if you want to have a conversation about CM curricula and bigotry/sexism/&c ...

[serendipitous journey]

... let's move it here from the CM/WTM thread, where the conversation began with this post.  I do know that there are strong feelings & experiences on this issue, and that board members think it is very important to share them and to make others aware of the concerns on such sensitive topics. 

 

Friends, let us be kind and respectful of each other.  At the very least, this is a classical education board; and by my reading if you are interested in an education based on Homer & the Bible, as Western Classical Education is, then you are pretty much willing to work with inherently bigoted, sexist, racist material because it happens to also contain much that is wonderful, inspiring, and enduring. 

 

If you find starting a separate thread on this topic to be against the community well-being and ethos I hope you will post and say so, and feel free to PM me about the badness of this idea.  ;)  Kindly, please! 

[Alte Veste Academy]

I'd dispute that there is a CM curriculum.

 

What I don't believe is that a book list/s define a method. Taking issue with AO is very different to taking issue with CM.

I completely agree with this. I just posted this series of quotes from WCLTL in the other thread. No one can pretend to know what CM would use these days if she were alive, and that includes AO, despite the fact that they are using many books from her era. She was always interested in wonderful new books.

 

We can also fit in with our historical period--no need to try to make school or home turn back the clock. It would be a disservice to children to bring them up as Victorians with a misty idea that they'll live in a rose-covered cottage in a friendly, safe village, for instance.

 

We were told to be 'in the world, but not of the world.' Charlotte Mason thought that schools and educational programs had a duty to keep up with the thinking of their times. No use fighting battles fifty years old! What do these children face today? What will they face tomorrow?....It was intrinsic to her philosophy that a curriculum would stay relevant to a child's background and up to date while not ditching old treasures.

 

People like Charlotte Mason are rare and vital. They contribute both stability and community as they maintain the clear infrastructure of truth in their work; yet life bubbles up in them with freshness. Their response to actual life and persons creates a relevance and newness to their work without sacrificing the roots. This approach contrasts with a more usual trend toward a deadening legalism that squeezes out new ideas.

 

She pointed out the limitations of a set curriculum plan as well as is value. Every year new books are published, and they need to be considered. Children in various countries benefit by some of the same books and yet need others that relate to their own culture and prepare them for life in it.

[lewelma]

We read books by Henty, Borroughs, and Verne.  They only represent 10% of our literature selection but they are a part of it. 

 

In all of these books we discuss things like Verne's 'the people became darker and more evil as we travelled closer to the center of the earth.'  What a great opportunity to discuss bigotry.  Tarzan is riddled with it - the dark-skinned people are canibals and the light-skinned people are moral, virtuous people.  Great!  Let's talk about it and not sweep it under the carpet.

 

Just a few months ago we found The Picture of Dorian Grey a fascinating opportunity to discuss the standard plot line of  how the beautiful woman inspired a man, and how it dates back to Helen of Troy.  How odd it seemed to both of us to be inspired by the beauty of a man.  This led to a wonderful conversation about sexism in older books!  Another example: Ivanhoe's 'jewess' is a powerful female heroine *for the era*, but then we discuss what would be required to make her powerful today. 

 

These conversations are driven by sexist and racist books and would have been very difficult for *me* to have in a vacuum.  I *need* them in order to form a response. Personally, I cannot respond to a theoretical problem that I personally rarely see. I need them to teach my children good strong values, ethics, and character which are often in opposition to what is being blatently promoted in the books.

 

Ruth in NZ

[Alte Veste Academy]

---

[SorrelZG]

I use old and new books. I evaluate ona book by book basis. I have to sort through and deal with objectionable world views in modern books as well as old. The old tends to be easier. Much of it is foreign and easily recognized but the modern can be a much more slippery and subtle creature.

[Farrar]

I'm far from a CM expert...  I assume that she was a product of her time and probably had racist attitudes, but is there even anything about race in her work at all?

[Hunter]

Bill, I'm answering here, instead of the other thread.

 

I'm not condoning racism or sexism. I'm just not using books with just sexism, discrimination against the disabled, etc., more than books that include racism along with the sexism, discrimination of the disabled, etc.. What kind of message does that send? It's not okay to treat men of color, the way women of color and the disabled can be treated? How does that help my black or white disabled female students?

 

If modern books were better in GENERAL about human rights violations, then I would use them. I don't elevate any one violation above another. We just talk human rights in general, not the type of human being violated. Humans are humans. My favorite book for newbies to human rights is Stand Up for Your Rights. It's OOP and could be better, but it's a start.

http://www.amazon.com/Stand-Your-Rights-Paul-Atgwa/dp/1587284006/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1379446362&sr=8-1&keywords=stand+up+for+your+rights

 

I use the word "bully" a lot. It's never okay for a stronger group of people to bully a weaker group of people. They should help their fellow humans, not use them and abuse them.

 

We have slaves in the USA today. Most of them just are not black. And Americans go to other countries where slaves are more common, to enjoy their bodies and labors where it's more accepted. And we buy food and products made by slaves that live oversees. But we like to pat ourselves on the back and congratulate ourselves that we let black MEN who are not disabled and are good tax payers go free. It was a START, but we have a LONG way to go yet.

