Jump to content

Menu

Dave Raymond's history courses


Recommended Posts

DD likes the looks of these video  courses, and unlike most video classes, they're affordable!

Has anyone used these? I'm curious just HOW religious and providential they are.  We are a Christian home but I prefer curriculum that isn't too heavy-handed with religion. 

Any thoughts? Alternative suggestions for engaging, affordable history (video based)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have done Modernity and are halfway through American.

Dave Raymond is reformed theologically, so not the same kind of providential as you’d find in Abeka or BJU materials. More intellectual and more sophisticated, but still at times too black and white. For us, this has worked fine because these things are great for discussion. 

I have appreciated the already-curated primary sources in the reader and the variety in them. We do not do the projects - my Dd detests them. I do assign all the writing and sometimes add to it. The weekly short answer tests and occasional essays work well for us. We added in some movies for Modernity and that was fun.
 
think (not certain) that if you purchase from Compass Classroom there is a good return policy. 
 

We purchase the DVDs and the downloads. I get the Reader and the TM printed and bound at Office Depot.

hth


Eta: I too have problems with the Civil War chapters mentioned later in this thread. 

I use other sources in our course to provide other pov. We go through some of the Stanford stuff at the beginning of every year to prime the pump for critical evaluation of history texts. 

 

Edited by ScoutTN
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously I'm coming from a secular perspective, but having gone through even the overview and samples (which I had to do recently because reasons...) it seemed extremely providential to me. I could see that it was more academic and classical than ABeka or what have you - the focus on primary sources seemed really strong, but still. But I may not be the perspective you want.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm coming from a Christian point of view, and I think that it it very providential.  I was assigned a helper role in a co op class that used the American history curriculum.  There were so many instances where I had to bite my tongue from yelling out at the arrogant point of view.  I found it incredibly offensive, even as a conservative Christian.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My son is doing American History this year and he really likes it, so I am happy, and he will continue with Modernity next year.  He rarely likes anything, so I am going to stick with what works.  We are reformed, so the perspective doesn't bother me, of course, but my son has also had teachers with  Catholic and secular perspectives, and we just discuss the differences.  I don't think it is overly providential because that would be a problem for us as well.  There were a few things he said in the beginning of the course I didn't agree with, but over all I've been pleased.

I really like the video lessons, primary sources, lesson questions, test questions, project variety (we aren't doing all of them), and the portfolio, which my son did not want to do, so we aren't.  There are also suggestions for optional  readings that go with each chapter, so all in all, there is a lot there to make for a well-rounded course.

Edited by RubyPenn
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
On 1/26/2021 at 3:19 PM, Farrar said:

Obviously I'm coming from a secular perspective, but having gone through even the overview and samples (which I had to do recently because reasons...) it seemed extremely providential to me. I could see that it was more academic and classical than ABeka or what have you - the focus on primary sources seemed really strong, but still. But I may not be the perspective you want.

Can you explain what this means? I feel like I'm out in left field. 😆

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, MagistraKennedy said:

Thank you so much. I felt like I had a bad case of the dumbs, so I appreciate your help. 

One thing left out of that thread is that providential history often is either openly racist or skirts racism really closely. As in, who was America given to? European settlers, who took it away from Native Americans. So the implication is strongly that God wanted European settlers here to do what we did to Native populations. All part of God's plan to give this nation to Christians. Which, if you believe in providential history - is literally the case. But you can see why that's an uncomfortable conclusion that essentially uses might makes right as a justification.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are working through American History this year. Though it has sparked some great discussions and given insight to historical timeline events, we are not fans of it. There is a bit of a disconnect between the video lectures (i.e., the information given on which to take notes) and the actual exam questions/answers at the end of each lesson—frustrating for the student and huge pet peeve for me. Also do not like the suggested projects. If a thread pops up for hits and misses, I was going to be sure to post in it.

