What ought we to learn from history
Kanga Mum
google to retrieve any messages in the original thread for me. I also
think I accidentally sent this first directly to MrMom, instead of to
the group, as I intended.
Apologies for all confusion, annoyance, and irritation I've caused.
----- Original Message -----
From: "MrMom" <MrMom...@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups:
misc.education.home-school.christian,misc.education.home-school.misc[
]
> I add to the course things that I can make relevant to her. For example,
> with U.S. presidents, drawing similarities between Andrew Johnson and Bill
> Clinton. One is within her lifetime and the other not. Clinton serves as
the
> anchor so that she will learn about Andrew Johnson.
So if Clinton had not been impeached, would knowing about Andrew
Johnson
then be irrelevant to your child?
The point I am wishing to make is that since we do not know the
future, we
do not know what may be relevant to our children when they become
adults.
Offering a wide and generous curriculum gives them ample material from
which
to draw upon, whatever the future holds.
[ ]
> This is a very simplified answer, with just a minor part of what I do.
> What is most important is to make learning relevant (what's in it for
me?),
> to the kid, make it as much fun as possible, and avoid the rote memory
crap.
> Have you ever had a job application that asked you what State Lincoln was
> from?
[ ]
There's more to life than job applications, I hope. In fact, I've
never
seen a job application that asked me if there was an American
REvolution at
all, or required of me to prove I knew that such men as Abraham
Lincoln or
Andrew Johnson ever existed. I don't think what will or won't be on a
job
application is a good rule of thumb for my educational philosophy.
I do understand that this is not your only guideline for what to
study, but
it does indicate a pragmatic or utilitarian view of education. I
think
there is more to education than utilitarian purposes as well.
I am not educating my children merely for a job. I am educating them
for
themselves, to become lifelong learners and informed citizens with as
broad
a knowledge base as I can manage to help them build.
"The object of children's literary studies is not to give them precise
information as to who wrote what in the reign of whom? -- but to give
them a
sense of the spaciousness of the days, not only of great Elizabeth,
but of
all those times of which poets, historians and the makers of tales,
have
left us living pictures. In such ways the children secure, not the
sort of
information which is of little cultural value, but wide spaces wherein
imagination may take those holiday excursions deprived of which life
is
dreary; judgment, too, will turn over these folios of the mind and
arrive at
fairly just decisions about a given strike, the question of Poland,
Indian
Unrest. Every man is called upon to be a statesman seeing that every
man and
woman, too, has a share in the government of the country; but
statesmanship
requires imaginative conceptions, formed upon pretty wide reading 'and
some
familiarity with historical precedents. " Towards a Philosophy of
Education
A knowledge of history teaches humility- "...it is our nature to lift
up our
heads and say, 'We are the people; before us there were none like unto
us,
neither shall there be any more after us.' .... Great Eras come from
Time to
Time..." School Education
Education is the Science of Relations. -- A child should be brought up
to
have relations of force with earth and water, should run and ride,
swim and
skate, lift and carry; should know texture, and work in material;
should
know by name, and where and how they live at any rate, the things of
the
earth about him, its birds and beasts and creeping things, its herbs
and
trees; should be in touch with the literature, art and thought of the
past
and the present I do not mean that he should know all these things;
but he
should feel, when he reads of it in the newspapers, the thrill which
stirred
the Cretan peasants when the frescoes in the palace of King Minos were
disclosed to the labour of their spades. He should feel the thrill,
not from
mere contiguity, but because he has with the past the relationship of
living
pulsing thought; and, if blood be thicker than water, thought is more
quickening than blood. He must have a living relationship with the
present,
its historic movement, its science, literature, art, social needs and
aspirations. In fact, he must have a wide outlook, intimate relations
all
round; and force, virtue, must pass out of him, whether of hand, will,
or
sympathy, wherever he touches. ...Give children a wide range of
subjects...You will see at a glance, with this... idea of establishing
relationships as a guide, the unwisdom of choosing or rejecting this
or that
subject, as being more or less useful or necessary in view of a
child's
future. We decide, for example, that Tommy, who is eight, need not
waste his
time over the Latin Grammar. We intend him for commercial or
scientific
pursuits, -- what good will it be to him? But we do not know how much
we are
shutting out from Tommy's range of thought besides the Latin
Grammar....
Parents and Children
"...the one subject which we are not at liberty to leave out from the
curriculum of 'a being breathing thoughtful breath....' is moral and
social
science conveyed by means of history, literature, or otherwise...' not
'
some subject of mere utility.' Parents and Children
The honour due to our country requires some intelligent knowledge of
her
history, laws, and institutions; of her great men and her people; of
her
weaknesses and her strength; and is not to be confounded with the
ignorant
and impertinent attitude of the Englishman or the Chinese who believes
that
to be born an Englishman or a Chinese puts him on a higher level than
the
people of all other countries; that his own country and his own
government
are right in all circumstances, and other countries and other
governments
always wrong. But, on the other hand, still more to be guarded
against, is
the caitiff spirit of him who holds his own country and his own
government
always in the wrong and always the worse, and exalts other nations
unduly
for the sake of depreciating his own. -Ourselves
We must all get opinions about our own country, about other countries,
about
occupations, amusements, about the books we read, the persons we hear
of,
the persons we meet, the pictures we see, the characters we read of,
whether
in fiction or history; in fact, there is nothing which passes before
our
minds about which it is not our business to form just and reasonable
opinions. That we may be able to do this, we spend a good many years,
while
we are young, in getting the knowledge which should enable us to
think. -
Ourselves
The Informed Patriot. -- We must read our newspaper, of course --
newspapers
on both sides; but he who founds upon his newspaper is an ignorant
patriot
and an illiberal citizen. His opinions are no more than parrot-like
repetitions of other men's sayings; whereas he who dwells with dutiful
interest upon the history of his own country, distressed over her
ignominies, proud when she has shown herself great; who has pondered
the
history of another great empire -- admiring the temperate justice with
which
its distant colonies were administered, and scrutinising the causes of
its
fall -- he gradually acquires some insight as to the meaning of
national
life. He is able to express an opinion which is not a mere echo, and
gains
convictions which will certainly be of use to his country, even if
they are
known only to the people about his own fireside. He learns to esteem
Xerxes
as a great gardener, a planter, whose aim it was that every man should
have
his little 'paradise.' Lycurgus is to him more than a lawgiver, he is
a hero
able to keep the laws he made. Such a person regards, with
half-envious
interest, the records of those small yet great republics,
distinguished in
the arts of peace and of war, in whose open schools every man picked
up
philosophy, and the best men made it the study of a lifetime. He who
reads
history in this way, not to pass examinations, nor to obtain culture,
nor
even for his own pleasure (delightful as such reading is), but because
he
knows it to be his duty to his country to have some intelligent
knowledge of
the past, of other lands as well as of his own, must add solid worth
to the
nation that owns him. It is something to prepare for the uses of the
State a
just, liberal, and enlightened patriotism in the breast of a single
citizen.
Philosophy. -- Philosophy lays her hand upon us, as upon the youth of
Athens, with an absolute claim. We are remarkable among the civilised
peoples for our ignorance of what has been already thought in the
world, has
been given up as futile, or has passed into common knowledge.
Ourselves
Our Aim in Education. -- Our aim in education is to give children
vital
interests in as many directions as possible -- to set their feet in a
large
room... School Education
Kanga
Note: All quotes from one of Miss Charlotte Mason's six volumes in
The
Original Homeschooling Series, available from Amazon at
http://tinyurl.com/y0eg
which link (if I did it properly) gives my firstborn a small portion
of the
coin of the realm in her Amazon affiliates account.
