How Jewish friendly is SOTW?

[AimeeM]

I'm helping to tutor/supervise a 9 year old girl (newly 9!) and she doesn't care for her current history program. I think she would love SOTW, but her family is Orthodox Jewish (I'm Catholic, so this is a learning experience for me!). I know that as a Catholic, there were some problems in SOTW that simply meant I had to take time to navigate, but we didn't stay with it for very long (my daughter didn't care for it).

 

I'm not equipped to read it through and look out for any potential issues for a Jewish family, as I'm just not familiar enough with the faith to do so.

[Starr]

Send a note to Peace HIll Press and ask. As far as I remember she wrote a history book that included information about the history of different religions. I don't recall it having a "slant".

[Chrysalis Academy]

nm

[EKS]

One issue in SOTW (not volume 1) is that the Inquisition is left out.

[mommymilkies]

I was raised Jewish, but we were Reform/very liberal.  I haven't found any problems.  It's possible the interpretation of some of the Old Testament stories would be disagreed with, depending on the translation/interpretation of the family, but I highly doubt it's a big issue.  Perhaps have the family look over it first?

[AimeeM]

I was raised Jewish, but we were Reform/very liberal.  I haven't found any problems.  It's possible the interpretation of some of the Old Testament stories would be disagreed with, depending on the translation/interpretation of the family, but I highly doubt it's a big issue.  Perhaps have the family look over it first?

If mom has time, I'll have her look it over. She doesn't have much time lately, though, so I don't want to pressure her into it. I could perhaps have my neighbor look it over (he's pretty well versed in Judaism, although his is experience is from a protestant preacher perspective looking in, so I don't know if that would be a great idea).

The interpretation of the old testament may indeed be a problem for them, I'm not sure. Mom is more reformed than Dad, but Dad is Orthodox.

[mommymilkies]

I wouldn't have a protestant preacher go over it to get a feel.  No offense, but the perspectives will be completely different than those of an Orthodox Jew.  Gosh, there's a Jewish woman on here who writes history curricula.  Let me try to remember her name.  She'd be great to ask.

[AimeeM]

I wouldn't have a protestant preacher go over it to get a feel.  No offense, but the perspectives will be completely different than those of an Orthodox Jew.  Gosh, there's a Jewish woman on here who writes history curricula.  Let me try to remember her name.  She'd be great to ask.

Oh that would be wonderful! And yeah, I didn't think he would be the best to ask, although I have to say that having spent time in Israel, he has an amazing respect, love, and NO desire to convert those of the jewish faith, so I don't think he'd try to intentionally sabotage it for me, lol. I just feel a bit lost because my exposure to judaism is very limited, and certain to orthodox. I certainly wouldn't want to offend the kiddo (and, frankly, she has a fantastic knowledge of old testament already, so she may be able to call it out on anything deemed inaccurate, on her own - but she's only 9 and I don't want to put her in that position).

[mommymilkies]

I don't mean that they would intend to be offensive, but a Jewish perspective on what would and would not be appropriate or offensive would be different.  I was raised Jewish and have Orthodox family, but I also wouldn't honestly be able to tell you exactly that it would be ok.  IMO, it would be ok, and you can approach it openly with the family and ask for their input as you go. 

[AimeeM]

I don't mean that they would intend to be offensive, but a Jewish perspective on what would and would not be appropriate or offensive would be different.  I was raised Jewish and have Orthodox family, but I also wouldn't honestly be able to tell you exactly that it would be ok.  IMO, it would be ok, and you can approach it openly with the family and ask for their input as you go.

Okay - from a reformed jewish perspective, it seems okay to you? Mom is now attending a reformed temple, and the child lives with her (not going to get into the why, but orthodox dad doesn't appear to have input right now); so although raised orthodox jewish, I assume the child is attending reformed with mom now. In general, mom has NO problem with dd overhearing our Catholic studies and is even pleased that the local Catholic co-op has agreed to let her join - she seems pretty laid back about religion in general.

[mommymilkies]

That would be fine, then, IMHO.  Just tell her that if she has any concerns, to make sure she lets you know, but I can't find anything that would give me pause.

[Spy Car]

I'm helping to tutor/supervise a 9 year old girl (newly 9!) and she doesn't care for her current history program. I think she would love SOTW, but her family is Orthodox Jewish (I'm Catholic, so this is a learning experience for me!). I know that as a Catholic, there were some problems in SOTW that simply meant I had to take time to navigate, but we didn't stay with it for very long (my daughter didn't care for it).

 

I'm not equipped to read it through and look out for any potential issues for a Jewish family, as I'm just not familiar enough with the faith to do so.

