bearing blog

Literature-based American History through 1812: Grammar Stage (introduction to a multipart post)

I finished! 

My plan for American History in elementary school is to break it into three chunks:  3rd grade prehistory-1812, 5th grade 1812-1912, 6th grade 1912-present.  (Fourth grade is for state history, in our case Minnesota).    I wanted to do a literature-based study, so I got looooong lists of supposedly wonderful living children's books.  And then I ordered just about everything that seemed good out of the library and vetted them to find out which ones seemed (a) age appropriate for my 8-year-old (b) good read alouds (c) either the ethnic language was not offensive or I would be able to redact on the fly by word-substitution while reading aloud. 

This took me maybe three months of working in my spare time, to get up to 1812 or so.

Anyway, I'll post the planned curriculum here in a series of posts.  Here's what's up so far:

• Part 1.   First immigrants and native peoples.
• Part 2.  Europeans get interested in the Americas.
• Part 3.  The Spanish, French, Dutch, and English settlers.
• Part 4. Colonial expansion and the Western frontier.
• Part 5.  Life in Colonial America. 
• Part 6.  The French and Indian War. 

More will appear here as I add sections.

Blogging Daughter Zion: Part II.

An intriguing turn of phrase:

...the covenant relation of Yahweh to Israel is a covenant of marital love, which---as in Hosea's magnificent vision---moves and stirs Yahweh himself to his heart.  He has loved the young maiden Israel with a love that has proved to be indestructible, eternal.  He can be angry with the wife of his youth on account of her adultery.  He can punish her, but all this is simultaneously directed against himself and pains him, the lover, whose "bowels churn."  He cannot repudiate her without rendering judgment against himself.  It is on this, on his personal, innermost bewilderment as lover, that the covenant's eternal and irrevocable character is based.

Emphasis mine.   God cannot do something without rendering judgment against himself?  This is, then, what covenant means:  a promise so unbreakable, it acts to restrain Omnipotence Himself.  That single sentence in its context was for me a whole day's worth of pondering.

To place it more in context, after Ratzinger has used the book of Hosea as above to establish the significance of covenant, he goes on to show the part Mary plays as Israel's representative:

...the relationship between God and Israel includes not only God but Israel as woman... for this reason the covenant, which forms the very basis of the existence of Israel as a nation and the existence of each individual as an Israelite, is expressed interpersonally in the fidelity of the marriage covenant and no other way....But above all, this also means that to God, the One, is joined, not a goddess, but, as in his historical revelation, the chosen creature, Israel, the daughter Zion, the woman...

In the women of Israel, the mothers [e.g., Sarah, Rachel, Hannah] and saviors [e.g., Esther, Judith, Deborah], in their fruitful infertility is expressed most purely and most profoundly what creation is and what election is, what "Israel" is as God's people....

Emphasis mine again.  "Fruitful infertility" is an expression of creation (something from nothing) and election (saving the un-saveable).  Again, there is something to chew on for a long time.

Of course, this line of development...acquires its definitive meaning for the first time in the New Testament:  in the woman who is herself described as the true holy remnant, as the authentic daughter Zion...

He is setting up Mary as a type, as a representative or personification of Israel-as-woman, indeed of all creation as woman (or Woman), the one whose life is the perfect response. 

Incidentally, on the next page Ratzinger begins to discuss the feminine figure of Wisdom in the Old Testament, and offers this striking descriptive definition of Wisdom (Sophia) that is no doubt intended to be thematically linked to the previous: 

"Wisdom" appears ... as God's first creature in whom both the pure, primordial form of his creative will and the pure answer, which he discovers, find their expression; indeed one can say that precisely this concept of the answer is formative for the Old Testament idea of wisdom.  Creation answers, and the answer is as close to God as a playmate, as a lover.

All this is in the space of a couple of pages.

Balls of mud that shine.

Looking for something to do out back with your kids this spring?  Derek sent me a cool article from Japan that describes in detail how to make hikaru dorodango, i.e., "balls of mud that shine." Here's Derek:

"This is an old story, but I thought you might like it (or find it as humorous as I do).  It's about a Japanese professor who is focused on how to make "balls of mud that shine" and their role in understanding childhood development.  He also developed a scale for grading the balls' luster.  And you think academics are depressed?  Nonsense!"

