My favorite line: "Don’t enter unless you’re a short Ancient Egyptian slave forced to enter under pain of death."
I love your essay. As someone whose favorite subject is (still) history, I believe you're absolutely right on. What you argue for is the best way to not just teach history, but to also cultivate a love for it in our kids. Facts are the bones, artifacts the sinew, and field trips the flesh of teaching history to kids. But imagination is the breath, what animates the past for us.
I'm so glad you liked it, Abigail! Love of a subject can take a student so far! We still sometimes need to study things that we don't enjoy, but even then, if we can find away to appreciate it or understand it's importance, it's much better.
I really enjoyed this! I shared it with our homeschool co-op “Mother Culture” page. The hard tack references made me laugh, because guess what the 7 year old did last week? Yep. Made hard tack 😆.
I'm sure you know this, btw, but just for general info, hardtack was meant to be softened in a liqued before eaten (coffee, whatever). But it's gross then, too. And those poor soldiers were making "coffee" out of chicory, out of corn, out of bark...
Wow Dixie, what a read! You provide a solid, rich perspective on teaching children history, even couching it in the perfect metaphor of your own experience. I fully concur with the need to bring history to life in the imagination and nodded my head along to all your practical suggestions (we love Jim Weiss, and over the years, have gone through the whole Story of the World series three times over - we are just at the Seven Years' War chapter and my youngest just made a model of the Ohio river fork this week). History was the subject all three of our kids loved the most; the stories of the past were simply fascinating and we often would include hands-on projects: making paper, building pyramids with sugar cubes, changing the living room around into catacomb tunnels, spending a day like a monk, making a chain mail coif etc.
All my side of the family lives in Switzerland, and we visit every year. Visiting restored Roman settlements, castles, ruins, medieval printers, and museums was thus a natural part of how we spent our time there. Not only did this bring history to life, but it had a way of literally binding us to the past. We felt connected across the chasm of time, by being present in the place with the objects that were touched by hands hundreds of years removed, but yet within our grasp.
I feel that this type of historical education is fundamental, because it gives children as sense of time and their place in the world going forward. How could they possibly move forward into the future if they have no understanding where they came from, what the world around them has already been through, and what has shaped our societies this far.
All that to say, your article is superb! It should be read by all homeschoolers and parents who would like to provide their children a solid grounding in time and place, as well as sow seeds of a historical imagination.
Thank you so much, Ruth! Did you also see Jonathan den Hartog's related article this week? I laughed out loud when I saw it -- there must be something in the water this week!
I could not agree more with what you say about the places you are able to visit in Switzerland. Have you ever been to the Cluny museum in Paris? It had such an effect on me when I first saw it because it was a medieval monastery built onto Roman baths, so in some walls you can literally see Roman stone/brick at the bottom, medieval brick halfway up, and modern brick on top. !!! I know there are other examples of this around Europe.
We love "Story of the World." We have not "done" the last two volumes just because our kids listen to it independently while they build Legos and some of the Protestant perspective on religious things leaves out some things that we feel are important for our Catholic children to know. When we are reading and study together (or when it comes to what our older children do independently, because they are old enough) we are happy to include Protestant and other perspectives because then we can have good conversations that honor the realities and often honorable motivations behind things like the Protestant Reformation but can still give our children our perspective. But when our younger children are listening without us we prefer to make sure it's stuff for which a conversation like that is not necessary.
Thanks Dixie - I'll take a look at his article as well. There are just so many good things to read...I have not been to the Cluny museum, although I have sat at the back of Saint Chapelle. We had considered passing through Paris on our way to my hometown Basel this year, but were reluctant because of all the strikes and unrest going on at the time.
Yes previewing is always a good idea, especially when the views presented put a different light on events than you would support, especially concerning the Reformation. Given that you are historian, you must likely also bristle at the simplification of some events.
