The Word "Papoose"

[albeto.]

The point is, it tends to take a lot of research just to figure this sort of thing out.   

 

Not really. You just found out using the word "papoose" to describe any NA baby might be offensive. The polite thing to do is not use it to describe a NA baby.

 

Research done.

 

;)

[ElizaG]

Not really. You just found out using the word "papoose" to describe any NA baby might be offensive. The polite thing to do is not use it to describe a NA baby.

 

Research done.

 

;)

 

Well, no.  I already knew the above, thank you. 

 

But as this thread shows, there are other "issues" about the word, beyond whether or not we use it ourselves in that way.  Is it considered so objectionable that we should edit it out of books, or just not use those books?  Does the context matter?   How about narrative accounts (fiction or non-fiction) that have Native Americans using it themselves?   

 

And that's just one word.   Hunter has apparently experienced this with a much larger range of terms, pictures, crafts, etc.  

 

We can also run into similar things when describing other regions, countries, continents, religions, occupational groups, and so on.  (I guess it would also apply to the past, but they're not around to object.)

 

 

ETA:  If our children are raised to have respectful attitudes, to try to use words that are well-suited to the occasion, and to see life as a continual learning process, then they'll surely take the opportunity to correct any use of inadvertently problematic language in their future, as the situation comes up.   Our challenge isn't so much in avoiding all words that might have been associated with objectification in some way -- but in teaching and modeling, clearly and positively, that people are never to be used as objects. 

 

[albeto.]

Well, no.  I already knew the above, thank you. 

 

But as this thread shows, there are other "issues" about the word, beyond whether or not we use it ourselves.  Is it considered so objectionable that we should edit it out of books, or just not use those books?  Does the context matter?   How about narrative accounts (fiction or non-fiction) that have Native Americans using it themselves?   

 

And that's just one word.   Hunter has apparently experienced this with a much larger range of terms, pictures, crafts, etc.  

 

We can also run into similar things when describing other regions, countries, continents, religions, occupational groups, and so on.  (I guess it would also apply to the past, but they're not around to object.)

 

 

 In my opinion, part of taking on the responsibility of education includes learning new things, even if they are confusing at first. She's doing that here, and kudos to her for stretching her comfort zone a bit. Should she (or any of us) edit the word "papoose" when coming across it in a text book? Literary story? Description of picture? I think whether she edits them out or not (I wouldn't), opening up this discussion with her kids is part of their education. Our kids learn that words like "n*gger" exist, that they were once widespread but are now considered highly offensive, that are used in specific contexts, contexts to which most of us here are not privy to. This is an example of this learning process - exploring the many little details and examples. There is no solid, universal line between "right" and "wrong" in these things. Why wouldn't a family talk about placing the word "papoose" in the spectrum of words some people find offensive? It's not as offensive as "n*gger," but it's more offensive than "dummy," for example. The courteous person avoids doing that which s/he knows is offensive. The child should learn this, not that in learning why and how to show cultural sensitivity, their white culture is being stripped away. 

[ElizaG]

Language is closely tied to objectifying others.

 

Of course it has been used that way, because quite a lot of human history is closely tied to objectifying others.   If we got rid of everything that's ever been used to bully or oppress someone else, we wouldn't have much left. 

 

For our family, avoiding or discussing "tainted" language is something we try to do up to a point.  I think I've made that clear.   But we recognize that it's ultimately not going to solve anything -- any more than avoiding apples with worms in them is going to solve the worm problem.  

[ElizaG]

I query how one can be respectful up to a point ?

 

If this is meant in reply to my posts, I think you might have misread something, because I didn't say that we try to be "respectful up to a point."   What I did say was that we try to avoid or discuss problematic language up to a point.  And that's all that any of us in this thread do.   Because we can never do a complete job of identifying, researching, and dealing with all of these potentially offensive words, phrases, and examples of usage, even if we spent our whole lives at it.  

 

Speaking of which, this thread is starting to feel like that.  :001_smile:   I think I'm done -- but thank you, Hunter, for such an interesting topic. 

 

I was reading through Public School Methods and realized how much more Native American emphasis there is, than modern curricula.

 

I keep forgetting to mention that the heavy use of Native American stories and crafts in early 20th century school materials (and in the Boy Scouts, YMCA, and summer camps) was largely due to the popularity of the "culture epoch theory."    If you haven't looked in to this, you might want to.  There's an article about it here from 1896, when it was still quite new.   It came out of Germany, and was based on the theories of evolution and recapitulation.  It was thought to be a very modern and scientific approach to child development.   Basically, they thought that first graders should be immersed in Native American culture because they were going through their own personal "barbarian" stage.  Then they'd go on to the age of chivalry, and so on.  Waldorf is the only present-day curriculum that follows this "race progress" method of organization explicitly, but it was a mainstream thing taught in teacher's colleges in those days.  