Why would a lump of mud shine? Kayo became taken with this question and tried to outdo the preschool teacher. But after trying many times, Kayo found that he just could not make a shiny mud ball. Once, he thought he had succeeded, but after a few days the mud ball lost its luster. Through 200 failed experiments and an analysis using an electron microscope, Kayo was finally able to devise a method of making dorodango that could be followed by anyone, including children.

Now I have to say that the story made me laugh, too, but only because of this:

In the process of making dorodango, the children demonstrated behavior that was surprising from the perspective of developmental psychology. A two-year-old child would walk behind Kayo, imitating his actions. At three, children would come up beside him and snatch his dirt. Four and five year olds pretended to ignore him out of pride, but afterwards they could be seen working with determined expressions on their faces. Children could also be found sharing information about where to find the best dirt and sand for making dorodango or even sometimes keeping such information secret.

Exactly what is "surprising" here?  Are no Japanese developmental psychologists, um, parents? (ADDED:  J. D. Carriere suggests, "Well, with Japan's birth rate below 1.3, um, probably not."  Good point.)

In the field of developmental psychology up to now, play that developed children's imagination and creativity, such as role playing and drawing, was deemed important. But Professor Kayo is searching for whether developmental psychology has overlooked something very important: the experimentation children undertake in everyday activities like eating, getting dressed, and sleeping. He feels that making shiny mud balls is a good way of searching for the essence of children's play.

Maybe this is the journalist's fault, you never know.  But I really, really, really hope that "developmental psychology" has not gotten so far off track that it has forgotten that children like to make things out of mud.   And I really, really, really hope that "developmental psychology" has not  forgotten that children learn and develop through "everyday activities."  It's not like there aren't any Montessori schools in Japan!

By now, the concept that "practical life" learning -- learning to prepare food, clean up, use tools, dress themselves -- is at least as important to the preschool as crafts, letters, numbers -- is so ingrained in me that I never even think about it.  Making little balls of mud that shine may not seem terribly useful, but clearly (from the descriptions in the article) the little balls are beautiful things to the children who make them.  "Practical life"  traditionally includes such activities as arranging flowers and polishing silver; it surely includes the making of little treasures like these.  

Blogging Daughter Zion. Part I.

I recently picked up the 1983 Ratzinger book Daughter Zion (Die Tochter Zion appeared in 1977), hoping it would be a quick read at only 82 pages.  I read about a quarter of it this morning over my eggs Havana and coffee, and can report that (for Ratzinger!) it's really very accessible. 

It helps that I'm familiar with the basics of Marian theology.  I haven't read nearly enough of his stuff, but my impression so far is that his great gift is in explaining very difficult concepts with clarity and precision.  Not that you don't need to think hard about what you're reading -- the concepts are, as I said, difficult -- but his language is so transparent that you don't have to waste any brainpower wondering what he meant by this or that.  (Maybe a little bit of brainpower is expended untangling sentences with many modifiers.  I suspect this of being an artifact of German.)

Anyway, Daughter Zion is subtitled Meditations on the Church's Marian Belief, but I wouldn't call it "meditations" at all.  That word calls to mind, at worst, "365 Daily Meditations" type books, and at best calls to mind lectio divina, the prayerful consideration of perhaps a very short passage in order to internalize its full depth.  This book is a theological explication that was originally a series of lectures.  However, I suppose that there are not very many Catholics -- or anybody else for that matter -- who will gladly pay $7.oo to be "lectured" by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger a.k.a. Benedict XVI.   Yes, I know you would.  So would I!   I'm assuming that Ignatius Press employs at least one reasonably foresighted person in Marketing.  The Pope Lectures You On Mary won't fly very far.

So what is Daughter Zion?

"This will not be a Mariology constructed piece by piece out of its New Testament components," says Ratzinger (p. 33).  Instead, in Daughter Zion he describes the "distinctive structures of the Marian dogmas" which, he says, "cannot be deduced from individal texts of the New Testament; instead they express the broad perspective embracing the unity of both Testaments."

When I am reading anything, I tend to mutter to myself.  For instance, wham! when I come across a phrase or sentence that hits me, so to speak.   Reading Ratzinger causes me to attract attention in restaurants if I'm not careful.  Anyway, I thought it would be fun to share some of the whams. 

