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

[Farrar]

The early chapters of This Country of Ours that I saw did seem to portray all the Indians as tricky and backstabbing to those honest Europeans who were just trying to survive.  Sigh.

[Farrar]

Simply Charlotte Mason seems to use some of these sorts of resources as well...  But I don't see this as a CM problem - I see it as a completely different thing and the fact that curricula like Robinson's also use these offensive vintage books to me shows how it's not really about CM or her philosophy or methods or words at all.  I think homeschoolers tend to want narrative resources (me too!) and appreciate how people tended to write with richer vocabulary and style for children a century or more ago (hey, me too!) and appreciate free or cheap resources that are OOP (me too!) and that leads them to older books.  Some of them are great, some are terrible, some are downright offensive.  And I think the fact that so many people use some of these offensive resources shows not so much that people are trying to peddle racism on their kids (I'm sure some are, of course, in particular some of the curriculum producers, but not most) but rather the continued lack of understanding that white Americans tend to have of racism and how oblivious many continue to be that they see something like this and think that by simply swapping out the word "savages" that they've fixed the problem with the book.  Occasionally that can be true - which is why the greater context matters - but often it's not true at all and they are not really seeing how deep the issue goes.

[KathyJo]

I've quoted this so many times that I'm waiting for the estate of C. S. Lewis to come after me legally, but here it goes again.
 
C. S. Lewis said in his introduction to On the Incarnation:
 

Every age has its own outlook. It is specially good at seeing certain truths and specially liable to make certain mistakes. We all, therefore, need the books that will correct the characteristic mistakes of our own period. And that means the old books. All contemporary writers share to some extent the contemporary outlook–even those, like myself, who seem most opposed to it. Nothing strikes me more when I read the controversies of past ages than the fact that both sides were usually assuming without question a good deal which we should now absolutely deny. They thought that they were as completely opposed as two sides could be, but in fact they were all the time secretly united–united with each other and against earlier and later ages–by a great mass of common assumptions.

We've been reading, and enjoying, The Story of Japan. Completely out of the blue, the author goes off on a rant about Koreans.  :confused1: It's a completely unapologetic bit of racism because, like many authors of his time, he saw it as truth, not racism.

 

It's also incredibly easy for modern readers to catch. With more modern authors, it's NOT always easy to catch their brand of crazy, because, as Lewis pointed out, most of us share in that crazy. Sure, we catch the bias in authors when we disagree with them. The problem is catching it when we agree.

 

I think we're kidding ourselves if we believe that our choices are devoid of ideologies that future generations will mock and argue about when educating their children.

[Spy Car]

I would be difficult for me to think of a modern author—outside ones (rightly) tagged as mad-men—whose writings are are muddled and illogical as those of C.S. Lewis.

 

Bill

[Cricket]

I asked my dd what she thought of Indians and settlers based on what we have read in TCoO. She said that the white settlers were wrong for thinking that Indians were stupid and didn't know things. She says she doesn't like to pick a side because sometimes the Indians were right and sometimes they were wrong and sometimes the settlers were right and sometimes they were wrong. She also said that all Indians aren't the same. She definitely isn't getting the idea that all Indians are tricky and backstabbing while the Europeans were correct in all they did.

 

For what it's worth! ;-)

[KathyJo]

I would be difficult for me to think of a modern author—outside ones (rightly) tagged as mad-men—whose writings are are muddled and illogical as those of C.S. Lewis.

 

Bill

 

Ad hominem. It's appropriate to argue against his statement, or mine, but this is merely an attack, and not even a particularly well thought out, convincing one.

 

I can suggest logic resources if you're interested.

[Spy Car]

Ad hominem. It's appropriate to argue against his statement, or mine, but this is merely an attack, and not even a particularly well thought out, convincing one.

 

I can suggest logic resources if you're interested.

I disagree with the premise that the frailties of ones era are diffult to see clearly. All one needs to do is open ones eyes, mind, and heart.

 

Reality is clear to those who embrace it.

 

Bill

[KathyJo]

I disagree with the premise that the frailties of ones era are diffult to see clearly. All one needs to do is open ones eyes, mind, and heart.

 

Reality is clear to those who embrace it.

 

Bill

 

Which is, of course, your prerogative. I, on the other hand, see in your comment the kind of hubris which blinds us to our own faults.

[kiana]

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 ...

 

You know, if you want to read it to find out about biographies of people since lost in history, that's fine.

 

But reading it *as an encyclopedia*, when many of the entries are by now just plain wrong -- for example, medical, science, technology -- even some of the history ones have been updated by more recently discovered manuscripts or updated translations of old ones -- as well as the pervasive racism, is something that I would consider extremely problematic.

 

[Amy Jo]

FYI - According to AO's booklist page there is exactly ONE book by Henty.

 

I find it funny that WTM espouses teaching logic, and yet we have an assumption that CM was obviously talking about white kids, that CM is bad because AO uses a book by Marshall, and that we all need to just accept Bill's obviously superior knowledge that CS Lewis was crazy.

[Alte Veste Academy]

In my mind, a complete and utter lack of modesty and refusal to thoughtfully consider the notion that intelligent people can hold different points of view are the largest possible red flags for biased thinking.

[ElizaG]

History for the older kids is pretty easy; let them study documents that show a multiplicity of views and read more than one text on the period involved. Make sure their conclusions are supported by evidence. Australian history, for example, might require teens to explore the idea that white settlement was peaceful. They would need to read history from both left and right perspectives and decide on a reasonable view based on the available evidence .

 

Why do they need to decide on a "view," though?   I can understand the desire to go through this process if they're going to have to vote on it, but in the case of the settlement of Australia, that ship has already sailed.   It seems to me that it's enough for them to be somewhat informed about the events.  

 

The idea of presenting history as "here's the left, here's the right, what do you decide?" seems to me to owe more to Hegel than to Charlotte Mason. 

