Showing posts with label G.A. Henty. Show all posts
Showing posts with label G.A. Henty. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 20, 2009

Of Daughters of Destiny and Watered Down History






I was eleven or twelve when I first read several stories in Daughters of Destiny, written by Noelle Wheeler Goforth. Her father, Little Bear Wheeler, had been in our area at a home school convention and we purchased the book from him. Now, I like Little Bear; he’s a very entertaining storyteller and a neat guy. But, of course, Daughters of Destiny was also sold by Vision Forum, which is enough “to give sober men pause.” (Actually, I believe DOD is out of print now, as I cannot locate it on the Vision Forum or Mantle Ministries websites.) I liked Daughters of Destiny when I was younger...but there was always something missing. Now, I know what it is.... I do a lot of histrical research and some of my pet projects/interests have been Queens of England; such as Elizabeth I and Victoria. In Daughters of Destiny, there is a story about Victoria in the “Daughters of Royalty” section and it is full of conflicts with the actual historical record. While DOD paints Victoria’s Mother, the Duchess of Kent, as a kind, intelligent woman who wished to shield her daughter from the court—she was in actuality, quite a silly, unkind woman; being manipulative and domineering towards her only daughter. Daughters of Destiny avows that the reason that the Duchess of Kent kept Victoria near her at all times, even having Victoria sleep in her room up until the girl became Queen, was that "she believed that no nurse or governess, however skilled she might be, could take the place of a Mother."1 The truth is that Victoria did have a governess named Louise Lehzen who was far closer to her than the Duchess of Kent. And the real reason the Duchess was so involved in Victoria's life was because she was a control freak and was also hoping to become regent. Of course, Victoria turned eighteen before becoming Queen and one of the first things she did was ask that her bed be moved from her Mother's room. Unfortunately, Daughters of Destiny bypasses such conflicts entirely. Many other stories in Daughters of Destiny suffer from this saccharine portrayal and end up making the “heroines” look quite wimpy—when in fact, most of them were strong, courageous women. They are “wimpy” because they actually have nothing to triumph over—even if problems are mentioned there is no real conflict, only melodrama. As in the Queen Victoria story, their future is obviously happy from the first sentence. By smoothing out their stories and eliminating the villains and bumps in their roads, the historical women are reduced to being merely docile, boring creatures who just expect everything to have a happy ending. As James Loewen says of textbooks, “The stories that history textbooks tell are predictable; every problem has already been solved or is about to be solved. Textbooks exclude conflict or real suspense. They leave out anything which might reflect badly upon our national character. When they try for drama, they achieve only melodrama, because readers know that everything will turn out fine in the end.” 2 “The optimistic approach prevents any understanding of failure other than blaming the victim.... After a thousand pages, bland optimism gets pretty offending for everyone.” 3 These excerpts weirdly fit for a book written by a homeschooler for homeschoolers and that's rather discouraging. I thought we homeschooled people were supposed to pursue the truth not regurgitate the same old legends.


Now, this may not be all Noelle Goforth’s fault. I remember Little Bear saying something like, “I encouraged Noelle to use all of the girl books in our library to compile a book to encourage young ladies.” She must have used their personal library because in the bibliography, there are 16 sources listed (with only titles and dates—no author or publisher names, unfortunately, which would make tracking them easier), and of those sources I could only locate 4-5 in my tri-county library system. Why? Well, they were all written before 1935; nine were written before 1900, three between 1900-1910, one between 1910-1920, and three between 1930-1940. Fitting in with this, I also recall Little Bear recommending the buying of old books, written in the 1800's especially, because "they will have a biblical worldview." Now, there's nothing wrong with old books but you have to be careful with their take on history and life in general. Why? Because they moralize everything. As with Victoria's mother being held in honour, even though the historical record shows that she was far from saintly, the history books (especially the ones for children) tend to twist away from facts in an effort to moralize or make them melodramatic or just stick to legends that have been proven false. I don't know why they did that back then but I can tell you that books written after 1930-40ish have a greater chance of being accurate. The reason for this, I think, is that the authors decided to go back to the historical record of first-hand accounts, letters, and diaries while researching them. When I'm researching something, if I can't find copies of original documents and such, I always pick out books written sometime after 1930 to the present and I check their bibliographies for strong sources. For a good example of what you can find in older books, I have a book from 1922, about Queen Elizabeth I. In this volume, it asserts the Victorian idea that "women do not experience the slightest desire before marriage."4 That idea is laughable at best, infuriating at worst—all of such research has been proven wrong and was an entirely male assumption anyway. (Don't get me started on what I call, "The Victorian Repression Doctrine: tell women nothing about anything and leave them in ignorance and fear for the greater part of their lives. You know, they might think about things and that would just be wrong." No wonder women were so afraid of childbirth if no one told them what to expect! *rolling eyes*)


Older books are also terribly racist—not just to African Americans in regards to slavery but also to American Indians. In Daughters of Destiny, Pocahontas and Sacagawea are portrayed as good, which they were; but in other parts of the book, words such as "savages" and "red men" are also used in reference to Indians. I'm a European American but I don't like the white supremacist or Eurocentric viewpoints one bit—in anything—and especially not in "Christian" publications.


