A bit worried - this might be sacrilege - SOTW

[emmsmama]

I am not a history buff by any stretch and it's one area we majorly slacked off on last year. Before this school year I researched different history study options for my children who are 5.5 and 9 yrs. old. We roughly follow the Ambleside Online booklists, but I'm Canadian and those are big on American History. Also, because I wanted to start "at the beginning" this year with Ancient history, the history AO reading suggestions don't correspond chronologically with where we will be at right now.

 

So this year I decided to go with the SOTW 1 book. However, ever since I bought the books I've come across numerous comments that the history in the SOTW books in quite innacurate in many instances, mixing fact with opinion and throwing stuff in that isn't even historically true. Also, another complaint is that it mixes facts with fiction without differentiating clearly btwn. the two.

 

Especially because I am not a big history buff I am really concerned about accuracy and clarity btwn. fact and fiction/unproven history. Any historians on here care to help me out with my concerns regarding accuracy? Has anybody made a list for the SOTW volumes that lists which chapters are fictional stories and which aren't? I don't want to mix up things for my kids :(

[Guest]

...

[nmoira]

Which edition of Vol 1 do you have? Formatting changes in the second edition more clearly mark myths and legends as separate from the regular text.

 

For the most part, I don't find SOTW's inaccuracies to be a big deal. Since we use it as part of History Odyssey, it's only one of many resources we use. IIRC, I only made a big deal of correcting one fact in Vol. 1: Native Americans did not grow wheat. That said, you'll be hard pressed to find a more accurate text for that age level. Vol 1 is written for 6 and 7 years olds and some simplification has necessarily taken place.

[frogpond1]

Susan says things like, "Here is one of those stories from the time of the Moghul dynasty..."

 

I think kids just need a little reminding that these stories told by different people could be all fiction or a mixture of fiction and fact etc. We exaggerate the word "Story" for the kids.

 

The fictional stories give clues to the different cultures and the history etc. They shouldn't be left out.

 

Volume one would be the most controversial at the beginning - the story of the cave people... I just skip the first few chapters myself. I've chosen to think differently about man after the flood. It isn't a big deal really.

 

Go ahead, do history- you'll do fine. Don't worry if you are an expert or not- they won't remember it all anyway you are just laying down initial pegs for them to hang history on. The second time you go through you'll see how much more history you have learned. It is great. I'm on round 2 and it is more exciting than the first round because I have a better picture of history as a whole.

[Another Lynn]

Hi and welcome!

 

We're AO users too, but like you I wanted to start with Ancients. I do not have SOTW 1 - but I did get the CD of it (with Jim Weiss) because my oldest ds is a history buff and likes to listen to all things history. (He alternates between SOTW cds and Diana Waring CDs during his breakfast and lunch). I have only heard bits of SOTW vol. 1 and *I* am personally uncomfortable with it because 1)the way it begins, 2)it makes assumptions about ancient times that are speculative. For us, I prefer a Creationist and Biblical history approach to ancient times. We listen to Diana Waring and I think she does a pretty good job of telling you what is from the Bible and what is speculative and as yet unknown. (SHe periodically says, we need more Bible Scholars, or we need more archeologists to figure xyz out...)

 

My oldest ds is finishing early modern and starting modern using many AO resources. My 1st grader is doing Ancients using Story of the Ancient World (Guerber/Miller) and some resources from Classical Christian Homeschooling along with some other AO yr.1 readings.

 

So my advice depends on what point of view you want to teach - you could use Hillyer's Child's History of the World. Then decide if you want a more evolutionary approach (start with chapter 1) or more Creation approach (skip the first 6? chapters or so and start with the Bible until you get to Abraham). Look for other resources to help you cover Egypt, then Greece, then Rome (Famous Men series, Story of "......." by Guerber, etc.) then when you get to Middle Ages start back into AO readings (Island Story, etc)

 

Let us know what you decide to do! I've wrestled around with how to cover ancients several times and I'd love to hear your ideas!