[Spy Car]

FYI - According to AO's booklist page there is exactly ONE book by Henty.

 

I find it funny that WTM espouses teaching logic, and yet we have an assumption that CM was obviously talking about white kids, that CM is bad because AO uses a book by Marshall, and that we all need to just accept Bill's obviously superior knowledge that CS Lewis was crazy.

To be clear, I criticized the AO book list, and specifically did not criticize CM—explaining that I do not have enough expertise in the philosophy of CM to have a valid judgment about it . Then I was beaten about the head for my ignorance of CM. Uggg.

 

I also never said C.S. Lewis was "crazy," just that his argueably persuasive writings are "muddled and illogical."

 

Misrepresenting people's words just to create straw-men and red-herrings is to create logical fallacies.

 

People ask why we can't have non-superficial conversations on this forum, and this pretty much answers the question.

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

I don't like this linking of CM with AO either. I am not a C.S.Lewis fan, but crazy he was not :)

Then please note that I tried to specifically de-link CM from AO in my comments, and I never said I felt C.S. Lewis was "crazy."

 

Right?

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

Something I didn't understand till recently is how being extremely blunt about one's views can entrench other people in their views. I've been accused of that myself on many, many occasions. I suppose on this thread I have a sort of group loyalty to people who value CM and so I think it would be nice if we could meet somewhere in the middle regarding rhetoric, in order to encourage the thrashing out of issues. That may be overly optimistic.

 

Just realize others may see the use of overly diplomatic language resulting in issues that ought to be addressed in the light of day and thrashed out, instead being swept under the rug.

 

I do not feel this community has adequately addressed the problematic elements offered by many of the publishers of homeschooling materials. It is a pretty big failing that will be crystal clear in time. But should be obvious now.

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

OK, my apologies on that one. I've edited my post.

It is just an example (not picking on you) of how things go on this forum. Someone says one thing, a person come along and changes their words (for their own purposes), and people heap criticism on the misrepresentations. It is typical of the discourse on this forum. Not picking on you. I have always liked you.

 

Bill

[at the beach]

I think I assume that because the time and class CM was writing for was composed, overwhelmingly, by white children :) That was just the historical facts of middle class Victorian Britain.

 

I definitely don't think CM can only be used for white children. I think the method can be great for any child, whatever nationality or class!

I really do not know who CM was specifically writing for, but I thought that she was an educator who believed all children, regardless of their social standing or whether they were boys or girls, rich or poor, deserved and would benefit from a liberal education.:)

[Alte Veste Academy]

To be clear, I criticized the AO book list, and specifically did not criticize CM—explaining that I do not have enough expertise in the philosophy of CM to have a valid judgment about it . Then I was beaten about the head for my ignorance of CM. Uggg.

 

I also never said C.S. Lewis was "crazy," just that his argueably persuasive writings are "muddled and illogical."

 

Misrepresenting people's words just to create straw-men and red-herrings is to create logical fallacies.

 

People ask why we can't have non-superficial conversations on this forum, and this pretty much answers the question.

 

Bill

Wrong. You were "beaten about the head" for effectively derailing a thread (about the subject for which you confess a lack of expertise) by posting a criticism that was not relevant to the thread and then not letting go when you were repeatedly told as much. Uggg is right. "Misrepresenting people's words just to create" a false sense of being the victim is just eye-roll worthy.

 

If you think this community has not dealt with this topic enough (and I disagree, but the threads that would serve as evidence have mostly been deleted), then start a thread on the topic, or actually discuss it respectfully here in this one.

 

You were one of my favorite posters when I first joined these boards five years ago Bill, but you are getting progressively more strident in tone. It seems like you treat anyone who does not agree with you from the start or come around to your way of thinking as soon as you deliver your gospel truth like a backward, unenlightened dumbass. Even when I agree with you, I disagree with your tone. I actually LOL'ed when you talked about why we can't have non-superficial conversations here. You give as good as you get here, Bill.

[Alte Veste Academy]

I really do not know who CM was specifically writing for, but I thought that she was an educator who believed all children, regardless of their social standing or whether they were boys or girls, rich or poor, deserved and would benefit from a liberal education.:)

That is correct, and inherent in her philosophy that children are born people. Even during her time, her works were translated to other languages, and her college at Ambleside trained teachers from foreign countries. Her methods are very easily adapted to apply to any culture.

[Spy Car]

Wrong. You were "beaten about the head" for effectively derailing a thread (about the subject for which you confess a lack of expertise) by posting a criticism that was not relevant to the thread and then not letting go when you were repeatedly told as much. Uggg is right. "Misrepresenting people's words just to create" a false sense of being the victim is just eye-roll worthy.

What you're saying isn't true, which would be apparent to anyone who troubles to read the open (and publicly available) thread. I'm beginning to not appreciate your non-stop hostility.

 

If you think this community has not dealt with this topic enough (and I disagree, but the threads that would serve as evidence have mostly been deleted), then start a thread on the topic, or actually discuss it respectfully here in this one.

Yes, I'd call the response "woefully inadequate" and something that will seem shameful in times to come.

 

You were one of my favorite posters when I first joined these boards five years ago Bill, but you are getting progressively more strident in tone. It seems like you treat anyone who does not agree with you from the start or come around to your way of thinking as soon as you deliver your gospel truth like a backward, unenlightened dumbass. Even when I agree with you, I disagree with your tone. I actually LOL'ed when you talked about why we can't have non-superficial conversations here. You give as good as you get here, Bill.

I always liked you too. But please review the words you've slug my was in recent days and ask yourself honestly who has been strident and hostile.I have let them go (until now).