The second born will sell you decadent chocolate truffles for 10
dollars a
dozen.
The thirdborn will steal your watch and your heart
The fourthborn will sew patches, mend, and make doll clothes
The fifthborn will shovel stalls, walk dogs, or scan books and convert
them
to text
The sixth and seventhborn water plants, feed pets, and carry out the
trash
So you see, we're not totally opposed to utilitarian aims.=)
Stainless Steel Streetrat
kangamaroodoes...@yahoo.com (Kanga Mum) writes:
>
>I'm afraid this is going to start a new thread, but I couldn't get
>google to retrieve any messages in the original thread for me.
Yep, you forgot the question mark <wg>.
<snipped here and there>
>So if Clinton had not been impeached, would knowing about Andrew
>Johnson
>then be irrelevant to your child?
....>
>There's more to life than job applications, I hope. In fact, I've
>never
>seen a job application that asked me if there was an American
>REvolution at
>all, or required of me to prove I knew that such men as Abraham
>Lincoln or
>Andrew Johnson ever existed. I don't think what will or won't be on a
>job
>application is a good rule of thumb for my educational philosophy.
>I do understand that this is not your only guideline for what to
>study, but
>it does indicate a pragmatic or utilitarian view of education. I
>think
>there is more to education than utilitarian purposes as well.
>
>I am not educating my children merely for a job. I am educating them
>for
>themselves, to become lifelong learners and informed citizens with as
>broad
>a knowledge base as I can manage to help them build.
>
...>A knowledge of history teaches humility- "...it is our nature to lift
>up our
>heads and say, 'We are the people; before us there were none like unto
>us,
>neither shall there be any more after us.' .... Great Eras come from
>Time to
>Time..." School Education
... He must have a living relationship with the
>present,
>its historic movement, its science, literature, art, social needs and
>aspirations. In fact, he must have a wide outlook, intimate relations
>all
>round; and force, virtue, must pass out of him, whether of hand, will,
>or
>sympathy, wherever he touches. ...Give children a wide range of
>subjects...You will see at a glance, with this... idea of establishing
>relationships as a guide, the unwisdom of choosing or rejecting this
>or that
>subject, as being more or less useful or necessary in view of a
>child's
>future. We decide, for example, that Tommy, who is eight, need not
>waste his
>time over the Latin Grammar. We intend him for commercial or
>scientific
>pursuits, -- what good will it be to him? But we do not know how much
>we are
>shutting out from Tommy's range of thought besides the Latin
>Grammar....
>Parents and Children
>
.....>
>The honour due to our country requires some intelligent knowledge of
>her
>history, laws, and institutions; of her great men and her people; of
>her
>weaknesses and her strength; and is not to be confounded with the
>ignorant
>and impertinent attitude of the Englishman or the Chinese who believes
>that
>to be born an Englishman or a Chinese puts him on a higher level than
>the
>people of all other countries; that his own country and his own
>government
>are right in all circumstances, and other countries and other
>governments
>always wrong. But, on the other hand, still more to be guarded
>against, is
>the caitiff spirit of him who holds his own country and his own
>government
>always in the wrong and always the worse, and exalts other nations
>unduly
>for the sake of depreciating his own. -Ourselves
>... That we may be able to do this, we spend a good many years,
>while
>we are young, in getting the knowledge which should enable us to
>think. -
>Ourselves
>
>The Informed Patriot. -- We must read our newspaper, of course --
>newspapers
>on both sides; but he who founds upon his newspaper is an ignorant
>patriot
>and an illiberal citizen. His opinions are no more than parrot-like
>repetitions of other men's sayings; whereas he who dwells with dutiful
>interest upon the history of his own country, distressed over her
>ignominies, proud when she has shown herself great; who has pondered
>the
>history of another great empire -- admiring the temperate justice with
>which
>its distant colonies were administered, and scrutinising the causes of
>its
>fall -- he gradually acquires some insight as to the meaning of
>national
>life.
Ah, this is what I wanted <wg>. See, oh how do I put this, you learn history
so as *not* to get blind-sided by these kind of "glorifications of the past" -
the 'temperate justice' of Athens killed Socrates for "impiety" even though he
showed conclusively in his trial that he *had* done all the proper stuff that
was *required* (as was *really *killed because of his association with the
political losers at that particular time.) - as it was a given in Athens taht
you could *say* whatever you wanted about the gods, as long you did the
required sacrifices on teh Kalends and the Nonce (marking the months). - which
is why they "listened" to Paul initially, but only 1 guy found it intriguing
enough to investigate further <wg>.
But anyway, what I was *going* to say <g>, is that we look back to Greece and
Rome as sort of "pride of place" as forefathers, Greece for democracy - but if
you actually *study* it, the only thing Greek democracy has in common with us
is the word "demos" (the little people) and even *that* was different <wg>. The
demos didn't have a "vote", but they eventually did gain the right to *shout*
their approval of laws that the Senate had already decided on <g>.
And from Rome, we have of course taken the *worst* - their gang problems <wg>.
Actually, looking at Republic Rome can be *very* scary when compared to today
<wg>. *their* "democracy" was more of "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours"
- and either Cicero or Plutarch, has *vivid* descriptions of the bloodshed that
accompanied the later voting processes (basically election by
assassination)<g>.
But, you have to go *beyond* the textbooks, get as close to the *original*
sources as you can - else you would never *know* that the "Glory of Rome" was
limited to about 5 families <wg> (and most of those killed each other off).
He is able to express an opinion which is not a mere echo, and
>gains
>convictions which will certainly be of use to his country, even if
>they are
>known only to the people about his own fireside. He learns to esteem
>Xerxes
>as a great gardener, a planter, whose aim it was that every man should
>have
>his little 'paradise.'
And started the whole Roman paranoia of foreigners <wg>.
Stainless Steel Streetrat
-----------------------------------
"Living is the best revenge" - Conan the Barbarian
Kanga Mum
> In article <b62b291b.03120...@posting.google.com>,
> kangamaroodoes...@yahoo.com (Kanga Mum) writes:
>
> >
> >I'm afraid this is going to start a new thread, but I couldn't get
> >google to retrieve any messages in the original thread for me.
>
> Yep, you forgot the question mark <wg>.
Um, no, that's not what happened. What happened is that every time I
went to google groups and hit reply to _any_ message ( started trying
out different messages to see what was going on), I got some error
message saying that google was unable to retrieve such and such a
message for me to reply to. It _would_ let me post a new message, so
that's what I did. Oh, Yeah. --> <wg>
So yeah, if after getting all frustrated and annoyed with Google, I'd
put in the question mark, it would have probably put my post in the
original thread, but by that point, I didn't care anymore. I just
wanted to make my post and be done, regardless of which thread it went
into.
>
> <snipped here and there>
[likewise]
>
> Ah, this is what I wanted <wg>. See, oh how do I put this, you learn history
> so as *not* to get blind-sided by these kind of "glorifications of the past" -
> the 'temperate justice' of Athens killed Socrates for "impiety" even though he
> showed conclusively in his trial that he *had* done all the proper stuff that
> was *required*
See, how do I put *this?* <wg> I *really* considered deleting the
specific details such as 'the temperate justice of person x or society
z' because I _knew_ somebody would focus on a nitpicky detail and
challenge the interpretation somebody made of that specific detail
instead of looking at the big picture. But I'd already spent so much
time just trying to figure out a way for google to let me reply (since
just clicking on 'post a reply' or follow up or whatever wasn't
working), that I decided to leave in both the nitpicky details and the
wider idea, and let people choose what suited them best, and just wait
and see, out of purely contrary intellecutal curiosity, who would be
the first to focus on the irrelevant details rather than the broader
picture- and that is, that history serves a much wider role in our
lives than filling in the squares for a job application.