We are nondenominational and did not care for the obvious sympathies of the left-leaning democrat figures who were known for immoral, unjust, and downright sleazy character/behavior whose actions are sugar-coated or even excuses made but the upright and just actions of conservative right-leaning individuals are marginalized, overlooked, or even tainted. We would prefer to call a spade a spade and move on, regardless of political or religious leanings. We made a point to cross reference some of these historical figures/events with other resources (e.g., college text, BJU text) and confirmed the lecturer's opinions/comments to be found wanting, in our opinion, much to our eventual non-surprise. 

In hindsight, I would have chosen Notgrass or BJU over this curriculum. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Mom21 said:

We are nondenominational and did not care for the obvious sympathies of the left-leaning democrat figures who were known for immoral, unjust, and downright sleazy character/behavior whose actions are sugar-coated or even excuses made but the upright and just actions of conservative right-leaning individuals are marginalized, overlooked, or even tainted. We would prefer to call a spade a spade and move on, regardless of political or religious leanings.

So you felt he was too liberal?

I had a look at one video and was surprised at his use of the pronoun "them" for a Franciscan monk ("someone who had devoted themselves to living a life of simplicity").

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Though oftentimes overlooked, I believe there is a distinction between liberalism and leftism, a distinction which this curriculum does not seem to have any qualms about crossing.

Though some good points are made here and there in the lectures, I think that the few good points can make the remaining bias all the more misleading, as the lecturer has seemed to establish himself as a conservative Christian figure; in reality, he draws closer to leftist, politically correct ideals as the course leaves discussion of the War for Independence. Some of the videos seem to beat around the bush, hinting that figures such as Abraham Lincoln and his supporters were really controlling, prejudiced, maniacal villains who just wanted to get rid of the innocent plantation farmers.

True, the Civil War was anything but simple, and as in every conflict there was good and bad on both sides, but it seems like the lecturer completely ignores his own acknowledgement of the fallen nature of man, until the discussion shifts back to some of the leftist figures of the past, where the “imperfect man” card is immediately played.

Edited by Mom21
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When and in which lecture did he say "innocent plantation farmers?"  I don't recall ever hearing this.  And as for Dave Raymond leaning left as another poster mentioned, I assumed the opposite.  Interesting that we all have a such different takes and perspectives.  This course has worked well for my son, who dislikes just about everything involving school.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, RubyPenn said:

When and in which lecture did he say "innocent plantation farmers?"  I don't recall ever hearing this.  And as for Dave Raymond leaning left as another poster mentioned, I assumed the opposite.  Interesting that we all have a such different takes and perspectives.  This course has worked well for my son, who dislikes just about everything involving school.

A previous poster did. The poster complained that Dave Raymond was too leftie and not fair to the innocent plantation farmers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Farrar said:

A previous poster did. The poster complained that Dave Raymond was too leftie and not fair to the innocent plantation farmers. 

It seems like you may have misunderstood what I was saying. I said pretty much the exact opposite, actually. 

I was characterizing the view portrayed by Raymond’s sympathetic lecture points, not my own. 

2 hours ago, Mom21 said:

Some of the videos seem to beat around the bush, hinting that figures such as Abraham Lincoln and his supporters were really controlling, prejudiced, maniacal villains who just wanted to get rid of the innocent plantation farmers.

These are the points that we have witnessed in the history lectures themselves, and which have made me thoroughly uncomfortable with this curriculum in general. “Innocent plantation farmers” is exactly how Raymond portrays the southern slave traders. I, for one, do not appreciate this frame of view, as it entirely dismisses the fact that these people were clearly in the wrong, even if, as Raymond tried to portray it, so many of them really weren’t treated all that bad anyway. I think if the southern farmers really cared about their slaves so much, they would have freed them and allowed them to work and live as they saw fit. Instead, they decided to keep their slaves for the labor and excuse their evil practices with the ever-so-pathetic excuse: “but we treat them like family.” You don’t buy family. 

His flippant attitude is rather disturbing, I think, and Raymond ought to be called out on the double standards he applies in his lessons. He doesn’t seem willing to apply the same grace to any of the abolitionists from the north, pointing out even the tiniest flaw and using it to make them into the big-bad-wolf, no matter what good they did for the freeing of the slaves. 

