Banish scarcity
Laureen
I wanted to share a story from yesterday.
The boys are getting on each other's nerves, so we're trying to separate
them more, take only one at a time on errands, that kind of thing, so it was
Rowan's turn to come grocery shopping with me and Aurora. Off we went. And
many great conversations were had. Amongst these, was a talk about how Rowan
was excited about Halloween because "you can eat as much candy as you want."
Now, we don't do restrictions. There are several bags of different types of
sweets in their "free range drawer" (the place on the boat where they can go
to get their own snacks whenever they want, without having to ask us to get
them.) So I was kinda surprised. I asked "do you feel like you can't have as
much as you want whenever?" and he said "Yeah, basically."
Hm, says I. Let's fix that.
Since we were on our way to the store anyway, we picked up a huge bag of
chocolate drops, and a huge bag of jelly bellies. Every flavor he wanted, as
much as he wanted. It was great fun. And as soon as we left the store, he
started eating. He experimented with one at a time (for the flavor) and
handfuls at a time (for the sheer joy of doing so). He also had purchased a
rootbeer, and was seeing what happened when he mixed whatever flavor with
rootbeer.
We got back to the boat, and of course Kes wanted some, so we poured the bag
into a big flat bowl, so everyone could pick their own flavors. Kes did the
same one at a time, handful at a time, blah blah blah.
And this will come as zero surprise to anyone here... but probably 1/2 of
what we bought is still sitting in the bowl this morning, untouched, and
both boys feel like they've had plenty of jelly beans and are totally
content. The chocolate is in the bag, untouched. And the feeling of scarcity
has been banished.
I love living like this.
--
~~L!
s/v Excellent Adventure
http://www.theexcellentadventure.com/
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
The boys are getting on each other's nerves, so we're trying to separate
them more, take only one at a time on errands, that kind of thing, so it was
Rowan's turn to come grocery shopping with me and Aurora. Off we went. And
many great conversations were had. Amongst these, was a talk about how Rowan
was excited about Halloween because "you can eat as much candy as you want."
Now, we don't do restrictions. There are several bags of different types of
sweets in their "free range drawer" (the place on the boat where they can go
to get their own snacks whenever they want, without having to ask us to get
them.) So I was kinda surprised. I asked "do you feel like you can't have as
much as you want whenever?" and he said "Yeah, basically."
Hm, says I. Let's fix that.
Since we were on our way to the store anyway, we picked up a huge bag of
chocolate drops, and a huge bag of jelly bellies. Every flavor he wanted, as
much as he wanted. It was great fun. And as soon as we left the store, he
started eating. He experimented with one at a time (for the flavor) and
handfuls at a time (for the sheer joy of doing so). He also had purchased a
rootbeer, and was seeing what happened when he mixed whatever flavor with
rootbeer.
We got back to the boat, and of course Kes wanted some, so we poured the bag
into a big flat bowl, so everyone could pick their own flavors. Kes did the
same one at a time, handful at a time, blah blah blah.
And this will come as zero surprise to anyone here... but probably 1/2 of
what we bought is still sitting in the bowl this morning, untouched, and
both boys feel like they've had plenty of jelly beans and are totally
content. The chocolate is in the bag, untouched. And the feeling of scarcity
has been banished.
I love living like this.
--
~~L!
s/v Excellent Adventure
http://www.theexcellentadventure.com/
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
-=- There are several bags of different types of
sweets in their "free range drawer" (the place on the boat where they
can go
to get their own snacks whenever they want, without having to ask us
to get
them.) So I was kinda surprised.-=-
Are there things besides sweets in that drawer?
Are there other things on the boat that you don't want them to get
because they're ingredients for meals or they're up too high or what?
(Just curious; trying to get a better picture.)
-=-The chocolate is in the bag, untouched. And the feeling of scarcity
has been banished.-=-
That doesn't surprise me.
What might surprise me is that they wanted sweets. Maybe after
feeling abundance for a bit they'll ask for things besides candy.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
sweets in their "free range drawer" (the place on the boat where they
can go
to get their own snacks whenever they want, without having to ask us
to get
them.) So I was kinda surprised.-=-
Are there things besides sweets in that drawer?
Are there other things on the boat that you don't want them to get
because they're ingredients for meals or they're up too high or what?
(Just curious; trying to get a better picture.)
-=-The chocolate is in the bag, untouched. And the feeling of scarcity
has been banished.-=-
That doesn't surprise me.
What might surprise me is that they wanted sweets. Maybe after
feeling abundance for a bit they'll ask for things besides candy.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Pam Sorooshian
On 7/1/2009 9:18 AM, Sandra Dodd wrote:
talked to friends who had mentioned candy being restricted. When Rosie
was little, she loved to watch Arthur and read Arthur books. She
occasionally got an idea from one of those and sort of acted like it was
true in our family, even though it wasn't. I figured she was "trying on"
the feeling of it being true.
-pam
> What might surprise me is that they wanted sweets. Maybe afterI was thinking maybe they'd seen something on tv or read a book or
> feeling abundance for a bit they'll ask for things besides candy.
>
talked to friends who had mentioned candy being restricted. When Rosie
was little, she loved to watch Arthur and read Arthur books. She
occasionally got an idea from one of those and sort of acted like it was
true in our family, even though it wasn't. I figured she was "trying on"
the feeling of it being true.
-pam
Laureen
Heya!
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 9:18 AM, Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...> wrote:
> Are there things besides sweets in that drawer?
Totally. Fruit, crackers, chips, pickles, olives, cliff bars, juice bottles,
whatever attracts them. One or the other of them comes grocery shopping
with us, so they have the ability to pick stuff that way, and Rowan's been
having fun putting stuff on the grocery list by himself.
>
>
> Are there other things on the boat that you don't want them to get
> because they're ingredients for meals or they're up too high or what?
> (Just curious; trying to get a better picture.)