Oddly enough, I think nearly every one of your points (going from
memory late at night, so could be wrong, but definitely Lycergus,
which I'm too tired to even spell properly, and the temperate justice
of the good people who killed Socrates definitely) were things with
which I also disagreed, but figured they were mere schmere navel lint
details that didn't really matter as far as the main principle and
point were concerned.
So, what have I learned from this? That I am not as much of a detail
person as you are (but I am more detail oriented than my husband). No,
I think I already knew that.
That I should not post when I've allowed Google to ruffle my feathers?
Nah, I think I already knew that. I just ignore what I know.
That I should not post late at night when I am tired and just waiting
for my pajamas to dry? I am sure I know better than that, too.
But I do it anyway. Probably I ought to learn a lesson from
history....
Kanga
Stainless Steel Streetrat
>Oddly enough, I think nearly every one of your points (going from
>memory late at night, so could be wrong, but definitely Lycergus,
>which I'm too tired to even spell properly, and the temperate justice
>of the good people who killed Socrates definitely) were things with
>which I also disagreed, but figured they were mere schmere navel lint
>details that didn't really matter as far as the main principle and
>point were concerned.
Heh. And I disagreed on *that* point <wg>. The *details* were saying the
*opposite* of the general platitudes that were being said, or else I could have
let them slide <wg>.
Stainless Steel Streetrat
In article <b62b291b.03120...@posting.google.com>,
kangamaroodoes...@yahoo.com (Kanga Mum) writes:
>
>"The object of children's literary studies is not to give them precise
>information as to who wrote what in the reign of whom? -- but to give
>them a
>sense of the spaciousness of the days, not only of great Elizabeth,
>but of
>all those times of which poets, historians and the makers of tales,
>have
>left us living pictures. In such ways the children secure, not the
>sort of
>information which is of little cultural value, but wide spaces wherein
>imagination may take those holiday excursions deprived of which life
>is
>dreary;
skipped this because it was too much like "the good ol' days were better"
>judgment, too, will turn over these folios of the mind and
>arrive at
>fairly just decisions about a given strike, the question of Poland,
>Indian
>Unrest.
this (judgement) is non-applicable, if we're ignoring the *details*
Every man is called upon to be a statesman seeing that every
>man and
>woman, too, has a share in the government of the country; but
>statesmanship
>requires imaginative conceptions, formed upon pretty wide reading 'and
>some
>familiarity with historical precedents. " Towards a Philosophy of
>Education
this would depend on a definition of "stateman" (details: the Romans seemed to
have gotten along fine with a *high* ideal of "statemanship" and a *low* ideal
of history)
>
>A knowledge of history teaches humility-
but does it?
"...it is our nature to lift
>up our
>heads and say, 'We are the people; before us there were none like unto
>us,
>neither shall there be any more after us.' .... Great Eras come from
>Time to
>Time..." School Education
And my point earlier, was that we *still* twist history to emphasize the points
that *look* superficially like "us".
>
>Education is the Science of Relations. -- A child should be brought up
>to
>have relations of force with earth and water, should run and ride,
>swim and
>skate, lift and carry; should know texture, and work in material;
>should
>know by name, and where and how they live at any rate, the things of
>the
>earth about him, its birds and beasts and creeping things, its herbs
>and
>trees; should be in touch with the literature, art and thought of the
>past
>and the present I do not mean that he should know all these things;
snipped the above earlier because it was obscuring the distinction of "history"
with the *rest* of the arts
>but he
>should feel, when he reads of it in the newspapers, the thrill which
>stirred
>the Cretan peasants when the frescoes in the palace of King Minos were
>disclosed to the labour of their spades. He should feel the thrill,
>not from
>mere contiguity, but because he has with the past the relationship of
>living
>pulsing thought; and, if blood be thicker than water, thought is more
>quickening than blood. He must have a living relationship with the
>present,
>its historic movement, its science, literature, art, social needs and
>aspirations. In fact, he must have a wide outlook, intimate relations
>all
>round; and force, virtue, must pass out of him, whether of hand, will,
>or
>sympathy, wherever he touches. ...Give children a wide range of
>subjects...You will see at a glance, with this... idea of establishing
>relationships as a guide, the unwisdom of choosing or rejecting this
>or that
>subject, as being more or less useful or necessary in view of a
>child's
>future.
This I guess is addressing the "utilitarian" issue, not history, per se.
We decide, for example, that Tommy, who is eight, need not
>waste his
>time over the Latin Grammar. We intend him for commercial or
>scientific
>pursuits, -- what good will it be to him? But we do not know how much
>we are
>shutting out from Tommy's range of thought besides the Latin
>Grammar....
>Parents and Children
>
>"...the one subject which we are not at liberty to leave out from the
>curriculum of 'a being breathing thoughtful breath....' is moral and
>social
>science conveyed by means of history, literature, or otherwise...' not
>'
>some subject of mere utility.' Parents and Children
this was using history to "moralize" -- Marxist theory of history (as a way of
*doing* history, not as a political system <g>, there's obviously got to be a
*better* word for it, but that's what the history books call it <wg>)
>
>The honour due to our country requires some intelligent knowledge of
>her
>history, laws, and institutions; of her great men and her people; of
>her
>weaknesses and her strength; and is not to be confounded with the
>ignorant
>and impertinent attitude of the Englishman or the Chinese who believes
>that
>to be born an Englishman or a Chinese puts him on a higher level than
>the
>people of all other countries; that his own country and his own
>government
>are right in all circumstances, and other countries and other
>governments
>always wrong. But, on the other hand, still more to be guarded
>against, is
>the caitiff spirit of him who holds his own country and his own
>government
>always in the wrong and always the worse, and exalts other nations
>unduly
>for the sake of depreciating his own. -Ourselves
skipped because I actually *had* the *details* about the Chinaman's attitude
<wg>
>
>We must all get opinions about our own country, about other countries,
>about
>occupations, amusements, about the books we read, the persons we hear
>of,
>the persons we meet, the pictures we see, the characters we read of,
>whether
>in fiction or history; in fact, there is nothing which passes before
>our
>minds about which it is not our business to form just and reasonable
>opinions. That we may be able to do this, we spend a good many years,
>while
>we are young, in getting the knowledge which should enable us to
>think. -
>Ourselves
Hrm. Okay, I guess my *real* beef is that she keeps lumping *fiction* (or
literature) and *history* together,
>
>The Informed Patriot. -- We must read our newspaper, of course --
>newspapers
>on both sides; but he who founds upon his newspaper is an ignorant
>patriot
>and an illiberal citizen. His opinions are no more than parrot-like
>repetitions of other men's sayings; whereas he who dwells with dutiful
>interest upon the history of his own country, distressed over her
>ignominies, proud when she has shown herself great; who has pondered
>the
>history of another great empire
Details again: what constitutes a "great" empire, and why,...oh, never mind...
-- admiring the temperate justice with
>which
>its distant colonies were administered, and scrutinising the causes of
>its
>fall -- he gradually acquires some insight as to the meaning of
>national
>life. He is able to express an opinion which is not a mere echo, and
>gains
>convictions which will certainly be of use to his country, even if
>they are
>known only to the people about his own fireside.
Ok, the principal, seems to be "able to think for themselves", but the *detail*
below entails some really "twisted" thinking <wg>.