 

I wonder if slavery would have been abolished if it were only of women. Since women couldn't even vote or own property back then, I doubt it. What would have been the grounds? It would have stirred up too much controversy about women's rights.

 

I cannot tell you the number of times women and men of color have looked at me in confusion and said, "Didn't your momma teach you ANYTHING?!" when I am talking about my past life. But white women and men never ask me that; they just nod. Female subjugation is actually more accepted in the white community, than communities of color. Because as a community, people of color are claiming basic human rights, they automatically bestow and teach more rights to their women.

 

I HATE racism. I do. And if a student has recently been wounded in a racist incident, I'm careful to shield her from the more offensive books. I seldom try to shield the woman who has been recently wounded for being female though, because--how the hades do I do that?

 

[Desert Strawberry]

Whoa ! I use AO book lists. I am completely not racist-and by that , I mean that I had an extremely multicultural upbringing. Having studied sociology, and having lived among many ,varied cultures, I find racism an abhorrent and pervasive occurrence throughout all time and space of human history. It is only our perception of in-group and out-group dynamics which change over time and culture, not the divisions themselves . 

All of that to say, this is not something which can or should be avoided. All of the classics could be tossed out based on present day standards of acceptability. What would that accomplish? Our children would not be sheltered from these themes. They would be ignorant and unprepared.

I don't presume to tell other parents what or how to teach their kids. I am shocked and appalled that someone would make the jump from using the AO book lists to me being a bigot , sexist and all other manner of ugly things. Good gracious.

 

I have a question for those who disapprove of AO book lists. Which lists of classics are more acceptable and why? Or all of most classics out due to historical context? 

I choose this list many years ago because many of my own childhood favorites appear on it and it is more extensive than others I found. I'm not married to it, but I do like to use it as a jumping off point. I am experiencing them again at this later stage of life in a new and different way, which imo is how classics should be read, and sharing a different view with my children than I had at age 10. 

 

[FO4UR]

It's important to be aware of the content in the books we give our dc.  CMers and AOers *highly* recommend preparing readings ahead of time.  There has never been the intention to infiltrate the lives of children with bigotry from the AO advisory, I am confident in putting my reputation on the line to say that.  

 

 

There are some ugly things in books on the AO lists.  The same can be said about every reading list, even book lists for ps children today.  The difference is found in how the books are treated. CM students are NOT encouraged to adopt the pov of the author, they are taught to think.  "Why would this author or character call the Native People "Savages?"  I've NEVER met a CM (or AO) family who, for example, began using the term "savages" to describe Native People.  The permission to reject an idea is central to CM, just as much as the idea of feasting on them.  I'm not good at finding page numbers, but when she discusses Plutarch...it's abundantly clear that we aren't to sugar coat life, and children need the freedom to accept/reject ideas based upon their moral compass (which CM was a Christian if anyone was wondering).  They need exposure to these ideas in order to accept or reject, and it's best to be exposed through literature than real life.

 

 

This goes back to why we read fairy tales to the very young.  They need - NEED - to fight off those dragons in fairy stories at age 4-10 so that when they meet bigotry/hate/injustice square in the face they go into battle with all the courage of St. George.  I posted in another thread about my boys jousting on their bikes with tree branches...they need to play-fight with each other where the loss is no greater than a band-aid and some hurt pride b/c there is coming a day when the battle will be real.  (Hopefully, not physically violent...but real.)

 

 

Hunter has made the point well about having to refuse every book ever written (almost) if we are going to eliminate human rights violations from the child's literary experience.  

 

 

[Spy Car]

Not just anti-Catholic, but anti-Morman, anti-Muslim, anti-Jewish, anti-Arab, anti-Asian, anti-Indian (Native American and East Indian), anti-African, and sexist.

 

Bill

 

 

[Farrar]

I have a question for those who disapprove of AO book lists. Which lists of classics are more acceptable and why? Or all of most classics out due to historical context? 

 

The ones I'm aware of are the Henrietta Marshall books for history, which I think are the spine.  Very problematic, which is to say, racist.

[Spy Car]

Oh sweet Jesus Bill, can you stop banging your drum on this one ? This is the second civil conversation you are trying to derail. We get you don't know about Charlotte Mason and you disapprove of AO and think there should be a mass confession of deliberate racism by all those using it.

 

I agree the AO choices are problematic.

 

AO choses its history to be predominantly anti-Catholic.

 

I thought discussing the problems with AO and other CM book lists was the purpose of the thread?

 

BTW I've never said anyone who uses AO is a racist and should therefore admit that in "mass confession," these are inventions of others that you are responding to. Not me. Not an unusual situation on this forum, but not intellectually honest.

 

I also do not understand why it is OK to say "AO choses its history to be predominantly anti-Catholic" (your words) and me saying the books they use are "also" (meaning in addition to being anti-Catholic, which I don't dispute) anti-Morman, anti-Muslim, anti-Jewish, anti-Arab, anti-Asian, anti-Indian (Native American and East Indian), anti-African, and sexist.

 

 Bill

[Spy Car]

Bill, may I ask how many years you have spent looking at and researching resources on AO ? I've been doing it since 2004, so I'm pretty confident in my assessments of the problems as I see them with some of AO's choices.

 

The most explicit bias in AO's history choice is anti-Catholic.  As I already said in a post above, some of the books are also Eurocentric and implicitly and explicitly racist. Why are you arguing over something that's already been said ?