Boats are really difficult to get around even for adults. The main access to
the refrigerator is a hole up in the countertop, and it's heavy because of
the insulation. There's a second door, but it's really tough to open so
that it doesn't accidentally fly open when the boat's underway. Lots of
other food items are stored away in cabinets, but storage is designed to be
good for the boat, not really good for the people on the boat. So we set up
the drawer as an accessible place for the stuff they like best, and we're
totally up for putting whatever they're into at the moment there.
>
>
> That doesn't surprise me.
> What might surprise me is that they wanted sweets. Maybe after
> feeling abundance for a bit they'll ask for things besides candy.
Yeah, it surprised me too, and I think Pam might be onto something; they're
trying it on. But it felt really, really good to just say "oh, OK, you're
feeling a lack there for whatever reason, and we can address it right now
with no drama, before it becomes A Big Thing (tm)". They've gone through
stages of asking for other stuff before; there's a story about Kestrel
turning down sweets in favor of garlic pickles on your site.
--
~~L!
s/v Excellent Adventure
http://www.theexcellentadventure.com/
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
-=
Yeah, it surprised me too, and I think Pam might be onto something;
they're
trying it on. But it felt really, really good to just say "oh, OK,
you're
feeling a lack there for whatever reason, and we can address it right
now
with no drama, before it becomes A Big Thing (tm)". They've gone through
stages of asking for other stuff before; there's a story about Kestrel
turning down sweets in favor of garlic pickles on your site.-=-
When I read Pam's theory it seemed very likely. I can't think
specifically of what, but I do remember my kids sometimes trying out
other ideas or thoughts they had heard from their friends or somewhere.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Yeah, it surprised me too, and I think Pam might be onto something;
they're
trying it on. But it felt really, really good to just say "oh, OK,
you're
feeling a lack there for whatever reason, and we can address it right
now
with no drama, before it becomes A Big Thing (tm)". They've gone through
stages of asking for other stuff before; there's a story about Kestrel
turning down sweets in favor of garlic pickles on your site.-=-
When I read Pam's theory it seemed very likely. I can't think
specifically of what, but I do remember my kids sometimes trying out
other ideas or thoughts they had heard from their friends or somewhere.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Jenny C
> When I read Pam's theory it seemed very likely. I can't thinksomewhere.
> specifically of what, but I do remember my kids sometimes trying out
> other ideas or thoughts they had heard from their friends or
>Both of my girls have tried on the sneaky, whisper whisper, do it behind
mom's back so we don't get in trouble, kind of thing, simply because
they were going along with a friend who thought that was the way to do
it. It seemed very much like a game to them, they really didn't get
that they were supposed to be sneaky so that they wouldn't get in
trouble, since that's not in the realm of their experience.
emiLy Q.
Same here. Yesterday I was asking/telling Delia not to do something (I
should remember what it was, but I don't), and she said "Are you going to
spank me?"
We are reading Little House in the Big Woods, and there are a few mentions
of Pa using a switch and/or spanking Laura in it. We talk about it a little
bit while/after we read - mostly her asking why and me not having a very
good answer! I've been thinking about those scenes at other times, too, so
I'm not surprised Delia is too.
In unrelated news but it doesn't warrant a whole post, my two year old made
an H with crayons a few minutes ago. He was saying "Me! Me!" so I looked
over and he had put 3 crayons in an H shape. What's interesting is that my
daughter made an H out of an apple wedge and two pieces of cheese when she
was about the same age (probably younger). Henry's name starts with H so he
identifies with that letter, but they both made that letter shape first.
-emiLy, mom to Delia (5.5) & Henry (2)
http://www.TheECstore.com
should remember what it was, but I don't), and she said "Are you going to
spank me?"
We are reading Little House in the Big Woods, and there are a few mentions
of Pa using a switch and/or spanking Laura in it. We talk about it a little
bit while/after we read - mostly her asking why and me not having a very
good answer! I've been thinking about those scenes at other times, too, so
I'm not surprised Delia is too.
In unrelated news but it doesn't warrant a whole post, my two year old made
an H with crayons a few minutes ago. He was saying "Me! Me!" so I looked
over and he had put 3 crayons in an H shape. What's interesting is that my
daughter made an H out of an apple wedge and two pieces of cheese when she
was about the same age (probably younger). Henry's name starts with H so he
identifies with that letter, but they both made that letter shape first.
-emiLy, mom to Delia (5.5) & Henry (2)
http://www.TheECstore.com
On 7/1/09 11:23 AM, "Pam Sorooshian" <pamsoroosh@...> wrote:
> I was thinking maybe they'd seen something on tv or read a book or
> talked to friends who had mentioned candy being restricted. When Rosie
> was little, she loved to watch Arthur and read Arthur books. She
> occasionally got an idea from one of those and sort of acted like it was
> true in our family, even though it wasn't. I figured she was "trying on"
> the feeling of it being true.
>
> -pam
>
kelly_sturman
Oh, yes! I was reading that to my 9 y.o.s,
and Mark, who joined our family less than a
year ago, said, "I'm glad I don't live anymore
where people hit me." And Samantha said, "I
think I'm glad I don't even remember living there."
Caleb popped his head into the room and wondered
how Laura could love a Pa that hits her. I
asked the kids if we should just stop reading
this particular book. They do want to hear it read,
though, even with the hitting in it.
Kelly Sturman
and Mark, who joined our family less than a
year ago, said, "I'm glad I don't live anymore
where people hit me." And Samantha said, "I
think I'm glad I don't even remember living there."
Caleb popped his head into the room and wondered
how Laura could love a Pa that hits her. I
asked the kids if we should just stop reading
this particular book. They do want to hear it read,
though, even with the hitting in it.
Kelly Sturman
> We are reading Little House in the Big Woods, and
> there are a few mentions of Pa using a switch and/or
> spanking Laura in it. We talk about it a little
> bit while/after we read - mostly her asking why and
> me not having a very good answer! I've been thinking
> about those scenes at other times, too, so I'm not surprised
> Delia is too.