My husband is actually a historian of early modern France, so he has strong feelings about the presentation of the Reformation! And on the Catholic homeschooling resource side, it is very hard to find textbooks that are forthright about the corruption among the clergy and even Popes at that time.
If we don't try to understand the motivations of historical figures, even those with whom we might not agree, we develop a skewed moral sense/sense of humanity. It is so important to treat historical figures both critically *and* generously. My family may not agree with, say, Martin Luther in the actions he took or his beliefs, for example, but dismissing his points is ahistorical. He clearly had a point! (We have been happy with the Catholic Textbook Project books in this light -- they are forthright but still honor our faith.)
The same is true in historical matters outside of religion. Just because we think something someone did is "wrong" (and we have to be very careful about declaring that) doesn't mean that person was crazy or evil. They may have been, but probably they were complex.
Yes, we have not yet been able to take our children overseas but are likely to make a family trip to Ireland for my naturalization ceremony there next year (long story -- my dad is an Irish citizen, but due to a technicality I did not become one automatically. In the process of correcting that!). I don't know whether or not we will consider it safe to go to Paris -- we probably would not right now. So sad.
Wow - thanks so much! My husband asked me to tell your husband that he is very grateful for his detailed and generous review. Thanks for spreading the word on the novel (for an unknown author this is sisyphean work).
As a history teacher, this is something I care about, and have thought about, a great deal. It is my impression that history, to a unique extent among core curriculum subjects, has lost its bearings and its purpose today. Is it about memorizing inert facts? That doesn't seem a meaningful use of time. Is is about teaching transferable skills of research, analysis, and critical thinking? Those are more practical if taught straightforwardly, without the pretense of historical subject-matter. Is it about narrating and inculcating an identity? After all, history first became a distinct subject for nationalistic purposes, but this justification is rightfully on thin ice today.
I would propose that history class ought to be centered on providing objects of moral contemplation. Grade-school humanities have little to lose by abandoning the science-envy of a positivistic approach to history, where sifting out facts is foremost, and can profitably move toward an ancient reading of history, in which historical narrative and other means of encountering the past (like primary sources) are a vehicle for wisdom, inciting reflection and virtue and self-formation. This approach has its dangers, but it raises the ceiling for the benefit a history class can provide.
It would follow, then, that you are correct, that an "imagination-first" approach to history is fundamental. They must learn to love history and find space for themselves in its patterns. Critical methodology and lining up the details can wait until college if necessary.
It sounds like much of your approach would be providing historical scenarios in which students could thing creatively and critically, both. Very intriguing! Considering morality is important, too, but one of the dangers here, as you indicate, is making sure that history doesn't just become an exercise in heroizing and villifying. But it is a wonderful means for exercising the moral imagination, especially making the distinction between understanding someone's potential motivations and affirming their choices as just. Wars, especially, are so useful for this.
Yes, although I think it is possible to study moral patterns in history--history as a telic and moral order--without spending excessive time speculating on private motives or judging individuals. Herodotus, St Augustine, Dante, and contemporary figures like Eugene Vodolazkin and Jonathan Pageau may help us find the way.
Finally got a few minutes to read this, Dixie, and really enjoyed it! I'd love to read a follow-up piece with more about how you start conversations with your kids about historical causality, evidence, and interpretation, especially as they get older. Your description of your conversation with your college-student friend offers a hint, it seems!
Thanks, Sara! I would say that these conversations happen naturally, at least in my experience -- children want to know, for example, why people did things, or why X happened. I also find that a lot of this is covered in writing instruction -- what makes a persuasive argument? You must use evidence to create an argument that answers a question...and of course, you will need to anticipate and rebut counterarguments, too!
Will save this for tomorrow morning and reflect on it then - must get to my own teaching now...:)
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts, Ruth!
My favorite line: "Don’t enter unless you’re a short Ancient Egyptian slave forced to enter under pain of death."