 

There's clearly no way of fixing the problems with that sort of worldview by removing a few words here and there.  :001_huh:   Again, though, this was fairly recent.   The older curricula can be criticized for putting an almost exclusive emphasis on Western and Christian history, but they weren't built on the idea that other cultures were evolutionary "dead ends" whose people were forever stuck in the primary grades of life.

[MBM]

ah yes.

 

Bootstraps.

 

No, I am not saying they need to lift themselves up by their bootstraps. They need a team of people to support them, a helping hand from people who genuinely care. Who cares more than people from their own tribes who understand intimately the problems experienced on the reservations and who can deal with government on their behalf to get the policies to work better?

[Hunter]

I had a busy day. I'm looking forward to responding tomorrow. Thanks everyone for contributing!

 

I think threads like this are important for even people that are not participating. Lots of lurkers read. And I think it's just as important for people to post that disagree with me. People learn so much by reading ALL of this. I think a LOT of important and interesting things have been posted here.

 

We have the BEST conversations here! Thanks everyone!

[Hunter]

How can we know what is accurate???Seriously! Primary source documents you say? Looking at primary source documents is like eavesdropping. You will NEVER know the truth from them, because there is too much that you will never know about the context of those PERSONAL documents.

 

There are well educated, supposedly intelligent people who think I was "soliciting for gay s-x on the beach" because of e-mails, websites I visited, and letters I wrote, that my ex-husband showed them after I left.

 

The "gay" website I was on, just happened to be run by an openly gay man who was ALSO a talented artist, and I went there to get clothes for the Sims (a computer game) skin that looked like my husband, that I had downloaded from another site. :lol:

 

I went to the beach to meet some other ladies from the local freecycle group, to do yoga. Yes, we were in spandex, and got into some funky positions as a group, but…it wasn't s-x. And there was no money being exchanged. We were all from FREEcycle! :lol:

 

There was a copy of a letter on my computer that I sent to a friend in the hospital who was very sick and depressed, and as well as being extra affectionate and reassuring with her in a totally innocent fashion, I made a joke about the cheesy vampire romance novel that EVERYONE knew I was reading and so openly disapproved of. It was TOTALLY innocent and taken out of context. Lately I have been reading the Black Dagger Brother hood series and have learned the hard way to be EXTRA careful who I discuss it with! :lol:

 

I don't know what other "proof" they found, but it's amazing what you can make primary source documents imply when taken out of context by someone with an agenda. And it's amazing what people will believe.

 

I'm not impressed with primary source documents as "proof" of ANYTHING. 

 

I'm going to have to reply to some of the issues brought up, one at a time. There are so many of them!

[katilac]

How can we know what is accurate???Seriously! Primary source documents you say? Looking at primary source documents is like eavesdropping. You will NEVER know the truth from them, because there is too much that you will never know about the context of those PERSONAL documents.

 

<big snip>

 

I'm not impressed with primary source documents as "proof" of ANYTHING. 

 

I'm going to have to reply to some of the issues brought up, one at a time. There are so many of them!

 

:confused1:

 

Primary sources are in no way limited to personal documents. 

 

You are correct in one way: A primary source should rarely be considered as proof, but rather as evidence. Each bit of evidence needs to be evaluated and weighted, much like evidence at a trial. One decides if the preponderance of evidence favors the fact or theory in question. 

 

In your example, a true evaluation of the evidence would render it near worthless as soon as one considers the source (vengeful ex-husband). I don't doubt that some people believed him, but I wouldn't take their opinions very seriously. Don't confuse cheesy gossip with careful history. 

 

If a careful consideration of primary documents is never worthwhile proof, wouldn't that mean that nothing is ever worthwhile proof? 

[Hunter]

I just cannot take history seriously. I don't think we KNOW anything. There are no FACTS.

 

Yes, I make an effort, a reasonable effort, to do history "right", but I have been fooled too many times now, to ever believe anything anymore.

 

I don't believe it's possible for a mom/tutor juggling multiple subjects and multiple students to accomplish anything more than cultural literacy. She might THINK she is doing more than that, but I don't believe her. Yes, maybe a few moms that had a degree and career in history before homeschooling, MIGHT be a little more "right" than a regular mom, but still...I'm just not convinced they are "right".