Somehow, this came out with you apparently being under the impression that I agree with Raymond’s sympathies. This is not the case. I believe that God created one race of mankind. The very idea of different “races” is antithetical to my core beliefs.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Mom21 said:

It seems like you may have misunderstood what I was saying. I said pretty much the exact opposite, actually. 

I was characterizing the view portrayed by Raymond’s sympathetic lecture points, not my own. 

These are the points that we have witnessed in the history lectures themselves, and which have made me thoroughly uncomfortable with this curriculum in general. “Innocent plantation farmers” is exactly how Raymond portrays the southern slave traders. I, for one, do not appreciate this frame of view, as it entirely dismisses the fact that these people were clearly in the wrong, even if, as Raymond tried to portray it, so many of them really weren’t treated all that bad anyway. I think if the southern farmers really cared about their slaves so much, they would have freed them and allowed them to work and live as they saw fit. Instead, they decided to keep their slaves for the labor and excuse their evil practices with the ever-so-pathetic excuse: “but we treat them like family.” You don’t buy family. 

His flippant attitude is rather disturbing, I think, and Raymond ought to be called out on the double standards he applies in his lessons. He doesn’t seem willing to apply the same grace to any of the abolitionists from the north, pointing out even the tiniest flaw and using it to make them into the big-bad-wolf, no matter what good they did for the freeing of the slaves. 

Somehow, this came out with you apparently being under the impression that I agree with Raymond’s sympathies. This is not the case. I believe that God created one race of mankind. The very idea of different “races” is antithetical to my core beliefs.

Do you happen to know which lesson this is in? My kids are doing this program this year, and I suppose I need to go watch this lesson.... I have been rather hands off this year. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/13/2021 at 10:29 AM, ByGrace3 said:

Do you happen to know which lesson this is in? My kids are doing this program this year, and I suppose I need to go watch this lesson.... I have been rather hands off this year. 

We are doing this curriculum this year.  Really the above stated concerns begin to creep in about the time of the discussion of the civil war and continue into the aftermath of the civil war.  We have been using this curriculum in a co-op setting and several moms have become uncomfortable with it.  The one sided remarks praising southern generals and demonizing the north keep coming.  He minimizes slavery saying it really wasn't too bad, and that "Uncle Tom's Cabin" unfairly portrayed only the bad parts of slavery.  In the last lesson we did he explained the noble beginnings of the ku klux klan.  Then went on to say that they unfortunately didn't stay true to their original cause...yet failed to give any picture of what they actually became.  I also did some research on his claim that up to 60 thousand blacks in the south voluntarily joined the confederate army to fight...which clearly shows the war was not just about slavery.  I could not find support for that information anywhere. We like to learn about different perspectives in my home, and in that way this curriculum is beneficial.  I do however think he is very biased and not presenting information in a way that he lays out sides of the story to let us mull through and come to our own conclusions.  We were thinking that we would stick with him for Modernity and that maybe it wouldn't be biased...but I do question his indoctrinational teaching style.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want video lectures, have you considered subscribing to The Great Courses Plus?  There are all kinds of topics, not just history.  They are secular and taught by university professors, generals, attorneys, doctors, chefs, etc., whatever person is most appropriate for that particular topic.  They seem fairly even-handed politically (sometimes the same course is panned by different people as being too liberal AND too conservative).  We love them and have used them for many years for a variety of courses.   Now, as far as the video aspect goes, most are of a professor just standing and lecturing, so nothing exciting.  Some have visuals, which are fine, and some move around more than others, but the strength is in the delivery of verbal information.  They are really excellent.  Some are fine for younger kids, but some are better suited just for high schoolers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/11/2021 at 4:14 PM, Mom21 said:

We are working through American History this year. Though it has sparked some great discussions and given insight to historical timeline events, we are not fans of it. There is a bit of a disconnect between the video lectures (i.e., the information given on which to take notes) and the actual exam questions/answers at the end of each lesson—frustrating for the student and huge pet peeve for me. 

We have been frustrated with this too! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...