 

Since about the same time. About 2004.

 

I do think many of the books are anti-Catholic. I think there are also many that express virulent racism and bigotry towards other groups. And are sexist.

 

The bigotry expressed towards others does not lessen the ugliness of the anti-Catholicism. Does it?

 

Bill

[Desert Strawberry]

The ones I'm aware of are the Henrietta Marshall books for history, which I think are the spine.  Very problematic, which is to say, racist.

Ah. We use SOTW. I've never looked at the history at all. 

Then this isn't about the reading lists at all?

[MinivanMom]

Not just anti-Catholic, but anti-Morman, anti-Muslim, anti-Jewish, anti-Arab, anti-Asian, anti-Indian (Native American and East Indian), anti-African, and sexist.

 

Bill

 

I am with Bill on this one. 

 

While I have always liked the ideas espoused by Charlotte Mason, I stay far away from AO and other CM lists.  I have never understood why so many CM-lovers are so obsessed with old books.  Just because a book is old, doesn't mean it has value.  There are many wonderful living books that have been written in the past 20-30 years.  Why on earth would you choose to read an outdated book (especially a history book) that is filled with sexism, racism, and/or prejudice when there are so many better choices?  Why?

[Hunter]

I think this is the perfect thread for Bill to express his views. I addressed my first post directly to him, as we were all directed HERE, to continue this line of discussion.

 

Do I always agree with Bill? No! :lol: But his views are valuable and appropriate here in this thread.

[Hunter]

I, personally, am currently choosing some older public domain books because it's so easy to load them onto my iPad Mini. My life took a nose dive a couple months back and I'm all over the city doing lots of hurry-up-and-wait, and hanging out at friends' houses. I'm hardly ever home with my computer and hardcopy books. I just stuff my phone and iPad in my backpack and run, run, run all day, pulling out my tech devices when I have time to self-educate or teach a bit.

 

Lots of AOers are broke, recently survived a flood, living overseas, living in an RV, living with relatives, homeschooling a child at work or a college library, and so many other situations where hardcopy books are unavailable or too heavy to lug around.

 

A lot of people don't think older books are better, but good enough and free and light.

[Crimson Wife]

Not just anti-Catholic, but anti-Morman, anti-Muslim, anti-Jewish, anti-Arab, anti-Asian, anti-Indian (Native American and East Indian), anti-African, and sexist.

 

Bill

I could find plenty of modern books that I consider biased. Being overly politically correct is not much better IMHO than the bad old WASP-centrism of 19th century books. At least with the old books, the author's bias is easier to spot and discuss.

[liber]

I would like to know what specific books Bill and others are refering to.

[Crimson Wife]

I am with Bill on this one. 

 

While I have always liked the ideas espoused by Charlotte Mason, I stay far away from AO and other CM lists.  I have never understood why so many CM-lovers are so obsessed with old books.  Just because a book is old, doesn't mean it has value.  There are many wonderful living books that have been written in the past 20-30 years.  Why on earth would you choose to read an outdated book (especially a history book) that is filled with sexism, racism, and/or prejudice when there are so many better choices?  Why?

Why might I prefer an older book to a recently written one? Because while they may be biased, at least they haven't been "dumbed down". Books written in the 19th and early part of the 20th century tend to have much more sophisticated vocabulary and syntax. There was also a much greater emphasis on cultural literacy and also imparting good moral values in children's books.

[Hunter]

I'd dispute that there is a CM curriculum.

 

As mentioned in the previous thread, it is quite possible to substitute books which better reflect modern sensibilities, although given the number of threads here and elsewhere agonising over history choices, that 'problem' is far from solved. I personally am very content to use SOTW as our living book for history K-6. I tweak as necessary :)

 

Well CM did have a curriculum that she used. And the school she started continued to use and tweak her original choices. A lot of people choose to use CM's original choices and the later PNUE choices as the place to start, and only switching when necessary, with the idea of not fixing what isn't broken. We all have different ideas of what is broken. Sometimes I use obviously broken things I already have, rather than purchasing another broken thing. I think there is an official CM curriculum. Mostly OOP, but official. :lol:

 

As for modern sensibilities, I don't think modern ideas as a whole are better or worse than older ideas. Each age has it's wisdom and foolishness. It is possible to substitute. I think most people know that. Some just cannot afford the books or the shipping. Some, yes, are rejecting the modern, which has it's pros and cons, but is not ALL bad. Knowing you can substitute doesn't always mean you want to.

 

Yup, there are SMALL number of people actually advocating and supporting racism, but I haven't met anyone doing AO that is blatantly doing that. I HAVE seen that with some classical publishers and I think Bill has been very helpful in the past in supplying links to documents written by the founders of those curricula. I was SHOCKED at what I was linked to.

 

This thread is about CM and AO, but it is at the TWTM forum and is taking place in context of many previous conversations about racism in old books. Thread that many of us took part in that had nothing to do with CM. We need to see this thread in context of all that came before.

[Spy Car]

I've said all that in several posts on this and other threads.

 

How can you know nothing of CM and yet have researched AO for 10 years ? I don't buy it. Sorry.