He learns to esteem
>Xerxes
>as a great gardener, a planter, whose aim it was that every man should
>have
>his little 'paradise.' Lycurgus is to him more than a lawgiver, he is
>a hero
>able to keep the laws he made. Such a person regards, with
>half-envious
>interest, the records of those small yet great republics,
>distinguished in
>the arts of peace and of war, in whose open schools every man picked
>up
>philosophy, and the best men made it the study of a lifetime.
This detail is inseperable from the principle, which relies on falsifying
(whether on purpose, or through ignorance) the evidence.
"
He who
>reads
>history in this way, not to pass examinations, nor to obtain culture,
>nor
>even for his own pleasure (delightful as such reading is), but because
>he
>knows it to be his duty to his country to have some intelligent
>knowledge of
>the past, of other lands as well as of his own, must add solid worth
>to the
>nation that owns him.
Now, this would be a good argument for an adult *male* *citizen* (1 percent of
the population) of *Rome*, which *required* all *citizen* to serve in the
polity. (the "perks" of Roman citizenship came *later*)
Okay, so I triggered on the word "owns", so sue me <wg>.
It is something to prepare for the uses of the
>State a
>just, liberal, and enlightened patriotism in the breast of a single
>citizen.
>Philosophy. -- Philosophy lays her hand upon us, as upon the youth of
>Athens, with an absolute claim. We are remarkable among the civilised
>peoples for our ignorance of what has been already thought in the
>world, has
>been given up as futile, or has passed into common knowledge.
>Ourselves
Like the Greeks who actually *lost* the ability to *write* for 3 centuries?
But that's detail.
>
>
>Our Aim in Education. -- Our aim in education is to give children
>vital
>interests in as many directions as possible -- to set their feet in a
>large
>room... School Education
>
Okay, I apologize. I was focusing on *history*, not utilitarianism
{Which I suppose *is* the details <wg>}
Dalene Barnes
> But, you have to go *beyond* the textbooks, get as close to the
> *original* sources as you can - else you would never *know* that the
> "Glory of Rome" was limited to about 5 families <wg> (and most of
> those killed each other off).
I agree that original sources are a wonderful resource. However, as we have
seen here in recent snips of discussion regarding the War between the States
aka Civil War aka War of Northern Agression aka War Against Slavery,
who writes the account will give totally different views of the exact same
war/event.
We read two eye-witness accounts of the Boston Massacre, one from a British
Officer, one from the guy standing next to Crispus Atticus. Vastly
different tellings of the same mob scene. It was extremely beneficial in
the teaching of history to read both.
Unfortunately, many times throughout history, the story of the conquored
doesn't get much press. When libraries are beastfully burned, carvings are
massively mutilated, stone engravings are deliberately destroyed, most of
what we - those who walk way behind - could have learned from that conquored
cultured is either totally lost, told only from the point of view of the
victor, or passed off as a fleeting footnote.
So, I guess one thing we ought to learn from history - especially as it
applies to today - is that there are at least two views to every history
story being related; if we read only ONE text/source by ONE author from ONE
area/country/side/army, we don't get a complete enough picture to say we've
learned history.
I mean - who knew the British thought we were terrorists. Huh? Wassup with
that? Didn't they appreciate us breaking away? Didn't THEY all think
George was out of line? Weren't they grateful for the chance to come to
America? (J/K!!!)
Dalene
Michael S. Morris
Sunday, the 7th of December, 2003
Stainless Steel Streetrat wrote:
Ah, this is what I wanted <wg>. See, oh how do
I put this, you learn history so as *not* to get
blind-sided by these kind of "glorifications of the
past" -
I at least do not understand them to be glorifications.
But, let's look at some details.
SSR:
the 'temperate justice' of Athens killed Socrates
for "impiety" even though he showed conclusively
in his trial that he *had* done all the proper stuff that
was *required* (as was *really *killed because of his
association with the political losers at that particular time.)
- as it was a given in Athens taht you could *say* whatever
you wanted about the gods, as long you did the required
sacrifices on teh Kalends and the Nonce (marking the months).
- which is why they "listened" to Paul initially, but only
1 guy found it intriguing enough to investigate further <wg>.
So, this on Athens from out of Charlotte Mason's "who has pondered
the history of another great empire -- admiring the temperate
justice with which its distant colonies were administered, and
scrutinising the causes of its fall -- he gradually acquires some
insight as to the meaning of national life"?
I'm convinced that one of my greatest faults is a habit of
cynicism, and that, non-Christian as I am, there is something
to be said for the three "theological virtues" of faith,
hope, and charity. One encounters I think this temptation to
the cynical turn of mind especially in arguing about history.
There are revisions upon revisions. And there is a temptation
in intellectual combat to puncture the other guy's bubble,
whatever that bubble may be. Athenian democracy? Bah, humbug!
They owned slaves and women couldn't vote and half the men
in the city were foreign non-citizens with no political
privileges. Jefferson and the Rights of Man? Bah, humbug!
He owned slaves, probably raped Sally Hemings. He certainly
didn't mean black men were equal to other men, and didn't
mean women were equal either. And so on with the Scrooge
thing...
And yet, and yet, the depth of depravity and misery and
the standard operating procedure of injustice throughout
the march of human history is simply underappreciated in
this style of use of history. It often seems to me like
it is holding up some political eschatology to the past and
using it to beat down any hopefulness of faithfulness of
charity in the possibility of human good. That is, consider
not Athenian democracy as compared with early 21st-century
Liberal democracy, but as an invention, an idea, which began
against a general background condition of despotism, and which
idea has not ever gone away. Or the Rights of Man. Susan
B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass, and Martin Luther King, Jr.
read Jefferson's words and understood that equality of Rights
to apply to them. I would argue even Jefferson understood
that. [Because the Rights come rationally from Locke's political/
ethical analysis, and, in Locke, the human property that
confers the Rights is the rational soul and free will of a
"politikon zoon" (going back to Aristotle). So, in order
to believe Africans and women are *not* equal in Rights, one
has to work hard at special pleading to believe they are not
human in this respect. I know people have tried, but the
observational reality simply is that it doesn't work.]
SSR:
But anyway, what I was *going* to say <g>, is that we look
back to Greece and Rome as sort of "pride of place" as forefathers,
Greece for democracy - but if you actually *study* it, the only
thing Greek democracy has in common with us is the word "demos"
(the little people) and even *that* was different <wg>. The
demos didn't have a "vote", but they eventually did gain the
right to *shout* their approval of laws that the Senate had
already decided on <g>.
Well, in your last line, you seem to be talking about
republican Rome, not Greece. But, no, it seems to me there is
a *huge* commonality between the history of the Athenian democracy
and the history of the US. In particular, there was this relative
isolationism up until Marathon (490) and Marathon, and then
the Xerxes invasion kind of track the US experience in WWI
and WWII. Followed by the US and Athens becoming imperial
powers in their own right once the Persians/Germans were defeated.
Leading to direct conflict with the Spartans/Russians. And we
have seen the Constitution of the United States (here I mean
not the written document, but more in the British sense) evolve
in ways which have made the political life in many ways
less Liberal, more democratic, leading to more demagoguery,
and a more imperial-style presidency. (Evolving to Pericles
and then Cleon. Clinton and W. would both count as our Cleons,
in my opinion.)
SSR:
And from Rome, we have of course taken the *worst* -
their gang problems <wg>.
Nah, we've taken their best. And, in particular, it was our
Founding Fathers who drew out of Roman history, in particular,
of Polybius's analysis of the Roman Constitution (as well as
Aristotle) the whole idea of "mixed government" and turned that
into the Enlightenment Liberal doctrine of "separation of
powers" and "checks and balances".
SSR:
Actually, looking at Republic Rome can be *very* scary when
compared to today <wg>.
