Mommy to monkeys Posted August 19, 2015 Share Posted August 19, 2015 I've had the orange and brown McGuffey readers in my house for years and I admittedly haven't done a lot with them other than simply let my children read them. I decided to peruse them a bit today as I was considering having my son practice reading aloud from them for reading practice. I just happened to start reading in Lesson 59 in the 4th reader and here is a quote (emphasis mine) "5. I have sometimes heard a girl say, "I know that I am very unpopular at school." Now, this plainly shows that she is not amiable. 6. If you companions do not love you, it is your own fault. They can not help loving you if you will be kind and friendly. If you are not loved, it is a good proof that you do not deserve to be loved." What the heck kind of garbage have I been giving my kids to read?! Now, I haven't read through the whole lot of these books, but if this lesson is indicative of what's in there then. ..well, no thank you. I get the point of what they're trying to teach here. It's good to be a nice person, but EVERYONE deserves to be loved. *steps off soapbox* 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maize Posted August 19, 2015 Share Posted August 19, 2015 Eek! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneStepAtATime Posted August 19, 2015 Share Posted August 19, 2015 Oh.my.goodness. :crying: :cursing: 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HomeschoolingHearts&Minds Posted August 19, 2015 Share Posted August 19, 2015 Wow. That's not even logical---surely if I can fail to be "amiable," others can fail to be loving towards me. It happens in abusive relationships all the time. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arliemaria Posted August 19, 2015 Share Posted August 19, 2015 I know there are different editions of McGuffey. Is this revised, original, etc? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Another Lynn Posted August 19, 2015 Share Posted August 19, 2015 I remember thinking it had legalistic tendancies, but wow! That's crazy. I have always liked Elson better. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikslo Posted August 19, 2015 Share Posted August 19, 2015 Summer is a good time for a bonfire. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mommy to monkeys Posted August 19, 2015 Author Share Posted August 19, 2015 Wow. That's not even logical---surely if I can fail to be "amiable," others can fail to be loving towards me. It happens in abusive relationships all the time. This made me think of abuse as well. My skin literally crawled when I read this. I know there are different editions of McGuffey. Is this revised, original, etc? It says "revised edition" on the outside. Brown spine and orangey cover with blue words. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corraleno Posted August 19, 2015 Share Posted August 19, 2015 :ack2: :ack2: :ack2: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs. B Posted August 19, 2015 Share Posted August 19, 2015 I just went and read the entire poem in context from that lesson. While I agree those statements are so dated and not stated well, the entire context of the point isn't about children not being loved as being their own fault or being unpopular at school is the the person's fault. The poem is about being open and generous to the needs of others around. Being popular at school in the context and time this is written isn't what being popular today is, and the context isn't about not being loved by friends is different than what it seems taken out of context. The poem is about the natural consequences one may come to by being someone who never gives consideration to those around them. Being inconsiderate naturally lends to not having many friends and not being popular (popular not meaning what today's middle high school definition of popular means). In today's context it may equate to being a young child who grabs shared toys and yells "Mine! Mine! Mine!" and the kids around him or her no longer want to play with that child. The poem is basically saying, if you are someone who only looks after your own needs and never is kind to those around, it will make you unpopular and not loved by peers. It isn't conveying love as a deep heart emotion that is a need of every human being. It is conveying moreso a message, "if people don't love to be around you, it is your own fault" in the context of being someone who inconsiderate. Now today, people are unloved and unpopular just because they are too short or too tall or their eyes are blue. But, this poem is not talking about that. I really don't mean to be controversial, and I agree the language should be less judgemental. But, I just wanted clarify what is meant in that poem by unloved and unpopular. It still may be harsh and not right. It's just that I initially took the not loved and unpopular quotes as being different than what the poem probably means. The language is not relevant for today, I know. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mommy to monkeys Posted August 19, 2015 Author Share Posted August 19, 2015 I just went and read the entire poem in context from that lesson. While I agree those statements are so dated and not stated well, the entire context of the point isn't about children not being loved as being their own fault or being unpopular at school is the the person's fault. The poem is about being open and generous to the needs of others around. Being popular at school in the context and time this is written isn't what being popular today is, and the context isn't about not being loved by friends is different than what it seems taken out of context. The poem is about the natural consequences one may come to by being someone who never gives consideration to those around them. Being inconsiderate naturally lends to not having many friends and not being popular (popular not meaning what today's middle high school definition of popular means). In today's context it may equate to being a young child who grabs shared toys and yells "Mine! Mine! Mine!" and the kids around him or her no longer want to play with that child. The poem is basically saying, if you are someone who only looks after your own needs and never is kind to those around, it will make you unpopular and not loved by peers. It isn't conveying love as a deep heart emotion that is a need of every human being. It is conveying moreso a message, "if people don't love to be around you, it is your own fault" in the context of being someone who inconsiderate. Now today, people are unloved and unpopular just because they are too short or too tall or their eyes are blue. But, this poem is not talking about that. I really don't mean to be controversial, and I agree the language should be less judgemental. But, I just wanted clarify what is meant in that poem by unloved and unpopular. It still may be harsh and not right. It's just that I initially took the not loved and unpopular quotes as being different than what the poem probably means. The language is not relevant for today, I know. I did purposely mention where it was found so everyone could see it for themselves. The intention of the lesson was good. If you want a friend, BE a friend. BUT they did a cruddy job of teaching that. Ew. Just ew. And I don't there's any possible context that would make me ok with the quotes I mentioned. There were more along those lines in that passage. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter Posted August 19, 2015 Share Posted August 19, 2015 I get tired of literature, all literature. Humans are really messed up, so books written by humans are messed up. One of the reasons I have been focusing on chemistry so much the past couple days is because I am so tired of literature. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lang Syne Boardie Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 I used McGuffey Readers before I found Elson Readers, which I vastly prefer. I skipped the moralizing lessons, especially those that shamed and/or terrified children into a certain type of behavior. Sometimes, as Mrs. B has pointed out, the lesson is far more nuanced than it first appears -- the goal is to teach a child that some of his issues are on his own head if his character is not what it should be. Tough approach, but fitting for the times. But I agree with the OP that there's no good spin on some of her quoted sentences. (Thankfully, the version I used does not make that statement about the child not deserving to be loved.) I wasn't using McGuffey for the religious or moralizing passages, or for the outdated scientific concepts, or for the occasionally bigoted geographical studies; we skipped all of that. I had other goals for the books and carefully cherry-picked my lessons to meet those goals. Elson requires far less cherry-picking and includes far more classic children's literature, so I was pleased to switch to Elson as soon as I learned of it. That all said, it's best not to hand your kids materials from an era during which we know children were scared into good behavior, or bossed into bigoted thinking, and just let them read and digest it on their own. (See the Henty threads.) If your intent is to benefit from the meat but spit out the bones, for heaven's sake, you have to pre-read it and manage the lessons. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ms.Ivy Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 I use the Moore McGuffey Readers, which have been heavily edited for stuff like that. I really like them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arliemaria Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 I bought a primer that Leila Lawler recommended. I bought it on ebay. 1923 Bobbs-Merrill Primer. Haven't used it yet, but it looks very promising. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnnaE Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 Thanks for posting this! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobeatenpath Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 This is the problem with so much 'classic' literature and materials. I come across so many homeschoolers of a certain bent that are convinced if materials have real value they have to be 'old' , as if anything from a certain period and before is automatically classic. Fact is, there was a lot of rubbish published in 'old' times, and some of the stuff that perhaps was not rubbish then is certainly out of date now. It often reminds me of Aritstotle - how everyone just assumed he was right because, well, everyone before said he was right so he must be right. Same thing with assuming if CM or early 20th century educators or whoever think something was 'good' or 'classic' it must be so. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abba12 Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 I was bullied terribly, absolutely terribly for all the years I was in public school. I was homeschooled, first and foremost, because I never even had a single real friend across 7 years and 5 schools (moving due to bullying issues, but it was a small town, it got to the point where people knew who I was at the new school already by the end). I was the kid where, if a new student came to the school, the popular kids told them to stay away from me. There's a mixture of reasons I was so severely bullied, but only a small portion had anything to do with my behaviour whatsoever, and what did was things like being over-sensitive, and excessively shy after years of bullying, not being unlikeable. (I also know this because, in the later years, a couple of kids shyly and secretly told me they liked me and wanted to be around me but they were too scared of their peers to be seen near me) Reading this chapter would have crushed me as a kid. Having said that, I can, as an adult, absolutely see the context of this passage, and could very well see myself reading it alongside my child and walking them through the different time and place and why it was viewed differently back then (MIL used mcguffey and I will probably borrow her set in the next year). But old texts should never just be given to children to read independently, because many things have changed in the years which have passed. The words cannot be directly translated to todays contexts. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 As for children reading older texts independently, if I had had an eBook reader, my mother could have never screened all my vintage reading. I sometimes read several books on a day. I could speed read at a very young age. I read everything and anything I could get my hands on as a child. I think the variety did me more good than harm. I think the biography of a prostitute I read when I was 10 was worse than anything in McGuffeys, or any vintage book I read. :lol: 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mommy to monkeys Posted August 20, 2015 Author Share Posted August 20, 2015 I'm thinking this particularly struck me due to my background. No, I don't think my kids will be ruined for life because they read it, but I still don't think I'm going to keep these books around for "free reading". I'm one of those parents who really WANTS to like those older books, but is finding them very frustrating for a number of reasons including both tone and content. I guess I'm not as old-fashioned as I fancy myself to be. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lang Syne Boardie Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 If I gave the wrong impression -- I don't pre-read everything my kids read. They go to the library on their own, etc. But when I hand them a "school book" that's an endorsement, and I make sure I know what I'm recommending. (Not that anyone answered me directly, but I was one in the thread that suggested having some sort of criteria for pre-reading curriculum.) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 No matter the year, publisher, or recommendation, I am continually made uncomfortable about what I read. It is said that any good art makes you feel, including uncomfortable. I get tired, though. I haven't found any list or set that doesn't make me feel negative things and that feels safe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluegoat Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 I don't know - I don't use those readers, but I don't think it makes sense to say those statements are no good because they can be taken out of context. Well - pretty much anything is impossible to understand if you take it out of context. Within the context of behaving kindly and generously, I think what they are saying is true. There used to be a little girl at my church who could be very bossy and sometimes selfish and manipulative to the other kids. She wasn't a bad child, she just wasn't at an age yet where she had figured out what that kind of behavior really meant, practically or ethically. But I remember so clearly the day she began to learn that lesson - the other kids finally got tired of her behavior and left her out - not in a bullying way, they just carried on playing in a nicer way without her. The little girl was just bewildered and quite hurt I think - but that is really the moment when it makes sense to say - people are not there as your toys. If you are unkind, they will just cut you out in the end. If you don't begin to think of them as people to be treated as people, you will be sad and lonely. Not saying that is potentially a lot more unkind, because some people seem to have a very hard time figuring it out on their own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.