 

But well done Bill for picking another pointless arguments with yet another mom on this forum. Another example of your profound lack of respect for women who, frankly, know a whole lot  more about full time, long term home education and the many educational philosophies involved than you do.

 

And again, I don't use AO for the reasons mentioned above. I am totally the wrong person for you to be so pedantic with.

 

I'm picking the argument?

 

I am not an expert in the educational philosophy. Do I know a good deal more than the average man-on-the-street? Yes, A good deal more. I understand (I think) the basics of her philosophy (on a superficial level). I have never read any of her books , but—if memory serves (and it may not) I read a shorter piece she wrote that was linked online. All I was trying to do was acknowledge that I do not feel qualified to judge the Charlotte Mason method (so I abstained).

 

I have been very interested (from the time of joining this forum in 2004) in finding great children's literature to read with my child. in that process I came across Ambleside Online.

 

I started reading some of their choices and was pretty shocked, frankly.

 

I have remained surprised that their book list tends to get a free pass. Were the anti-Catholicism the only problem, I would expect more protest. But it goes way beyond simple anti-Catholicism (which would be bad enough alone).

 

Bill

[Hunter]

See, you can be CM and have no interest in 'imparting morals'.

 

I'm bowing out of this conversation. I've tried to tread the middle line of understanding why people use AO and being honest about the deficiencies I find in their lists and find it's impossible to please anyone :) I'm not going to get my wrist slapped for not phrasing things the way Bill wants to have them phrased AND get embroiled in an argument over 'morals'.

 

I do agree with CW's point about the more sophisticated language.

Oh, okay. I really didn't know you were not wanting to impart morals. I didn't understand that. Thank you for clarifying. That really helps me undestand where you are coming from.

[Spy Car]

Why might I prefer an older book to a recently written one? Because while they may be biased, at least they haven't been "dumbed down". Books written in the 19th and early part of the 20th century tend to have much more sophisticated vocabulary and syntax. There was also a much greater emphasis on cultural literacy and also imparting good moral values in children's books.

 

Treating non-white non-Christians as if they are all subhuman savages is not "imparting good values to me. It is just the opposite.

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

It doesn't get a free pass from me, as you well know if you have read my posts. You are arguing with the wrong person on this.

 

 

i'm not arguing with you. I agree with you.

 

 

 

If it makes it clearer, I mention the anti-Catholicm is response to your idea that AO are choosing books to promote racism. Imo, AO choose their histories to support a Protestant world view. It does not preclude the other examples of racism/sexism we BOTH mentioned. Done.

 

Perhaps I should have said "racism and bigotry?" I thought I was clear on that. And sexist too.

 

Are we good?

 

Bill

[Hunter]

I'm responding to a comment made in the other thread.

 

I do think reading racist books encourages racism, even when a teacher/parent talks about the book being wrong. It still creeps in to a student's world view. So do all the other human rights violations, though. For many years I took a hard line and had 0 tolerance for racist books. I did my students no favors though because I and they had no concept of WHY racism is wrong. Racism is wrong because ALL humans are equal. I didn't know that so couldn't teach it.

 

Every day me and my students are bombarded with human rights violations. We have become desensitized to it. We commit violations every day, because we don't truly believe deep down that every human is equal. Sad, but true. And books are one of the influences that enable us to be nasty, cruel, and insensitive, and allow others to be nasty, cruel and insensitive to us. This being equal thing isn't totally sinking in. Partly because of the books we read.

 

The racist books are a problem! But what do we replace them with? There is the problem. I can pay for books with different problems, but in the long run just takes us to a different bad place.

 

EDIT: I changed "forum" to "thread"

[Farrar]

Ah. We use SOTW. I've never looked at the history at all. 

Then this isn't about the reading lists at all?

 

Well, This Country of Ours and various others by Marshall are on the "book list."  I haven't ever gone through them with a fine tooth comb, but many of the history and geography books are ones I would not use.  This Country of Ours is just extra offensive though - and not just because it portrays Native Americans as wicked savages (there's plenty of that too) and Blacks as inferior (yep, that's there too) like other books of the era, but because it attacks Catholics and other groups as well.  It should be This Country is for Rich WASPs.

 

As to the literature choices, IIRC, most of them are fine.  I mean, they tend toward the old fashioned and some are things I think are on the duller end, but many of the books are things we've read aloud - things like Narnia, Elizabeth Enright, Dickens, E. Nesbit.  I seemed to recall that there were GA Henty books on the AO list, but a quick look just now and I didn't see any, so nothing on the lit lists were things I think fall into the category of offensive.

 

The science becomes Apologia at some point, but that's a whole other can of worms.

[Crimson Wife]

Treating non-white non-Christians as if they are all subhuman savages is not "imparting good values to me. It is just the opposite.

 

Bill

It's not an "all-or-nothing" thing. An older book can fall very much short in one specific area (such as ethnocentrism) but still have an overall positive moral message. Absolutely modern parents need to discuss the problematic language but that language doesn't negate all the good in the book.

[Hunter]

I'm still trying to figure out where Apologia fits in at AO. It's not required reading. It's kinda there as an option, but...discouraged by many. I don't know. It's slippery.

[FO4UR]

I would like to know what specific books Bill and others are refering to.

