sam is Dead are fictional with a few specific details either being factually accurate or similar to a real event. All my teachers did the same in school.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So looking in my version of the book, the one with the mask on, page 166 says.... and the whole section is title China's First Emperor.

 

 

So to me, it does not merely imply it - it says it flat out. He built the wall.

 

I personally, have no way of knowing that he didn't build it....

 

See, i'm screwed. :D

 

 

Under the title "The Great Wall of China" it says Shi Huangdi "had a massive wall built". Then the next sentence reads "The Great Wall was made by joining together smaller walls put up by earlier rulers." It doesn't make the connection that the walls of "earlier rulers" includes the wall of Shi Huangdi. This is one (of a few) places where Usborne gets so brief that it becomes misleading. I don't know why they didn't just leave the Wall for the chapter "Dynasties of China." I guess they wanted to point out that Shi Huangdi started the process of defining China over against the tribes to the north, but there are better ways to do that, I think.

 

But, honestly, at the end of the day Shi Huangdi did exist, he did actually build a wall, and the Great Wall of China does exist. To me, that makes this mistake an entirely different category than saying that Jews settled in Kentucky after the fall of Jerusalem in AD 69. So, I feel comfortable recommending UEWH as a history book, even though I do have a problem with some pages in it. I don't think an error like this will screw anyone up that bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...fiction is fiction.

Which, as my 11 year old DD put it yesterday, when I asked if she knew that Phoebe the Spy was most likely complete invention---"Duh."

 

Which is why, I'm guessing, some folks here are concerned that the Sonlight folks are presenting it as fact in the description on their website.

"Dramatic true story of a little black girl who foiled a plan to kill George Washington."

 

(I have no dog in this fight. I believe that thoughtful homeschooling moms can selectively use flawed curricula.

I believe that we should be grateful to homeschoolers who see and point out flaws with curricula, thus making our job easier in both knowing what to address or leave out, and with choosing stuff in the first place.

But most importantly, I believe that responsible curriculum providers should correct inaccuracies when they are brought to light.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So looking in my version of the book, the one with the mask on, page 166 says.... and the whole section is title China's First Emperor.

So to me, it does not merely imply it - it says it flat out. He built the wall.

I personally, have no way of knowing that he didn't build it....

See, i'm screwed. :D

 

NO! You are not screwed. You want to know why?

 

You knew enough to question it and researched it further!

 

You took what she said, not as fact, but as a challenge to look it up and see for yourself. You found out that not only is it where she said it was, but that it actually said what she said it said. :D

 

You may not have anyway of knowing that it wasn't him who built it, but now you are aware that there is a reason to question what is written--what you do not know.

 

 

My whole point in this discussion is that there are those who see notes(and books, and texts) like (similar) the OP and will NOT question it. And because those people--the ones who won't question it--exist; it behooves us to call out the non-factual information to them.

 

It does not matter where this information is located. All that matters is that the erroneous information is there and that someone will not research further. That's all we need to know when speaking about the program. We can back up what we know with the proof that what they said was not factual and we can help others learn to question what they read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SarahW obviously has issues with UEWH given this post earlier, and so then what are we mere parents supposed to trust?? We are rapidly running out of options.

 

And I find it interesting that she was homeschooled using BJUP "older" history books (which implied to me she thought them horrid), and yet, it was obviously enough to interest her into pursuing a career in the history field. They lit that fire - so shouldn't it be, "GO BJUP and Sarah's Mom for doing something so great!!!!!"

 

 

 

That's a leap. She was taught using BJUP books. She's a historian. That's just correlation and considering how she implied that she didn't think much of the BJUP books I think it's too much to imply casuation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Much time has passed since the kerfuffle. In that time I have been quiet, hoping the Somerville's would act on their word.

If they are still scheduling TCoO it is disappointing to me.

 

If they are selling a very expensive curriculum without knowing the contents it is also disturbing. There is no excuse either way.

 

I was not satisfied with any explanations I heard. Being a "cheap single-volume" is, frankly, a laughable excuse for using racist, bigoted, and inaccurate history texts. I wanted to extend "benefit of the doubt" at the time, allowing they might (somehow) have been unaware of the contents of TCoO, but that time has passed.

 

If TOG is still scheduling TCoO I'd say, shame on them!

 

Bill

 

 

Agreed.

 

Again - I would hope that these discussions would help curriculum providers to become BETTER over time, either because they are learning and growing, and want to put out the most accurate materials they can, or because the market pressure is forcing them to improve in order to compete.