Of course it can be scary. Their Republic fell into
imperial tyranny. And it did so precisely from within.
There were such (bloody) waves of civil war between
conservative and progressive that eventually a
strongman (Caesar, and then the first Emperor Augustus)
was seen as the solution to the problem of political
instability. It should certainly be a warning to us.
SSR:
*their* "democracy" was more of "you scratch
my back, I'll scratch yours" - and either Cicero
or Plutarch, has *vivid* descriptions of the
bloodshed that accompanied the later voting
processes (basically election by assassination)<g>.
Sure. But, Cicero and Plutarch and Tacitus and Suetonius
and Sallust and Livy and Polybius also tell us inspiring stories
of "men in dark times", who do good in spite of the fact
the world is going to hell in a handcart.
SSR:
But, you have to go *beyond* the textbooks, get as
close to the *original* sources as you can -
This seems to me to be divorced from Kanga's
context, which was, after all, Charlotte Mason.
I don't think Charlotte Mason, or the
Charlotte Mason method, aims at doing history
from textbooks. In fact, quite the opposite.
As I see it, she's aiming precisely at reading
history as written by historians. Narrative
history. And critical history. Healthy doses of
both. The 29 volumes of Cicero and the 26-volumes of
Plutarch in the Loeb Classical Library would not
be enough. You also need some historical context
that takes the Life of Lycurgus with several teaspoons
of salt. It is a compliation of legends and wonderful,
inspiring stories. Any kid should read it. It's
great stuff. But I don't think any serious historian
takes Plutarch's "Life of Lycurgus" as the correct
history of the foundation of the Spartan constitution.
By the way, my sense is that the quotes from Mason
betray a sort of 19th-century (well, turn thereof)
English love of the stories in Plutarch's Lives and Livy.
same sort of thing in Macauley's "Lays of Ancient Rome".
Horatius at the bridge, Cincinnatus at the plow,
the Stoic fortitude of Regulus in sacrificing himself
to death by torture out of a combination of patriotism
and personal honor. Umm, a lot of those stories are
dismissed by serious historians, as, well, stories---legends,
myths that Romans liked to tell about themselves, but not at
all to be trusted as history. I.e., in a sense it's
more that Charlotte Mason betrays a too-much-closeness
to the "original" texts. She's reading them too much
as history, and too uncritically. That said, I think
these texts---aided and abetted by more critical
modern history of the same period---still inspire
their readers with the possibility of men and women behaving
well. And the way she writes, she seems to be well
aware of the falls of Rome and Athens, and of the possibility
of dark times. So, she seems to understand what you, SSR,
called the "scary" as much as what I call the "inspiring".
SSR:
else you would never *know* that the "Glory of Rome" was
limited to about 5 families <wg> (and most of those
killed each other off).
Rome was a lot smaller place over much of its history
than Indianapolis is today. And I'll bet any history
of Indianapolis meant to cover the last 50 years would
of a narrative necessity focus on the deeds of
under 10 families.
Happy Pearl Harbor Day (though I wonder if that
should be the salutation).
Mike Morris
(msmo...@netdirect.net)
Paul Danaher
and asking "what can [my specific child] learn from history"? I only
discovered a talent for languages when I went abroad. Similarly, I only
discovered an interest in history when places became real to me. The nearest
I got to an interest in history before this was when I read Dean & Cole's
"British Economic Growth", which *organised* trends and events in a broad
sweep which suddenly made sense to me.
The one thing HSers should know better than anybody is that different people
(including children) learn different things in different ways. The question
as asked seems to be inviting a single curriculum or answer - although I'd
be the last to accuse Kanga of taking such an approach.
My wife and our younger daughter pick up history through historical novels,
costume, visiting old places. Our son picks it up through military history -
development of weapons and tactics, movements of empires. Our older daughter
picks it up (literally) through archeology, the detailed puzzles of
individual pieces which she then somehow places in a broader context (she
starts drawing a face in the corner of an eye, somehow has it all in her
head the way I have a paragraph in my mind before I start to key it).
Now, what they *learn* from this history is going to change over time, as
they learn more about life, read more literature, hear more music, see more
art, read the history of mathematics, science, astronomy, and the expansion
and integration will differ for each of them.
Isn't this enough? Or have I missed something vital?
Stainless Steel Streetrat
<msmo...@netdirect.net> writes:
>By the way, my sense is that the quotes from Mason
>betray a sort of 19th-century (well, turn thereof)
>English love of the stories in Plutarch's Lives and Livy.
>same sort of thing in Macauley's "Lays of Ancient Rome".
>Horatius at the bridge, Cincinnatus at the plow,
>the Stoic fortitude of Regulus in sacrificing himself
>to death by torture out of a combination of patriotism
>and personal honor. Umm, a lot of those stories are
>dismissed by serious historians, as, well, stories---legends,
>myths that Romans liked to tell about themselves, but not at
>all to be trusted as history. I.e., in a sense it's
>more that Charlotte Mason betrays a too-much-closeness
>to the "original" texts. She's reading them too much
>as history, and too uncritically.
Heh, that's what I get for trying to avoid the phrase "reading it critically"
<wg>.
At least 2 posters seem to have come to the conclusion that they're
*disagreeing* with me, when they talk about looking at *all* sources, and
*primary* source (which I *thought* I said in the *beginning* <wg>), something
I would *heartily* affirm!
Michael S. Morris
Sunday, the 7th of December, 2003
SSR:
Heh, that's what I get for trying to avoid the
phrase "reading it critically" <wg>.
Shor'nuff, it is.
SSR:
At least 2 posters seem to have come to the conclusion
that they're *disagreeing* with me,
Umm, only maybe in the sense that you seemed to me to be
disagreeing with Charlotte Mason while saying "go to the
original sources", since I think that is pretty close to what
she is saying.
SSR:
when they talk about looking at *all* sources,
and *primary* source (which I *thought* I said in
the *beginning* <wg>), something I would *heartily*
affirm!
Well, I find this statement confusing, since,
let's say we are talking about Lycurgus, whom I think
was mentioned in this thread. What is the primary source, if
not Plutarch's Life of Lycurgus---written maybe a
half a millenium after the time Lycurgus would have
lived, if any such person as Lycurgus in fact ever
lived? One should read it because it is superb
storytelling, and because its ideas---its admiration
for (some would insert here "the totalitarian
character of") Spartan virtue has radiated throughout
Western political and moral philosophy. What does Charlotte
Mason want us to do but read Plutarch? That is, she wants
us to read *the* primary source, if we can even speak of such
a thing in this context. And *not* textbooks.
So in what way are you disagreeing with what Kanga
has quoted of Charlotte Mason?
Mike Morris
(msmo...@netdirect.net)
Stainless Steel Streetrat
<msmo...@netdirect.net> writes:
>What does Charlotte
>Mason want us to do but read Plutarch? That is, she wants
>us to read *the* primary source, if we can even speak of such
>a thing in this context. And *not* textbooks.
>
>So in what way are you disagreeing with what Kanga
>has quoted of Charlotte Mason?
Heh, the fact that would never get *that* out of what she *quoted*, but I'm
still waiting on InterLibrary Loan for the original volumes, before I can say
anything else <wg>.
Michael S. Morris
Monday, the 8th of December, 2003
I said (context Lycurgus):
What does Charlotte Mason want us to do but
read Plutarch? That is, she wants us to read
*the* primary source, if we can even speak of such
a thing in this context. And *not* textbooks.
So in what way are you disagreeing with what Kanga
has quoted of Charlotte Mason?
SSR:
Heh, the fact that would never get *that* out of what
she *quoted*, but I'm still waiting on InterLibrary
Loan for the original volumes, before I can say
anything else <wg>.