 

This Country of Ours raises the most hackles. It is mainly the history choices b/c they are old.  One of AO's goals is to remain as inexpensive (if not free) as possible so they use public domain books where possible. Old books are public domain, but unfortunately are often problematic.

 

 

 

Treating non-white non-Christians as if they are all subhuman savages is not "imparting good values to me. It is just the opposite.

 

Bill

 

 

See, here is where we can teach. The opposite is also true. Just b/c someone does some good, maybe some great good for many many people doesn't mean that they have no ugliness in their life.  It is possible to see great integrity in a person who fails to see the moral depravity that is accepted as part of their culture.

 

The good does not justify the evil.

 

The moral failings do not nullify the good.

 

I view it like this:  Every person is on a continuum of growth, some having gained more maturity, wisdom and goodness than others. As long as the person is going in the "growth" direction, I think we can learn together.  (There are those who are just plain evil, but that's not the case in this discussion.)  We have the benefit, in 2013, of seeing racism play out through the years, of hearing MLK speak, of befriending people of various races and loving them. 

 

But - just b/c we might have stomped out racism, at least in our own home library, this doesn't mean that we do not have our own hidden sins.  It doesn't mean we are any farther along on that continuum of growth.  If we have the audacity to think that we have arrived, then I think it might be appropriate to point out the many faces of hubris.

 

Perhaps humility is the greatest argument for keeping those old books around.  Not that they need be the spine of a child's history...(I, myself, use SOTW.)...but I do expose my kids to some of those old books, keeping a careful feel for how they "read" them.

[Spy Car]

It's not an "all-or-nothing" thing. An older book can fall very much short in one specific area (such as ethnocentrism) but still have an overall positive moral message. Absolutely modern parents need to discuss the problematic language but that language doesn't negate all the good in the book.

In some ways I think the idealized role-model (read: man) who is good to his wife, mother, children, and dog, but who treats non-whites as subhumans is more pernicious than anything else. Were the racist a "jerk" or "low-life" it might be different, but when they are painted as "paragons of Christian virtues"? Not so much.

 

When the otherwise "good guy" in children's literature is also a racist, then the books do not qualify as having an "over all positive moral message" in my estimation.

 

As to language, words can be used for different ends. In the other thread Mark Twain was mentioned. But when Twain uses "nigger" he does so in works that skewer racism (and racists), Twain's works show how wrong racism is, and contain humanizing portrayals of blacks.

 

When you've got people like Henty, in contrast, a "nigger" is just a nigger. The "good ones" might be like loyal dogs—not intelligent goodness knows, but at least faithful servants—and the rest are just plain bad.

 

It is not just "words," it is the whole context that bears consideration.

 

Bill

[SorrelZG]

I'm envious of those who are able to find great books void of world views that offend you. Not everyone shares the same worldview so some of us have more choices than others.

[Camelfeet]

I cannot tell you the number of times women and men of color have looked at me in confusion and said, "Didn't your momma teach you ANYTHING?!" when I am talking about my past life. But white women and men never ask me that; they just nod. Female subjugation is actually more accepted in the white community, than communities of color. Because as a community, people of color are claiming basic human rights, they automatically bestow and teach more rights to their women.

 

I think maybe that is only true in the context of women within the United States.  This certainly isn't true of the experiences/attitudes of non-white people I have met elsewhere.     

 

Also I have nothing else to add to this convo as I don't know CM.  

[Hunter]

I think maybe that is only true in the context of women within the United States. This certainly isn't true of the experiences/attitudes of non-white people I have met elsewhere.

 

I agree. Sexism is a world wide problem. But because of the civil rights movement here in the USA, and the feelings of shame about our past issues of slavery, we have a unique situation that has spilled over from racism into sexism.

[Hunter]

In some ways I think the idealized role-model (read: man) who is good to his wife, mother, children, and dog, but who treats non-whites as subhumans is more pernicious than anything else. Were the racist a "jerk" or "low-life" it might be different, but when they are painted as "paragons of Christian virtues"? Not so much.

 

When the otherwise "good guy" in children's literature is also a racist, then the books do not qualify as having an "over all positive moral message" in my estimation.

 

As to language, words can be used for different ends. In the other thread Mark Twain was mentioned. But when Twain uses "nigger" he does so in works that skewer racism (and racists), Twain's works show how wrong racism is, and contain humanizing portrayals of blacks.

 

When you've got people like Henty, in contrast, a "nigger" is just a nigger. The "good ones" might be like loyal dogs—not intelligent goodness knows, but at least faithful servants—and the rest are just plain bad.

 

It is not just "words," it is the whole context that bears consideration.

 

Bill

What about the other way around? The man is a civil rights activist but treats his wife as subhuman and raises his daughters with very limited ideas? Is that better?

 

I agree about these books not having all over positive messages. I don't think any of these books are so good or so moral. I just need to have SOME books and have given up on censoring them. I guess this is easier for me, because I don't use the CM methods that don't give me "permission" to talk. We talk and talk and talk about how people suck in just about every book we read. We talk about how they suck more than how they are moral and good.

 

I'm resigned, not approving.

[sagira]

In some ways I think the idealized role-model (read: man) who is good to his wife, mother, children, and dog, but who treats non-whites as subhumans is more pernicious than anything else. Were the racist a "jerk" or "low-life" it might be different, but when they are painted as "paragons of Christian virtues"? Not so much.