 

Having these conversations isn't for the purpose of shaming or embarrassing anyone who chooses to (selectively) use the materials, or to shun a particular curriculum. It's to help all of us to get better at what we do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

And, honestly, I hate American history. It annoys me. I think this is because all of my American history came to me via BJU and all of their "Christian nation" nonsense. My interest in history sprung from a desire to learn things that BJU never covered. Like the etymology of the word "god" in English, and a desire to learn classical Greek. But because of BJU and their lack of historicity I actually wasted a few years playing around with "alternative" histories, of the sort John seems to be enamored with. I remember being especially fond of Pharaoh's and Kings by David Rohl in high school. Wow, looking that one up is an embarrassing blast from the past.

 

I don't really stop to think about that time in my life much, I've moved on. But now that I'm thinking about it, maybe the reason why I am so passionate about this topic is like the reaction an ex-smoker who struggled to quit has towards seeing someone pick up smoking. I know, personally, just how dangerous this stuff can be.

 

 

I gave a presentation on ESP and parapsychology in 9th grade. :blushing: I was convinced that big foot exists and that people could talk to the dead. Now I can't even watch a Long Island Medium commercial without ranting and woe to the person who brings up ghosts in my presence.

 

That time immersed in that kind of stuff is valuable. You get to know it inside and out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm nursing a sick boy today too (and not feeling so hot myself) so best to you and yours.

 

Pleasantries aside ( :D) I don't see how scheduling other books in anyway mitigates using This Country of Ours—a book rife with racist and bigoted characterizations—as the US History spine. It is a dense book, and a malicious one. The historicity is very poor, and the racism and bigotry are appalling.

 

I don't see how John Holtzman and Sonlight are worthy of censure for their strange choices but TOG is immune.

 

 

 

When I spoke to Mr Somerville, back in the time of the "evil history" kerfuffle, he made it sound as if he and his wife were almost unaware of the content in TCoO, and shifted the blame off to a person he made seem like a rogue employee (although he did not use that term).

 

I was assured they would read TCoO, and would act appropriately. I was quite frank that if they were putting out curriculum under there name, but were not vetting those materials in advance, then—in my estimation— they were acting irresponsably. I got no satisfying answer to that comment. He tried to create distance between his wife and himself and the use of TCoO.

 

Much time has passed since the kerfuffle. In that time I have been quiet, hoping the Somerville's would act on their word. If they are still scheduling TCoO it is disappointing to me.

 

If they are selling a very expensive curriculum without knowing the contents it is also disturbing. There is no excuse either way.

 

 

 

I was not satisfied with any explainations I heard. Being a "cheap single-volume" is, frankly, a laughable excuse for using racist, bigoted, and inaccurate history texts. I wanted to extend "benefit of the doubt" at the time, allowing they might (somehow) have been unaware of the contents of TCoO, but that time has passed.

 

If TOG is still scheduling TCoO I'd say, shame on them!

 

Bill

 

 

I missed this earlier, sorry! They have not updated since the whole thing happened. They are actually updating everything this year, so I don't know whether it will be in the update or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I gave a presentation on ESP and parapsychology in 9th grade. :blushing: I was convinced that big foot exists and that people could talk to the dead. Now I can't even watch a Long Island Medium commercial without ranting and woe to the person who brings up ghosts in my presence.

 

That time immersed in that kind of stuff is valuable. You get to know it inside and out.

 

 

What???? Bigfoot, aliens, they don't exist? Ghost? c'mon! Now you are pushing it. Even the guys from Deepsouth Paranormal believe in Ghost!!

 

 

(all said with a big smile, btw)

 

I gave a report on witchcraft and satanism in high school once. But not because I believed in broom stick flying witches or Satan possessing people to worship him. I did it because there were others who did believe these things and I knew these things were not as they were believed.

 

The truth.... it's out there...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I missed this earlier, sorry! They have not updated since the whole thing happened. They are actually updating everything this year, so I don't know whether it will be in the update or not.

 

 

They promised they would give the matter immediate attention. That was a long while back. I can only hope they do something in this update.

 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, now that I've looked at the Little House, Long Shadow book, I've had a realization, and I'm guessing this thread is more about teams, as in who's on what team, than it is about curriculum.

 

I'm not much of a joiner, so I'll bow out of the teams thing.