 

Depends. It is highly obvious reading the books that SWB is a Protestant Christian, and it does influence the content in ways large and small.

 

When Christians and Christianity are discussed, simple declarative sentences are generally terminated with "explanation points" rather than periods.

 

So, instead of:

 

"I am a Christian. Are you?" 

 

It is:

 

"I am a Christian! Are you?" 

 

Small stuff, but it adds up.

 

Young minds will get the impression that the Romans killed Jesus because they feared the Jews would have followed him and (in so doing) would have found the freedom they desired, instead enduring the destruction of the Temple and dispersion.

 

In the chapter on Constantine (to give but a small example), which by the way is called "The Emperor Is A Christian!" and includes the sentence, "The Emperor himself became a Christian!", Constantine is described as "a fair man" (when fair-minded historians would describe him as ruthless and power-mad). His "vison" of seeing a fiery cross in the sky that suddenly converts him (and leads directly to his God-willed military victory) is presented more-or-less as fact (there are grey bars in recent editions to warn parents when fact and fable are inter-mixed, but it is a subtlety lost on children whose parent's don't intervene with skepticism) and it concludes with:

 

"It means we must fight for God," Constantine answered. "The God of the Christians!"...

 

"The God of the Christians gave me this victory!" he announced. "From now on, I will always fight under his banner. And I will only worship him."

 

Ignored are inconvenient facts about Constantine.

 

Like the fact that after his "conversion" that Constantine brutally murdered his wife and son.

 

Or, more significantly on a global level, that his militarism (and his fighting in the name of the Christian God!) transformed (one could argue usurped, or even corrupted) a faith presumably based on peace, and used it for the violent pursuit of power. Quite a shift, that is not discussed.

 

Nor is the fact that Constantine shifted the blame of Jesus' crucifixion to the Jews (and conveniently away from the Roman) and thus began thousands of years of European anti-Sematism. It all goes back to Constantine. But there is not one word about that.

 

It is just one small example of the sort of things that could be considered problematic. 

 

Bill

[mommymilkies]

Apparently Bill has read it more recent than I!  It's been years since I've opened the book.  Thanks for your input!

[AimeeM]

Oy.

Are there any Jewish friendly alternatives that wouldn't make my Catholic self cringe (i.e. I do not want to use anything anti-Jewish, but I also refuse to use anything with an anti-Catholic sentiment; this does mean that some secular options are off the table, but I'm frankly not privy to many secular history options for this age group - she's technically in grade 4, but reading on about a 2nd or early 3rd grade level).

Depends. It is highly obvious reading the books that SWB is a Protestant Christian, and it does influence the content in ways large and small.

 

When Christians and Christianity are discussed, simple declarative sentences are generally terminated with "explanation points" rather than periods.

 

So, instead of:

 

"I am a Christian. Are you?" 

 

It is:

 

"I am a Christian! Are you?" 

 

Small stuff, but it adds up.

 

Young minds will get the impression that the Romans killed Jesus because they feared the Jews would have followed him and (in so doing) would have found the freedom they desired, instead enduring the destruction of the Temple and dispersion.

 

In the chapter on Constantine (to give but a small example), which by the way is called "The Emperor Is A Christian!" and includes the sentence, "The Emperor himself became a Christian!", Constantine is described as "a fair man" (when fair-minded historians would describe him as ruthless and power-mad). His "vison" of seeing a fiery cross in the sky that suddenly converts him (and leads directly to his God-willed military victory) are presented more-or-less as fact (there are grey bars in recent editions to warn parents when fact and fable are inter-mixed, but it is a subtlety lost on children whose parent's don't intervene with skepticism) and it concludes with:

 

"It means we must fight for God," Constantine answered. "The God of the Christians!"...

 

"The God of the Christians gave me this victory!" he announced. "From now on, I will always fight under his banner. And I will only worship him."

 

Ignored are inconvenient facts about Constantine.

 

Like the fact that after his "conversion" that Constantine brutally murdered his wife and son.

 

Or, more significantly on a global level, that his militarism (and his supposed fighting in the name of the Christian God!) transformed (on could argue usurped, or even corrupted) a faith presumably based on peace, and used it for the violent pursuit of power. Quite a shift, that is not discussed.

 

Nor is the fact that Constantine's shifting the blame of Jesus' crucifixion to the Jews (and conveniently away from the Roman) began thousands of years of European anti-Sematism. It all goes back to Constantine. But there is not one word about that.

 

It is just one small example of the sort of things that could be considered problematic. 

 

Bill

[kitten18]

If mom has time, I'll have her look it over. She doesn't have much time lately, though, so I don't want to pressure her into it. I could perhaps have my neighbor look it over (he's pretty well versed in Judaism, although his is experience is from a protestant preacher perspective looking in, so I don't know if that would be a great idea).