[Hunter]

MBM, do you have any more insight into why the Western tribes seem to have such a different set of rules for whites, than the Eastern nations do?

[Hunter]

ElizaG, thank you so much for all your insight into classical and vintage methods of teaching history. You know SO much more than I do. I'm wondering if threads on the individual topics you discussed might be welcome. .

[Spy Car]

I just cannot take history seriously. I don't think we KNOW anything. There are no FACTS.

 

Yes, I make an effort, a reasonable effort, to do history "right", but I have been fooled too many times now, to ever believe anything anymore.

 

I don't believe it's possible for a mom/tutor juggling multiple subjects and multiple students to accomplish anything more than cultural literacy. She might THINK she is doing more than that, but I don't believe her. Yes, maybe a few moms that had a degree and career in history before homeschooling, MIGHT be a little more "right" than a regular mom, but still...I'm just not convinced they are "right".

 

 

I don't agree, but let's say (for sake of argument) that you are correct and it is all make-believe.

 

Then why would you choose make-believe stories that teach children some "races" are inherently superior and others are inferior (at best) over those that are more realistic in recognizing the strengths, foibles, and weaknesses that pervade human societies of all kinds? Why build on a foundation of disrespect, bigotry, and hatred when it is so unnecessary?

 

Bill

[momma2three]

Well this conversation certainly turned offensive.  Really?  You don't think that homeschooling mothers can teach history?

[Χά�ων]

I just cannot take history seriously. I don't think we KNOW anything. There are no FACTS.

 

Yes, I make an effort, a reasonable effort, to do history "right", but I have been fooled too many times now, to ever believe anything anymore.

 

I don't believe it's possible for a mom/tutor juggling multiple subjects and multiple students to accomplish anything more than cultural literacy. She might THINK she is doing more than that, but I don't believe her. Yes, maybe a few moms that had a degree and career in history before homeschooling, MIGHT be a little more "right" than a regular mom, but still...I'm just not convinced they are "right".

?!?! Seriously?

[Rosie_0801]

Hi there Hunter

No answers but wanted to  :seeya: and say I'm hearing you.

[Hunter]

There are 24 hours a day. So yeah, really. There are all sorts of things in life that are impossible to do in 24 hours a day. They just are.

 

I'm not even impressed with most history professors that are single and devote their WHOLE life to nothing but history study. They know TONS of stuff. TONS. But that doesn't make facts where there are no facts. And it doesn't mean they are "right".

[momma2three]

I have no idea what you are talking about.  There are lots and lots and lots of facts in history.  Even beyond dates.  Things happen for reasons, and sometimes those reasons are still unknown, it's true.  But very often the reasons are totally clear and obvious.

[Hunter]

You heard it here first, folks, history is bunk!

 

There, that frees some time up in the day, doesn't it ? You wouldn't have taught it very well anyway.

:lol: I wouldn't take it quite that far, but yes, it does free up more time if you just make a REASONABLE effort to present SOME history, that is as "right" as you have time to find without making yourself crazy. The "truth" is as hard to grasp as smoke. Spending more time chasing smoke doesn't help much.

[Spy Car]

:lol: I wouldn't take it quite that far, but yes, it does free up more time if you just make a REASONABLE effort to present SOME history, that is as "right" as you have time to find without making yourself crazy. The "truth" is as hard to grasp as smoke. Spending more time chasing smoke doesn't help much.

If one is going to do a REASONABLE job, then choosing hundred year old books that are notoriously inaccurate and racist is not a good start.

 

Bill

[momma2three]

If one is going to do a REASONABLE job, then choosing hundred year old books that are notoriously inaccurate and racist is not a good start.

 

Bill

 

Nor do I think using appallingly outdated texts counts as cultural literacy, unless you're also going to invent a time machine.  I actually think that part of cultural literacy is keeping up with polite language.

[Hunter]

If one is going to do a REASONABLE job, then choosing hundred year old books that are notoriously inaccurate and racist is not a good start.

 

Bill

A REASONABLE job will usually include resources from a VARIETY of periods in history. That includes, but is not exclusive to, books published in the 1800s.

[Spy Car]

A REASONABLE job will usually include resources from a VARIETY of periods in history. That includes, but is not exclusive to, books published in the 1800s.

 

Sure. I like Moby Dick as much as the next guy.

 

But the racist drivel re-published and/or scheduled by Art Robinson, (the hopefully now defunct) Vision Forum, and Ambleside Online doesn't count as REASONABLE choices. They are poisonous smut.

 

I'm not sure how you are missing that easily discerned distinction. 

