You are making a huge leap here, no one ever said books should be
"sprinkled with inaccuracies" to appeal to the kids. All I said was,
if there was some obscure detail that only the serious experts would
even notice, it should be excused by those same experts. And it still
wouldn't take away from the whole good the literary work would have
on the kids. I am in no way advocating passing on nice fabrications.
History, even fiction and even for kids, should of course teach
facts. But to the non-expert and scholar, it is not something people
are going to obsess over to the Nth degree, and it is that kind of
extreme attention to detail that turns the average person off to
history. Make it palatable, make it interesting, make it human,
something they [kids and adults] can relate to. Help them learn.
Nancy
-------
I was never lost, but I was bewildered once for three days.
--Daniel Boone
On Feb 12, 2007, at 8:51 PM, Clara Callahan wrote:
> What's age got to do with it? They are children, not imbeciles.
> And they deserve the truth.
> I read Howard Carter's book on the excavation of Tutankhamen's
> tomb when I was in third grade and I was enthralled. If I found
> out that guy had sprinkled his book with inaccuracies to make my
> reading more entertaining, I'd personally dig up his skull, slap a
> handle on it and use it as a coffee cup.
>
>
>
> Linda Threadgill <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Clara, For one reason, their age
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Clara Callahan"
> To:
> Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 3:09 AM
> Subject: Re: [VA-HIST] Native American Culture
>
>
>> If you're trying to get children to read and learn, why on earth
>> would you
>> run the risk of losing credibility by teaching them something that
>> is 10%
>> inaccurate? Why not 20% or even 50%? I would think that the goal
>> should
>> be to get it right, not just get it published. Perfect example is
>> Eckert's description of how Blue Jacket killed his white brother in
>> battle. That inaccuracy has tainted ALL of his work.
>
> Clara,
> Some reasons could be the ages of the children and their comprehension
> level. AND seems to me, you might be forgetting for a moment that
> all races
> have some brutality against other ethnic groups and their own
> ethnic group
> in their history. Those same Europeans who were being killed by these
> "savages" were the ones who brought slavey to American. Who fought and
> killed their country men in the name of independence. Who killed
> each other
> for supposedly practicing witchcraft. Who and what determines who
> was more
> brutal and savage?
>
> Linda,
>
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the
> instructions
> at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
>
>
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the
> instructions
> at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
|