Here's the first one, from page 13.

Marian piety and theology is fundamentally based upon the Old Testament's deeply anchored theology of woman, a theology indispensable to its entire structure.  Contrary to a widespread prejudice, the figure of woman occupies an irreplaceable place in the overall texture of Old Testament faith and piety.  Consequently, a one-sided reading of the Old Testament can open no door for an understanding of the Marian element in the Church of the New Testament.  Usually only one side is taken into consideration:  the prophets conducted a relentless battle for the uniqueness of God against the temptation to polytheism, and as matters then stood this was a battle against the goddess of heaven, a battle against the fertility religion, which imagined God to be man and woman.  In practice this was a resolute battle against the cultic representation of the divine woman in temple prostitution, a battle against a cult which celebrated fertility by imitating it in ritual fornication.

(This part I knew already:  the religion in the background, against which the Old Testament prophets were fighting to keep Israel's faith distinct.)

From this point of view, idolatry is usually referred to in the literature of the Old Testament as "fornication."  The rejection of these representations apparently led to the result that Israel's cult is primarily an affair of men, since the women certainly stay in the outer court of the temple.

That I didn't consider.  Interesting!  Ratzinger goes on to explain that one error that has arisen from this is the conclusion that "women had no role at all in the faith of the Old Testament... that there is and can be no theology of woman because the Old Testament's chief concern is to exclude woman from theo-logy, from the language of God.  This would then mean that Mariology de facto could only be seen as the infiltration of a non-biblical model."

If you or someone you know tends to think of Mariology as non-biblical, could it be because of this error?

Maybe this one will do.

Here's a review at BooksForKidsBlog -- linked by Instapundit! -- of a book that might well be a good addition to my planned lit-based American History curriculum next year.  The World Made New by Mark Aronson and John W. Glenn

It is difficult to find acceptable literary books about the period that the reviewer calls "The Age of Exploration," and many textbooks are troublesome too.  I'm looking forward to getting a copy from the library.

The power of "best interests of the child."

That mothers are being separated from their children at all based on such flimsy evidence before an investigation is even complete is bad enough.

That the needs of breastfeeding children are, apparently, not even being considered?  Criminally cruel.

SAN ANGELO, Texas - As their parents lined up for genetic tests 45 miles away, some children from a polygamous sect departed for new, temporary homes across Texas.
    Buses filled with children ages 5 and older rolled out of the San Angelo Coliseum and Pavilion Tuesday afternoon, hours after 51st District Judge Barbara Walther signed an order sending them to 16 group homes and shelters throughout the Lone Star State.

...Young children and their mothers remained at the coliseum Tuesday night.
    Walther said adult mothers will be sent home once the state is ready to move those children. She refused on Monday to allow nursing mothers to stay with their infants and toddlers when they are moved to foster homes.

If there is any concern that the mothers will abuse these children -- and of this I am extremely skeptical -- why is there never an option that allows nursing mothers to remain with their young children under supervision?   If faced with such a situation, I'd rather submit to being shackled and surveilled 24 hours a day, while preserving my availability to my nursing child.   

Major milestone.

Mary Jane (20 months) just ran inside from the back yard, where she was playing with her brothers, to use the toilet.  I think I can call her potty trained now.  Woo hoo!

Judy's Taco Soup.

Tuesdays, Hannah comes over for the day, and I plan dinner for both our families.  We cook it together (or one of us watches kids while the other cooks) and then we divide it up and she takes it home to have dinner with T.O.M. and their kids.  Since our family just ordered a quarter-beef to be slaughtered next month, and I've still got many pounds of ground beef in the freezer from last spring, I'm trying to use it all up.  Tonight:  Taco Soup.  (We doubled it.)

This recipe is shamelessly copied from my mother-in-law.  She must have come across the recipe within the last few years or so, because I think I have a memory of it being a "new" recipe at some time.  Anyway, it goes in the same category with my emergency chili:  since most of the ingredients can come from a can or your freezer, it can be produced on about half an hour's notice, or can be the first thing you make upon coming home from a week of vacation.  Don't substitute for the seasoning packets.