 

Bill

[Hunter]

Sure. I like Moby Dick as much as the next guy.

 

But the racist drivel re-published and/or scheduled by Art Robinson, (the hopefully now defunct) Vision Forum, and Ambleside Online doesn't count as REASONABLE choices. They are poisonous smut.

 

I'm not sure how you are missing that easily discerned distinction.

 

Bill

EVERY book in these curricula? EVERY one?

[albeto.]

I just cannot take history seriously. I don't think we KNOW anything. There are no FACTS.

 

Yes, I make an effort, a reasonable effort, to do history "right", but I have been fooled too many times now, to ever believe anything anymore.

 

I don't believe it's possible for a mom/tutor juggling multiple subjects and multiple students to accomplish anything more than cultural literacy. She might THINK she is doing more than that, but I don't believe her. Yes, maybe a few moms that had a degree and career in history before homeschooling, MIGHT be a little more "right" than a regular mom, but still...I'm just not convinced they are "right".

 

Perhaps it's time for you to look for a new job.

 

I don't know how to say this politely, but this is an alarming thing to read from an educator. If I heard my doctor suggest we can't actually know anything about internal organs and what they do, my confidence in his ability to assess and treat our medical health would plummet. You're not treating medical health, but you are educating children. This kind of ignorance affects your children. Ultimately, it affects me and my children as well. I don't want to patronize otherwise nice people if it means contributing to a nation of people not understanding how something as rudimentary as understanding how information works, how we know what we know. This isn't rocket science. This is basic knowledge, fact and opinion. This is actually elementary school stuff here and you're admitting that you cannot comprehend it.

 

I mean, holy cow. This really makes me angry to see. If I heard of a teacher in my school district say something like this, I'd expect to see her swiftly and formally corrected, if not fired for incompetence. 

[Spy Car]

EVERY book in these curricula? EVERY one?

 

 

 WAY, WAY, WAY TOO MANY.

 

How do you not see what is manifestly evident?

 

Bill

[ElizaG]

I think this article gives the Egghead-ese version of what Hunter is talking about (courtesy of Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) :  Anglo-American philosophy of history:  Historical objectivity

 

It's too postmodern for me, but she's clearly not the only one who's come to this conclusion.

 

This article also seems relevant:  History -- Learning, Teaching of (Education Encyclopedia, StateUniversity.com), by a professor at the University of Maryland who specializes in the study of history education

 

"Second, evidence is often sparse, and thus so open to competing interpretations that understanding events by building context-sensitive, well-corroborated interpretations is tenuous at best. Third, any attempt to construct a history of events operates on a necessary connection between a past reality and present interpretations of that reality. This connection is, however, denied because there is no method for bringing that past reality back to life to establish the full accuracy of a contemporary interpretation. (...)  Learning to use the strategies of thinking historically that enable an understanding of the past hinges on the cultivation of a number of such counterintuitive cognitive processes."

 

 

ETA another one:  Why Teach History?  (from StudentsFriend.com, "recognized as one of the top ten history sites for teachers by the Stanford University School of Education")

 

"Why bother with history?

 

This question is posed by British scholar Beverly Southgate as the title of his book exploring the status of history in contemporary culture.1 Southgate begins his analysis by noting a paradox; while the value of history has been questioned for over a century by progressive and postmodernist philosophers, history seems to be more popular than ever with the public. (...)

 

[D]oes history possess sufficient value to warrant an extensive formal program of history instruction in the schools? (...)

 

'Probably not' might also be the response of postmodernist scholars who correctly observe that real objectivity is unobtainable and that truth is ultimately unknowable.2 It is a waste of effort, they suggest, to study a subject such as history which bears only a tentative and subjective relation to reality, which, itself, does not exist because reality is a fiction that we have made up. With our exquisite modern awareness of the relativity of all things, we are rendered powerless to believe in the truth of anything."

 

(Emphasis added.)  If you believe that Hunter is incompetent to teach history on account of thinking this way, you might want to go after these professional history teachers first. 

 

[Hunter]

 

Perhaps it's time for you to look for a new job.

 

I don't know how to say this politely, but this is an alarming thing to read from an educator. If I heard my doctor suggest we can't actually know anything about internal organs and what they do, my confidence in his ability to assess and treat our medical health would plummet. You're not treating medical health, but you are educating children. This kind of ignorance affects your children. Ultimately, it affects me and my children as well. I don't want to patronize otherwise nice people if it means contributing to a nation of people not understanding how something as rudimentary as understanding how information works, how we know what we know. This isn't rocket science. This is basic knowledge, fact and opinion. This is actually elementary school stuff here and you're admitting that you cannot comprehend it.

