Falco Underhill wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 10:42 pm
This is what I recommend for the textbooks, after telling things exactly as it is.
Students must draw a giant T on a blank sheet of paper.
On one side list all the things you disapprove of about Thomas Jefferson.
On the other side write all the good things you can think of about Thomas Jefferson.
Okay, next chapter.
Good approach. Before the next chapter, though, I think it's interesting to discuss the relationships between the things you approve of and the things you disapprove of. He said "all men are created equal", but he also owned a teenage girl who provided him with sex and companionship.
Really, this isn't so different from what we read in the Old Testament and even in the New Testament (e.g. Peter, Paul). The same people who did great things also did terrible things. We do not worship human beings, but we do learn from their stories. If we want to grow in wisdom, we need to look at all of this, as contradictory and confusing as it may be.
Falco Underhill wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 10:42 pm
This is what I recommend for the textbooks, after telling things exactly as it is.
Students must draw a giant T on a blank sheet of paper.
On one side list all the things you disapprove of about Thomas Jefferson.
On the other side write all the good things you can think of about Thomas Jefferson.
Okay, next chapter.
Good approach. Before the next chapter, though, I think it's interesting to discuss the relationships between the things you approve of and the things you disapprove of. He said "all men are created equal", but he also owned a teenage girl who provided him with sex and companionship.
Really, this isn't so different from what we read in the Old Testament and even in the New Testament (e.g. Peter, Paul). The same people who did great things also did terrible things. We do not worship human beings, but we do learn from their stories. If we want to grow in wisdom, we need to look at all of this, as contradictory and confusing as it may be.
This is the first I've ever heard such claims about Peter and Paul so that's news to me. Why you’re so interested studying Jefferson's affairs is also beyond me. It was used in the tabloids of his day to besmirch his reputation.
In a high school history class I'd note that and relegate it to a footnote with references to search for those interested in it.
Concerning Jefferson, according to his own testimony in a letter to his friend William Short, 1819, he was an Epicurean. This was not at all unusual for men of his day and once you understand it more fully fits him perfectly, imo.
Falco Underhill wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 5:28 pm
Besides, quite frankly, I have no idea what he's saying. So, I'm presuming you do?
What does he mean that a child is an addition to the capital? I understand labor, and I understand capital, but what exactly is this "addition to the capital?"
Slaves were the largest single form of capital in the pre Civil War United States. Worth more than all the other forms forms of economical capital such as farm land, factories, railroads, shipping etc. that existed in the country.
That is what he was talking about. Breeding slave children as industrial capital as if they were hogs or cattle.
From James McPherson’s seminal history Battle Cry of Freedom
...by 1860, there were more millionaires (slaveholders all) living in the lower Mississippi Valley than anywhere else in the United States. In the same year, the nearly 4 million American slaves were worth some $3.5 billion, making them the largest single financial asset in the entire U.S. economy, worth more than all manufacturing and railroads combined. So, of course, the war was rooted in these two expanding and competing economies—but competing over what? What eventually tore asunder America's political culture was slavery's expansion into the Western territories
This is what I recommend for the textbooks, after telling things exactly as it is.
Students must draw a giant T on a blank sheet of paper.
On one side list all the things you disapprove of about Thomas Jefferson.
On the other side write all the good things you can think of about Thomas Jefferson.
Okay, next chapter.
That will take about 5 minutes. A lot of kids will have blank papers. What criteria are you going to use to grade such an assignment? What most of them will know is whatever they picked up from "Hamilton". Then what do you do for the remaining 55 minutes in the class period?
As for "telling things exactly as it is". There have literally been hundreds if not thousands of books written on Thomas Jefferson and he was a prolific writer as well. Out of those hundreds of thousands of pages of source material, which "things" should be taught? The same thing applies to any other significant historical figure from Lincoln to Columbus to Martin Luther King.
And bear in mind that if you are just going to teach word for word out of some textbook you'll probably quickly lose half the class or more. And no textbooks are remotely bias-free. They reflect the biases of their authors and the states that established the curriculum standards around which the text was drafted. Don't trust Texas, for example, to provide an unbiased view of the Texas Revolution.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
Ken wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 5:50 pm
As for "telling things exactly as it is". There have literally been hundreds if not thousands of books written on Thomas Jefferson and he was a prolific writer as well. Out of those hundreds of thousands of pages of source material, which "things" should be taught? The same thing applies to any other significant historical figure from Lincoln to Columbus to Martin Luther King.
And bear in mind that if you are just going to teach word for word out of some textbook you'll probably quickly lose half the class or more. And no textbooks are remotely bias-free. They reflect the biases of their authors and the states that established the curriculum standards around which the text was drafted. Don't trust Texas, for example, to provide an unbiased view of the Texas Revolution.
Yes, and the trouble is every side wants to find some absolutely sure ground to stand on that provides the perfectly true perspective, but there is no such perch for man to stand on. The same wars go on amongst journalism scholars in which many think an ideology provides that sure perch from which they can tell the true narrative, which in fact falsifies things all the more. It's all bunk and really not much different than religious dogma wars, but they don't see it, because they think "secularism" is beyond such things.
Ken wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 5:50 pm
As for "telling things exactly as it is". There have literally been hundreds if not thousands of books written on Thomas Jefferson and he was a prolific writer as well. Out of those hundreds of thousands of pages of source material, which "things" should be taught? The same thing applies to any other significant historical figure from Lincoln to Columbus to Martin Luther King.