The interpretation of the old testament may indeed be a problem for them, I'm not sure. Mom is more reformed than Dad, but Dad is Orthodox.

 

I would just give it to the mom to look at. 

 

 

There may not be that many chapters that she would need to read.  She would definitely want to look at chapters: 6, 7, 8, 37, 38, and 39.

[mommymilkies]

Is she reading it, or are you reading it to her?  I ask because many Jewish families I've met have used OM with no problem.  You can likely find a cheap really old copy of the syllabus. 

[ElizaG]

In the chapter on Constantine (to give but a small example), which by the way is called "The Emperor Is A Christian!" and includes the sentence, "The Emperor himself became a Christian!", Constantine is described as "a fair man" (when fair-minded historians would describe him as ruthless and power-mad).

 

(...)

 

Just wanted to note that the above presentation of history isn't what one might call "Catholic friendly."  For all his flaws, Constantine is regarded highly by the Church.  Byzantine Catholics and Orthodox Christians venerate him as a saint, as do Anglicans.   

 

Everyone has their own bias about these things -- including Orthodox Jews, Catholics, various sorts of Protestants, and even Bill and his "fair minded historians."  ;)  I don't think it's possible to write a narrative history book for children that's going to please everyone.  

 

As for SOTW, I agree with previous posters that it could be usable in this case, especially if you're reading it aloud and applying your own judgment (which is the way we've used it here).  It really depends on how the mother feels. 

[Farrar]

Agreed with others that if it's read aloud where the parent/teacher can insert a little skepticism and skip a word here and there or change the inflection - and used for youngish kids (age 9 is starting to be borderline) that I see these issues as being pretty minor from a secular perspective anyway.  I get frustrated with SOTW myself for many reasons - including the sorts of things Bill highlighted above - but the flip side is that there is no other series that is as comprehensive, is still narrative, will hold the attention of young kids, and makes as many efforts at including non-Western cultures.  So in the end, I generally find myself as a grudging SOTW defender, though I see it working best in conjunction with other materials.  

 

History Odyssey is one secular program that schedules SOTW and introduces some other materials.  There is also a level II of HO for older kids, though that level does not use SOTW, IIRC.

[TraceyS/FL]

I have this bookmarked. There are 2 volumes, but one of my links is broken... so I dunno!

Note, i'm not currently Jewish, nor have I reviewed this.

http://www.behrmanhouse.com/sample-pages/history-of-the-jewish-people1

[Spy Car]

Just wanted to note that the above presentation of history isn't what one might call "Catholic friendly."  For all his flaws, Constantine is regarded highly by the Church.  Byzantine Catholics and Orthodox Christians venerate him as a saint, as do Anglicans.  

 

"For all his flaws," includes the fact the Constantine murdered his family, and did so after his "conversion" to Christianity. That is neither Catholic (Or Orthodox, or Anglican) "friendly or "unfriendly." It is just the truth of history.

 

So was his role in using Christianity as an ideology for propping up his personal power and for waging wars of expansion. That is historical truth. He changed the expression of Christianity towards armed militancy and into being a tool used to support the authority of Emperors and Kings. That was a significant change.

 

And so is it true that he is responsible for shifting the blame of Jesus' crucifixion from the Romans to the Jews (with disastrous consequences for the Jews). This is part of the accurate historical record.

 

 

 

 

Everyone has their own bias about these things -- including Orthodox Jews, Catholics, various sorts of Protestants, and even Bill and his "fair minded historians."   ;)  I don't think it's possible to write a narrative history book for children that's going to please everyone.

 

 

The goal shouldn't be to "please everyone." It should be to write something that resembles "the whole truth," even when some of the details are inconvenient to ones own group.

[AimeeM]

Is she reading it, or are you reading it to her?  I ask because many Jewish families I've met have used OM with no problem.  You can likely find a cheap really old copy of the syllabus.

I would be helping significantly while we work on her reading and writing. I won't use OM... as a Catholic, but I do appreciate the idea. Thank you!

[TraceyS/FL]

What about the K12 elementary history? It is written by SWB, but might be different in its approach enough to work? Again, I haven't seen it - and I don't know if you can buy it cheaply used.

 

I would give the SOTW to the mom to review with the above notes and let her decide. 

Or maybe go totally secular and try the PS "Social Studies" approach and let the rest happen in her own classes?

[EKS]

Agreeing that K12's elementary history may be worth a look.  I used their 4th grade history when SOTW started to drive me crazy and I found it to be excellent.