 

I mean, holy cow. This really makes me angry to see. If I heard of a teacher in my school district say something like this, I'd expect to see her swiftly and formally corrected, if not fired for incompetence.

As many people mature and learn more, they become more aware of how very little they know. It's often considered a weakness of youth to have an overinflated sense of their abilities. I'm not going to apologize for being fully aware of my weaknesses.

 

Knowing my weakness doesn't make me weaker than someone who doesn't know theirs. It just makes me more cautious.

 

If you want to go around and fire all the self-aware people, you will not make the world a better place. Thankfully you are not in charge.

[Hunter]

ElizaG, THANK YOU for these links. These are very interesting!

[albeto.]

As many people mature and learn more, they become more aware of how very little they know.

You said, "I don't think we KNOW anything. There are no FACTS." Complete ignorance and claiming there are no facts is not the same as realizing the limitations of one's knowledge. 

 

It's often considered a weakness of youth to have an overinflated sense of their abilities. I'm not going to apologize for being fully aware of my weaknesses.

Now you're backpedaling. Are you suggesting you are cognizant of the limitations of your knowledge, or are you staying with the claim "there are no facts"? 

 

Knowing my weakness doesn't make me weaker than someone who doesn't know theirs. It just makes me more cautious.

I didn't respond to a reference of weakness, I responded to a claim that people cannot know "anything," that "there are no facts."

 

If you want to go around and fire all the self-aware people, you will not make the world a better place. Thankfully you are not in charge.

 

An educator claiming there is no facts by which to educate isn't self-awareness, it's a bizarre glorification of ignorance. 

 

I must be misunderstanding you, because what you say makes no sense. Just how do you think people come to any conclusions at all? Do you think scholars sit around the bong getting stoned and telling stories until someone is straight enough to write it down? I mean, how do you think this works?

[beaners]

 

Perhaps it's time for you to look for a new job.

 

I don't know how to say this politely, but this is an alarming thing to read from an educator. If I heard my doctor suggest we can't actually know anything about internal organs and what they do, my confidence in his ability to assess and treat our medical health would plummet. You're not treating medical health, but you are educating children. This kind of ignorance affects your children. Ultimately, it affects me and my children as well. I don't want to patronize otherwise nice people if it means contributing to a nation of people not understanding how something as rudimentary as understanding how information works, how we know what we know. This isn't rocket science. This is basic knowledge, fact and opinion. This is actually elementary school stuff here and you're admitting that you cannot comprehend it.

 

I mean, holy cow. This really makes me angry to see. If I heard of a teacher in my school district say something like this, I'd expect to see her swiftly and formally corrected, if not fired for incompetence. 

 

I believe Hunter isn't educating any children at this point.  She's talked about tutoring developmentally delayed adults in her community, but she's said her own children are grown and on their own.

 

I'll say this.  I often disagree with what she says and her reasoning because it doesn't fit my family and our needs.  It always makes me think about why I'm doing what I'm doing, even (and especially) when I disagree.

[Elfknitter.#]

Can't say if the spam is true since facts appear to be subjective....

 

Eta: spam reported

[ElizaG]

You said, "I don't think we KNOW anything. There are no FACTS." Complete ignorance and claiming there are no facts is not the same as realizing the limitations of one's knowledge. 

 

(...)

 

I must be misunderstanding you, because what you say makes no sense. Just how do you think people come to any conclusions at all? Do you think scholars sit around the bong getting stoned and telling stories until someone is straight enough to write it down? I mean, how do you think this works?

 

Again, while I disagree with Hunter, she's got some schools of philosophy on her side.   Nietzsche said quite bluntly that there were no facts, only interpretations.  Of course, it could be that he was stoned.   But there are others who've questioned whether or not we can know anything -- see e.g. Wikipedia on Philosophical Skepticism.   I think Hunter might be a Pyrrhonian (for now, anyway), which is rather classical, and also rather Zen.  ;)

 

Pyrrho just tried to keep out of things and lead a quiet life.  In our day, though, quite a few people are involved in historical research, while not believing in the existence of knowable, objective truth.  Is this logically consistent?  I don't think so, but they seem to be able to live with it.   This can be seen in the last two articles I linked to above -- especially the last one, which explicitly agrees with the postmodernist position.  These authors wriggle around their situation by calling it "a paradox" that requires "counterintuitive cognitive processes."   Other people might call it a load of rubbish.   But there it is. 

