The Word "Papoose"

[Χά�ων]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

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

 

Thank you for this! :D

No, it really isn't nonstop. You learned something new. Something, I am willing to bet you have not taken the time to research for yourself. The answers are there. You just have to look for them.

[Hunter]

No, it really isn't nonstop. You learned something new. Something, I am willing to bet you have not taken the time to research for yourself. The answers are there. You just have to look for them.

I'm supposed to trust and assume facts, or I'm supposed to question EVERYTHING? I'm getting mixed messages.

 

Am I just supposed to have researched THIS beyond the mountain of corroborating evidence that I was being almost assaulted with, or am I supposed to research everything?

 

Is it just me that should have researched this, or were ALL homeschool moms/teachers supposed to have researched this?

 

And research where? And trust who?

 

Is John Hanson a technicality, or am I supposed to teach him as the first president, to first grade level students? And if so, how am I supposed to handle that? So, don't buy a CD to learn to sing/chant the presidents, right?

 

Was Abraham Lincoln president during the Civil War, or am I supposed to check that? :lol:

[Χά�ων]

You do not know everything. Accept that. Keep learning.

 

Saying that because you do not know everything and are unable to learn everything, means it is not worth learning anything at all is a disturbing outlook.

[ThatHomeschoolDad]

No, it really isn't nonstop. You learned something new. Something, I am willing to bet you have not taken the time to research for yourself. The answers are there. You just have to look for them.

I never learned the prez thing in school. It's the only thing I temember from a trivia book I got when I was 10 in 1976 and wore red white & blue tube socks the whole summer. First grade? No way! Just like a first grader doesn't need to know about JFK's wacky personal life. History is layers. Stuff that whole onion down a kid, and it'll come back up and make a mess.

[ThatHomeschoolDad]

You do not know everything. Accept that. Keep learning.

 

Saying that because you do not know everything and are unable to learn everything, means it is not worth learning anything at all is a disturbing outlook.

Yup. Teachers who know everything are lousy teachers. The 3 best words to grow a life long learner are I. Don't. Know.

[La Texican]

My husband is in the camp that thinks both evolution and creation are a bunch of stories. Creation is philosophical imaginings, and evolution takes little bits and pieces that we've found and creatively makes up a bunch of stuff that nobody really knows. I guess that's like what you're saying. Even things that are happening right now, we don't really get the whole story, so how can we think we really know what happened back then, just because we memorized facts or heard the stories? Anybody can write a story. In the ancient times only a few people could write, so we only get to hear what they had to say. After that, like they say, the victor gets to write history. (case in point, I never heard of a first President of America before Washington, on the losing side of a war, of course.) I'm not a history buff. But I will read my kids the stories of World History and American history. I'll just also teach them how to write, and point out that a story is all in how you spin it.

A modern example is South Central Los Angeles. Some people say that was a thriving neighborhood a few decades ago when there were good factory jobs there. Like Detroit, it fell after the factory jobs left. Or, the residents used their freewill and chose to allow crime, corruption, and welfare and bribery over honest work and upright lives. It depends on who's telling the story of the city, and what point they want the story to support.

I'm having a hard time deciding what underlying story I want my kids to hear in their history lessons. My mom wanted to tell me history supports Providence. People fight for what's good. Good triumps. Even flawed people can do good things because Providence has a mission. I don't have an outstanding belief that I can use history to support or prove. I'm not Democrat or Republican, so I can't use political history throught time to show my kids how "our side" evolved, so they can use that to shape their hopes and fears for the future. I still believe stories are of the greatest importance because they show us who and what people are, and people are the most valuable thing there is. But I spend hours reading Amazon reviews of history books. They all want to glorify this, or villify that, like any other story these books have to make a point beyond the story itself. Should I use the subject of history to teach values, bravery, ambition, community? Should I use history to promote skepticism? Should I use conflicting history books to show that non-fiction is multi-faceted and never as black and white as fiction? My dad says the difference between writing fiction and non-fiction is that a fiction story has to make sense in the end.

[mommymilkies]

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....

It depends on which historian you talk to.  Some say that Hanson was the first president of the United States, others say Washington was the first president of the "United States of America", while Hanson and the next seven (BEFORE Washington) were technically presidents under the Constitutional Congress.  Either way, it's sad that so many people are not taught more about this. 

[ThatHomeschoolDad]

My husband is in the camp that thinks both evolution and creation are a bunch of stories. Creation is philosophical imaginings, and evolution takes little bits and pieces that we've found and creatively makes up a bunch of stuff that nobody really knows.

 

It would seem we have a collective (nationally) misinterpretation of semantics, and scientists have been historically lousy at addressing that head on, until it's too late, or it starts to become educational policy.

 

"Theory" as in "theory of evolution" gets mixed up with "I have a theory as to why Uncle Joe smells so bad."  Rather, the first theory is a long and interwoven collection of observations from a multitude of disciplines, and, like all theories, has been modified as new evidence is revealed.  That squishy bit in there, that science is willing to revise and even refute, doesn't sit well with those seeking the yes and the no.

[umsami]

It depends on which historian you talk to.  Some say that Hanson was the first president of the United States, others say Washington was the first president of the "United States of America", while Hanson and the next seven (BEFORE Washington) were technically presidents under the Constitutional Congress.  Either way, it's sad that so many people are not taught more about this. 

 

Wow...never heard of any of this.  Suppose it would have come up next year when we study American History.  Thanks for adding to my knowledge. :)