[Pen]

Bill, Thank you for your post.  Are there other things in SOTW that I should be similarly aware of--we did it some time ago as audio and I did not listen to every bit.   The parts I heard sounded okay, but what you just posted was disturbing.  OTOH, without you posting it, I did not know enough about Constantine that I would have picked it up even if I had heard that part.

[Farrar]

Bill, Thank you for your post.  Are there other things in SOTW that I should be similarly aware of--we did it some time ago as audio and I did not listen to every bit.   The parts I heard sounded okay, but what you just posted was disturbing.  OTOH, without you posting it, I did not know enough about Constantine that I would have picked it up even if I had heard that part.

 

There are at least a dozen or so places in SOTW1 and 2 that are like that - where things that just happened - someone becoming Christian, in particular, get exclamation marks or subtle wording that shows that it was positive, while people becoming Muslim or following other religions don't get such attention.  Many secular people I know just skip all the chapters in SOTW1 that deal with biblical based history - chapters 6, 14, 37 and 38.  But then you get into problems...  It's important to know about the historical Jesus.  And that section about Constantine is also some important history.

 

The sections that struck me the worst are actually in SOTW2 - The chapter on the Franks and Clovis.  There's a story about Clovis calling for help from God and then he wins the battle.  The story, I'm sure, is true.  He probably did call for help.  But the way it's told subtly implies that he won because he was Christian and his enemies were not.  The chapters about the Islamic Empire and the battle of Tours also show some bias.  The Muslims who invade Spain are portrayed as cutthroat and the paragraph explaining that Spain became a center of learning under them later seems like an afterthought.  And the passage about the Muslims at the Battle of Tours show them as greedy.  Meanwhile, Charles Martel and Charlemagne are described as great and brave.  No bloodthirsty downsides to them.  And, of course, when Charles Martel beats back the Muslims, he gets an exclamation mark for winning - you know, because the audience is clearly supposed to be pulling for him, not the Muslims.  Ugh.

 

As I said before, most of this stuff, in the grand scheme of things, if you're reading it aloud, is easy to mitigate.  It's easy to not read those exclamation marks.  And I'll say that I have seen much less of this particular type of bias in SOTW3 and the parts of 4 we've read.  It's a very imperfect resource, but in the right context, I think it can still be very useful, though I get why some people don't feel that way.

[Spryte]

My Orthodox family would not use SOTW.  Absolutely not.  They would not allow anyone who is not Orthodox to teach their children, though.

 

You said that this family is leaning toward a more liberal approach.  In that case, I'd ask the mother to read give the book a once over before you start.  Or pursue other options.  

 

 

[AimeeM]

My Orthodox family would not use SOTW.  Absolutely not.  They would not allow anyone who is not Orthodox to teach their children, though.

 

You said that this family is leaning toward a more liberal approach.  In that case, I'd ask the mother to read give the book a once over before you start.  Or pursue other options.

Dad is orthodox and has no input; mom is now going to a reformed temple with their daughter. Mom seems very, very overwhelmed right now, and I hesitate to ask her to read over this, when she has SO much on her plate.

Mom previously sent dd to a Catholic school for a year (several years ago) and said that it's the usual default for Jewish families who do not have a Jewish day school, and that she has absolutely no problem with dd getting a dose of Catholic faith in our home.

I'm going to look at K12's elementary history. If it is like their middle school history, I can't in good conscious use it, as I feel the books misrepresented my own faith, but I digress. I should at least look at it.

[KathyJo]

"For all his flaws," includes the fact the Constantine murdered his family, and did so after his "conversion" to Christianity. That is neither Catholic (Or Orthodox, or Anglican) "friendly or "unfriendly." It is just the truth of history.

 

So was his role in using Christianity as an ideology for propping up his personal power and for waging wars of expansion. That is historical truth. He changed the expression of Christianity towards armed militancy and into being a tool used to support the authority of Emperors and Kings. That was a significant change.

 

And so is it true that he is responsible for shifting the blame of Jesus' crucifixion from the Romans to the Jews (with disastrous consequences for the Jews). This is part of the accurate historical record.

 

The goal shouldn't be to "please everyone." It should be to write something that resembles "the whole truth," even when some of the details are inconvenient to ones own group.

 

FTR, she does mention these things in History of the Ancient World. I think she keeps the nastiness to a minimum for the littles, which I personally appreciate. They pick up enough cynicism with me as their mother.

[ElizaG]

The goal shouldn't be to "please everyone." It should be to write something that resembles "the whole truth," even when some of the details are inconvenient to ones own group.

 

How could one possibly include "the whole truth" in a 338 page book for elementary school students?    *Everyone* picks and chooses, based on the parts they believe are most important to their children's formation.  