 

Bill

[TKDmom]

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

Well Bill, I'm officially offended at your repeated intentional, and bigoted misspelling of Mormon. ;) :D

[Spy Car]

Well Bill, I'm officially offended at your repeated intentional, and bigoted misspelling of Mormon. ;) :D

Not to mention, sexist :D

 

Bill

[Alte Veste Academy]

What you're saying isn't true, which would be apparent to anyone who troubles to read the open (and publicly available) thread. I'm beginning to not appreciate your non-stop hostility.

 

Yes, I'd call the response "woefully inadequate" and something that will seem shameful in times to come.

 

I always liked you too. But please review the words you've slug my was in recent days and ask yourself honestly who has been strident and hostile.I have let them go (until now).

 

Bill

Non-stop hostility? I posted to you once in the other thread, and I even made a point of saying I thought your position was valid, just misplaced in that thread.

 

Sincerely, since you are so alarmed by what you perceive to be the board's POV on this issue (as if, LOL, this board ever has one general POV on any issue instead of 1,000 nuanced POV's ranging across the full spectrum), I wonder if you might want to devise and post a poll about the use of problematic texts. I am certain many (most?) people do not post in these threads because they turn hostile 99.9% of the time, but most people would probably be happy to answer an anonymous poll.

[TKDmom]

And my opinion may be totally irrelevant at this point, but I really like everything I've learned about CM philosophy. I have yet to find a "CM curriculum" that I can use in its entirety. But that has been the case with at least 75% of the homeschool curriculum I have researched. The homeschooling community at large is tilted towards a particular brand of Christianity and it seems to be human nature to draw lines between "them" and "us". CM is not the only homeschooling philosophy that attracts people who seek to exclude or demonize people who are different from themselves. You can find that attitude just about everywhere.

 

Overall, I liked AO's book lists and helpful ideas on implementing CM. it's nice to have access to a free curriculum that bends over backwards to use free books. But they have been openly hostile to me when I have questioned the use of particular books. Which kind of sours me on the whole curriculum and I have been looking elsewhere for support in implementing CM.

[Stellalarella]

Regarding the ability to see personal bias and how that impacts reading literature from other cultures/times:

 

Months ago I read several scholarly works that explained  the values of Greco-Roman/Mediterranean culture.  Their culture organized around the principles of honor, patronage, kinship and purity.  But in order to really understand this ancient culture, I had to examine my own culture--which is most certainly not organized around the principles of family and personal honor, maintaining the status quo over advocating change, or conformity over individualism.  American culture champions the pursuit of outward status (degrees, possessions, beauty) as markers of success, the individual over the whole.

 

Being able to see my own culture when contrasted with another culture helps me to understand both cultures better.  We do ourselves and literature a disservice if we are only able to interpret a book based on our own cultural milieu.  

 

It goes like this.  I read about a woman living in an ancient patriarchal society.  I put on my American goggles and I think, "the poor oppressed woman, the evil society that confines her."  But if I stop and think about her culture, and put on those ancient goggles, I see that she is part of an entire society that holds kinship and honor as their deepest organizing principles.  Her desire to maintain family unity and honor is so strong because the measure of success in her world is not if she gets ahead by asserting her rights, the measure of success is whether the family's honor grows.  

 

OK, so that is the example.

 

My overall points are that 1) it takes work to be able to identify one's own hidden biases (i.e. CULTURE) and 2) it takes work to be able to identify the cultural values of past societies 3) and there's no need to throw the baby (book) out with the bathwater (the curriculum book lists). 

 

I am not a patriarchy advocate, btw, and my husband and father would laugh sarcastically at anyone who suggested it.   :)

[sagira]

Yeah, I'm staying out of this argument. The only points I want to make are:

 

- AO is not CM. There are other ways, many ways, of making CM methods work for your family. They most certainly can and do include, modern books.

- Charlotte Mason herself was inclusive in her methods, and as Alta Veste and someone else mentioned, her works were translated into different languages and the PNEU served home educators and teachers around the world.

-Consistent, pervasive, racism is something I am not willing to tolerate in an instructive book. I may in literature, for one book a year max, but to have the child read a whole series IMO would be passively condoning it. To be fair, I'm saying I would feel that I'm condoning it.

-Sexism in literature or dated books is something I always actively discuss with ds10.

[Stellalarella]

CM is not the only homeschooling philosophy that attracts people who seek to exclude or demonize people who are different from themselves. You can find that attitude just about everywhere.

 

Overall, I liked AO's book lists and helpful ideas on implementing CM. it's nice to have access to a free curriculum that bends over backwards to use free books. But they have been openly hostile to me when I have questioned the use of particular books. 

 

 

A good example of seeking to exclude someone would be making it impossible to download or view a curriculum booklist unless the reader had signed a statement of faith agreement.  

 

A good example of demonizing someone would be to post the names of and character attacks against people who were not eligible to read the curriculum booklist on a website.

 

I am sympathetic if a person has received a rude answer from a publisher in reply to complaints about a booklist, but if the dish doesn't suit, head on down to another casserole at the pot luck.  Now if you do like the casserole, but hate the cook, go ahead and enjoy the casserole, that's what I think.  :)  Perhaps the cook witnessing you enjoy the casserole will heap burning coals upon her head.  

 

I personally can't understand why FIAR includes They Were Strong and Good, and I have wanted to question their  morals and judgment on that one, but good grief, there are so many other good choices in their rest of their booklists.  

 

I only know of one homeschooler who uses 100% of a boxed curriculum.  I think most people pick and choose and continue to pick and choose as they go.  Though I'm starting my fifth year, I still adjust curriculums, I am still growing in my knowledge of education philosophies and pedagogy.  

 

So, be encouraged--if you can't find everything you need, that's part of the journey.  And that is also why new curriculums pop up every year--it's because someone couldn't find what they wanted and wrote her own.  :)  You might be next!  