I love your essay. As someone whose favorite subject is (still) history, I believe you're absolutely right on. What you argue for is the best way to not just teach history, but to also cultivate a love for it in our kids. Facts are the bones, artifacts the sinew, and field trips the flesh of teaching history to kids. But imagination is the breath, what animates the past for us.
I'm so glad you liked it, Abigail! Love of a subject can take a student so far! We still sometimes need to study things that we don't enjoy, but even then, if we can find away to appreciate it or understand it's importance, it's much better.
I really enjoyed this! I shared it with our homeschool co-op “Mother Culture” page. The hard tack references made me laugh, because guess what the 7 year old did last week? Yep. Made hard tack 😆.
Hahaha! Isn't it gross? There are even recipes for "hardtack that isn't authentic but isn't gross." I say NO, make them taste the real stuff!
Also...how wonderful that your co-op has a Mother Culture page! One fo the best things to come from Charlotte Mason.
I'm sure you know this, btw, but just for general info, hardtack was meant to be softened in a liqued before eaten (coffee, whatever). But it's gross then, too. And those poor soldiers were making "coffee" out of chicory, out of corn, out of bark...
Wow Dixie, what a read! You provide a solid, rich perspective on teaching children history, even couching it in the perfect metaphor of your own experience. I fully concur with the need to bring history to life in the imagination and nodded my head along to all your practical suggestions (we love Jim Weiss, and over the years, have gone through the whole Story of the World series three times over - we are just at the Seven Years' War chapter and my youngest just made a model of the Ohio river fork this week). History was the subject all three of our kids loved the most; the stories of the past were simply fascinating and we often would include hands-on projects: making paper, building pyramids with sugar cubes, changing the living room around into catacomb tunnels, spending a day like a monk, making a chain mail coif etc.
All my side of the family lives in Switzerland, and we visit every year. Visiting restored Roman settlements, castles, ruins, medieval printers, and museums was thus a natural part of how we spent our time there. Not only did this bring history to life, but it had a way of literally binding us to the past. We felt connected across the chasm of time, by being present in the place with the objects that were touched by hands hundreds of years removed, but yet within our grasp.
I feel that this type of historical education is fundamental, because it gives children as sense of time and their place in the world going forward. How could they possibly move forward into the future if they have no understanding where they came from, what the world around them has already been through, and what has shaped our societies this far.
All that to say, your article is superb! It should be read by all homeschoolers and parents who would like to provide their children a solid grounding in time and place, as well as sow seeds of a historical imagination.
Thank you so much, Ruth! Did you also see Jonathan den Hartog's related article this week? I laughed out loud when I saw it -- there must be something in the water this week!
I could not agree more with what you say about the places you are able to visit in Switzerland. Have you ever been to the Cluny museum in Paris? It had such an effect on me when I first saw it because it was a medieval monastery built onto Roman baths, so in some walls you can literally see Roman stone/brick at the bottom, medieval brick halfway up, and modern brick on top. !!! I know there are other examples of this around Europe.
We love "Story of the World." We have not "done" the last two volumes just because our kids listen to it independently while they build Legos and some of the Protestant perspective on religious things leaves out some things that we feel are important for our Catholic children to know. When we are reading and study together (or when it comes to what our older children do independently, because they are old enough) we are happy to include Protestant and other perspectives because then we can have good conversations that honor the realities and often honorable motivations behind things like the Protestant Reformation but can still give our children our perspective. But when our younger children are listening without us we prefer to make sure it's stuff for which a conversation like that is not necessary.
(Which is just to explain my caveat in the article about previewing.)
Thanks Dixie - I'll take a look at his article as well. There are just so many good things to read...I have not been to the Cluny museum, although I have sat at the back of Saint Chapelle. We had considered passing through Paris on our way to my hometown Basel this year, but were reluctant because of all the strikes and unrest going on at the time.
Yes previewing is always a good idea, especially when the views presented put a different light on events than you would support, especially concerning the Reformation. Given that you are historian, you must likely also bristle at the simplification of some events.