 

This isn't just a question of bias, but of the purpose of teaching history to children.  If we went into all those details about each historical figure -- their infidelity, slave-owning, heresy, bad temper, unjust wars, etc. --  there would be practically no heroes left, in the secular realm.   And classical education -- the purpose of this message board -- is largely based on passing on cultural stories of heroism, to inspire young people to emulate the good traits that those figures showed.   

 

Clovis and Constantine are heroic figures to many Christians, because of some of the things they did (I realize that atheists will see these events differently).   At the same time, they also behaved in some ways that were shockingly against the values of our faith.  Although they had faith in Christ, their hearts and minds weren't fully converted.  Constantine didn't even agree to be baptized until he was near death.    Books by Christian historians that are intended for older readers will tend to cover all this more thoroughly, because they're written for a different purpose -- more to inform than to form.  ( As for me, I've always been much more impressed by Ss. Helen and Clotilde.  :001_smile: )

 

This very point of passing on heroic stories is one of the reasons why, as a PP said, Orthodox Jewish parents will often only allow a member of of their own religion to teach their children.    I happen to have a couple of "Jewish friendly" world history books which were bought on the recommendation of an Orthodox WTMer.   I find their perspective interesting, even though it's very different from our family's -- and, I'd venture to say, far from any other group's standard of "neutrality."    They're seeking to educate their children in the context of their own beliefs and culture, and as someone who's doing the same, I can respect that.  

 

Even if we all started with the same books, it's clear that we'd be teaching them in very different ways. 

[Farrar]

FTR, she does mention these things in History of the Ancient World. I think she keeps the nastiness to a minimum for the littles, which I personally appreciate. They pick up enough cynicism with me as their mother.

 

Good point.  For all the flaws of SOTW, I do feel that some of the things left out that people complain show bias are things I wouldn't want to cover with any real attention with young kids anyway.  So I don't feel that leaving out the torture of the Inquisition for 7 yos is so much showing some Christian bias, but rather just an appropriate choice for the age group in a volume that is trying to cover a lot of ground and has to leave some stuff out anyway.

 

Other things she left out, I get more annoyed by...  the rise of the guilds, the peasant revolts, etc.  But that just reflects the type of history book it is.

[Spy Car]

How could one possibly include "the whole truth" in a 338 page book for elementary school students? *Everyone* picks and chooses, based on the parts they believe are most important to their children's formation.

I said "something that resembles the whole truth" and not the "whole truth." There is a difference. Left as it is, the section on Constantine (to give one example) does not, to my mind, resemble the whole truth. He fundamentally changed the nature of Christianity and its relations to state-power and warfare. Those are very big omissions.

 

And for Jews, he was a disaster.

 

This isn't just a question of bias, but of the purpose of teaching history to children. If we went into all those details about each historical figure -- their infidelity, slave-owning, heresy, bad temper, unjust wars, etc. -- there would be practically no heroes left, in the secular realm. And classical education -- the purpose of this message board -- is largely based on passing on cultural stories of heroism, to inspire young people to emulate the good traits that those figures showed.

Are people who murdered their wife and child good choices for hero worship? I don't think so. If it is a complete white-wash it isn't history, but myth-making.

 

Clovis and Constantine are heroic figures to many Christians, because of some of the things they did (I realize that atheists will see these events differently). At the same time, they also behaved in some ways that were shockingly against the values of our faith. Although they had faith in Christ, their hearts and minds weren't fully converted. Constantine didn't even agree to be baptized until he was near death. Books by Christian historians that are intended for older readers will tend to cover all this more thoroughly, because they're written for a different purpose -- more to inform than to form. ( As for me, I've always been much more impressed by Ss. Helen and Clotilde. :001_smile: )

 

This very point of passing on heroic stories is one of the reasons why, as a PP said, Orthodox Jewish parents will often only allow a member of of their own religion to teach their children. I happen to have a couple of "Jewish friendly" world history books which were bought on the recommendation of an Orthodox WTMer. I find their perspective interesting, even though it's very different from our family's -- and, I'd venture to say, far from any other group's standard of "neutrality." They're seeking to educate their children in the context of their own beliefs and culture, and as someone who's doing the same, I can respect that.

 

Even if we all started with the same books, it's clear that we'd be teaching them in very different ways.

I prefer history that attempts to be objective and even-handed.

 

Bill

[AimeeM]

Oh my.

[ElizaG]

Are people who murdered their wife and child good choices for hero worship? I don't think so. If it is a complete white-wash it isn't history, but myth-making.

Telling stories from history, in a way that conveys a sense of heroism, doesn't = "hero worship."   Nor does it have to involve a white-wash.   It's a question of balance, and the amount of detail that's given.