 

Routledge apparently published a whole series of books on this subject in the 1990s.  There's a review here, on the web site of the Institute of Historical Research at the University of London.   The reviewer, a professor emeritus and former director of the Institute, says that many of the postmodernist criticisms of his discipline are based on straw men.

 

"It cannot be meaningly resolved at the reified and acrimonious level of yet another binary opposition between new literary theory and a 'stylised' practice as enunciated by some elderly historians who have been exposed (even lampooned) for defining themselves as being in the business of recovering 'Truths' about the 'Past' (39). Please wheel them on (or rather dig them up) to stiffen the resolve of the rest of us who now realistically assume that through a collective and disciplined endeavour we might construct a narrative or model about some aspect of the past in order to generate a plausible story that will always remain conjectural, provisional, tentative; open to future disagreement and refinement and eventual obsolescence."

 

"My history is just another cultural practice that studies cultural practice. It is relativist and that in no way worries me. (...) To recognise that we are textualised creatures does not constrain but rather liberates us. I am content that while our interpretations possess referentiality they do not access reality, and so history can never be what it once was."

 

(Note that these are not my personal views.  I wouldn't be content to study and teach a subject if I thought it didn't "access reality."   In Dr. So-and-so's model, I guess that puts me in with the moldy oldies.  :seeya: )

[[email protected]]

Please exercise some of the respect that's been mentioned towards each other. Thank you.

 

Moderator

[awisha.]

I just cannot take history seriously. I don't think we KNOW anything. There are no FACTS.

 

Yes, I make an effort, a reasonable effort, to do history "right", but I have been fooled too many times now, to ever believe anything anymore.

 

I don't believe it's possible for a mom/tutor juggling multiple subjects and multiple students to accomplish anything more than cultural literacy. She might THINK she is doing more than that, but I don't believe her. Yes, maybe a few moms that had a degree and career in history before homeschooling, MIGHT be a little more "right" than a regular mom, but still...I'm just not convinced they are "right".

So basically you're calling SWB a charlatan. Nice.

[Hunter]

Can't say if the spam is true since facts appear to be subjective....

 

Eta: spam reported

:lol:

[Hunter]

So basically you're calling SWB a charlatan. Nice.

SWB knows enough about history to know that I did no such thing.

[Hunter]

ElizaG, I can't thank you enough for the links. I found the book "Why Bother with History" at one of them. I'm hoping it will help me be a better teacher. I snagged a copy for a very reasonable price.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0582423902/ref=ox_ya_os_product

 

I have known to teach history as cultural litearacy. I've known it can be used as a vehicle for character education. I know it can be fun, if I loosen up and carefully and selectively lift some of most extreme sanitization. I want to provide the fullest experience that I can despite my postmodern worldview. I will be following up on all these links.

 

I am aware that there are many conservatives here that believe a postmodern worldview is unbiblical and therefore "wrong". Certainly not always, but sadly, too often, trauma survivors often adopt postmodern worldviews. Some abandon them as they recover. Others never do. I am not proud or ashamed of my worldview. I am just resigned to thinking and feeling the way I do, after having lived MY life, and having seen and experienced things that most people here have been blissfully sheltered from.

 

One of my jobs on this earth is to be as self-aware as possible, and to try and keep learning and growing. My path is not the path of the majority. But it's my path. I'm here. I'm trying to make the best of it.

 

ElizaG, thank you again, so much, for sharing your vast knowledge. I might not be able to change my beliefs, but I do want to be the very best teacher and person that I can. Having the chance to read literature and articles by people who have grappled with the same things I am grappling with, provides valuable BTDT advice and direction.

[ThatHomeschoolDad]

Read broadly.

 

Read often.

 

Question.

 

Trust.

 

Inference.

 

Connect.

 

Explore.

 

 

That's how you do it.

[Hunter]

Read broadly.

 

Read often.

 

Question.

 

Trust.

 

Inference.

 

Connect.

 

Explore.

 

 

That's how you do it.

 

This is a nice list. I try to do all these things.

 

The part I particularly struggle with is trust. Who do you trust? How do you trust? What if, in the past,  trusting has led you to unknowingly perpetuating rumors and lies? How do you recover trust, in others and yourself?

 

Who do you trust, when reading widely, and encountering WIDELY differing accounts?

 

And how do you squeeeeeeeeze all this into 24 hours with multiple students and multiple subjects? I guess if one can pick one author and just trust her/him, then it's fairly easy to just keep doing the next thing they tell you to. But then I'm not sure it's possible to really properly do the other parts of the list, that way.

[ThatHomeschoolDad]

This is a nice list. I try to do all these things.