[Spy Car]

Sincerely, since you are so alarmed by what you perceive to be the board's POV on this issue (as if, LOL, this board ever has one general POV on any issue instead of 1,000 nuanced POV's ranging across the full spectrum), I wonder if you might want to devise and post a poll about the use of problematic texts. I am certain many (most?) people do not post in these threads because they turn hostile 99.9% of the time, but most people would probably be happy to answer an anonymous poll.

What sort of questions would you propose for such a poll?

 

It is an interesting idea.

 

Bill

[SorrelZG]

It is entirely possible to study history without using racist, misogynistic or religiously discriminatory texts.

 

Would you please name a few books you can recommend?

[ElizaG]

In high school though, the point of history study is to 'do' history, kwim ? And that will involve assessing various kinds of evidence. Is it CMish ? I'd say if you are using living books to explore your active history studies, it's CMish. I'd be disappointed to think one couldn't use a CM method to educated older teens.

 

The approach you're describing -- getting students to "do" history themselves -- is a feature of our modern research university system, which came to us via 19th century Germany.  I'm not sure when people started trying to push it down to the high school level, but I don't see any evidence that Charlotte Mason was into this.    Her way of teaching high school history looks to be pretty much the same as her way of teaching elementary history:  graze on pastures of carefully selected books, then narrate.   At this level, she tends to recommend more textbooks, supplemented with historical essays to give life to the curriculum. 

 

http://www.amblesideonline.org/CM/vol6complete.html#175

 

Realistically, even if you go with the university-inspired model, most students at this age are going to be "doing" history in the same way that they're "doing" science.  They go through the method, but they're starting with materials that have been given to them, and this guides them toward a particular result (or range of results).   Thus, the teacher is still very much responsible for deciding on the books, documents, etc. that are used to introduce the subject. 

 

I don't see how this task is "pretty easy" compared to choosing a main textbook.  To me, it sounds pretty nerve-wracking, especially when multiplied by the number of topics that are being covered.   :tongue_smilie:

[Alte Veste Academy]

What sort of questions would you propose for such a poll?

 

It is an interesting idea.

 

Bill

 

I actually had to edit some suggested poll options out of my original post because it was just hard! I think it would be hard to word things in a non-inflammatory way. But I will attempt to do this as diplomatically as possible...definitely open to editing. Farrar seems to have the gift of diplomacy. Maybe she could add/subtract/critique. :D

 

It's tricky because I believe that polls on the new boards make people answer in each section. So then you would have to include an opposite option for some of the questions, if that makes sense. Maybe for the second and third questions there could be a "check all that apply" option.

 

First question:

 

I use or have used many older books with blatant racism, sexism, and/or derision of a particular religion.

 

I use or have used some older books with blatant racism, sexism, and/or derision of a particular religion.

 

I do not use and have never used older books with blatant racism, sexism, and/or derision of a particular religion.

 

Although I have used older books that others perceive as blatantly racist, sexist, and/or religiously intolerant, I do not believe them to be so because I agree with the POV expressed in the book(s) I have used. (Don't know how to word this one without being offensive... LOL)

 

Second question:

 

I have not used any and would not because I find them morally reprehensible and the very idea is unacceptable to me.

 

I have not used any and would not because I believe the thoughts are antiquated. Although I see the bigotry in the books as a product of their time, the bad outweighs the good for me.

 

I have not used any and would not because I am not comfortable exposing my children to racism, sexism, and religious intolerance.

 

I have not used any and would not because I feel that modern resources are better.

 

I have not used any and would not because...(other reason, feel free to expand on this below).

 

I do use or have used them.

 

Third question:

 

I have used or would consider using these books because I agree with the points of view expressed in the book(s).

 

I have used or would consider using these books because they are free and/or because I am on a strict budget.

 

I have used or would consider using these books because I believe they provide a valuable opportunity to discern and discuss bias with regards to time/place with my children. Although I see the bigotry in the books, the good outweighs the bad for me.

 

I have used or would consider using these books because I believe them to be of a higher literary quality.

 

I have used or would consider using these books because...(other reason, feel free to expand on this below).

 

I do not and have not used books of this type.

 

Fourth question: (If you do use books of this type, regarding specific instances of inflammatory language.)

 

For read-alouds, I auto-correct by verbally substituting words or ideas that are acceptable to me. My kids never know the bigotry was there.

 

For read-alouds, I do not correct language but we discuss the bigotry.

 

For read-alouds, I do not correct language and do not discuss the bigotry.

 

For read-alouds, I do not correct what others may perceive to be bigoted language because I agree with the POV in the book(s).

 

For independent reading, I purposefully discuss bigoted language with my children, making it a learning experience.

 

For independent reading, I do not discuss bigoted language with my children because I assume they will recognize it and disregard it.

 

For independent reading, I do not discuss what others may perceive to be bigoted language because I agree with the POV in the book(s).

 

I do not and have not used books of this type.

 

That's the best I can do while getting very, very sleepy...

[lewelma]

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.

 

I am really sorry to have missed out on this thread today.  The America's Cup was on and there was NO access to the internet in NZ because everyone and their brother was streaming it! (how's that for ironic with a rich white man's sport).

 

So I know I am really bringing this up late in the thread, but I would like to see the issue Hunter brought up discussed. 

 

I have given this some good thought over the years.  I was first sensitized to it when my dh was reading Tarzan to my boys, then aged 5 and 8, and I noticed some very racist thoughts/language coming out of my 5 year old's mouth.  So my dh edited as he went and changed the language to 'european' and 'native' instead of 'white' and 'savage.'  This small changed and other on-the-fly edits very quickly fixed the problem I was seening.  But it made me think about the books that they were reading silently to themselves and about what they were basically being taught by someone else.  I vowed to keep a close eye on their books.