Robin Bentley
On Jul 1, 2009, at 3:17 PM, kelly_sturman wrote:
commonly held up in my homeschooling group as excellent to read to
young kids. I had heard too much about the poor treatment of children
and Native Americans in them and since I was in a politically-correct
state of mind at the time, chose not include them in our read-aloud
books. Now that I look back on it, I'm glad I didn't read them because
of the depiction of apparently loving families hitting their kids. It
wouldn't have been a good thing *for Michelle*. I'm glad that that
image didn't enter her head at all. For other kids, they understand
it. But I think it would have disturbed Michelle too much, at the age
we might have been reading them.
I wouldn't have banned the books, if she decided she wanted to read
them (and they were available to her at the library, bookstore and
friends' houses), but she never showed any interest in them. She
wanted more books on Native Americans, as her heritage is Nez Perce on
her dad's side. We also read fictionalized girls' diaries from those
times (based on true events) in the Dear America and Dear Canada series.
I'd like to ask, though, if people here think that I ought to have
brought the Little House books into our lives? Were there important
things to be learned from them that could not be discovered elsewhere?
I realize that I can't have a "do-over" but it would be interesting to
find out. Maybe I'll read them myself.
Robin B.
> Oh, yes! I was reading that to my 9 y.o.s,I didn't read these books to Michelle, even though they were very
> and Mark, who joined our family less than a
> year ago, said, "I'm glad I don't live anymore
> where people hit me." And Samantha said, "I
> think I'm glad I don't even remember living there."
> Caleb popped his head into the room and wondered
> how Laura could love a Pa that hits her. I
> asked the kids if we should just stop reading
> this particular book. They do want to hear it read,
> though, even with the hitting in it.
>
commonly held up in my homeschooling group as excellent to read to
young kids. I had heard too much about the poor treatment of children
and Native Americans in them and since I was in a politically-correct
state of mind at the time, chose not include them in our read-aloud
books. Now that I look back on it, I'm glad I didn't read them because
of the depiction of apparently loving families hitting their kids. It
wouldn't have been a good thing *for Michelle*. I'm glad that that
image didn't enter her head at all. For other kids, they understand
it. But I think it would have disturbed Michelle too much, at the age
we might have been reading them.
I wouldn't have banned the books, if she decided she wanted to read
them (and they were available to her at the library, bookstore and
friends' houses), but she never showed any interest in them. She
wanted more books on Native Americans, as her heritage is Nez Perce on
her dad's side. We also read fictionalized girls' diaries from those
times (based on true events) in the Dear America and Dear Canada series.
I'd like to ask, though, if people here think that I ought to have
brought the Little House books into our lives? Were there important
things to be learned from them that could not be discovered elsewhere?
I realize that I can't have a "do-over" but it would be interesting to
find out. Maybe I'll read them myself.
Robin B.
kelly_sturman
> I'd like to ask, though, if people here thinkI think no to both questions.
> that I ought to have brought the Little House books
> into our lives? Were there important things to be
> learned from them that could not be discovered elsewhere?
Ma is very negative about the "savage Injuns" and there
is the hitting. There's interesting stuff about 19th
century pioneer living, churning butter and making
maple syrup candy, stuff about how log homes are built
and how animals are hunted and butchered and smoked
or cooked, farming techniques and so on. Certain
expectations about church attendance and school attendance.
Specific gender roles. An implicit belief in Manifest
Destiny. I don't know what would be considered "important"
and I can't think of anything one couldn't learn elsewhere.
I suppose the books inspire some people to try churning
butter or to visit a maple grove to see the trees being
tapped and the sap being collected; I think we would
have done those things anyway.
Some of the writing in the books written by Rose
Wilder--that's all of 'em except _The First Four
Years_ is lovely, but obviously there are many other
books to read if you are looking for lovely prose.
We liked the books, and even the politically incorrect
parts, but I wouldn't say they are a "must read."
I'm not sure what I would say is a must read.
Kelly Sturman
Cameron Parham
"I'd like to ask, though, if people here think that I ought to have
brought the Little House books into our lives? Were there important
things to be learned from them that could not be discovered elsewhere?
I realize that I can't have a "do-over" but it would be interesting to
find out. Maybe I'll read them myself."
I don't know about whether you "ought to have" read these to your kids but I loved these books as a child, I reread them as an adult and I have read the first 2 to my kids. Whenever we are reading books from another time, or viewpoint, or culture, just as with movies, there may be things in them which concern me or the kids. We just talk them through. I have read all of them and thought that they were well worth reading. They are very loving, not at all full of violence or cruelty. A lot of that is personal viewpoint, though. I wouldn't try to get someone to read something they didn't want to read; you had asked. Cameron
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
brought the Little House books into our lives? Were there important
things to be learned from them that could not be discovered elsewhere?
I realize that I can't have a "do-over" but it would be interesting to
find out. Maybe I'll read them myself."
I don't know about whether you "ought to have" read these to your kids but I loved these books as a child, I reread them as an adult and I have read the first 2 to my kids. Whenever we are reading books from another time, or viewpoint, or culture, just as with movies, there may be things in them which concern me or the kids. We just talk them through. I have read all of them and thought that they were well worth reading. They are very loving, not at all full of violence or cruelty. A lot of that is personal viewpoint, though. I wouldn't try to get someone to read something they didn't want to read; you had asked. Cameron
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
emiLy Q.