 

When the otherwise "good guy" in children's literature is also a racist, then the books do not qualify as having an "over all positive moral message" in my estimation.

 

As to language, words can be used for different ends. In the other thread Mark Twain was mentioned. But when Twain uses "nigger" he does so in works that skewer racism (and racists), Twain's works show how wrong racism is, and contain humanizing portrayals of blacks.

 

When you've got people like Henty, in contrast, a "nigger" is just a nigger. The "good ones" might be like loyal dogs—not intelligent goodness knows, but at least faithful servants—and the rest are just plain bad.

 

It is not just "words," it is the whole context that bears consideration.

 

Bill

Oh my goodness. I wanted to thank you, Bill, as I had no idea that GA Henty was blatantly racist. I know the much praised Robinson curriculum uses these books as their backbone for historical fiction.. Yikes! Are these books problematic across the board, or just the more modern ones? I was considering using a few of his books for Ancients, but if they are so anti-blacks (I am 1/16 black), I will have to pass.

[Crimson Wife]

I have found the best way to deal with the bias in both older and recent history books is just to use multiple sources and discuss, discuss, discuss. Native Americans were neither "savages" nor totally innocent victims of the evil white settlers. I have ancestors whose entire families were massacred in King Philip's War (on my Scottish side) and also ones who narrowly escaped being slaughtered by Geronimo & his warriors as children (on my Latina great-grandmother's side). Evil acts happened on BOTH sides and glossing over that fact to present a one-sided narrative is wrong IMHO. Absolutely, the Native Americans were treated shamefully and I don't want that fact "whitewashed". But there was a kernel of truth behind the white colonists/settlers' fears and usage of the term "savage".

[Down_the_Rabbit_Hole]

I don't know.  Nothing's ever jumped out at me. I imagine when she talks about the worth of the child, she has a white, English child in mind, which is racism of a sort. I don't think it is explicit.

 

I read this earlier and it has bothered me. She wrote about what she knew, for her that might have been white children. However she does not (from what I have read from her) add this to her writings. What she wrote can be put into place for any race. Even though she lived in a time where her information of the outside world (which would be anywhere she did not travel) would have been clouded by the bigotry/sexism that was very much the norm back then, when she wrote she did not show that in her work. It is people like you who project what you think they might have been thinking that is wrong. What if CM was an Asian woman who worked with Asian children...or an African woman who worked with only African children....would the words be any different? Would the tone of her work be different? I don't think so. She was a white woman who worked with white children but the words/tone of her work do not give any indication she had a racism problem. Just because she did not specifically single out African, Asian, Latino, or any other ethic group does not mean she has a racist bent.

 

Not everything that is written by a white person during that time is racist. Trying to find racism in everything you read has a lot to say about you.

[Hunter]

The Henty books and many of the books on the Robinson list are racist. Some people use the Robinson methods with their own booklist. This can be a problem for families wanting to use an integrated vocabulary list, though.

 

I started my first Henty book back in the late 90s. We didn't finish it. I was appalled. I was younger then, and more idealistic and naive. Racism received a black-and-white zero-tolerance response from me, while any sexism went right over my head. My boys were smothered with sexism and were taught discrimination of almost every group of people in the world and their own country. But, I could hold my head up high that racist books were not a part of our curriculum, and feel oh so good about myself. Sigh!

 

I respect people choices to both use, and not use, Henty books.

 

It's very hard to find non-racist books among the public domain books of the 1800s and 1900s. Racism permeated the culture so permeates the books. It's easier to find less racist books among the ancient books. White people enslaved mostly white people back then. I personally don't see how that is better, but it's more palatable to typical American tastes right now. So for some families reading a Great Books list that focuses on ancient literature is more acceptable. I'm just not ready to exclude the last 200 years of literature. I don't hold it up as wonderful, but am not willing to entirely exclude it either.

[kiana]

Oh my goodness. I wanted to thank you, Bill, as I had no idea that GA Henty was blatantly racist. I know the much praised Robinson curriculum uses these books as their backbone for historical fiction.. Yikes! Are these books problematic across the board, or just the more modern ones? I was considering using a few of his books for Ancients, but if they are so anti-blacks (I am 1/16 black), I will have to pass.

Robinson, in general, tends towards a "if it's older, it's better" type of viewpoint on his booklist. For example, his recommendation of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, where the article on the "Negro" includes statements like "Mentally the negro is inferior to the white... the arrest or even deterioration of mental development [after adolescence] is no doubt very largely due to the fact that after puberty sexual matters take the first place in the negro's life and thoughts."

 

He has some truly wonderful books on his booklist, but it is not something that you can choose books from if you want to avoid attitudes like that.

[Spy Car]

What about the other way around? The man is a civil rights activist but treats his wife as subhuman and raises his daughters with very limited ideas? Is that better?

No. But since when did it become some sort of binary choice? As if one who opposes racism must then choose to be sexist? This is, of course, not so.

 

Racism, sexism, and religious bigotry all flow from the same font: hated/or disrespect of "the other."

 

As it has common and intertwined roots, they are all generally interlinked.

 

Books that are racist, like some in the AO list, tend also to be sexist and contain religious bigotry. Such is certainly the case with the American History text AO uses (This Country of Ours) which overflows with examples of all 3.