 

I started by prereading, sometimes months in advance and then discussing the books with them as they read them.  But what I found was that I had forgotten all the detailed language, and could only discuss the general theme or tone of the book.  So I switched to co-reading, or whatever it is called, where I read (actually listen while doing chores) to the books chapter by chapter as they are reading them independently. As I listen, I note (often in writing) very specific language that is used and discuss it sometimes before they read the chapter, and sometimes after to see what they have noticed themselves.  This technique has been *very* effective, but also very time-intensive for me.  It's a good thing I do a lot of dishes!

 

I'm curious how others help their children to process racist and sexist books.  I'm also curious how you would know if your methods were completely effective.  Basically, if a student takes 50 hours to read a book and thus gets 50 hours of racist/sexist thoughts, and a moderating influence works for 5 hours over that period of time helping the student to process/think critically about it, which one wins?  And how can you tell?

 

Ruth in NZ

[at the beach]

She was writing in Victorian Britain and her audience was largely composed of white, middle class women. Nothing wrong with that fact. That's the context of her time. I like to think she would see the extension of her methods to children of other classes and backgrounds as an educational good, and I suspect had she been writing later in time, would have made that point more explicit in her writings. Lacking access to Charlotte's mind - don't you wish you had access ? :) I do! - I can't say that for sure. The tone of her writing tends to suggest it.

 

I guess I didn't state that very well. :) I am familiar with her background. I just thought that there existed evidence that she did not intend for her ideas to be limited to the children in her own social class. For example, I thought I read somewhere she had started an infant school for children whose mothers worked in the mills, so she could get those children out of the mills. It's been a long time since I have read her writings. Maybe I should do that again. :)

 

ETA: Here is a link to Wikipedia info on CM: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlotte_Mason

 

And here is a quote from the Wikipedia site referenced above:

 

Charlotte Mason was born in Bangor. An only child, she was mostly educated at home by her parents.^[1][2] Her mother died when she was 16. Her father died the following year. Mason enrolled in the Home and Colonial Society for the training of teachers and earned a First Class Certificate. She taught for more than ten years atDavison School in Worthing, England. During this time she began to develop her vision for "a liberal education for all." The word "liberal," as it related to education in Mason's time, implied a generous^[3] and broad curriculum for all children, regardless of social class.

 

[TKDmom]

A good example of seeking to exclude someone would be making it impossible to download or view a curriculum booklist unless the reader had signed a statement of faith agreement.

 

A good example of demonizing someone would be to post the names of and character attacks against people who were not eligible to read the curriculum booklist on a website.

 

I am sympathetic if a person has received a rude answer from a publisher in reply to complaints about a booklist, but if the dish doesn't suit, head on down to another casserole at the pot luck. Now if you do like the casserole, but hate the cook, go ahead and enjoy the casserole, that's what I think. :) Perhaps the cook witnessing you enjoy the casserole will heap burning coals upon her head.

 

 

I'm talking about the books themselves. I'm Mormon. There is a chapter in TCOO that specifically bashes Mormons and calls them all sorts of ridiculous names. The last time I remember Bill getting up in arms about this book, they received many complaints about their use of this book. They became (understandably) defensive. I was oblivious to the whole kershuffle, so last year, I made a comment on their forums about the book. They locked the thread and referred me to a statement on their website that basically says, "we agree with the claims of TCOO and think Mormons are misguided about their faith."

 

Ouch. An acknowledgment that the book is biased would have been nice. A suggestion that you might want to skip that chapter would have been okay. If it was just a book used for part of the year, I can skip it easily. But it is their American history spine for 5 years. It breaks my heart to think that this book may be the only introduction children may have to what Mormons believe. I haven't even read the whole book, but I can imagine it's full of all types of stereotypes that were popular in H.E. Marshall's time. And whenever I have tried to start up conversations on the AO forum about substituting books, the prevailing attitude is that this book list is THE book list of all book lists, and thou shalt not substitute.

 

Sorry for the rant. I hate bashing AO, because I think they are trying to do a lot of good with their free curriculum and making CM more accessible to everyone. But the intolerance really galls me. And it's not as supportive a community as I might wish for.

[Spy Car]

I'm talking about the books themselves. I'm Mormon. There is a chapter in TCOO that specifically bashes Mormons and calls them all sorts of ridiculous names. The last time I remember Bill getting up in arms about this book, they received many complaints about their use of this book. They became (understandably) defensive. I was oblivious to the whole kershuffle, so last year, I made a comment on their forums about the book. They locked the thread and referred me to a statement on their website that basically says, "we agree with the claims of TCOO and think Mormons are misguided about their faith."

 

Ouch. An acknowledgment that the book is biased would have been nice. A suggestion that you might want to skip that chapter would have been okay. If it was just a book used for part of the year, I can skip it easily. But it is their American history spine for 5 years. It breaks my heart to think that this book may be the only introduction children may have to what Mormons believe. I haven't even read the whole book, but I can imagine it's full of all types of stereotypes that were popular in H.E. Marshall's time. And whenever I have tried to start up conversations on the AO forum about substituting books, the prevailing attitude is that this book list is THE book list of all book lists, and thou shalt not substitute.

 

Sorry for the rant. I hate bashing AO, because I think they are trying to do a lot of good with their free curriculum and making CM more accessible to everyone. But the intolerance really galls me. And it's not as supportive a community as I might wish for.

It sincerely breaks my heart as well to think how many children are being raised on the type of bigotry that freely flows in TCoO.

 

Thank you for trying to do something about the situation. I wish your response was one among thousands, or tens of thousands.

 

For those wondering if this discussion is "over-blown," I will link to the TCoO chapter on the Mormons, and people can decide for themselves if these are the sorts of history lessons they think are likely to raise thoughtful and tolerant children.

 

http://digital.library.upenn.edu/women/marshall/country/country-VII-81.html

 

The bigotry expressed towards Mormons in this chapter (and my apologies to our LDS members for linking to such filth) is typical of Marshall's treatment of "out groups." It is not an "isolated incident" and the attitudes are not things that can be "edited out on the fly." They permeate the whole work.