I read Little House on the Prairie many, many times as a child and pretended
to be Laura ALL the time. We had a bouncy horse that we put in front of a
crib, which was our covered wagon and we played and played and played. I
dressed up as Laura Ingalls for Halloween at least twice. This is mostly
why I got the whole series and am reading them to my daughter. I haven't
read any of the books besides Little House on the Prairie so I'm looking
forward to learning more of the story. That, and because we live near where
the story takes place so we'll be going to the places mentioned in the
books. My daughter likes talking about stuff that really happened, and I
like that about these books as well. I get a little sick of all the make
believe / fantasy in children's books so this is nice - a break from fairies
or talking animals or superheroes... :)
I usually say something like "Pa thought he was teaching her" or "Pa just
thought that was what he should do" We talk a lot about people thinking /
believing things that we do NOT think or believe, so it doesn't seem too
strange to me. When my daughter asked if I was going to spank her, I know
she didn't really think I would, I think it was what popped into her mind at
the moment and she wanted to talk about it.
-emiLy
to be Laura ALL the time. We had a bouncy horse that we put in front of a
crib, which was our covered wagon and we played and played and played. I
dressed up as Laura Ingalls for Halloween at least twice. This is mostly
why I got the whole series and am reading them to my daughter. I haven't
read any of the books besides Little House on the Prairie so I'm looking
forward to learning more of the story. That, and because we live near where
the story takes place so we'll be going to the places mentioned in the
books. My daughter likes talking about stuff that really happened, and I
like that about these books as well. I get a little sick of all the make
believe / fantasy in children's books so this is nice - a break from fairies
or talking animals or superheroes... :)
I usually say something like "Pa thought he was teaching her" or "Pa just
thought that was what he should do" We talk a lot about people thinking /
believing things that we do NOT think or believe, so it doesn't seem too
strange to me. When my daughter asked if I was going to spank her, I know
she didn't really think I would, I think it was what popped into her mind at
the moment and she wanted to talk about it.
-emiLy
On 7/1/09 5:54 PM, "Robin Bentley" <robin.bentley@...> wrote:
>
> On Jul 1, 2009, at 3:17 PM, kelly_sturman wrote:
>
>> Oh, yes! I was reading that to my 9 y.o.s,
>> and Mark, who joined our family less than a
>> year ago, said, "I'm glad I don't live anymore
>> where people hit me." And Samantha said, "I
>> think I'm glad I don't even remember living there."
>> Caleb popped his head into the room and wondered
>> how Laura could love a Pa that hits her. I
>> asked the kids if we should just stop reading
>> this particular book. They do want to hear it read,
>> though, even with the hitting in it.
>>
>
> I didn't read these books to Michelle, even though they were very
> commonly held up in my homeschooling group as excellent to read to
> young kids. I had heard too much about the poor treatment of children
> and Native Americans in them and since I was in a politically-correct
> state of mind at the time, chose not include them in our read-aloud
> books. Now that I look back on it, I'm glad I didn't read them because
> of the depiction of apparently loving families hitting their kids. It
> wouldn't have been a good thing *for Michelle*. I'm glad that that
> image didn't enter her head at all. For other kids, they understand
> it. But I think it would have disturbed Michelle too much, at the age
> we might have been reading them.
>
> I wouldn't have banned the books, if she decided she wanted to read
> them (and they were available to her at the library, bookstore and
> friends' houses), but she never showed any interest in them. She
> wanted more books on Native Americans, as her heritage is Nez Perce on
> her dad's side. We also read fictionalized girls' diaries from those
> times (based on true events) in the Dear America and Dear Canada series.
>
> I'd like to ask, though, if people here think that I ought to have
> brought the Little House books into our lives? Were there important
> things to be learned from them that could not be discovered elsewhere?
> I realize that I can't have a "do-over" but it would be interesting to
> find out. Maybe I'll read them myself.
>
> Robin B.
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
-emiLy, mom to Delia (5.5) & Henry (2)
http://www.TheECstore.com
Schuyler
I read them as a child more than once and I have a first edition of one of the books that my brother got for me, but none of the others. I loved the idea of a pioneer life and I still do find it fascinating. My mom made me a bonnet and a dress and we went to Minden, Nebraska's Pioneer Village where I bought a broom. She's made a dress for Linnaea that was very similar and Linnaea loved it in her turn. No bonnet, though.
I have diaries by women who lived in the Dakotas and Nebraska who often made their living as teachers, although one is about two sisters who homesteaded. Old Jules is one of the best reads I know about that kind of life. These weren't nice people living nice lives. These were people who needed to move up and out and away and didn't really like to be near their neighbors. These were also my people. My grandfather crossed Kansas in a covered wagon and his grandfather was shot over water rights and his shooter was lynched. Giants in the Earth is also a really fascinating look at the intense loneliness and the possibilities of homesteading. I don't recall much child hitting in that book.
I don't think Laura Ingalls is the be all end all to exploring that expansionist history of the U.S. I haven't read them to Linnaea or Simon. It isn't as relevant to a British education as it was to my midwestern upbringing. They are fascinating accounts of a bare bones life. And they are the halcyon days of yore books, like Swallows and Amazons (which I couldn't finish), they are about how interesting and engaging a life of nature and exploring can be. And I honestly think that's why they are the books that get touted by the homeschooling community. They are a life without computers and television and video games and the lives are good and Laura lived to be 90 so it wasn't all hardship. Maybe that's why I liked Old Jules and Giants in the Earth so much, the life isn't being painted with a lot of whitewash to show how scarcity makes for a well lived childhood. It might also be why I found Luc Sante's books about Hell's Kitchen in New York and a picture
book of death in NYC from the photos of the earliest NYC police photographers so fascinating as well as Wisconsin Death Trip, which is a collection of newspaper articles about insanity and death in Wisconsin in the late 1800's. But as a child I loved the Boxcar Children and Anne of Green Gables and Betsy, Tacy and Tibb, I liked the myth of a childhood of hardship being good for the soul.
Schuyler
---------------------------
I'd like to ask, though, if people here think that I ought to have
brought the Little House books into our lives? Were there important
things to be learned from them that could not be discovered elsewhere?
I realize that I can't have a "do-over" but it would be interesting to
find out. Maybe I'll read them myself.