 

I think, if anything, we've been doing too much of the "warts and all" angle in our own homeschooling so far.    Children at this age want things to be simple.   As other posters have suggested, there's plenty of time for them to find out the darker and more difficult stuff as they get older.  

 

Thank you for bringing this up.  It's helped to clarify my sense of how to approach a few topics we're studying now in American history.  :001_smile:

[Stellalarella]

As other posters have suggested, there's plenty of time for them to find out the darker and more difficult stuff as they get older.  

 

 

Well, and to be honest, I just couldn't do SOTW4 with my younger kids last year.  There was just too many of the horrific things of history for them to process...SOTW1 and SOTW2, 3 are not quite so miserable.   

 

Bill, you raise some interesting points, and I feel like another poster who mentioned not knowing any of that history about Constantine.  You know what kind of world history education you get in 1980s and 1990s very rural mid-America?  Slim to none...  :)  My impression when I taught that chapter 3 years ago was that the book did not necessarily present Constantine as having a genuine faith.  :)  

 

I just have to take SOTW for what it is--an introduction to world history and hope that the kids will gain a greater desire to study history as they grow.  But I am not telling them it is the final word on history.  Someday they will end up posting on a forum and discover the horrible truth that they have a bias about history...from whatever viewpoint...he he he...

[Spy Car]

Telling stories from history, in a way that conveys a sense of heroism, doesn't = "hero worship." Nor does it have to involve a white-wash. It's a question of balance, and the amount of detail that's given.

 

I think, if anything, we've been doing too much of the "warts and all" angle in our own homeschooling so far. Children at this age want things to be simple. As other posters have suggested, there's plenty of time for them to find out the darker and more difficult stuff as they get older.

 

Thank you for bringing this up. It's helped to clarify my sense of how to approach a few topics we're studying now in American history. :001_smile:

Children's propensity to want everything in black and white terms is something we need to temper with a sence of balance, rather than reenforce IMO.

 

One can discuss all the great aspects of Thomas Jefferson, for example, including his articulation of ideas that promote human dignity and freedom, while pointing out the paradox that the was a slave owner. To recognize "both" is "balance," to ignore the slave holding is not.

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

Well, and to be honest, I just couldn't do SOTW4 with my younger kids last year. There was just too many of the horrific things of history for them to process...SOTW1 and SOTW2, 3 are not quite so miserable.

 

Bill, you raise some interesting points, and I feel like another poster who mentioned not knowing any of that history about Constantine. You know what kind of world history education you get in 1980s and 1990s very rural mid-America? Slim to none... :) My impression when I taught that chapter 3 years ago was that the book did not necessarily present Constantine as having a genuine faith. :)

 

I just have to take SOTW for what it is--an introduction to world history and hope that the kids will gain a greater desire to study history as they grow. But I am not telling them it is the final word on history. Someday they will end up posting on a forum and discover the horrible truth that they have a bias about history...from whatever viewpoint...he he he...

They can write a book, "Lies My Homeschool Teacher Taught Me: Thanks Mom!" :D

 

Bill

[Stellalarella]

They can write a book, "Lies My Homeschool Teacher Taught Me: Thanks Mom!" :D

 

Bill

 

You know it!  That made me laugh!  

[ElizaG]

Children's propensity to want everything in black and white terms is something we need to temper with a sence of balance, rather than reenforce IMO.

 

One can discuss all the great aspects of Thomas Jefferson, for example, including his articulation of ideas that promote human dignity and freedom, while pointing out the paradox that the was a slave owner. To recognize "both" is "balance," to ignore the slave holding is not.

 

Bill

 

Nobody is saying we should ignore all such things.   We have to look at them on a case by case basis, and choose which ones to include, according to our own judgment of what's balanced and age-appropriate.

 

The way you described Constantine earlier in the thread wasn't as a "paradox," but as an all-around bad guy.  This makes it unbalanced, from a Catholic (and Orthodox Christian) point of view.   And since the OP who'll be doing the teaching is Catholic, she'll need to consider how to present the material in a way that respects her own faith tradition, as well as the student's.

 

I think there must be ways to do that.   :001_smile:    It's going to take some prayer, and looking for common ground, but it could be a very enriching experience.  

[mommymilkies]

I'm definitely no proponent of white washing history.  But to introduce some of the more controversial and disturbing bits of history at this age would be, IMHO for *my kids*, inappropriate.  I definitely teach them that Columbus didn't "discover" America and that he wasn't a great guy, but they still need to know about these people because they will be seeing more of them later.  I don't think that SOTW presents Constantine as more of a hero than any other controversial character in the books.  The can read about the rapes and slaughter later.  The grammar stage is about getting stuff in their brains, not burdening them with controversial issues and debate over historical inaccuracies to such a magnitude. 