 

Well, I wasn't getting so much at the political issues, but the idea of accepting a historical fiction narrative as accurate historical truth. LHOTP is not a strictly factual memoir; it is a sort of reimagined or reworking of her childhood. Certain things were left out or placed in different times than they actually occurred. This is not a matter of politics, but a fact. They lived at a hotel for a while. So when people take things in the book as facts, and make this the American past, when, for example, every family was totally independent (which can never be true in the case of a family doing homesteading, where by definition, the government gives the land to people subject to various conditions), it misrepresents history and makes people think the American spirit is this imaginary thing that never happened. People could not have survived on the prairie by going it alone. But that is what is idealized, even today. And this fictionalization sets us up for feeling inferior, when no one really lived like that. Wendy McClure writes about her experience meeting a lot of such people in her book The Wilder Life, and she meets a lot who confuse the TV show and books on top of it.

 

To me, it's almost like the comment in the Horn Book article about Sarah, Plain and Tall -- where she has time to wander around, gazing at flowers, instead of working, working, working, and the father of the kids spends time baking bread. It simply isn't what happened there, but it is making history palatable to our tastes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Albeto, this forum is a very diverse place, and most of us value it precisely *because* of that. It is rare to find a community this diverse, and I think we have a lot to learn from each other (and teach each other).

 

This comment was unnecessary and rude. It doesn't add to the very valuable conversation we're having. Comments like this can endanger the diversity of the community by making some folks feel unwelcome. Please consider deleting it and apologizing.

 

 

I agree. A comment like that is beyond the scope of this conversation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have come away from this with two things. 1. I will NEVER use SL and I will encourage everyone I meet to avoid them like the plague. 2. Having lots of older children=no time to research and it is ok to use a curriculum that is not accurate but that is OK because they will be ok since they read lots of fiction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Um, was this really necessary? Quite offensive to the people here who believe that wafer of wheat and a sip of wine is the true body and blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

 

 

It's a belief. First century Jews settling America is a belief. One belief is okay to call out but another is not? Bigfoot is okay to reference in context but a religious belief is not?

 

I've deleted my comment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It's a belief. First century Jews settling America is a belief. One belief is okay to call out but another is not?

 

I'll delete my comment.

 

 

I don't ridicule your beliefs, I'd appreciate if you didn't ridicule mine. Thank you for deleting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't see her as ridiculing anyone's beliefs. I saw it as her stating what she used to believe that she now does not.

 

Am I ridiculing your beliefs by saying I don't believe that it is the literal body and blood of Christ; that it's a representation of that rather than the actual thing? I don't see my statement as ridicule either. It's a statement of fact as I see it--I don't believe that. So how is this statement of fact (that I don't believe it) a ridicule?

 

 

 

eta: or was it the context to the previous post that made it offensive?

Edited by Aslana
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to apologize to the OP - I haven't really addressed the original topic of this thread but proceeded to go off on a bit of a tangent. My apologies. :) I'm not ignoring the original topic but I don't have anything to add - plus I thought my tangent was somewhat related. Maybe only in my own head. Sigh... ;)

 

Maybe it comes down to the same argument about twaddle vs. good books. Some argue that as long as kids are reading, let them read whatever they want. Others argue that twaddle is the literary equivalent of junk food and should be banished. In the same vein, some could argue that historical fiction pulls kids into history where non-fiction might not and that's a good thing. Others might say that if the historical fiction isn't providing accurate historical facts and also isn't giving an accurate "feel" for the historical period because the author is giving modern sensibilities to the characters (even if they do get the facts right), then maybe it should be banished as well.

 

 

(Does is make me weird that I keep responding to myself?)

 

I thought about my statement above and I wanted to qualify it. I think I was painting all historical fiction with the same brush when even the article author made a distinction. Instead of historical fiction vs. no historical fiction, I think I should have been considering true historical fiction ("good" historical fiction) vs. "costume drama" type historical fiction ("bad" historical fiction). Herein lies the difficulty, though. I don't think all historical fiction will fit neatly into one category or the other. It's a continuum. And where a particular book lies along that continuum is probably a matter of debate among the experts in this subject. Is Sarah, Plain and Tall closer to true historical fiction or costume drama? What about Johnny Tremain? The Little House Books? Even if placement of the books could be agreed upon, each homeschool parent then has his/her own decision to make about whether he/she is comfortable using a book knowing that it may be closer to one end of the continuum or the other. And I suspect each of us has our own comfort zone. :)

 

Forgive me if that's rambly and doesn't make much sense. Still thinking all of this through.