Robin B.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I have diaries by women who lived in the Dakotas and Nebraska who often made their living as teachers, although one is about two sisters who homesteaded. Old Jules is one of the best reads I know about that kind of life. These weren't nice people living nice lives. These were people who needed to move up and out and away and didn't really like to be near their neighbors. These were also my people. My grandfather crossed Kansas in a covered wagon and his grandfather was shot over water rights and his shooter was lynched. Giants in the Earth is also a really fascinating look at the intense loneliness and the possibilities of homesteading. I don't recall much child hitting in that book.
I don't think Laura Ingalls is the be all end all to exploring that expansionist history of the U.S. I haven't read them to Linnaea or Simon. It isn't as relevant to a British education as it was to my midwestern upbringing. They are fascinating accounts of a bare bones life. And they are the halcyon days of yore books, like Swallows and Amazons (which I couldn't finish), they are about how interesting and engaging a life of nature and exploring can be. And I honestly think that's why they are the books that get touted by the homeschooling community. They are a life without computers and television and video games and the lives are good and Laura lived to be 90 so it wasn't all hardship. Maybe that's why I liked Old Jules and Giants in the Earth so much, the life isn't being painted with a lot of whitewash to show how scarcity makes for a well lived childhood. It might also be why I found Luc Sante's books about Hell's Kitchen in New York and a picture
book of death in NYC from the photos of the earliest NYC police photographers so fascinating as well as Wisconsin Death Trip, which is a collection of newspaper articles about insanity and death in Wisconsin in the late 1800's. But as a child I loved the Boxcar Children and Anne of Green Gables and Betsy, Tacy and Tibb, I liked the myth of a childhood of hardship being good for the soul.
Schuyler
---------------------------
I'd like to ask, though, if people here think that I ought to have
brought the Little House books into our lives? Were there important
things to be learned from them that could not be discovered elsewhere?
I realize that I can't have a "do-over" but it would be interesting to
find out. Maybe I'll read them myself.
Robin B.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Joyce Fetteroll
> I'd like to ask, though, if people here think that I ought to haveThose questions are ones that will turn thinking away from
> brought the Little House books into our lives? Were there important
> things to be learned from them that could not be discovered elsewhere?
unschooling. It's looking at a thing and wondering if there is
learning and importance in it. It will lead to worry about how to get
it into the child. And what if the child rejects it? How else can
that "important thing" get into the child?
The question that will turn thinking toward unschooling is "Is this
something my particular child might enjoy?" Ask it of the Little
House books, the circus, South Park, pistachio ice cream,
trampolines, a garden, grocery shopping, a crossword puzzle ....
Rather than facing a thing and wondering at its merits and how or
whether to get it into a child, face the child and wonder how to
nurture and support who the child is and what fascinates them, and
what kinds of things that they haven't experienced yet that they
might also like.
I don't remember the Little House series being touted as examples of
family role models by homeschoolers, but I don't doubt it. It was
very popular among the school at homers, especially the
fundamentalists and I can see the family relationship being a selling
point for them. But it was also an easy way for curriculum users to
get history into their kids!
But for me the merit of trying the series with Kathryn was that it
was a meatier story than what was normally targeted at 4 yos. (It
wouldn't have even occurred to me to try it with her except that
several homeschoolers had said their 4 yos liked it.) I think I read
it to her on her 4th birthday and she was fascinated by it. (She also
inexplicably enjoyed Dances with Wolves which was 3 hours long. And
Seven Samurai which is longer in Japanese and black and white and I
read the subtitles to her over 3 days. Not sure what possessed me to
try that but she enjoyed it!)
But my particular child isn't sensitive. She doesn't get that
empathic connection some kids do that would cause them to be
disturbed by the moments of harshness. (I don't remember many of
them, but for a sensitive child they would loom larger.) The
harshness was just part of the story for her. Just as Xena kills
things with a sword. While they might be role models for characters
she creates, they aren't role models for her life. Our real life is
and was her role model. Different lifestyles can certainly be fodder
for conversation though.
As for Ma's negative attitude toward Indians -- for those who haven't
read the series, Pa's was different and I believe it was clear Laura
understood his view better than her mother's -- again the question to
ask is "Is this something my child would find upsetting?" I don't
think we should fear kids seeing other viewpoints. Hate doesn't come
reading about someone hating someone. And it's helpful to understand
why people hate. It's helpful to see them as real people with real
(to them) reasons for hating others. People who hate, people who
strike their kids, people who steal, people who use drugs are not
"other". They aren't some other lifeform or people who just decided
they'll be bad and do bad things. They have understandable reasons
for their choices. Understanding doesn't make them right! (If I'm
remembering right, Ma had understandable reasons for her fear and
hatred.) And that's more fodder for discussion.
But, *the* bottom line question is, "Is this something my child will
enjoy?"
Joyce
g-liberatedlearning
>I have a little twist on this question. I think the Little House
>
> But, *the* bottom line question is, "Is this something my child will
> enjoy?"
>
>
books are something my daughter would enjoy reading. I read them when
I was young, and I read them aloud to my son around the time he
started reading on his own. My problem is that my daughter will not
knowingly read, watch or listen to anything that references throwing
up. It is a major anxiety of hers. For movies, thankfully, there's
kidsinmind.com and imdb.com's parental guides which I always check for
her before she'll agree to watch a movie. But the only way I can
think of to preview a book is to read it myself ahead of her. We read
to her a lot. She has at least three different books going at any
given time -- one being read to her by each of us, her brother, her
father and myself. She's had several books read to her multiple times
-- when there's a favorite story that is known to have throwing up in
it, per her request, we either skip that part of the story or we
substitute some other more hilarious bodily function to get her
through it.
So, my question is, do any of you who have read the Little House books
recall any parts of the stories when somebody throws up? I can't
remember any throwing up in the stories but I'm not certain. I'd like
to be able to assure my daughter that she can read these books herself
without concern for stumbling, unexpectedly into a disturbing scene.