Hmm.
OK, here is some culling of Kanga's quotes [my commentary in brackets]:
"The object of children's literary studies is not
to give them precise information as to who wrote
what in the reign of whom? -- but to give them a
sense of the spaciousness of the days, not only of
great Elizabeth, but of all those times of which
poets, historians and the makers of tales, have
left us living pictures."
[history is a literary study...not a science, not a list
of specific names and dates, but to the depth of human time,
as conveyed by an emphasis on stories and
living pictures---describes Plutarch's Lives to a tee]
"...the one subject which we are not at liberty to leave
out from the curriculum of 'a being breathing thoughtful
breath....' is moral and social science conveyed by means
of history, literature, or otherwise...' not 'some subject
of mere utility.'
[again history as literature, and specifically as moral instruction---
again, Plutarch to a tee]
The Informed Patriot. -- We must read our newspaper,
of course -- newspapers on both sides; but he who
founds upon his newspaper is an ignorant patriot
and an illiberal citizen. His opinions are no more
than parrot-like repetitions of other men's sayings;
whereas he who dwells with dutiful interest upon the
history of his own country, distressed over her
ignominies, proud when she has shown herself great;
who has pondered the history of another great empire --
admiring the temperate justice with which its distant
colonies were administered, and scrutinising the causes
of its fall -- he gradually acquires some insight as
to the meaning of national life. He is able to express
an opinion which is not a mere echo, and gains convictions
which will certainly be of use to his country, even if
they are known only to the people about his own fireside.
He learns to esteem Xerxes as a great gardener, a planter,
whose aim it was that every man should have his little
'paradise.' Lycurgus is to him more than a lawgiver, he
is a hero able to keep the laws he made. Such a person
regards, with half-envious interest, the records of those
small yet great republics, distinguished in the arts of
peace and of war, in whose open schools every man picked
up philosophy, and the best men made it the study of a
lifetime. He who reads history in this way, not to pass
examinations, nor to obtain culture, nor even for his
own pleasure (delightful as such reading is), but because
he knows it to be his duty to his country to have some
intelligent knowledge of the past, of other lands as well
as of his own, must add solid worth to the nation that
owns him. It is something to prepare for the uses of the
State a just, liberal, and enlightened patriotism in
the breast of a single citizen.
Philosophy. -- Philosophy lays her hand upon us, as
upon the youth of Athens, with an absolute claim. We are
remarkable among the civilised peoples for our ignorance
of what has been already thought in the world, has
been given up as futile, or has passed into common
knowledge.
[Seems to me here we have a call to be less provincial,
and in "whereas he who dwells with dutiful interest upon
the history of his own country, distressed over her
ignominies, proud when she has shown herself great;
who has pondered the history of another great empire --
admiring the temperate justice with which its distant
colonies were administered, and scrutinising the causes
of its fall -- he gradually acquires some insight as
to the meaning of national life" notice *admiration* and
"scrutinising"---the good and the bad, and all for this thing,
"insight as to the meaning of national life"---she's
calling us to a *thoughtful*, a mindful, exercise of citizenship.
I'm afraid Xerxes esacapes me. Or, at least, what escapes me is
any memory of any passage (I assume in Herodotus or
Aeschylus, but Plutarch's Life of Themistocles might also
have this) in which Xerxes was a gardener. But certainly I
recalll Lycurgus as a lawgiver hero---a hero because he
*kept* the laws he made. NB---the cynic in me thinks immediately
of Bill Clinton, who trumpeted as politically progressive his
signing off on the new rules of procedure in sexual harassment
cases which allowed attorneys for the plaintiff to question
the sexual history of the defendant in order to establish a
pattern of behaviour, which led to the whole Monica Lewinsky
thing being relevant to the Paula Jones case and then, when
that law got applied to himself, instead of having the
balls---excuse me---to refuse as a gentleman to answer such questions,
he resorted to lying about it. That, to me, was his big fault---
I could not care less about his sexual escapades, but applying
laws to me (wrong laws, I think) that he was not willing to
abide by, that is unforgivable. I.e., this way of perceiving
Lycurgus is as a moral/political measuring stick---that lawgivers
have walked the earth who obeyed the laws they gave. Anyway, where
do we get this picture of Lycurgus as a heroic lawgiver, except
from Plutarch's Life of Lycurgus? There is no
other, more primary, source that I know of. So, I conclude
that Charlotte Mason is certainly thinking of children reading
Plutarch's Lives, and Herodotus probably (if she really means
Xerxes, and not Xenophon? I could go look this up, but I'm being
lazy). And she is certainly *not* thinking of terrible horrible
awful may-the-gods-forgive-me-for-even-mentioning-them textbook
abridgments and anthologies and modernized retellings.]
Mike Morris
(msmo...@netdirect.net)
Kanga Mum
[ ]
> The one thing HSers should know better than anybody is that different people
> (including children) learn different things in different ways. The question
> as asked seems to be inviting a single curriculum or answer - although I'd
> be the last to accuse Kanga of taking such an approach.
In a way, I do take that approach, although I don't know that we're
talking about the same thing. I do believe that one thing that
applies to everybody is that our children's education ought not to be
strictly utilitarian. I believe that the question, "will I need to
know this for a job" is too limited a question for determining what to
cover in homeschooling our children.
Whether a particular person's bent inclines him to focus his history
studies on historical novels or visiting old places, an interest in
costume through the ages or military history isn't really the sort of
thing I've been thinking about in this thread.
My concern is that *why* we learn anything should have a broader basis
than what we need to know for a job.
>[ ]> Now, what they *learn* from this history is going to change
over time, as
> they learn more about life, read more literature, hear more music, see more
> art, read the history of mathematics, science, astronomy, and the expansion
> and integration will differ for each of them.
> Isn't this enough? Or have I missed something vital?
I guess I'm not at all clear on how this differs in any oppositional
way from what I said.
They will be able to learn more about life, read more literature, hear
more music, read the history of other disciplines, and apply, alter
and expand on what they have learned if they have also learned (or
maybe not unlearned, which I hope communicates my meaning) to learn
because they love learning itself, if they have learned that knowledge
is delightful, rather than something one needs for a job.
In a single lifetime we can only gain so much knowledge from personal
experience. If we are to learn from the experiences of others, we
must include studies in history, science, art, literature, and (in my
viewpoint, by no means least, though your viewpoint is different,
ergo, wrong <g>)- religion- then indeed do we begin to help our
children set their feet in that wide and spacious room.
I said, "I think there is more to education than utilitarian
purposes...
I am not educating my children merely for a job. I am educating them
for
themselves, to become lifelong learners and informed citizens with as
broad
a knowledge base as I can manage to help them build...."
I do think that broader view ought to apply to all homeschoolers. Is
there a situation where instead a parent ought to be educating merely
for utilitarian purposes? Should homeschoolers be against the goal of
having lifelong learners and informed citizens? Should homeschooling
parents desire to give their children as narrow a knowledge base as
possible?
(For my fellow Christians, I think it ought to go without saying that
I am speaking of educational aims, but unfortunately, things that
ought to go without saying often need to be said here, and somebody
will likely play that word association game and confuse my use of
narrow here with the statement that narrow is the path of
righteousness and broad the way of destruction. I wish you wouldn't.)
Rather than knowledge merely of use for a job, I want my children's
education, their schooling, to give them " ...wide spaces wherein
imagination may take those holiday excursions deprived of which life
is dreary..."
The broader the knowledge base, the more likely it is that a person
can "...turn over these folios of the mind" and
arrive at fairly just decisions about questions of state.