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

I actually had to edit some suggested poll options out of my original post because it was just hard! I think it would be hard to word things in a non-inflammatory way. But I will attempt to do this as diplomatically as possible...definitely open to editing. Farrar seems to have the gift of diplomacy. Maybe she could add/subtract/critique. :D

 

It's tricky because I believe that polls on the new boards make people answer in each section. So then you would have to include an opposite option for some of the questions, if that makes sense. Maybe for the second and third questions there could be a "check all that apply" option.

Thank you for the hard work. It deserves study and some thought.

 

My day looks quite busy, but I wanted to acknowledge the post (even if it is only to say I saw it).

 

Bill

[KathyJo]

It sincerely breaks my heart as well to think how many children are being raised on the type of bigotry that freely flows in TCoO.

 

Thank you for trying to do something about the situation. I wish your response was one among thousands, or tens of thousands.

 

For those wondering if this discussion is "over-blown," I will link to the TCoO chapter on the Mormons, and people can decide for themselves if these are the sorts of history lessons they think are likely to raise thoughtful and tolerant children.

 

http://digital.library.upenn.edu/women/marshall/country/country-VII-81.html

 

The bigotry expressed towards Mormons in this chapter (and my apologies to our LDS members for linking to such filth) is typical of Marshall's treatment of "out groups." It is not an "isolated incident" and the attitudes are not things that can be "edited out on the fly." They permeate the whole work.

 

Bill

 

Appeal to pity and appeal to fear.

 

Honest to goodness, I'm not just trying to be an ass. However, this is not an argument. It's emotional manipulation, and it makes it difficult to have a discussion. It reads like something a politician would say to get the book banned. I *agree* with you about the content of the book, and this response still bothered me. 

 

-------------------------------------

 

For our household, we try to teach respect for others and their beliefs. I don't believe an occasional book that contains racism, sexism, etc., is going to take precedence in my children's minds over the way we live our lives and the discussions we have. 

[Stellalarella]

 

 

I'm curious how others help their children to process racist and sexist books.  I'm also curious how you would know if your methods were completely effective.  Basically, if a student takes 50 hours to read a book and thus gets 50 hours of racist/sexist thoughts, and a moderating influence works for 5 hours over that period of time helping the student to process/think critically about it, which one wins?  And how can you tell?

 

Ruth in NZ

 

Whatever we read they will naturally interpret first of all by their own cultural experience.  For example, when we read the biblical narrative of Jacob working for years to acquire his two wives, the kids immediately understand that is very different from their parents' marriage.  They know that their Dad didn't buy me from my family.  

 

The 24/7 living example we give our dc is their main teacher.  After that, asking good questions, pointing out differences is helpful. 

 

It sounds like you are doing a great job teaching your children.

[Spy Car]

Appeal to pity and appeal to fear.

 

Honest to goodness, I'm not just trying to be an ass. However, this is not an argument. It's emotional manipulation, and it makes it difficult to have a discussion. It reads like something a politician would say to get the book banned. I *agree* with you about the content of the book, and this response still bothered me. 

 

-------------------------------------

 

For our household, we try to teach respect for others and their beliefs. I don't believe an occasional book that contains racism, sexism, etc., is going to take precedence in my children's minds over the way we live our lives and the discussions we have.

I linked to the text so people can read the passage for themselves. That is not an appeal to pity or fear. Just an appeal that people read the works for themselves and consider whether they find this sort of thing appropriate for 5 years worth of American History as a "spine."

 

Five years is not "an occasion." There is no intrinsic literary value to the work. It is not among "the great books" of Western Civilization. It is not even good history.

 

No one is arguing that TCoO ought to "be banned", this is the perpetuation of yet another logical fallacy.

 

Did you read the linked chapter?

 

Bill

 

 

 

.

[Alte Veste Academy]

I think the response you got from AO was just rotten. Inexcusable, really, and very telling.

 

the prevailing attitude is that this book list is THE book list of all book lists, and thou shalt not substitute.

Yes, that is definitely the vibe over there. Aside from the use of problematic texts, the statement I quoted stands out as the biggest reason why I could never get on board with AO. In my opinion... In their attempt to assemble the perfect CM book list, they have operated completely counter to the broad minded precedent she set. Their curriculum is not living; it is stagnant. Yes, they have provided an expansive and useful service for free, but at the expense of any sense of modernity, which is effectively a disservice to the memory of CM. In their attempt to honor her and recreate what she used, they miss the point that she would most likely not be using the same things 100 years later. Some of the literature? Of course. But many (most?) of the history selections? I'm thinking no way. CM evaluated and tweaked her curriculum yearly. Yes, absolutely, she kept the best of the best classics from year to year, but...(more quotes from WCLTL)

 

The schools and classes that used the old PNEU programs used to await the yearly program with interest and enthusiasm. Old favorites and classic books from our heritage are included year to year. But then a Baden-Powell writes a scouting book, and that opens new avenues. A new book on planets, engines, or medieval castles arrives and is chosen.

It was typical of her open search for the best ideas to develop a full life that she pounced on Baden-Powell's Scout Handbook, designed to train soldiers. I doubt that any other Victorian educator saw the potential in that book even for boys, let alone for the demure little girls with their governesses.

 

Charlotte Mason not only saw potential in it, but she immediately purchased quantities of the handbooks and included them in the PUS (Parents' Union School) curriculum. These she sent to aristocratic homes for the Charlotte Mason-trained governesses to use, to the PNEU schools, and to home schools taught by mothers.

This speaks to her belief that all children deserve a rich education, not only those of aristocrats. Also...

 

She was magnanimous and cultured. To her mind, the mind of a miner's child was just as hungry for the best educational nourishment as a child of the royal family. In the same way, she did not differentiate between the minds of boys and girls. All were to be given the tools of literacy so they could be nourished at the fountain of the greatest minds—right across all disciplines.