Maybe I should just pre-read them, again -- they'd be quick reads for
me no doubt.
Chris in IA
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
-=-The question that will turn thinking toward unschooling is "Is this
something my particular child might enjoy?" Ask it of the Little
House books, the circus, South Park, pistachio ice cream,
trampolines, a garden, grocery shopping, a crossword puzzle ....-=-
I had already cut and pasted that to comment but I kept reading and
Schuyler wrote:
-=-I don't think Laura Ingalls is the be all end all to exploring that
expansionist history of the U.S. I haven't read them to Linnaea or
Simon. It isn't as relevant to a British education as it was to my
midwestern upbringing.-=-
A few days ago I wrote this, and as I was writing it I was aware of
the way I was constructing the list:
"There are many fun things to do and explore that could be called
"science," but why not just call them skate boards or miniature golf
or basketball or piano or water play or rescuing wounded birds or
making goop or collecting rocks or swimming or drawing pictures of
clouds or taking photos in different kinds of light or growing corn or
training a dog or looking through binoculars or waiting for a
chrysalis to open or making a sundial or making a web page or flying a
kite or chasing fireflies or building a campfire or finding out which
planet that is by the moon on the horizon, or wondering why snowballs
take so much snow to make, or how a 4wheel drive truck works."
In keeping with the point I'm zinging toward, I'll comment on
Schuyler's point first. It's in mind because I'm about to go to
England for the third time in my life. The first time was in 1979 (I
think; give or take a year). I was in a fish'n'chips shop run by
Asians (Chinese I think) and they were watching Dukes of Hazard while
my fish was frying. I went to England with Holly in 2000. There
seemed to be a daily TV broadcast of Little House on the Prairie.
Maybe it was only weekly, and I happened to see it more than once.
In both cases it was like the poster of the Grand Canyon I saw on that
first trip, in the window of a tiny travel agency office near the
Twinings Tea shop near Picadilly Circus (which isn't at all like the
circus Joyce mentioned in her list). What is exotic, in a place, is
what is unlike that place.
When I watch Seven Samurai I like the construction of the pens and
little out buildings and the clothing and the people's glance and
posture (which now reminds me of anime, but didn't when I first saw
it. When Keith watches it I know he likes the interpersonal relations
of the men, the class issues, and the fighting. He's quite into the
parallels with cowboy movies, and not just the obvious. Keith likes
Seven Samurai much more than I do, but he's a martial arts kind of
guy. I'm a language-thinking person, and that movie isn't in a
language I understand.
So back to my seeming lack of point:
It's harder to make a list of things that aren't related than to make
a list of things that are. There's a game called "Set" and it's
famously easier for children to play than adults (generally; of course
there are exceptions, and any visual or pattern/mathematical thinkers
will do better than people who think in words). One type of set of
three in that game is three things that are all equally different.
Mental gymnastics are good for unschooling parents. If you can jump
from one idea to another, as unrelated as possible, somehow you
calculated or mapped out what WAS related in a split second so you
could jump away from the connections you were making. Then when you
jump to a third idea or example, you go away from both of those, and
in the time it takes to make such a list you've given your mind an
interesting workout, and it will leave a little after-trail like the
afterimage you see after waving a sparkler in the dark.
I used to have the Little House cookbook (created by and for Christian
homeschoolers, it seemed) but I sold it on ebay. It rarely fails that
I regret not having things I get rid of. <g>
As a puzzle or a goof, if you feel like it, maybe try to think of "a
set" of things that aren't at all related, either here on the list or
in your head while you're loading the dishwasher or on paper when
you're waiting somewhere or with your kids as a game.
If a school-at-home curriculum can be based on Little House on the
Prairie, maybe an unschooling "curriculum" needs to involve people
with a facility for finding much larger patterns and connections (or
lack thereof).
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
something my particular child might enjoy?" Ask it of the Little
House books, the circus, South Park, pistachio ice cream,
trampolines, a garden, grocery shopping, a crossword puzzle ....-=-
I had already cut and pasted that to comment but I kept reading and
Schuyler wrote:
-=-I don't think Laura Ingalls is the be all end all to exploring that
expansionist history of the U.S. I haven't read them to Linnaea or
Simon. It isn't as relevant to a British education as it was to my
midwestern upbringing.-=-
A few days ago I wrote this, and as I was writing it I was aware of
the way I was constructing the list:
"There are many fun things to do and explore that could be called
"science," but why not just call them skate boards or miniature golf
or basketball or piano or water play or rescuing wounded birds or
making goop or collecting rocks or swimming or drawing pictures of
clouds or taking photos in different kinds of light or growing corn or
training a dog or looking through binoculars or waiting for a
chrysalis to open or making a sundial or making a web page or flying a
kite or chasing fireflies or building a campfire or finding out which
planet that is by the moon on the horizon, or wondering why snowballs
take so much snow to make, or how a 4wheel drive truck works."
In keeping with the point I'm zinging toward, I'll comment on
Schuyler's point first. It's in mind because I'm about to go to
England for the third time in my life. The first time was in 1979 (I
think; give or take a year). I was in a fish'n'chips shop run by
Asians (Chinese I think) and they were watching Dukes of Hazard while
my fish was frying. I went to England with Holly in 2000. There
seemed to be a daily TV broadcast of Little House on the Prairie.
Maybe it was only weekly, and I happened to see it more than once.
In both cases it was like the poster of the Grand Canyon I saw on that
first trip, in the window of a tiny travel agency office near the
Twinings Tea shop near Picadilly Circus (which isn't at all like the
circus Joyce mentioned in her list). What is exotic, in a place, is
what is unlike that place.