 

We, as well-thinking people, should strive for progress on all fronts, being aware that these are interlinked problems.

 

 

I agree about these books not having all over positive messages. I don't think any of these books are so good or so moral. I just need to have SOME books and have given up on censoring them. I guess this is easier for me, because I don't use the CM methods that don't give me "permission" to talk. We talk and talk and talk about how people suck in just about every book we read. We talk about how they suck more than how they are moral and good.

 

I'm resigned, not approving.

If you are saying that you find it efficacious for students of a certain age to read about the bigotry directed toward their ethnic group, gender, and/or religious minority in the children's literature of an earlier time as a way to contextulize the full reality of the Western experience, then I have no problem with this in theory.

 

Knowing at what age one should confront some of the thornier elements of our history, or know how it will impact children, is a tricky question. I don't believe we should sweep everything under the rug for all time, that is for sure.

 

It just remains a very different thing if young kid's who identify with the dominant "race," religion, (and maybe even gender) of the heros of Victorian literature, where the heros are presented as "paragons of Christian virtue" to be emulated, when those same "heros" act in ways that are racist or bigoted, and/or make racial or bigoted comments about those not of the dominant "race" or faith. Those children might get a very different idea. The wrong idea. and yet, these books are held up by some as examples of "good morals education." i could not disagree more emphatically.

 

When one combines the effect of head-filling children's minds with adventure stories that promote bigotry with a "history" text like TCoO, one really compound the damage IMO.

 

Reading a book with racism and bigotry with a child who is intellectually and emotionally prepared to confront the racism and bigotry of the past is a very different thing than being raised on such thinks as if the were mother's-milk.

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

Oh my goodness. I wanted to thank you, Bill, as I had no idea that GA Henty was blatantly racist. I know the much praised Robinson curriculum uses these books as their backbone for historical fiction.. Yikes! Are these books problematic across the board, or just the more modern ones? I was considering using a few of his books for Ancients, but if they are so anti-blacks (I am 1/16 black), I will have to pass.

Here is a "taste" of GA Henty. Mercifully this particular excerpt avoids the use of the term "nigger" (although it abounds in his novels).

 

In this scene a wise and sympathetic mentor is explaining the ways of Africans to our young hero:

 

"They are just like children," Mr. Goodenough said. "They are always either laughing or quarrelling. They are good-natured and passionate, indolent, but will work hard for a time; clever up to a certain point, densely stupid beyond.

 

The intelligence of an average negro is about equal to that of a European child of ten years old. A few, a very few, go beyond this, but these are exceptions, just as Shakespeare was an exception to the ordinary intellect of an Englishman. They are fluent talkers, but their ideas are borrowed.

 

They are absolutely without originality, absolutely without inventive power. Living among white men, their imitative faculties enable them to acquire a considerable amount of civilization. Left alone to their own devices they retrograde into a state little above their native savagery."

 

The attitude is pretty typical. The Henty books are all "formula," so in one sense if you'd read one you've read them all, except that they change historic venues. In each there is usually a "good savage" who (while not the equal of a white man) is faithful to his master (and usually calls him "master"). Often the faithful servant (or slave) will risk his life for his master, and the favor can go both ways. The servant is generally shown as a contrast to his "race" and an example of what the good example of Christianizing influence can do. The rest of "the savages" are generally killed or subjugated.

 

As to Art Robinson? The man is serious off his rocker. He has denied that HIV causes AIDS. He believes that exposure to low levels of nuclear raiation is good for people, so nuclear waste from power plants ought to be added to the concrete used in the foundations of American homes and/or released into the ocean. He has promoted quack cures for cancer. He teachers kids in 12th Grade that they can survive a nuclear holocaust using duct-tape (which would be "funny" if it wasn't so sad). He denies "climate change" and is an activist on the issue. He also a signatory to "The Dissent from Darwinism."

 

Art Robinson's "educational" philosophy is even scarier than this (non)scientific beliefs. he really is a person to avoid.

 

Bill

[Hunter]

When I was raising my boys, I was so rigid, we hardly ever read literature. They read much more BIble and biographies and encyclopedias and other nonfiction. But when we did read the rare "hero" story, we didn't focus on the fictitious character as a hero. Mostly we talked about the setting and history that could be learned from the novel. Or maybe a few literary elements.

 

Yes, there are gung-ho literature people doing the whole emulate the hero thing, but I find SELLERS of curriculum being the ones to talk that stuff more than homeschoolers themselves. I find people using historical fiction to be using it more for reading practice and history, than anything else.

 

The canned stories of Henty are meant to teach history. That's kinda the point, of having them be so similar. As for the racism, it is offensive, but I've heard the same type of nastiness used to describe woman and even much worse to describe mentally ill people, in books that are not being slammed like Henty is being slammed. Is it okay what Henty said? NO! Jumping up and down, NO! But, I'm hard pressed to find books where EVERYONE's human rights are being recognized. And the few that are, are so politically correct that a host of other issues need to be dealt with.

 

I think a lot of people who use Henty are just tired and resigned.