 

The part I particularly struggle with is trust. Who do you trust? How do you trust? What if, in the past,  trusting has led you to unknowingly perpetuating rumors and lies? How do you recover trust, in others and yourself?

 

Who do you trust, when reading widely, and encountering WIDELY differing accounts?

 

And how do you squeeeeeeeeze all this into 24 hours with multiple students and multiple subjects? I guess if one can pick one author and just trust her/him, then it's fairly easy to just keep doing the next thing they tell you to. But then I'm not sure it's possible to really properly do the other parts of the list, that way.

 

What sources led you to mistrust?

 

How many students are we talking about?

[ElizaG]

ElizaG, thank you again, so much, for sharing your vast knowledge.

 

Not "vast" by any means.  Or at least, not mine.  We're all swimming in it.   I'm just blessed to sometimes know where to look.   

 

I might not be able to change my beliefs, but I do want to be the very best teacher and person that I can. Having the chance to read literature and articles by people who have grappled with the same things I am grappling with, provides valuable BTDT advice and direction.

 

I'm slightly freaked out at the thought of leaving you with just those articles.  :001_smile:  There are other approaches that make a lot more sense to me.   I'm thinking especially that you might find something to relate to in Michael Polanyi's ideas about tacit knowledge.  There are quite a few short articles and essays about this on the Web, e.g. in the PDFs here, here, and here.  

[Hunter]

Not "vast" by any means. Or at least, not mine. We're all swimming in it. I'm just blessed to sometimes know where to look.

 

 

I'm slightly freaked out at the thought of leaving you with just those articles. :001_smile: There are other approaches that make a lot more sense to me. I'm thinking especially that you might find something to relate to in Michael Polanyi's ideas about tacit knowledge. There are quite a few short articles and essays about this on the Web, e.g. in the PDFs here, here, and here.

THANKS! :D

[Hunter]

I'm not going to defend my lack of time to research history. It's doesn't matter how many students I have.

 

I had an adult student that did not know that George Washington was the first president. I thought maybe she was joking, because she plays tricks on me. I hurt her feeling when I questioned her if she was joking.

 

"Why do I need to know this? How do you know for SURE he was president?" she asked.

 

I told her that the rest of the world believes that George Washington was president. They consider this an important thing to know. There is a LOT of real stuff we can see and handle that makes it seem like he was a real man and our president. I validated that, yes, there is a very small possibility we have been fooled, but it's far more likely that it happened than it didn't.

We are less sure of many of the details, but the main ideas are pretty certain.

 

Our quality of life is better if we assume that this man was our president, instead of dwelling on the very tiny chance that he wasn't. If he really was NOT our president and a conspiracy this big has been carried out, we have problems WAY bigger than if George was president or not. That was the final straw that settled her, and she laughed.

 

Then, I explained that his character is a topic of debate. Despite all the primary source documents we have, people have opinions and some for some reason have outright lied about things. But despite all that, it's necessary for us to have some idea about what people believe. We are not required to form a judgement or an opinion about his character, but just have some awareness of the debate. There are some great stories. We can enjoy them without knowing which are true or not. We can be inspired to greater virtue without knowing if they are true.

 

We read some great books and watched a couple DVDs. We enjoyed our time studying George. I just don't believe this needs to be such a big deal. This woman has been hospitalized MANY times for paranoid delusions, and believes all sorts of unusual things. If I had just barreled over her doubts, she wouldn't have listed to ANYTHING I said after that and wouldn't have learned what she did about George. At least she has some cultural literacy and had fun. And we did some math and some phonics and some handwriting and some science, too.

[katilac]

<snip>

 

I had an adult student that did not know that George Washington was the first president. I  I just don't believe this needs to be such a big deal.

 

<snip>

 

This woman has been hospitalized MANY times for paranoid delusions, and believes all sorts of unusual things. If I had just barreled over her doubts, she wouldn't have listed to ANYTHING I said after that and wouldn't have learned what she did about George. <snip>

 

In all honesty, you are approaching this from so many different directions and extremes that I'm not sure a meaningful discussion is possible. Like the ragings of the vengeful ex-husband, I think the delusions of a paranoid mental patient are quite irrelevant to the subject of teaching history. 

[Hunter]

It sounds like you did a good job with that lady.

 

However, when you have the luxury of schooling children daily for 12 years, you can do a lot more. Most of us don't have children suffering from paranoid delusions, so we don't need to take that into account.

 

I don't see history study as a way of inspiring my kids to greater virtue.