[Stacy in NJ]

Hmmm. I think it's pretty easy to identify the fact from the fiction in the text. The fiction is the folktales or simple narratives SWB uses to add some cultural context to the factual history. For example, Chapter 11, Ancient Africa, has 3 sections; the first is factual, the second and third are folktales about Anansi the spider. Chapter 27, The Rise of Rome, starts with the story of Romulus and Remus. Although this probably factually didn't happen, the story itself is incredibly important to how the Romans viewed themselves and the founding of their own nation/empire. Sorta like the story of George Washington chopping down the cherry tree. It's easy enough to tell your child that this is a folktale. These are cultural references and history without culture is an empty shell. People do the things they do because of their culture.

[keroro]

I love SOTW because it is so accessible. The material is presented in an engaging and easy to follow manner. It makes history fun for kids instead of dry and boring. Moreover, it is written in such a way to appeal to a wide variety of ages, including an adult like me. :001_smile:

 

It does contain quite a few myths but I think Susan does a good job of bringing that to the reader's attention. At such an early age I think the important thing is to foster a love and genuine excitement for history and I think SOTW helps to do that.

[Jill]

These are cultural references and history without culture is an empty shell.

My sentiments exactly. Cultural history is history. Otherwise, you would simply have a list of "Person A did X on such-and-such a date. Person B did Y on such-and-such a date." ad nauseum... bereft of context and motivations. Probably any of the histories you read have their own slant on the assumed cultural histories of ancient peoples for whom we may or may not have written histories. And since much history and tale-telling was oral in humanity's early days, I think that SOTW is true to form in that way, a real story that captivates a youngster's attention. - Jill

[WTMindy]

I see this topic come up every so often and I always feel the need to jump in and say that there are ALWAYS inaccuracies when attempting to write history because there are different ways to interpret historical evidence, especially with the Ancient times. The things that I have read that are supposed to be the issues and such small things too.

 

I would not have traded using SOTW (all 4 volumes) with my kids for anything. I feel that it is one of the best things we have done. I credit my kids love of history to SOTW. My kids know a lot of history, but even more than that, they love the subject.

 

We are Christians and it does not bother me at all that Susan has written the book so that it is accessible to everyone. If anything, for our family, it was a chance to reinforce what we believe and discuss our beliefs.

 

If there were any historical inaccuracies in the text, I wouldn't even be able to tell you what they were anymore, and as we go through the second rotation for history, we might get a slightly different perspective on things, which is great. I think it allows us to talk about how people write history books with different focuses.

 

I would hate for someone to miss out on SOTW because of the Amazon reviews. Try it for yourself for awhile first.

[katilac]

Myths, legends and fables are especially important to the study of ancient history, as there is often little in the way of other records to guide us. Also, one's true literacy is limited without understanding concepts and expressions that come from these stories. Greek legends alone give us a plethora of them: Achilles heel, hubris, narcissism.

 

Even without these considerations, the myths and legends of a civilization are, imo, crucial to understanding its people and their decisions. The ubiquitous presence of George Washington and the cherry tree in American history, or Abe Lincoln tracing his letters on a dirty coal shovel, speaks to what we as a nation want to believe about ourselves (independent and occasionally foolhardy - but always honest; hard workers who see obstacles as a challenge).

 

Even when there are fairly complete records, bare facts do not always help one to understand why a certain leader or government made the decisions that they did in the way that a nation's stories about itself will.

 

As far as 'mixing' stories and fact, I do find that she presents the story of Abram and his family from the bible as historical fact, which many would disagree with. I didn't find she did it to that degree with other stories that haven't been proven as historical fact.

[WTMindy]

. At such an early age I think the important thing is to foster a love and genuine excitement for history and I think SOTW helps to do that.

 

I totally agree with this!!!

[Homeschooling6]

I see this topic come up every so often and I always feel the need to jump in and say that there are ALWAYS inaccuracies when attempting to write history because there are different ways to interpret historical evidence, especially with the Ancient times. The things that I have read that are supposed to be the issues and such small things too.

 

I would not have traded using SOTW (all 4 volumes) with my kids for anything. I feel that it is one of the best things we have done. I credit my kids love of history to SOTW. My kids know a lot of history, but even more than that, they love the subject.

 

We are Christians and it does not bother me at all that Susan has written the book so that it is accessible to everyone. If anything, for our family, it was a chance to reinforce what we believe and discuss our beliefs.

 

If there were any historical inaccuracies in the text, I wouldn't even be able to tell you what they were anymore, and as we go through the second rotation for history, we might get a slightly different perspective on things, which is great. I think it allows us to talk about how people write history books with different focuses.