Hardly sounds like someone who would accept bigotry in books if she were still living...

 

One of the features of her work is that for her these truths [Christian belief and teaching] were an infrastructure, an underpinning, a solid framework of unchangeable reality that each successive generation could build on. But these truths were not in a case, and that is a huge difference from those who would legalistically impose truths on others.

So, yes, she was a Christian and her faith permeated her work. But I have a have an impossible time believing that she would admire AO's book list and philosophy if she were still alive. I think she would be on Amazon, setting the "look inside" feature on fire. :lol: I picture her advocating the loading up of iPods with the best audio books for kids to enjoy while mom drives them an hour out of suburbia to the nearest state park. Not to sound like a broken record, but that's why When Children Love to Learn is my favorite CM book...

[KathyJo]

I linked to the text so people can read the passage for themselves. That is not an appeal to pity or fear. Just an appeal that people read the works for themselves and consider whether they find this sort of thing appropriate for 5 years worth of American History as a "spine."

 

Five years is not "an occasion." There is no intrinsic literary value to the work. It is not among "the great books" of Western Civilization. it is not even good history.

 

No one is arguing that TCoO ought to "be banned", this is the perpetuation of yet another logical fallacy.

 

Did you read the linked chapter?

 

Bill.

 

Yes, I read the chapter. Did you miss the bit where I said I AGREE with you about the content of the book? Did you miss the part where this conversation concerns more than just this one book? Did you see, anywhere, me arguing for AO in general, or this book in specific? 

 

I also did not say that you argued the book should be banned. Concerning your post, I said, "It reads like something a politician would say to get the book banned." What is it you keep telling people about twisting your words to make it sound like you said something you didn't? You apparently don't like it, so don't pull it on me.

 

As for whether or not your previous response had examples of appeals to pity and fear, they're practically text book examples, and like the chapter from TCOO, they're there for anyone to judge for themselves.

 

Attack, attack, attack. Force people to defend themselves against things they never said instead of arguing points they actually made. Accuse them of twisting your words when you implied something and they thought you stated it outright. That has been your MO throughout this thread, and others. Meh. I can't have a discussion with someone who won't even try to be logical or civil.

[Spy Car]

 

Yes, I read the chapter. Did you miss the bit where I said I AGREE with you about the content of the book? Did you miss the part where this conversation concerns more than just this one book? Did you see, anywhere, me arguing for AO in general, or this book in specific?

So, to be clear, we agree the contents of TCoO contain high-levels of racism and bigotry in works that are aimed at children? This is a significant point of agreement.

 

I also did not say that you argued the book should be banned. Concerning your post, I said, "It reads like something a politician would say to get the book banned." What is it you keep telling people about twisting your words to make it sound like you said something you didn't? You apparently don't like it, so don't pull it on me.

Can you give any examples in the modern American political arena where a politician has advocted banning books like TCoO? I'm sure most people (including, but not limited to politicians) would recoil from using these books with kids. But "banning" them? I've never in my existence hear of an major American politician (leaving out kooks, and those on the lunatic fringe) advocate banning books.

 

As for whether or not your previous response had examples of appeals to pity and fear, they're practically text book examples, and like the chapter from TCOO, they're there for anyone to judge for themselves.

I'm happy to let people judge for themselves, which is why I liked to the text. So they could reason it for themselves.

 

Attack, attack, attack. Force people to defend themselves against things they never said instead of arguing points they actually made. Accuse them of twisting your words when you implied something and they thought you stated it outright. That has been your MO throughout this thread, and others. Meh. I can't have a discussion with someone who won't even try to be logical or civil.

Hardly. I have patiently responded to your poinst, and been met with hostility at ever turn. You might look in the mirror.

 

Bill

[Stellalarella]

Although we don't have an American culture that is organized on the principles of honor/shame, people here do use shame as a tool from time to time to bring people into compliance or to reduce someone's stature.  Or to win an argument.

 

Just pull out the words bigot, racist, homophobe, sexist and apply it to any person, book, or idea and that person's value is instantly diminished.  He, she, it has been shamed.  It is indeed a very persuasive and effective tactic to bring people in alignment to the chosen norm.  Now, not all words have equal power to shame in our society.  Adulterer or fornicator don't seem to have the same punch.  As I see it, though, racist and sexist are like word bombs.  I am sure there are clinical, detached definitions, but those words pack some serious shaming TNT.  

 

I am not writing an argument for or against the use of shaming to change a person's values in this particular post; I do want to point out, though, that the effect of using these words to shame in a discussion effectively shuts down the discussion.

 

Once the "the book is sexist, racist and therefore terrible" ball is lobbed, what else is there to say?  It either just becomes a ping pong match of "Yes it is.  No it isn't,"  or, the shamed party just shuts up and the dialogue ends.  I don't know that people become better thinkers, or that people have a change of heart--they just lose their invitation (their status) to participate in the discussion.  

 

I appreciate hearing about how a book was written, or choices an author has made.  Ruth asked a good question about the impact of books with issues.  That's great.  But overall, I think this thread is going nowhere fast once we hit the shame track.

[Spy Car]

Although we don't have an American culture that is organized on the principles of honor/shame, people here do use shame as a tool from time to time to bring people into compliance or to reduce someone's stature. Or to win an argument.

 

Just pull out the words bigot, racist, homophobe, sexist and apply it to any person, book, or idea and that person's value is instantly diminished. He, she, it has been shamed. It is indeed a very persuasive and effective tactic to bring people in alignment to the chosen norm. Now, not all words have equal power to shame in our society. Adulterer or fornicator don't seem to have the same punch. As I see it, though, racist and sexist are like word bombs. I am sure there are clinical, detached definitions, but those words pack some serious shaming TNT.

 

I am not writing an argument for or against the use of shaming to change a person's values in this particular post; I do want to point out, though, that the effect of using these words to shame in a discussion effectively shuts down the discussion.