[AimeeM]

I'm fairly certain my charge's mom doesn't want me giving her the nitty gritty details at her age - so a bit whitewashed is okay, lol.

[Mommyfaithe]

Okay - from a reformed jewish perspective, it seems okay to you? Mom is now attending a reformed temple, and the child lives with her (not going to get into the why, but orthodox dad doesn't appear to have input right now); so although raised orthodox jewish, I assume the child is attending reformed with mom now. In general, mom has NO problem with dd overhearing our Catholic studies and is even pleased that the local Catholic co-op has agreed to let her join - she seems pretty laid back about religion in general.

I was raised Orthodox. I am now a Christian, but still am a Jew. I did not find SOTW offensive. We read 3 volumes. I am not sure how WW2 is handled, but knowing SWB, and PHP, I am sure it is fine.

SOTW is deity neutral, covers many, but as stories, not as fact, which may bug some, but was great for me.

 

Fwiw, my sil is Catholic and used SOTW as well.

[Mommyfaithe]

Children's propensity to want everything in black and white terms is something we need to temper with a sence of balance, rather than reenforce IMO.

 

One can discuss all the great aspects of Thomas Jefferson, for example, including his articulation of ideas that promote human dignity and freedom, while pointing out the paradox that the was a slave owner. To recognize "both" is "balance," to ignore the slave holding is not.

 

Bill

I can't wait until you have teens and twenty year olds. Lol! Please stick around to let us know. ( not being snarky too much! ). We are all going to leave out, add in, twist a bit according to our perspectives. Our kids will learn to think for themselves if we are open to discuss and think and dig deeper. None of us has it all. We use the information we have, we use age and child appropriate stories and texts. We research, we have ahha moments.

As a matter of fact my oldests nickname is Ahha! from her high school studies. She loved finding errors in books and was always yelling Ahha! And telling us what she found. Lol! The little ones renamed her Ahha, and it stuck.

 

We change, our perspectives change, we learn more....our kids will too.

 

As for now, I have no problem using books with information I may disagree with, over books that are neutral pablum. Nothing worse than boring, neutral, no opinion history. You can't be afraid to read books you don't necessarily agree with, nor can you assume your kids will never be able to discern truth from fiction or worse, propaganda or cultural biases. See how far we have come? Hahahaha!

 

Faithe

[Mommyfaithe]

I'm definitely no proponent of white washing history. But to introduce some of the more controversial and disturbing bits of history at this age would be, IMHO for *my kids*, inappropriate. I definitely teach them that Columbus didn't "discover" America and that he wasn't a great guy, but they still need to know about these people because they will be seeing more of them later. I don't think that SOTW presents Constantine as more of a hero than any other controversial characters in the books. The can read about the rapes and slaughter later. The grammar stage is about getting stuff in their brains, not burdening them with controversial issues and debate over historical inaccuracies to such a magnitude.

Constantine was not presented as a hero, but a military character. And I agree with you. Grammar stage is for introducing the flow of history, it's main characters and how we fit into the flow. Kids like to know bad guys and good guys, logic stage kids learn shades of gray. And to be skeptical.

 

There is time later for horror, and learning our heros are sinful men, not mini-gods. I think kids need heros to look up to when they are little. I don't care if Bill agrees or not. Heros make little kids feel safe and gives them hope that they can be a hero too. Learning the warts of our heros teaches us we don't have to be perfect to do great things, and also teaches us how NOT to act....

[fractalgal]

I'm helping to tutor/supervise a 9 year old girl (newly 9!) and she doesn't care for her current history program. I think she would love SOTW, but her family is Orthodox Jewish (I'm Catholic, so this is a learning experience for me!). I know that as a Catholic, there were some problems in SOTW that simply meant I had to take time to navigate, but we didn't stay with it for very long (my daughter didn't care for it).

 

I'm not equipped to read it through and look out for any potential issues for a Jewish family, as I'm just not familiar enough with the faith to do so.

 

Have you considered supplementing with any of the books by Berel Wein?

 

 

Echoes of Glory: The Story of the Jews in the Classical Era

 

 

Herald of Destiny: The Story of the Jews in the Classical Era

 

 

I used sections of the first book above for a different perspective of history with my children last year, and it was one of their favorites.

[Susan Wise Bauer]

This has been a really fascinating read. Can I jump in?

 

When I read this last night I was so startled by Bill's take on my Constantine chapter that I went and dug SOTW1 out and reread it, because I certainly had no intention on presenting Constantine as a "Christian hero." And after reading it, I still don't think I did.