 

As for Robinson himself, he said a lot of silly stuff in the 1980s, to other people who were saying a lot of things we now think are silly. I said some REALLY dumb stuff back in the 80s too, that I'm thankful are not out there for all of you to hear and read. I cannot throw stones at anything anyone said in the 80s. Homeschooling in the 80s was mostly only done by atypical people. Is there anyone from the 80s who didn't say anything back then that sounds silly now? Robinson's words are a bit sillier than some, BUT he was put into an IMPOSSIBLE situations and has SOME things to say that are relevant and useful to lots of people now, as well as back in the 80s and 90s.

 

I'm thankful to have had the oppurtunity to learn more about what Robinson did with his kids. He saved me many tears when I was very confused and didn't know what to do. Robinson, old books, me--we are all a bit whacked, but it doesn't mean there is is nothing of use to some people. Take what you like, and leave the rest. I'm old enough now, wiser and more tired, to no longer see the world as black-and-white.

[Hunter]

And as for nuclear foolishness, my father in law in the early 2000s, told my boys that if the local power plant blew up, to just drink a lot of water and they would be fine. :eek: Last I talked to them they both believed him. They told me he knew more about nuclear than I did and they trusted him.

 

Before my divorce I heard my brother-in-law say he planned to get a boat and dispose of his dad's nuclear materials in the local harbor. He said it was low level enough it wouldn't be a problem.

 

The father of another relative died of cancer after repeatedly removing his nuclear badge, to prevent anyone from knowing how much radiation he was absorbing, so he could work more overtime. He bragged about it, until he got sick.

 

I'm used to foolish nuclear talk way past the 80s and early 90s. Really smart people can say some stuff that sounds amazingly stupid to ME.

[Cricket]

I'm still trying to figure out where Apologia fits in at AO. It's not required reading. It's kinda there as an option, but...discouraged by many. I don't know. It's slipper

 

 

It is presented as an option.  I think mostly because the series for younger kids is more CM-y.  (Is that a word?)  Written in a conversational way rather than a like textbook.  I know some people who have only used the living science books recommended. 

[Spy Car]

Art Robinson's spewing of nonsense did not end in the 1980s as anyone who has the time to hunt-down and read his rant-filled newsletters can prove for themselves.

 

Bill

[Cricket]

As far as This County of Ours, I admit I haven't read the entire book but I did read the earlier chapters aloud to my younger kids.  I don't remember anything horrid other than the use of the word "savages."  I just edited that as I read.  I thought Marshall presented some Indian tribes and people as good and noble and others were violent.  She also presented some early settlers as greedy and violent and others as just trying to make a better life for themselves.  The white settlers weren't always the good guys. 

 

I've started reading Madam How and Lady Why to my middle two.  I had forgotten that section where Kingsley blames people for living in high earthquakes areas, like they got what they deserved.  Yikes!  I just skip that part because the rest of it is good and teaches earth science in an interesting way.

 

Also, regarding book choices for AO, the books weren't only chosen because they were free.  They were also chosen because of the quality of writing.  I would love to see a list of modern books for younger kids that are engaging with rich language.  (Seems like someone did that somewhere?)  With AO, the higher years have more modern books listed. 

[ElizaG]

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_savage :

 

-----

[in] English the word "savage" did not necessarily have the connotations of cruelty we now associate with it, but only gradually acquired them. Instead it could as easily mean "wild", as in a wild flower, as it still does in its French and Italian cognates, for example. In French, sauvage does not necessarily connote either fierceness or moral degradation; it may simply mean 'wild', as in fleurs sauvages, 'wildflowers'. Dryden also wrote in 1697, 'Thus the savage cherry grows. . .';^[12] and Shelley. . . wrote in 1820 in his 'Ode to Liberty', 'The vine, the corn, the olive mild / Grew savage yet, to human use unreconciled'.^[13][14] (...)

 

In France the stock figure that in English is called the "noble savage" has always been simply "le bon sauvage", "the good wild man", a term without the any of the paradoxical frisson of the English one."

-----

 

If the word is used in this "neutral" way to describe native peoples in a book we're reading, we talk about how it doesn't really make sense, because those groups had their own social structures and traditions.  There are no truly "wild" people.

 

Of course, it does have pejorative connotations, as do "barbarian," "uncivilized" and "primitive."    I don't think this has so much to do with racism, as with the way Westerners have come to put a greater value on certain types of cultural development, especially those that are based on literacy.   For instance, from what I've seen of these older books, the Chinese and the upper castes of India would never have been labeled with the above terms, even if some other Asian peoples were.   And books that refer to Native Americans or South Sea Islanders as "savages" will often use the same word to describe the authors' own woad-smeared ancestors.  ;)

[Spy Car]

Please don't make me start posting quotes from This Country of Ours.

 

The use of the term "savages" (while unpleasant) is the least of it. There are racist and bigoted characterizations throughout the book.

 

Bill

[serendipitous journey]

Robinson, in general, tends towards a "if it's older, it's better" type of viewpoint on his booklist. For example, his recommendation of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica ...

 

just a tiny note (I'm still processing through this thread, and haven't anything substantial to add right now) -- the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica is Its Very Own Thing.  As in, it has developed a devoted following and was a really special, unusual edition.  Here's a Guardian article on why.  Now I myself am not going to hunt it down (the $ are not practical, it may not be possible to buy even if I had the $ available, and the use of space would not be wise) but it's kind of nifty to know about this ...