 

I think historical fiction is fine provided the author includes a note on what is factual and explains where things go into fiction. Ie: here's what we know, here is what we can't know, these characters are real, these ones are invented for the story etc. I've never assigned historical fiction without discussing these issues with my son. He knows full well that War Comes to Willie Freeman and My Brother Sam is Dead are fictional with a few specific details either being factually accurate or similar to a real event. All my teachers did the same in school.

 

 

I would somewhat agree with a small caveat. I think we ( the general "we") also need to be aware of the less obvious fictional elements of historical fiction. Sometimes the setting and the factual stuff can be spot on but the characters are given modern sensibilities and don't interact with the setting and/or each other in a historically accurate way. For someone like me with a limited history background, that part can be hard for me to ferret out and explain to my dd but can still give her an inaccurate view of history on an almost subconscious level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't see her as ridiculing anyone's beliefs. I saw it as her stating what she used to believe that she now does not.

 

Am I ridiculing your beliefs by saying I don't believe that it is the literal body and blood of Christ; that it's a representation of that rather than the actual thing? I don't see my statement as ridicule either. It's a statement of fact as I see it--I don't believe that. So how is this statement of fact (that I don't believe it) a ridicule?

 

 

It was ridicule *to me* because it was the manner in which it was said - and tying it to Big Foot - a well known myth and object of ridicule.

 

Your statement is completely NOT offensive and I would not have reacted to it in the least if it were posted just like you stated here.

 

Two other people posted that this comment was offensive. It's not just me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was no ridicule in that statement.

 

Says you. I'm no longer going to be answering this. I stated that I was offended. Two other people did so as well. You deleted the comment. It's over and done with.

 

thread hijack done.

 

ETA that I am sorry that I was not gracious in accepting your apology. If you truly did not mean to put down Our Lord in the Eucharist as you said, I should have simply accepted your explanation with no attitude.

 

Thank you for deleting the comment, and I have no beef with you. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was ridicule *to me* because it was the manner in which it was said - and tying it to Big Foot - a well known myth and object of ridicule.

 

Your statement is completely NOT offensive and I would not have reacted to it in the least if it were posted just like you stated here.

 

Two other people posted that this comment was offensive. It's not just me.

 

I edited as you were typing (this board is moving UBER slow for me). It was simply the context--the closeness to the previous post, that made it offensive. I still don't feel she was trying to ridicule anyone, honestly. I feel she just used someone's post as a jump off to hers.

 

But as you said, it's over.

 

eta: what Wendy said. I was trying to be nice because I truly do not think she was ridiculing anyone who held that belief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NO! The OP is in the notes section only. How many times do we have to tell you this? The OP is located in the notes only. But others have proved that "facts" like the OP are located everywhere within the curriculum!

 

That's the point we are arguing.

 

Here, this illustrates WHY we want the facts to be, you know, factual:

 

935085_561957437182095_845885738_n.jpg

 

Read the ASKER's question and response carefully. I am NOT saying this came from Sonlight, but what I am saying is this:

 

Much like the asker and responder in this meme, Sonlight is giving a "fact" that the asker is questioning. The responder is trying to show the asker just how absurd their knowledge of what history is--yes, with sarcasm--and the asker proves their lack of knowledge with their answer. So now I ask you--do you want your child to be that asker?

 

I sure don't. Hence why I make sure what I am teaching them has factual basis in history.

(and you can search this website and find MANY who lack basic knowledge in historical fact.)

 

It does not matter where the false information is located. All that matters is that it can be located. It does not matter that YOU might not ever use the notes, all that matters is that there will be someone who does. And those people are teaching their child non-factual information.

 

I came across this post on my facebook today and immediately thought of your comment here. This is why education of children, for me, is not a matter of individual importance, but a matter of communal importance.

 

It gives me no to pleasure to point out how alternative autism practitioners take advantage of parents' frustration and desperation to help their kids. Autistic people and their families deserve better and legitimate resources, but as of now there are too few of those resources, plus they are not always easy to find -- and certainly not easy to fund. But we have to stay strong, we have to decry those slippery autism hucksters and their "science" whenever they start targeting us -- and our pocketbooks.

 

This is about preying on parents of autistic children for profit or to support a personal belief. I think we as rational human beings owe it to our children to at least make education safe from falsehoods and predatory practices. The more educated one is, the less they are apt to be taken advantage of. That affects our society at large.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...