I think that being informed citizens includes a knowledge of history,
"...and imaginative conceptions, formed upon pretty wide reading 'and
some familiarity with historical precedents. " (Towards a Philosophy
of
Education)
I do not know how anybody could disagree with the above, or with this:
A knowledge of history teaches humility- "...it is our nature to lift
up our heads and say, 'We are the people; before us there were none
like unto
us, neither shall there be any more after us.' .... Great Eras come
from
Time to Time..." School Education
It *is* our nature to think that we are 'it,' that nobody has thought
the thoughts we have, and *any* broad study of history does go a long
way toward correcting that, and showing us that others also thought
they were the epitome of civilization, and yet, like Ozymandius, they
speak out of the dust, and that we are not immune from the same
fallings.
We tend to this price of place in both noble and ignoble areas. It is
a tendency to think both that our problems and faults are greater than
those before us, or that we are the crowning result of centuries of
progress.
I think it is just as arrogant to presume that our era and country
have fallen the lowest as it is to assume that 'we are the people..."
For instance, I am so *tired* of hearing American Christians say
something like "Jesus *must* be coming soon, because how much longer
can he stand our wickedness," in reference to something like removing
the 10 commandments from the courthouse, or permitting gay marriage,
or the laws on abortion in this country. I am not trying to get into
an argument on abortion- it would be fruitless. I am vehemently,
deeply, and utterly opposed to abortion, and I think it is an
atrocity, a great evil, and anathema to God. But I do not think that
America has any great monopoly on evil, nor do I think that our
wickedness is somehow the standard of measurement for when God has had
enough. Even if it were the case that when America has truly become
so evil that things could not be worse, I hardly think those things,
as vile as they may be, mark that point. I do not think people who
were more informed about other countries and other histories could
make such silly statements. But anyway.
That children may learn things in different ways does not address the
point I was trying to make, and that is that we ought not to limit
*what* they learn by basing these decisions on pragmatic or strictly
utilitarian principles.
I quoted this:
[ ] ...Give children a wide range of
subjects...You will see at a glance, with this... idea of establishing
relationships as a guide, the unwisdom of choosing or rejecting this
or that
subject, as being more or less useful or necessary in view of a
child's
future. We decide, for example, that Tommy, who is eight, need not
waste his
time over the Latin Grammar. We intend him for commercial or
scientific
pursuits, -- what good will it be to him? But we do not know how much
we are
shutting out from Tommy's range of thought besides the Latin
Grammar....
Parents and Children
And forget the detail of Latin- that is not important to my point
(nor, I think, Charlotte's)- which is that in the example above, the
subject was rejected solely because it was considered to serve no
purpose toward a future job. There ought to be greater considerations
involved when we select and reject subjects. There also ought to be
more humility about our ability to discern what our children will and
will not be doing in their adult years.
As for children learning differently, I think that is covered by the
'otherwise' in this quote:
"...the one subject which we are not at liberty to leave out from the
curriculum of 'a being breathing thoughtful breath....' is moral and
social
science conveyed by means of history, literature, or otherwise...' not
'
some subject of mere utility.' Parents and Children
Clearly, the point is not the *what*, or even the *how.* Although
those may well be important considerations- they are not the issues
that brought me into the discussion. What prompted my desire to post
is that I always find it slightly shocking when homeschoolers limit
themselves to questions '...of mere utility.' I find that so
disturbing that even a hint of it troubles me enough that I speak up.
I am unable to understand what there was to disagree with in saying
that to be well educated "...requires some intelligent knowledge of"
our country's
"history, laws, and institutions; of her great men and her people; of
her weaknesses and her strength; and is not to be confounded with the
ignorant and impertinent attitude of the Englishman or the Chinese
[substitute American, Australian, Canadian, or whatever for Englishman
or Chinese]who believes that to be born an Englishman or a Chinese
puts him on a higher level than the people of all other countries;
that his own country and his own
government are right in all circumstances, and other countries and
other
governments always wrong. But, on the other hand, still more to be
guarded
against, is the caitiff spirit of him who holds his own country and
his own
government always in the wrong and always the worse, and exalts other
nations
unduly for the sake of depreciating his own." -Ourselves
One of the things we ought to learn from history is that we are
neither the best nor the worst that the world has ever had to offer.
Whether you think it best to learn that through historical fiction,
archeology, or documentaries seen on TV is a different question, I
think.
Because our business as adults includes far more than what we may do
for a living, I think it is uniformly true to state that it is our
business "to form just and reasonable opinions. That we may be able to
do this, we spend a good many years, while we are young, in getting
the knowledge which should enable us to think. -"
Ourselves
I cannot think of an exception, unless perhaps we are speaking of
children such as our Angel, who will, in effect, remain a child all of
her life.
We study history, "...not to pass examinations, nor to obtain culture,
nor even for his own pleasure (delightful as such reading is), but
because
he knows it to be his duty to his country to have some intelligent
knowledge of the past, of other lands as well as of his own, must add
solid worth to the nation that owns him."
I happen to disagree quite strongly with what I think Miss Mason
implies by saying that a nation 'owns' its citizens, but I agree
equally strongly that 'what we ought to learn from history' includes
an intelligent knowledge of the past that will enable us to form
opinions as wise and just as we can manage. I think it is universally
true that an unjust, illiberal, and unenlightened patriotism is
something to avoid, whereas, "a just, liberal, and enlightened
patriotism" is universally a good thing. I understand that there are
those who think patriotism is always bad, but I think they are
simplistic, wrong, and lacking in a basic understanding of human
nature.
Obviously, I really like Miss Mason's approach. She would be the
first, btw, to say that her ideas are not really original with her.
It is true that she had idias which may be criticized for their
assumption that all children ought to learn the same things in the
same way- but I do not quite see how such criticism applies
contextually to any of the quotes I shared in this thread.
I think the statement below is broad enough to cover all homeschools
and all learning styles, as well as all subjects, and I see no reason
why any homeschooler would desire less for his children than to give
them vital interests in as many directions as possible, and to set
their feet in a wide and spacious place:
Paul Danaher
> "Paul Danaher" <wat...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:<A%OAb.8475$dA1....@nwrddc03.gnilink.net>... [ ]
>> The one thing HSers should know better than anybody is that
>> different people (including children) learn different things in
>> different ways. The question as asked seems to be inviting a single
>> curriculum or answer - although I'd be the last to accuse Kanga of
>> taking such an approach.
>
> In a way, I do take that approach, although I don't know that we're
> talking about the same thing. I do believe that one thing that
> applies to everybody is that our children's education ought not to be
> strictly utilitarian. I believe that the question, "will I need to
> know this for a job" is too limited a question for determining what to
> cover in homeschooling our children.
I missed a vital message or two earlier on, so I didn't understand your
points in context, and not surprisingly failed to respond to them.
<snip>
> My concern is that *why* we learn anything should have a broader basis
> than what we need to know for a job.
<snip>
> If we are to learn from the experiences of others, we
> must include studies in history, science, art, literature, and (in my
> viewpoint, by no means least, though your viewpoint is different,
> ergo, wrong <g>)- religion- then indeed do we begin to help our
> children set their feet in that wide and spacious room.
Pausing to respond to this, I read theology (not merely Christian, of
course), mostly for pleasure, but partly because I think it's important to
try and understand other people's mistaken ideas <g>
> I said, "I think there is more to education than utilitarian
> purposes...
<snip>
> I do think that broader view ought to apply to all homeschoolers. Is
> there a situation where instead a parent ought to be educating merely
> for utilitarian purposes? Should homeschoolers be against the goal of
> having lifelong learners and informed citizens? Should homeschooling
> parents desire to give their children as narrow a knowledge base as
> possible?