Judy's Taco Soup

• 2 lbs ground beef, browned in a skillet and (if it's not very lean) drained.
• 1 - 15 oz can light red kidney beans
• 1- 15 oz can pinto beans
• 1- 15 oz can white hominy
• 1 -15 oz can corn (not cream style)
• 1 - small can (12 oz maybe?) RO*TEL brand tomatoes with green chiles
• 1 - 28 oz can petite diced tomatoes
• 1 envelope taco seasoning mix
• 1 envelope Hidden Valley Ranch dressing/dip mix
• About 2-3 cups of beef stock or water

DO NOT DRAIN ANY OF THE CANS.  Put everything, including the liquid from the cans, in a soup pot, bring to a boil, reduce, and let simmer until you're ready to eat it.  (The slow cooker also works for this just fine and dandy.) 

Serve with shredded cheese and tortilla chips.  Maybe sour cream too.

It needs nothing more than a salad.  Tonight I served it with sauteed okra according to Hannah's instructions (preheat cast iron skillet, add lots of olive oil, dump bag of frozen cut okra in, stir and cook until browned, salt and pepper).  I thought it went together nicely, although Milo proclaimed the okra really really gross. 

Female academia blues.

Speaking of academia blues, Christy sent me another link this week to a  press release from the University of Utah:

April 17, 2008 -- A new study from the University of Utah shows that women in academia have fewer children compared to other professional women -- primarily because it takes longer to achieve the job security of tenure -- and concludes that gender equality in the "ivory tower" has come at a cost.

More accurately, gender equality in the "ivory tower" hasn't happened at all.  If it were equal, effects on males and on females ought not be so different, no?  "Equality" is more about appearances than realities.  You can always strive to improve it, but in the end men and women, on average, are coming from different directions and when you try to apply equal operators you don't get the same effect.

The data shows that professors have fewer children than either doctors or lawyers...female professors have the lowest number of babies of all. Although male faculty are 21 percent less likely than male doctors to have a baby in their households, female faculty are 41 percent less likely than are their female physician counterparts.

Female professors are also more likely than female doctors or lawyers to be separated or divorced. The authors of the study apparently suggest that the structure of the tenure system -- a profoundly anti-young-family structure, I think -- is to blame.   Women are disproportionately affected by anti-family structures, but it's important to remember that involved fathers (and would-be involved fathers) are affected too.

One thing that is coming out of the research is a "Family-Friendly" initiative at University of California-Berkeley -- some of the initiatives described there look like really good first steps.

(Cross-posted at Heart Mind and Strength, where I may have mentioned once that I co-blog.)

Academia blues.

Megan McArdle has a post up about depression (I don't wish to give it the connotation of "bitterness") among professors and other academics.  I'm interested in reading the comments when they appear. 

...[R]elative to other professions, professors don't seem to be having much fun. Everyone in any job has their list of jerks who don't deserve the success they've had, jobs they wish they'd gotten, and amenities they wish their job had. But for many academics, those lists seem to be the bitter cornerstone of their professional lives. I've never seen a group of people--including investment bankers--more obsessed with status....What's the explanation? I can think of several:

1) The money is so low relative to the professions they might have gone into. Journalists also suffer from this bitterness. Interestingly, the more lucrative their current options are, the less bitter the professors seem to be--economists and engineers seem relatively cheerful compared to English and History professors.

2) It's so easy to tell exactly where you rank in the academic hierarchy....

3) It's so hard to switch jobs. ...

4) Academics have few alternative status hierarchies...

5) Academics have virtually no control over where they live ...

I know some of my readers are immersed in academia of one sort or another.  You may remember that until about two-thirds of the way through my own engineering doctorate, I was planning on an academic career myself; somewhere in there, my mind cleared and I saw a lot of the kinds of things Megan mentioned down the road, and realized it was not the kind of life I wanted.   I know several academics personally that Megan's post describes to a T.      

I think Megan's probably right that engineering profs are less depressed than, say, history professors, but I suspect that's less because of the money and more because the nature of engineering means that results are more tangible; even if you're unappreciated, you can point to something you built, found, or made happen, and know that it was a real accomplishment.

UPDATE:  Oh wait, commenter RickM at Volokh Conspiracy found real data:  53 percent of full-time faculty members at universities responded to a survey that they were "very satisfied" with their jobs; another 43 percent, "somewhat satisfied."  Now you just have to decide whether a survey is an accurate measure of job satisfaction.