And bear in mind that if you are just going to teach word for word out of some textbook you'll probably quickly lose half the class or more. And no textbooks are remotely bias-free. They reflect the biases of their authors and the states that established the curriculum standards around which the text was drafted. Don't trust Texas, for example, to provide an unbiased view of the Texas Revolution.
Yes, and the trouble is every side wants to find some absolutely sure ground to stand on that provides the perfectly true perspective, but there is no such perch for man to stand on. The same wars go on amongst journalism scholars in which many think an ideology provides that sure perch from which they can tell the true narrative, which in fact falsifies things all the more. It's all bunk and really not much different than religious dogma wars, but they don't see it, because they think "secularism" is beyond such things.
Exactly. Which is why so many efforts on both the right and left to try to curate and control curriculum are misguided. One does need basic standards to establish the scope and sequence of a course. In other words, what topics are covered and how in-depth they must covered. 9th Grade US history in one classroom should cover the same basic material as the other classrooms in that school, and the other schools in that state. But beyond that, good teaching involves teaching students how to engage with material critically, especially in the social sciences where facts are subjective.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
Slaves were the largest single form of capital in the pre Civil War United States. Worth more than all the other forms forms of economical capital such as farm land, factories, railroads, shipping etc. that existed in the country.
That is what he was talking about. Breeding slave children as industrial capital as if they were hogs or cattle.
From James McPherson’s seminal history Battle Cry of Freedom
This is what I recommend for the textbooks, after telling things exactly as it is.
Students must draw a giant T on a blank sheet of paper.
On one side list all the things you disapprove of about Thomas Jefferson.
On the other side write all the good things you can think of about Thomas Jefferson.
Okay, next chapter.
That will take about 5 minutes. A lot of kids will have blank papers. What criteria are you going to use to grade such an assignment? What most of them will know is whatever they picked up from "Hamilton". Then what do you do for the remaining 55 minutes in the class period?
As for "telling things exactly as it is". There have literally been hundreds if not thousands of books written on Thomas Jefferson and he was a prolific writer as well. Out of those hundreds of thousands of pages of source material, which "things" should be taught? The same thing applies to any other significant historical figure from Lincoln to Columbus to Martin Luther King.
And bear in mind that if you are just going to teach word for word out of some textbook you'll probably quickly lose half the class or more. And no textbooks are remotely bias-free. They reflect the biases of their authors and the states that established the curriculum standards around which the text was drafted. Don't trust Texas, for example, to provide an unbiased view of the Texas Revolution.
And what if you work for a “standards based” school that doesn’t use textbooks and expects you to teach specific skills as determined by the state, but you have to develop all the curriculum yourself?
Yes, and the trouble is every side wants to find some absolutely sure ground to stand on that provides the perfectly true perspective, but there is no such perch for man to stand on. The same wars go on amongst journalism scholars in which many think an ideology provides that sure perch from which they can tell the true narrative, which in fact falsifies things all the more. It's all bunk and really not much different than religious dogma wars, but they don't see it, because they think "secularism" is beyond such things.
Exactly. Which is why so many efforts on both the right and left to try to curate and control curriculum are misguided. One does need basic standards to establish the scope and sequence of a course. In other words, what topics are covered and how in-depth they must covered. 9th Grade US history in one classroom should cover the same basic material as the other classrooms in that school, and the other schools in that state. But beyond that, good teaching involves teaching students how to engage with material critically, especially in the social sciences where facts are subjective.
From a secular perspective that's a reasonable position. When considering spiritual biography, however, I regard it as a scientific principle to give priority to a subject's own words, based on Matthew 12:34. That's not something that would fly in a secular environment.
This is what I recommend for the textbooks, after telling things exactly as it is.
Students must draw a giant T on a blank sheet of paper.
On one side list all the things you disapprove of about Thomas Jefferson.
On the other side write all the good things you can think of about Thomas Jefferson.
Okay, next chapter.
That will take about 5 minutes. A lot of kids will have blank papers. What criteria are you going to use to grade such an assignment? What most of them will know is whatever they picked up from "Hamilton". Then what do you do for the remaining 55 minutes in the class period?
As for "telling things exactly as it is". There have literally been hundreds if not thousands of books written on Thomas Jefferson and he was a prolific writer as well. Out of those hundreds of thousands of pages of source material, which "things" should be taught? The same thing applies to any other significant historical figure from Lincoln to Columbus to Martin Luther King.
And bear in mind that if you are just going to teach word for word out of some textbook you'll probably quickly lose half the class or more. And no textbooks are remotely bias-free. They reflect the biases of their authors and the states that established the curriculum standards around which the text was drafted. Don't trust Texas, for example, to provide an unbiased view of the Texas Revolution.
And what if you work for a “standards based” school that doesn’t use textbooks and expects you to teach specific skills as determined by the state, but you have to develop all the curriculum yourself?
Yes, that's how WA is with respect to science and it is immensely frustrating. They have adopted what they call the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) but have zero curriculum and textbooks organized around those new standards. Really misguided in my mind.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth that which is evil. For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
To clarify, my point was simply that a person will usually tell us what their view is so that we don't have to rely much on speculations, for "out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks."