Yesterday I was talking to my 11 year old cousin (5th grade) who lives in California. We got on the subject of school, and she mentioned that she was learning about the Puritans. Of course, I took this wonderful opportunity to find out just what she knew about them. To her, three things really stood out about the Puritans: they prayed a lot, they read a lot, and they were ALWAYS nice to each other. I actually laughed when she said the last one, thinking about the witch trials (which they haven't learned about yet). Other than that, her class hadn't learned anything else about them, other than the basics about why they came to America. They certainly had never learned about the "fire and brimstone" Puritans, which I found interesting, since that is the general Puritan stereotype.
This really reminded me of back in the fall when we were talking about history being sugar-coated for young kids. So, what do all of you think? Is it better to not tell kids about the fire and brimstone things, or should they get a mix of the good and bad? Also, I was wondering about the difference of the east and west coast education. Do you think we might have a different view of the Puritans than kids in schools who are further in location from the Puritans' original home?
-Audrey
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
As far as the east and west coast goes, I don't think we would get a different education about Puritanism. If we did, would the east coast be true to the actual history of Puritanism or want to make it look like there was nothing wrong with the Puritans because they were from the east coast? Furthermore, would the west coast present Puritans briefly and simplified because they were so far away, or accurately (describing all their faults too) because there is no one to offend on the west coast? I think the chances of getting a sugar-coated history are just as good on both coasts, and everywhere else in the country.
ReplyDelete-Alexa
I agree with Alexa that schools in the West probably teach Puritanism more or less the same as schools in the East. However, if there is somewhere where Puritanism is taught differently, I would guess it might be the middle of the country because of stronger religious beliefs.
ReplyDelete-Bryce C.
I think that any place in the US will have a relatively equally good chance of sugarcoating history. And I can't really remember what we learned about the Puritans when we were younger, but maybe what your cousin is learning is a new trend for getting away from the fire and brimstone stereotype and focusing on the ideals of Puritanism.
ReplyDelete-- tori
It's true that a lot of the subjects are immensely simplified to fit into the school program. But I think that there is a distinct difference between sugarcoating and simplifying history. Does simplification come first, or does the sugarcoating come first?
ReplyDelete-Joanne
To answer Joanne's question, I think simplification comes first. History is melted into simple sugar-coated terms so people, especially children can understand it. First it is broken down into it's main components and themes. Puritans prayed and read. From there it is either deemed "good" or "bad". Usually Puritans are put in the "bad" group and labeled as harsh. However, Audrey's cousin seemed to have put them in the "good" group and brought out how nice they were. Her class sugar-coats them.
ReplyDelete~Becca