When I watch Seven Samurai I like the construction of the pens and
little out buildings and the clothing and the people's glance and
posture (which now reminds me of anime, but didn't when I first saw
it. When Keith watches it I know he likes the interpersonal relations
of the men, the class issues, and the fighting. He's quite into the
parallels with cowboy movies, and not just the obvious. Keith likes
Seven Samurai much more than I do, but he's a martial arts kind of
guy. I'm a language-thinking person, and that movie isn't in a
language I understand.
So back to my seeming lack of point:
It's harder to make a list of things that aren't related than to make
a list of things that are. There's a game called "Set" and it's
famously easier for children to play than adults (generally; of course
there are exceptions, and any visual or pattern/mathematical thinkers
will do better than people who think in words). One type of set of
three in that game is three things that are all equally different.
Mental gymnastics are good for unschooling parents. If you can jump
from one idea to another, as unrelated as possible, somehow you
calculated or mapped out what WAS related in a split second so you
could jump away from the connections you were making. Then when you
jump to a third idea or example, you go away from both of those, and
in the time it takes to make such a list you've given your mind an
interesting workout, and it will leave a little after-trail like the
afterimage you see after waving a sparkler in the dark.
I used to have the Little House cookbook (created by and for Christian
homeschoolers, it seemed) but I sold it on ebay. It rarely fails that
I regret not having things I get rid of. <g>
As a puzzle or a goof, if you feel like it, maybe try to think of "a
set" of things that aren't at all related, either here on the list or
in your head while you're loading the dishwasher or on paper when
you're waiting somewhere or with your kids as a game.
If a school-at-home curriculum can be based on Little House on the
Prairie, maybe an unschooling "curriculum" needs to involve people
with a facility for finding much larger patterns and connections (or
lack thereof).
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Joyce Fetteroll
On Jul 2, 2009, at 8:32 AM, g-liberatedlearning wrote:
throwing up scenes.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> So, my question is, do any of you who have read the Little House booksI get grossed out by throwing up too and I don't remember any
> recall any parts of the stories when somebody throws up?
throwing up scenes.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Pam Sorooshian
On 7/1/2009 3:54 PM, Robin Bentley wrote:
play. But, still --- one day when the kids were pretty old - like 4, 7,
and 10 - we were at the park and they saw parent swat a child. They were
shocked. They came RUNNING over to where I was and, really, they were
pale and very visibly upset. "Mommy, that lady just HIT that little
child. Hard." They knew about spanking, but apparently the reality of a
large person hitting a little child had never been clear to them until
they saw it with their own eyes.
-pam
> ItMy kids did read them and liked them and played pretend "Little House"
> wouldn't have been a good thing*for Michelle*. I'm glad that that
> image didn't enter her head at all. For other kids, they understand
> it. But I think it would have disturbed Michelle too much, at the age
> we might have been reading them.
>
play. But, still --- one day when the kids were pretty old - like 4, 7,
and 10 - we were at the park and they saw parent swat a child. They were
shocked. They came RUNNING over to where I was and, really, they were
pale and very visibly upset. "Mommy, that lady just HIT that little
child. Hard." They knew about spanking, but apparently the reality of a
large person hitting a little child had never been clear to them until
they saw it with their own eyes.
-pam
Gwen
My kids are Laguna/San Juan Pueblo & African American on their dad's side and white on my side (I like "anglo", but I don't think it is a common word outside the Southwest).
I think if Megan (almost eight) became interested in the Little House era, I'd probably show her the TV show before the books. And I'd show her Grizzly Adams before Little House (assuming it is ever released on DVD).
Gwen
I think if Megan (almost eight) became interested in the Little House era, I'd probably show her the TV show before the books. And I'd show her Grizzly Adams before Little House (assuming it is ever released on DVD).
Gwen
--- On Wed, 7/1/09, Robin Bentley <robin.bentley@...> wrote:
I wouldn't have banned the books, if she decided she wanted to read
them (and they were available to her at the library, bookstore and
friends' houses), but she never showed any interest in them. She
wanted more books on Native Americans, as her heritage is Nez Perce on
her dad's side. We also read fictionalized girls' diaries from those
times (based on true events) in the Dear America and Dear Canada series.
I'd like to ask, though, if people here think that I ought to have
brought the Little House books into our lives? Were there important
things to be learned from them that could not be discovered elsewhere?
I realize that I can't have a "do-over" but it would be interesting to
find out. Maybe I'll read them myself.
Robin B.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
-=-My kids are Laguna/San Juan Pueblo & African American on their
dad's side and white on my side (I like "anglo", but I don't think it
is a common word outside the Southwest). -=-
I just wrote "anglo" on a form yesterday.
Heads up to those coming to the Monkey Platter Festival in November
or SUSS in January: Saying you're white (if you are) isn't the
swiftest thing in northern New Mexico. Just smile wanly if that's
disturbing to think about or you don't understand it, but do avoid
talking about "white people" in New Mexico.
See how I worked those two gatherings in? (Sorry... but I'm excited
about the new schedule details on the November thing.)
http://sandradodd.com/festival
http://sandradodd.com/suss
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
dad's side and white on my side (I like "anglo", but I don't think it
is a common word outside the Southwest). -=-
I just wrote "anglo" on a form yesterday.
Heads up to those coming to the Monkey Platter Festival in November
or SUSS in January: Saying you're white (if you are) isn't the
swiftest thing in northern New Mexico. Just smile wanly if that's
disturbing to think about or you don't understand it, but do avoid
talking about "white people" in New Mexico.
See how I worked those two gatherings in? (Sorry... but I'm excited
about the new schedule details on the November thing.)
http://sandradodd.com/festival
http://sandradodd.com/suss
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Nancy Wooton
On Jul 2, 2009, at 11:24 AM, Gwen wrote:
shot in Southern California, where I live. The geography, plants, and
weather are totally wrong. I don't have copies of the books anymore,
since they belonged to my dd and she decided to sell them, so I can't
fact check myself. If I remember correctly, I loved the descriptions
in "Prairie" of the sky as a dome stretching from horizons all around;
you don't get that anywhere in CA <g> The flatness and emptiness of
the prairie, the creek beds below ground level, the sod house, etc.,
are all worth experiencing in the book, and you will get none of it
from the show.