Our children started out in a Montessori preschool, so we've always seen
learning as something which is part of our human nature. I can imagine
situations where educational priorities would be utilitarian, and I'm very
keen on our children having "marketable skills" (office skills, mostly), but
I see no possible justification for limiting them beyond that. In this, of
course, I'm totally opposed to the Amish/Mennonite/Dunkard position (was
this a consideration in this thread?).
In my life so far I've worked in economics, music, various kinds of library,
market research, business forecasting, and as a translator, interpreter and
narrator. One of my strengths as a narrator was that I could read advanced
medical texts at sight containing terms like erithropoietin and torsade de
pointes. This is because I read articles about things which aren't
"job-related" - but something always seems to turn up where the knowledge is
"useful".
<snip>
> That children may learn things in different ways does not address the
> point I was trying to make, and that is that we ought not to limit
> *what* they learn by basing these decisions on pragmatic or strictly
> utilitarian principles.
When I was six, my father scrimped and saved to pay for piano lessons for
me. He did so because he believed that another war was likely, and wanted me
to be able to play for free beer in the mess. There wasn't a war, but this
interest got me into opera, which got me into translation. My point here is
that we simply don't have the information we would need to decide what
children "need" to learn - unless we live in a totally artificial community
(like the Amish etc).
> I think the statement below is broad enough to cover all homeschools
> and all learning styles, as well as all subjects, and I see no reason
> why any homeschooler would desire less for his children than to give
> them vital interests in as many directions as possible, and to set
> their feet in a wide and spacious place:
I don't know anybody who would argue otherwise, and I'm unpleasantly
surprised to think that such an idea might arise (outside certain
communities which I thoroughly disagree with).
Michael S. Morris
Wednesday, the 10th of December, 2003
Kanga Mum wrote:
My concern is that *why* we learn anything
should have a broader basis than what we need
to know for a job.
And:
I am not educating my children merely for a job.
I am educating them for themselves, to become
lifelong learners and informed citizens with as
broad a knowledge base as I can manage to help
them build....
Yes! (Nunc dimittis servum tuum, Domine...)
I think I may have encountered this three-part analysis
of the reasons for schooling in Mortimer Adler. Anyway,
they are: (1) Schooling for employment, (2) Schooling
for informed citizenship, and (3) Schooling for education
(schooling to enable one to be a self-directed learner
at age 40). Of these three, job training is simply the least
important. Informed citizenship is where the state has a
vested interest in seeing that kids get schooled (although
cynics ala John Taylor Gatto can be forgiven for thinking that the
state's actual exercise of this interest shows that what it really
wants is that kids do not ever become informed). And the most
important of all is the last---the habit of mindfulness, of
a hungry mind.
Kanga:
It *is* our nature to think that we are 'it,' that nobody has thought
the thoughts we have, and *any* broad study of history does go a long
way toward correcting that, and showing us that others also thought
they were the epitome of civilization, and yet, like Ozymandius, they
speak out of the dust, and that we are not immune from the same
fallings. We tend to this pride of place in both noble and ignoble
areas. It is a tendency to think both that our problems and faults
are greater than those before us, or that we are the crowning result
of centuries of progress.
I agree with this on many levels, but the devil's advocate in me
wants to see how you might respond to the following train of
thought: History teaches this sort of humility, but so does almost
everything else. Sociology, anthropology, and all the many
Copernicanisms
in science, including, well, the Copernican discovery of the
motion of the earth around the sun leading to Galilean relativity,
augmented by both Einsteinian relativities (special and general---
no preferred reference frames), the Cosmological Principle (we
now on earth are at no special time or place in the universe---Laws
of Nature same here and now as elsewhere and elsewhen), even biological
evolution (human animal no special animal---cellular and chemical
basis of life the same as in other life). Now, I know Christians
who fold all of this into their Christianity, so I do not
want to imply there is an inesacapable contradiction between
knowledge of this stuff and Christian belief, but I think there
is a kind of tension between the sense of "we are not special"
taught by all of these branches of learning and the "we are/I am
special" that I think inheres in Christian belief. I was
wondering if you see the tension, and, if so, does this pose
a problem, or is it maybe something mysterious, where somehow
both specialness and unspecialness coexist?
Kanga:
I think it is just as arrogant to presume that our era and country
have fallen the lowest as it is to assume that 'we are the people..."
For instance, I am so *tired* of hearing American Christians say
something like "Jesus *must* be coming soon, because how much longer
can he stand our wickedness," in reference to something like removing
the 10 commandments from the courthouse, or permitting gay marriage,
or the laws on abortion in this country. [...]
I think Martha observed that, in reading through Will and
Ariel Durant's 11-volume "Story of Civilization", the biggest
lesson she learned is that, while the world may now be going to
hell in a handcart, it has *always* been going to hell in a
handcart. There is almost no spot of temperate land on the
globe throughout historical time where you could not stick a pin
in marking time and place where it would not be a good bet you
were within 50 years of some disaster (war, flood, famine, plague)
to befall the people living there. And anyone with a moral sense
has *always* seen wickedness everywhere.
There is comfort in this.
Mike Morris
(msmo...@netdirect.net)
Raymond E. Griffith
"Kanga Mum" <kangamaroodoes...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b62b291b.03120...@posting.google.com...
> "Paul Danaher" <wat...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:<A%OAb.8475$dA1....@nwrddc03.gnilink.net>...
> [ ]
> > The one thing HSers should know better than anybody is that different
people
> > (including children) learn different things in different ways. The
question
> > as asked seems to be inviting a single curriculum or answer - although
I'd
> > be the last to accuse Kanga of taking such an approach.
>
> In a way, I do take that approach, although I don't know that we're
> talking about the same thing. I do believe that one thing that
> applies to everybody is that our children's education ought not to be
> strictly utilitarian. I believe that the question, "will I need to
> know this for a job" is too limited a question for determining what to
> cover in homeschooling our children.
>
> Whether a particular person's bent inclines him to focus his history
> studies on historical novels or visiting old places, an interest in
> costume through the ages or military history isn't really the sort of
> thing I've been thinking about in this thread.
> My concern is that *why* we learn anything should have a broader basis
> than what we need to know for a job.
Absolutely. I don't have to fight this battle with my children too often
(except that they inherited their mom's dislike of math). But we have been
trying to instill a deep curiosity in the world, and the children have taken
to it.
But I fight this battle every day in the classroom. It is almost like I have
a bunch of adult babies at times! "Why do I have to learn this? I'll never
use it on the job!" I tell them I am not "training them for job x", but that
I want them to be truly educated and understand life and the world around
them better.
I agree! May I use this statement? You said it so nicely!
Ted Shoemaker
>
> So, I guess one thing we ought to learn from history - especially as it
> applies to today - is that there are at least two views to every history
> story being related; if we read only ONE text/source by ONE author from ONE
> area/country/side/army, we don't get a complete enough picture to say we've
> learned history.
Your point is true even if we're studying current events. (How about
that riot? Were the protestors the good guys and the cops the bad guys,
or was it the other way around?) That sure makes it tricky to know
almost anything.
Now compound that problem by distancing yourself from the event in
question. A few thousand years ought to be enough. What really
happened in ancient Greece? We don't always have primary sources, nor
multiple sources, nor disinterested reporters, nor reliable manuscripts
. . . .
Compound the problem further. Sometimes we don't have *any* documents.
So it gets hard to learn history, at all, never mind figuring out what
wisdom we're supposed to derive from it.
(Pardon me for dragging up a weeks-old thread.)
Ted Shoemaker