 

I would hate for someone to miss out on SOTW because of the Amazon reviews. Try it for yourself for awhile first.

 

:iagree:

[Kate in Arabia]

There were a few points in vol 2 that I felt were incorrect; I did contact the publishers and at least for one of them they were unable to provide a reference. I don't know that they will change it in future editions, but I'm not really holding my breath.

 

That said, I think you would be hard put to find a history book that is 100% accurate in every last detail. This isn't even considering the author's bias, which is always present, even if it's written by a committee.

 

What I really like about SOTW is that it moves along. I feel like so often history books just get bogged down in details when what you really want is a brief overview. If you want details you may certainly find them on your own.

 

I do worry about inaccuracies in chapters dealing with areas of the world with which I am unfamiliar, but I hope that by including an array of outside materials (books, videos, etc.) I can provide different points of view. For example, last week we studied explorers in the new world; we read SOTW, then books on Columbus, de Gama, Vespucci, Magellan; watched a video or two, checked out some websites. Now I found some conflicting bits in almost all those books and other media, but it's a good opportunity to talk about why those differences are there, imo.

[prairiegirl]

This topic comes up all of the time (not just on this board.) We have used SOTW for the whole history cycle. This is my take on it.

 

It is very easy to distinguish story from fact. My children know without a doubt what is true and what is myth or story. This is not an issue for us.

 

I am sure there are inaccuracies in SOTW. It doesn't matter which curriculum you use, there will be inaccuracies. Why? Because they were all written by humans. I talk to my children about these inaccuracies and why they occur. It is not a big deal(at least not to our family.)

 

I am very thankful to SWB for writing this series. It has made my life much easier in choosing history materials for my children. I am not looking forward to next year when we go through the history cycle again and I will have to find another curriculum for my oldest. I wish there was something equivocal for the logic stage in history.

[gandpsmommy]

I had a very similar dilemma before beginning SOTW with my children. I saw the comments on Amazon, as well. And I began to worry because my own history education left much to be desired. Because history is not my area of expertise, I didn't feel confident that I would be able to spot any errors and feared that I might teach my children fallacies without even being aware of it. I, too, posed this sort of query on this board, and I received reassurances of the quality and value of SOTW. I chose to use vol. 1 with my dd last year, and we are continuing with Vol. 2 this year. I am so glad that I didn't give in to the fears inculcated by Amazon reviews. While we had some difficulty figuring out how to use it last year, we have begun to hit our stride and find a groove this year. I'm finding that I like Vol. 2 even more than vol. 1. It has been a great resource for our family.

[JudyJudyJudy]

I have found the problems that the OP addresses, but I think they're pretty easy to get around (I have the original edition of SOTW 1). I make sure to point out when something is a myth or true history. However, there have been a few times when I had already read several paragraphs before I realized that what I was reading was a myth. I finished that section and explained at that time that it was a myth.

 

I've also seen opinions thrown in as history. When I read things like "he was the greatest...," I make sure to point out that wording like that is generally an opinion. Despite these problems, I still think SOTW is probably the most comprehensive world history series out there for young children. Yes, there are some inaccuracies (and I correct them when I can), but that's going to be true of all history books. The viewpoint is always that of the person writing.

 

 

We are Christians and it does not bother me at all that Susan has written the book so that it is accessible to everyone. If anything, for our family, it was a chance to reinforce what we believe and discuss our beliefs.

That makes sense, and as a nonChristian, I see it from a different perspective. There are some "facts" given in SOTW that Christians see as factual that I don't see as factual. It's no big deal, though. I explain as I read that some people believe those to be facts while others don't. Since I try to teach my son about various beliefs anyway, it doesn't pose a problem for us.

[emmsmama]

Which edition of Vol 1 do you have? Formatting changes in the second edition more clearly mark myths and legends as separate from the regular text.

 

 

I have the 2004 edition, which I believe is the most current, so it's good to know fact vs. fiction is clearly marked.

 

I would not have traded using SOTW (all 4 volumes) with my kids for anything. I feel that it is one of the best things we have done. I credit my kids love of history to SOTW. My kids know a lot of history, but even more than that, they love the subject.