 

Critiquing what 'greater virtue' means is something I would apply post-modernist tools to though :)

I've graduated 2 boys of my own. I had the "luxury" of homeschooling. The professors were so impressed with my older son's history knowledge that they begged him to take their classes, and would drag him into their rooms to go over flopped lesson plans to see what he knew about a subject.

 

I remember my son's shock and confusion when his literature class discussed the Great Depression. Despite being the youngest student, he was the only one who understood what poverty was, and how it applied to the movie they had just watched.

 

I think some of you vastly underestimate what I do know, and my ability to teach a wide variety of students. Yes, I have a TON of questions, but I don't believe that all these questions make me an inferior teacher to teachers with less questions.

[katilac]

I just cannot take history seriously. I don't think we KNOW anything. There are no FACTS.

 

 <snip> 

I don't believe it's possible for a mom/tutor juggling multiple subjects and multiple students to accomplish anything more than cultural literacy. She might THINK she is doing more than that, but I don't believe her.  <snip>

 

 

 <snip>

 

I think some of you vastly underestimate what I do know, and my ability to teach a wide variety of students.  <snip>

 

To me, this sounds as though you doubt the knowledge and ability of others, while being offended that anyone would doubt your knowledge and ability.  

 

You say that you do not believe any other parent can achieve more than cultural literacy, while bragging that you taught your children history so well that they amazed and astounded college professors, and easily surpassed every single student in their class. 

 

Can you see how others might consider that a bit extreme? 

[Hunter]

I'm done. I'm not getting into a - excuse the language, I'm Australian - pissing competition about who's the better home school mom.

Hunter, you'd have more luck convincing us of your POV if your argument was coherent.

Who is comparing? Not me. I made a GENERAL comment about the herculean effort that it takes to find the "truth" while also trying to teach multiple subjects and grades. I didn't doubt anyone's ability to provide a quality history experience; I just doubt the ability to find the TRUTH. I doubt the ability to do that for even the experts among the experts who have devoted their ENTIRE lives to the quest.

 

I don't think I have EVER in my history at this board gotten into a pissing contest with ANYONE about who is a better mom or teacher. I have a LOT of faults, but that one is not one of them.

 

I almost always talk TOPICS here. I usually avoid threads where people are interacting with each other instead of taking topics, unless it is to offer support.

 

"Pissing competitions" with homeschool moms are not MY style.

 

  

To me, this sounds as though you doubt the knowledge and ability of others, while being offended that anyone would doubt your knowledge and ability.  

 

You say that you do not believe any other parent can achieve more than cultural literacy, while bragging that you taught your children history so well that they amazed and astounded college professors, and easily surpassed every single student in their class. 

 

Can you see how others might consider that a bit extreme?

 

I think people here provide excellent history experiences. I think my boys received an excellent history experience, compared to their PS peers, despite all the challenges we faced. I beat myself up for a lot of things about their childhoods, but not their ability to hold their own in history discussions.

 

I do not think I am a better or worse history teacher than the average person here! Of course there are those better and worse, but I never thought about that before, because it's not a contest. I consider us all on the same team, with different roles and strengths. Debate is to sharpen us all, not compare or hurt anyone. I think of us as a team, but I guess others don't.

 

I don't think my lack of desire to tease out the "truth" makes me an inferior on superior history teacher, than those that attempt to do so.

 

My words have been twisted and I have been personally attacked. I have tried very hard not to respond in kind. I don't think I have been entirely successful, but I think I have shown restraint that was not shown me. I've wanted to stay focused on the topics, as much as possible.

 

I think these kinds of conversations are important, not just for those participating, but also for the lurkers. I think we have talked about some really interesting things here.

[ThatHomeschoolDad]

I had an adult student that did not know that George Washington was the first president. I thought maybe she was joking, because she plays tricks on me. I hurt her feeling when I questioned her if she was joking.

 

"Why do I need to know this? How do you know for SURE he was president?" she asked.

 

He wasn't.  John Hanson was elected President of the Continental Congress in November, 1781, and became the first president to serve a one-year term under the provisions of the Articles of Confederation  George got the dollar bill, though.

 

Sorry.  It was just hangin' there on a low branch, and I had a stick, so....

[Hunter]

He wasn't. John Hanson was elected President of the Continental Congress in November, 1781, and became the first president to serve a one-year term under the provisions of the Articles of Confederation George got the dollar bill, though.

 

Sorry. It was just hangin' there on a low branch, and I had a stick, so....

:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

HomeschoolDad, this is the type of stuff I'm talking about. It's nonstop.

 

Thank you for this! :D