 

Once the "the book is sexist, racist and therefore terrible" ball is lobbed, what else is there to say? It either just becomes a ping pong match of "Yes it is. No it isn't," or, the shamed party just shuts up and the dialogue ends. I don't know that people become better thinkers, or that people have a change of heart--they just lose their invitation (their status) to participate in the discussion.

 

I appreciate hearing about how a book was written, or choices an author has made. Ruth asked a good question about the impact of books with issues. That's great. But overall, I think this thread is going nowhere fast once we hit the shame track.

But Andrea, the racism and bigotry is some works is so manifestly evident that no one is contesting that "ain't so."

 

There seems (thus far anyway) a universal agreement that TCoO contains many bigoted and racially charged depictions of "out groups."

 

And some groups—like AO, in this instance—ought to feel shame for scheduling works like this one with children in my way of thinking.

 

Sometimes "shame" is a useful vehicle to drive change. It is unthinkable to me that in the 21st Century there is a group that believes TCoO is an acceptable spine to use for American History.

 

Bill

[Stellalarella]

 

Sometimes "shame" is a useful vehicle to drive change. It is unthinkable to me that in the 21st Century there is a group that believes TCoO is an acceptable spine to use for American History.

 

Bill

 

 

There are people that use it as a spine.  They are now shamed on the WTM forum.    

 

Shame makes it so that people can't or won't dialogue.  I'm not convinced it changes people's thinking.  It just shuts them up.    

 

Though it is  tricky to discuss books that are problematic without using pointed shaming language, I wouldn't think it would be impossible.  

[Spy Car]

There are people that use it as a spine. They are now shamed on the WTM forum.

 

Shame makes it so that people can't or won't dialogue. I'm not convinced it changes people's thinking. It just shuts them up.

 

Though it is tricky to discuss books that are problematic without using pointed shaming language, I wouldn't think it would be impossible.

I think not speaking forthrightly about issues like the ones in TCoO will not lead lead to positive change. We are well past the time as a society where we should feel the need to speak gingerly about the sort of blatant racism and bigotry that's contained in TCoO and the appropriateness of using books like these as history spines.

 

Feeling shame is result of the conscience telling people they are doing something wrong. Shame has a purpose that can motivate positive changes. I believe the board members of AO should experience a sense of shame for distributing TCoO.

 

As I said earlier, I don't think is is especially difficult to see the foibles and failings of ones time if one keeps ones eyes, mind, and heart open. This is one of the failings. The AO board should be hearing from well-thinking people that what they are doing in distributing and scheduling TCoO is something they ought to be ashamed of doing. It is shameful. There is no excuse for it. Being "free" is not a valid justification.

 

Bill

[Crimson Wife]

If you can teach history from a non-bigoted perspective (or at least a perspective which tries to be non-bigoted) and you abhor racism, why wouldn't that be the obvious choice?

I don't think it is possible to write about "hot button" issues in a purely objective way without any bias towards the author's POV creeping in. SOTW is intended to be objective but SWB's Protestant bias very much shows in certain chapters in Vol. 2. If I were writing SOTW and trying to be objective, my bias as a Catholic would come through in those same chapters.

 

This is why I use multiple resources and try as best I can to present both sides of the story. We discuss how facts can be interpreted very differently through the lens of the author's worldview. With older materials we discuss how the author's language reflects his/her time period. I use the example of veganism. If veganism became the social norm centuries in the future, would we want future people to condemn us for eating animal products when today that is considered perfectly acceptable?

[Cricket]

There are people that use it as a spine.  They are now shamed on the WTM forum.    

 

Shame makes it so that people can't or won't dialogue.  I'm not convinced it changes people's thinking.  It just shuts them up.    

 

Though it is  tricky to discuss books that are problematic without using pointed shaming language, I wouldn't think it would be impossible.  

 

Yeah, pretty much.  We use it and I'll use it with my youngest again.  There are a few problems with the book but I don't think it is so fundamentally flawed and the problems are so pervasive that to use it is unthinkable.  Shame away.  Whatever.  Not even AO people have to use it.  :001_smile:

[lewelma]

So if you have the choice of a non-racist resource exploring racism, and a racist one, why would you choose the racist one ? That has me genuinely baffled.

 

 

Cultural Literacy.

 

If you are looking to avoid sexism, you are basically stuck with only modern books.

 

If you are looking to avoid racism, you have definitely excluded many many authors.  Can't read Ivanhoe because of the portrail of jews.  Can't read Tarzan or The Lost World because of the portrail of Africans. Even Wuthering Heights' premise is that Heathcliff's 'gypsie' blood is the root of all his evil ways.  But my goal is cultural literacy. So IMHO they need to read all the big ones.

 

I could use Huckleberry Finn and Frankenstein to explore racism, and we have; but in the other books, the racism is more insidious and thus more important to identify and discuss.

 

Ruth in NZ

 

(And the American's Cup is on in an hour, so I will be shut out again!)

[Spy Car]

Cultural Literacy.

 

If you are looking to avoid sexism, you are basically stuck with only modern books.

 

If you are looking to avoid racism, you have definitely excluded many many authors. Can't read Ivanhoe because of the portrail of jews. Can't read Tarzan or The Lost World because of the portrail of Africans. Even Wuthering Heights' premise is that Heathcliff's 'gypsie' blood is the root of all his evil ways. But my goal is cultural literacy. So IMHO they need to read all the big ones.

 

I could use Huckleberry Finn and Frankenstein to explore racism, and we have; but in the other books, the racism is more insidious and thus more important to identify and discuss.

 

Ruth in NZ

 

(And the American's Cup is on in an hour, so I will be shut out again!)

But books like TCoO bear no similariy with Wuthering Heights or Huckleberry Finn. I hope you understand this.

 

Bill