Nancy
> I think if Megan (almost eight) became interested in the LittleOne thing that has always bothered me about the TV show is that it's
> House era, I'd probably show her the TV show before the books.
shot in Southern California, where I live. The geography, plants, and
weather are totally wrong. I don't have copies of the books anymore,
since they belonged to my dd and she decided to sell them, so I can't
fact check myself. If I remember correctly, I loved the descriptions
in "Prairie" of the sky as a dome stretching from horizons all around;
you don't get that anywhere in CA <g> The flatness and emptiness of
the prairie, the creek beds below ground level, the sod house, etc.,
are all worth experiencing in the book, and you will get none of it
from the show.
Nancy
Robyn L. Coburn
<<<I think if Megan (almost eight) became interested in the Little House
era, I'd probably show her the TV show before the books. And I'd show her
Grizzly Adams before Little House (assuming it is ever released on DVD).>>>>
I don't normally have cause to link to my doll blog here, but
http://allthingsdoll.blogspot.com/2009/01/continuity.html is a post about
Portia Sperry, depression era doll maker, entrepreneur and children's
author.
Here's a direct link to the book she wrote (based on the doll character she
created) about Abigail and her 1835 pioneering family - with a rather lovely
customer review.
http://www.amazon.com/Abigail-Portia-Howe-Sperry/dp/B0006RNZXQ
We like the American Girl Kirsten too. We haven't read any of the Kaya
(Native American) or Josephina books yet.
The Little House books seem to be the go-to source for slice of life info
from this period.
As for television stuff:
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/frontierhouse/project/index.html
Robyn L. Coburn
www.Iggyjingles.etsy.com
www.iggyjingles.blogspot.com
www.allthingsdoll.blogspot.com
era, I'd probably show her the TV show before the books. And I'd show her
Grizzly Adams before Little House (assuming it is ever released on DVD).>>>>
I don't normally have cause to link to my doll blog here, but
http://allthingsdoll.blogspot.com/2009/01/continuity.html is a post about
Portia Sperry, depression era doll maker, entrepreneur and children's
author.
Here's a direct link to the book she wrote (based on the doll character she
created) about Abigail and her 1835 pioneering family - with a rather lovely
customer review.
http://www.amazon.com/Abigail-Portia-Howe-Sperry/dp/B0006RNZXQ
We like the American Girl Kirsten too. We haven't read any of the Kaya
(Native American) or Josephina books yet.
The Little House books seem to be the go-to source for slice of life info
from this period.
As for television stuff:
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/frontierhouse/project/index.html
Robyn L. Coburn
www.Iggyjingles.etsy.com
www.iggyjingles.blogspot.com
www.allthingsdoll.blogspot.com
kelly_sturman
> So, my question is, do any of you who have read the Little House booksIn _The First Four Years_ Laura gets pregnant and throws up a lot.
> recall any parts of the stories when somebody throws up?
Kelly
kelly_sturman
They are two totally different stories that happen to have
characters with the same names. The personalities
of the characters differ dramatically from the book
to the TV show, the world view differs, the story lines
differ dramatically, the architecture of the log house
in the book differs from the description in the book,
the show takes place in Walnut Grove, and the books
take place in many locations... They are two different
stories.
Kelly
characters with the same names. The personalities
of the characters differ dramatically from the book
to the TV show, the world view differs, the story lines
differ dramatically, the architecture of the log house
in the book differs from the description in the book,
the show takes place in Walnut Grove, and the books
take place in many locations... They are two different
stories.
Kelly
--- In [email protected], Nancy Wooton <nancywooton@...> wrote:
>
>
> On Jul 2, 2009, at 11:24 AM, Gwen wrote:
>
> > I think if Megan (almost eight) became interested in the Little
> > House era, I'd probably show her the TV show before the books.
>
>
> One thing that has always bothered me about the TV show is that it's
> shot in Southern California, where I live. The geography, plants, and
> weather are totally wrong.
kelly_sturman
> maybe an unschooling "curriculum" needs to involve peopleSpeaking of which, "Connections" (James Burke) is really fun TV, IMO.
> with a facility for finding much larger patterns and connections (or
> lack thereof).
>
> Sandra
I'm having a hard time thinking of three totally unconnected things.
If anybody has managed it, could you post your three things?
Kelly
Ward Family
>>As a puzzle or a goof, if you feel like it, maybe try to think of "aset" of things that aren't at all related, either here on the list or
in your head while you're loading the dishwasher or on paper when
you're waiting somewhere or with your kids as a game.>>
Something I have discovered about gettting older is that knowledge becomes more and more of a web and seemingly unrelated things become connected. I try to verbalise these connections in conversation with my children so they can look for them too. Often something I have known nothing about now seems to crop up in all sorts of unexpected places. For example, just after I read "The Poisonwood Bible" I saw in passing an article about the former dictator of the Congo dying in Time magazine and a couple of years later when reading"The White Man's Burden" I was led to "King Leopold's Ghost." so now I have quite a comprehensive picture of the development of the Congo which I would never have picked out as a study option in the conventional sense.
Julie Ward
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Jenny C
>Ahh connections! That originally aired right after we'd finished
> As for television stuff:
> http://www.pbs.org/wnet/frontierhouse/project/index.html
>
reading the books, so it was very timely for visuals. A similar thing
happened when Chamille was really interested WWII and everything that
had to do with the holocaust. We happened to be at the local mall, and
they had an extensive exhibit all about Anne Frank set up in an empty
store.
I like it when life does that! It happens a lot, especially since
opening up to unschooling. I think part of it is that we are more open
to all things and opportunities, so the opportunities seem to present
themselves on silver platters.