 

As a historian I admire Constantine. He was a smart politician. He saved the Roman empire. He chose a new fascinating way to weld it back together. You've got to give him credit for that. And SOTW (at least in volumes 1-2) takes a fairly traditional, uncritical, great-men-and-women approach to history. It focuses on the achievements of kings and queens and generals. That's very deliberate on my part--because it was intended for elementary grade students, who IMO need concrete personalities and achievements in their history if there's any hope of their retaining it. It won't be every historian's strategy, and it certainly isn't every parent's choice. If you prefer a more nuanced, complex history for your littles, SOTW1 at least probably won't do the trick for you. But it was my choice.

 

So I attempted to take the same approach to Constantine that I do to Hammurabi (who also comes off well in SOTW as a fair lawgiver, and no, I didn't talk about all the ghastly things he did), Hatshepsut, King Asoka, Confucius, Caesar, etc., etc.

 

Looking back on the Constantine story, I don't think Bill's take on it is completely fair. I was careful to mark off his claims about Christianity as just that--HIS claims, HIS beliefs, HIS thoughts. The story about the vision of the cross is presented in exactly the same way as the stories of Gilgamesh and Beowulf.

 

And I don't think I portrayed him as a Christian hero due to some Christian bias on my part, because honestly, as a Christian, I think Constantine was a disaster for the Christian church. That is a theological conclusion that not everyone agrees with, and I kept it out of SOTW because SOTW is intended to be history.

 

I know I have biases. Like all humans, I see in part, I know in part, and I'm often not aware of my partial blindness. But I also think that this particular criticism displays some blindness on the part of others. I've seen again and again how a reviewer, aware of my background, hones in on the parts of my text that have to do with the Christian religion and picks them apart while ignoring the exact same perspective or technique used in other sections of the same book. So (yeah, Bill, I guess I am picking on you a little bit), I didn't highlight Constantine's hypocrisy in claiming Christianity while indulging in strategic murder to keep his throne safe. But I didn't do that with most of the kings, queens, and generals in SOTW.

 

Because it's meant for little kids. And when I wrote it, I had an eight-year-old who couldn't watch the Lion King because he cried so much when Simba's father died.

 

I'm really hoping, if I EVER get finished with WWS, to do a logic-stage history where I can introduce a more complex way of viewing history.

 

SWB

[mommaduck]

 

Like the fact that after his "conversion" that Constantine brutally murdered his wife and son.

 

Or, more significantly on a global level, that his militarism (and his fighting in the name of the Christian God!) transformed (one could argue usurped, or even corrupted) a faith presumably based on peace, and used it for the violent pursuit of power. Quite a shift, that is not discussed.

 

Nor is the fact that Constantine shifted the blame of Jesus' crucifixion to the Jews (and conveniently away from the Roman) and thus began thousands of years of European anti-Sematism. It all goes back to Constantine. But there is not one word about that.

 

It is just one small example of the sort of things that could be considered problematic. 

 

Bill

 

There is much more to these than the simplicity that you attribute to them. For instance, the "murder" of his wife and son. More along the lines that his wife and son committed treason and were required by law to be executed.

 

 

Edited to add: I had not read SWB's post prior to replying ;)

[Susan Wise Bauer]

Mommaduck is, of course, right.   :001_rolleyes: It was refreshing to be able to work on the History of the World series and dig into some of the complexities (which is why those books turned out to be so ridiculously HUGE).

 

SWB

[mommaduck]

One thing that can be done is to look up the Jewish perspective online or with friends and acquaintances.

 

Example: Christopher Columbus

 

There is the typical teaching (and I tell my children what is typically taught and that I don't agree with it).

The political view.

The personal acquisition view.

The religious view (supposed or not...people will differ on this).

The Native view.

The Jewish view.

 

I approach these things within each child's ability to grasp. We always revisit later as they get older or as it comes up (Columbus Day is a good rant day for me :D ).

[mommaduck]

Mommaduck is, of course, right.   :001_rolleyes: It was refreshing to be able to work on the History of the World series and dig into some of the complexities (which is why those books turned out to be so ridiculously HUGE).

 

SWB

 

We own all your SOTW books and I use them as a spring board for discussion. I don't know if you intended it that way or not. But it is great reading for the littles and springboards for the middles. I look forward to one day buying your more advanced books (but then, I'm a bibliophile and can't resist books).

[Farrar]

I wish we would be able to benefit from a logic stage history from SWB!  But I'm sure we'll be there too soon.  Alas.

 

I have gone back and forth about SOTW.  It's not the history book I would have created...  but I feel like it's the best resource out there.  After taking a break to do US history for a year and then not using it as our spine for SOTW3, we're coming back to use it (with other resources, which we always have done) for SOTW4 this year, because there's really not anything else that compares, especially for modern history.  So I'm really grateful it's there.