My husband is actually a historian of early modern France, so he has strong feelings about the presentation of the Reformation! And on the Catholic homeschooling resource side, it is very hard to find textbooks that are forthright about the corruption among the clergy and even Popes at that time.
If we don't try to understand the motivations of historical figures, even those with whom we might not agree, we develop a skewed moral sense/sense of humanity. It is so important to treat historical figures both critically *and* generously. My family may not agree with, say, Martin Luther in the actions he took or his beliefs, for example, but dismissing his points is ahistorical. He clearly had a point! (We have been happy with the Catholic Textbook Project books in this light -- they are forthright but still honor our faith.)
The same is true in historical matters outside of religion. Just because we think something someone did is "wrong" (and we have to be very careful about declaring that) doesn't mean that person was crazy or evil. They may have been, but probably they were complex.
Yes, we have not yet been able to take our children overseas but are likely to make a family trip to Ireland for my naturalization ceremony there next year (long story -- my dad is an Irish citizen, but due to a technicality I did not become one automatically. In the process of correcting that!). I don't know whether or not we will consider it safe to go to Paris -- we probably would not right now. So sad.
Speaking of my husband, he asked me to tell you that he read your husband's recent book and enjoyed it and wrote a positive Amazon review. :)
Wow - thanks so much! My husband asked me to tell your husband that he is very grateful for his detailed and generous review. Thanks for spreading the word on the novel (for an unknown author this is sisyphean work).
I will tell him!
As a history teacher, this is something I care about, and have thought about, a great deal. It is my impression that history, to a unique extent among core curriculum subjects, has lost its bearings and its purpose today. Is it about memorizing inert facts? That doesn't seem a meaningful use of time. Is is about teaching transferable skills of research, analysis, and critical thinking? Those are more practical if taught straightforwardly, without the pretense of historical subject-matter. Is it about narrating and inculcating an identity? After all, history first became a distinct subject for nationalistic purposes, but this justification is rightfully on thin ice today.
I would propose that history class ought to be centered on providing objects of moral contemplation. Grade-school humanities have little to lose by abandoning the science-envy of a positivistic approach to history, where sifting out facts is foremost, and can profitably move toward an ancient reading of history, in which historical narrative and other means of encountering the past (like primary sources) are a vehicle for wisdom, inciting reflection and virtue and self-formation. This approach has its dangers, but it raises the ceiling for the benefit a history class can provide.
It would follow, then, that you are correct, that an "imagination-first" approach to history is fundamental. They must learn to love history and find space for themselves in its patterns. Critical methodology and lining up the details can wait until college if necessary.
It sounds like much of your approach would be providing historical scenarios in which students could thing creatively and critically, both. Very intriguing! Considering morality is important, too, but one of the dangers here, as you indicate, is making sure that history doesn't just become an exercise in heroizing and villifying. But it is a wonderful means for exercising the moral imagination, especially making the distinction between understanding someone's potential motivations and affirming their choices as just. Wars, especially, are so useful for this.
Yes, although I think it is possible to study moral patterns in history--history as a telic and moral order--without spending excessive time speculating on private motives or judging individuals. Herodotus, St Augustine, Dante, and contemporary figures like Eugene Vodolazkin and Jonathan Pageau may help us find the way.
I am a big fan of "Laurus!"
Finally got a few minutes to read this, Dixie, and really enjoyed it! I'd love to read a follow-up piece with more about how you start conversations with your kids about historical causality, evidence, and interpretation, especially as they get older. Your description of your conversation with your college-student friend offers a hint, it seems!
Thanks, Sara! I would say that these conversations happen naturally, at least in my experience -- children want to know, for example, why people did things, or why X happened. I also find that a lot of this is covered in writing instruction -- what makes a persuasive argument? You must use evidence to create an argument that answers a question...and of course, you will need to anticipate and rebut counterarguments, too!