 

 

Thanks for sharing, it's very reassuring :)

 

Myths, legends and fables are especially important to the study of ancient history, as there is often little in the way of other records to guide us. Also, one's true literacy is limited without understanding concepts and expressions that come from these stories. Greek legends alone give us a plethora of them: Achilles heel, hubris, narcissism.

 

 

ITA, and I don't want to leave out the stories of Anansi the spider or Biblical stories (I'm not Christian), etc. because I believe they are an integral part of understanding history, as you do. That was actually one of the things that drew me to SOTW, that it presented the history of many different people and a wide variety of cultural and religious stories. I don't want my kids to have a skewed viewpoint of history by just studying Canadian, US, and British history. I want them to see the "whole picture" of how things fit together. I just want to be able to know and tell my children when something is fact and when it may be fact, and when it is definitely fiction. The spider stories and some others would be very easy to pick out of course, but I was concerned others may not be easy to pick out.

 

I make sure to point out when something is a myth or true history.

 

I've also seen opinions thrown in as history. When I read things like "he was the greatest...," I make sure to point out that wording like that is generally an opinion. Despite these problems, I still think SOTW is probably the most comprehensive world history series out there for young children. Yes, there are some inaccuracies (and I correct them when I can), but that's going to be true of all history books. The viewpoint is always that of the person writing.

 

 

My concern is that I won't know when the inaccuracies are there, so I won't be able to correct them, but from the sounds of it there aren't as many glaring errors as some have purported. I also like your point about looking for comments of SWB in the book that are very clearly opinions, and discussing those comments with my children. I'm not as concerned for my 5.5 yr. old, but I'm using the book with my 9 yr. old as well so I want to lay a really good foundation for her.

[Jumping In Puddles]

I will probably start this next year for first grade. I'd also like to check out CHOW because it's recommended in LCC.

[jennyt]

Hi,

 

I love SOTW and totally agree with the people who say that you will never find a completely "accurate" history book. We're up to volume 4 and my kids say history is their favourite subject when asked - SOTW is brilliant.

 

However, I found my first ever blaring inaccuracy in vol 4 when SWB started talking about Ned Kelly and the big stand off in June. She describes it as a hot, sweltery night or something to that effect - and being Australian, that does not sit well at all - June's our winter and, though it may be warmer than other people's winters, it's certainly not hot and certainly not where Ned Kelly's stand-off was.

 

I thought of trying to point this out to someone useful but you sort of assume someone else will have already. Is there revised editions already? I bought mine towards the end of last year. Is it worth trying to e-mail somebody about it?

 

Cheers,

Jenny

[mcconnellboys]

I think the first book, written toward six year olds, contains more stories for purposes of illustration than any other. It seems to me that they are clearly delineated and that one can easily see what is fiction.

 

I can't point to any inaccuracies within SOTW. Many, many history texts differ slightly on dates, especially for the ancients time period. I believe that some have argued in past that various Biblical events reflect inaccuracies, but I believe SWB has defended her reasons for including the info she used in the book. Biblical scholars tend to differ on various Bible information, as well. I believe there were also some Muslims who might have taken issue with info provided in this or SOTW II, but again, I believe SWB explained long ago why she included that info.

 

With the wealth of info available online today, it's pretty easy to google any piece of info which one might find questionable and look at differing opinions available regarding that topic.

 

I have used SOTW all the way through with my younger son and am starting through it again. I don't have problems with it or any other book we use, even though there are always descrepencies.

[Veritaserum]

I've really enjoyed using SOTW with my kids. More importantly, they enjoy it too. There's no perfect history text and we will be using other sources at older ages. I think SOTW is a wonderful overview that helps us get a basic understanding of how people/nations/empires/etc. relate to each other chronologically. :)

[dcjlkplus3]

We just finished SOTW 1. My dd(7) and I really enjoyed it and had no trouble identifying fact from story or illustration. SWB makes clear what is supposition and where that comes from. Try it out see how your kids do with it and correct or at least make clear things that you don't think are accurate.

[EKS]

A few opinions here--

 

First, I think that for the ancient stories--Gilgamesh, Bible stories, the Iliad, etc.--there is real history mixed in with fictional elements. It is absolutely appropriate to include those things. As someone else said, the new version clearly shows what is fiction and what is not.

 

As for the historical innacuracies, I don't particularly care. Does that sound bad? At this level, I'm just giving them a general idea of what happened, not asking for memorization of facts. We do *lots* of supplemental reading and those sources will frequently conflict with each other as well. If my young children even notice, I just say that because it happened so long ago, people sometimes have different ideas about what happened and leave it at that. It's a good lesson, actually, and probably a more important lesson than the history itself.

[Michelle T]

A few opinions here--

 

First, I think that for the ancient stories--Gilgamesh, Bible stories, the Iliad, etc.--there is real history mixed in with fictional elements. It is absolutely appropriate to include those things. As someone else said, the new version clearly shows what is fiction and what is not.

 

As for the historical innacuracies, I don't particularly care. Does that sound bad? At this level, I'm just giving them a general idea of what happened, not asking for memorization of facts. We do *lots* of supplemental reading and those sources will frequently conflict with each other as well. If my young children even notice, I just say that because it happened so long ago, people sometimes have different ideas about what happened and leave it at that. It's a good lesson, actually, and probably a more important lesson than the history itself.

 

 

This is exactly how I feel. I'm always sort of amused when I see so many people up in arms over very small "inaccuracies" in a book designed for reading to six year olds. The truth is, they will forget almost all of it anyway. I spent years studying history in school, enjoyed it fairly well, and now in my 40's, I don't remember most of the details. Just a vague impression of the big picture.

 

SOTW is a great way to give the "feel" of history to little kids. At that stage of learning, just getting them to enjoy history and understand that history is a story that flows through time is the goal.

Michelle T

[Zelda]

Count me as one more who is usually a stickler for accuracy that has still found SOTW to be an invaluable resource for introducing history to my kids. We use CHOW with it. I haven't really seen anything else though. I was happy where I landed.

[emmsmama]

Count me as one more who is usually a stickler for accuracy that has still found SOTW to be an invaluable resource for introducing history to my kids. We use CHOW with it. I haven't really seen anything else though. I was happy where I landed.

 

Do you have any kind of outline as to which chapters of CHOW correspond with which chapters of SOTW? I have CHOW and was thinking of pulling in some reading of that as well, but no sense re-inventing the wheel if you have something laid out :)

[Zelda]

I don't have anything yet...you know who has one...I think its Laura in China. Hope that helps.

 

Yes...go to her blog and it is in the links.

[emmsmama]

I don't have anything yet...you know who has one...I think its Laura in China. Hope that helps.

 

Yes...go to her blog and it is in the links.

 

Thanks :)

 

...edited to add that I just went and she has very helpful schedules to correspond with SOTW 2-4 that I bookmarked, but I don't see anything about CHOW or SOTW1...

[Michelle T]

Do you have any kind of outline as to which chapters of CHOW correspond with which chapters of SOTW? I have CHOW and was thinking of pulling in some reading of that as well, but no sense re-inventing the wheel if you have something laid out :)

 

 

 

 

http://www.redshift.com/~bonajo/chowsotw.htm

 

I've been using this chart.

Michelle T

[emmsmama]

http://www.redshift.com/~bonajo/chowsotw.htm

 

I've been using this chart.

Michelle T

 

Thanks! I'm thinking if I pull in some CHOW and Our Island Story and other recommended supplemental books from the SOTW AG's, then we will get a historical event/period from different angles and that will help stamp out any inaccuracies or clarify things we are unsure of :)

[Reya]

I started making a list of inaccuracies but gave up when it hit 20 pages, and that's without me trying to fact check it! It's not horrendous, but there are lots and lots of things that are not quite right and a not inconsiderable number of outright errors.

 

A very typical example is the description of mummification. The mummification described is what was practiced at one point in the New Kingdom of Egypt. In the Old Kingdom, internal organs weren't even removed, and mummies rotted rapidly and only kept the outer appearance of a mummy--inside, it was all goo. But she doesn't know this, and tells the story of a king getting mummified by techniques anachronistic by over 1000 years and then getting buried in a pyramid.

 

The description of Henry III's break with the Roman Catholic Church is simply outrageously inaccurate. I've met a number of Catholics incensed over this--and they have every right to be because it really is flagrantly false in every way.

 

There are many other examples. I correct them as I go verbally.