Martha Finley is given a glowing story in Daughters of Destiny and it is even said, "Because of the strong Christian content that surfaces throughout Elsie's life, Miss Finley was blackballed. She was ignored by contemporary critics and by such popular children's magazines of her day as St. Nicholas and Youths Companion." 5 First off, I doubt that she was blackballed because of the Christian content of the novels—as I've already said; almost all books for children in the ninetieth century were written with extremely moralistic views. So, I don't know why she was blackballed or if she even was…I can hope it had to do with the melodrama or racism in the Elsie books. Yes, there's racism in the Elsie Dinsmore series…does that really surprise you? Here’s an Elsie review if you're not familiar with these books or if you are and you don't believe me about the racism. http://www.keepersofthefaith.com/category/ElsieDinsmoreAnEnigma (I don't know anything about this site but I thought the review is quite interesting.)



Older books may be written from a biblical worldview but how can that help anything if they are incorrect in their facts or racist. Use them at your own risk and be very careful with any historical books recommended by Vision Forum. The Henty series, Beautiful Girlhood series, and many other old or historically-inspired books sold by Vision Forum have incorrect historical material and white supremacist overtones. They are also inclined towards "heroification" of historical figures. As a matter of fact, most of Vision Forum's and even Mantle Ministries' "historical" teachings are full of errors, legends, and Eurocentric assumptions. (Even though we're Americans most of us are technically European Americans and therefore, can still be Eurocentric.) Remember, a book (or even a lecture) can only be as good as its sources and Daughters of Destiny has very poor ones. The only reason I still have it is because I like some of the poetry selections—at least they can be taken at face value.

Definitions -

White supremacy: racial view; the view that white people are supposedly genetically and culturally superior to all other people or races and should therefore rule over them.

Eurocentric: Focusing on Europe; focusing on Europe or its people, institutions, and cultures, often in a way that is arrogantly dismissive of others.

1: Daughters of Destiny, Noelle Wheeler Goforth, page 130.
2: Lies my Teacher Told Me: Everything your American History Textbook Got Wrong, James
W. Loewen, Introduction, Page 5.
3: Ibid; Introduction, Page 6.
4. The Private Character of Queen Elizabeth, Chamberlin, Frederick.
5 Daughters of Destiny, Noelle Wheeler Goforth, page 208.
“That's the sort of thought that gives sober men pause” – Linus Van Pelt

Two books I recommend:

- Lies my Teacher Told Me: Everything your American History Textbook Got Wrong by James W. Loewen. I absolutely loved this book and it was a very fast read. Do keep in mind though, that you may not agree with everything Mr. Loewen says, mostly in the last few chapters. The sections on Columbus, Vietnam, the Reconstruction, and American Indians were very informative and intriguing.

- The Good Old Days: They were Terrible! by Otto Bettmann. If you're as tired of I am of people talking about "the good old days" especially homeschooled girls (mostly sighing about the clothes people used to wear) and patriarchy type people, then you'll love this book. Once you read it, you'll know what Solomon meant when he said, "Do not say, "Why were the old days better than these?" For it is not wise to ask such questions." Ecclesiastes 7:10.




Ingrid

Tuesday, October 16, 2007

Part Four: Let it Be = Love3

5: Emotional Purity makes a big deal of being absolutely, perfectly, pure for your future mate. While there is nothing wrong with aiming for this, it is absolutely impossible! If you’ve made a mistake somewhere, the book actually makes you feel bad and regretful, even though you’ve moved on. I don’t think that is right. Of all the things that have happened to me, the most painful have been because of contact with others, but I am glad I had them. God uses our fights and frustrations, our disappointments and tears, as a way of getting through to us. Every time I’ve been really hurt, I can look back and see that God wanted to get my attention and sharpen me. As Rosamond goes through the trials of the Wise Woman, so do we go through the trials of the Christian life. The example just given is from George Macdonald’s, little-known story, The Lost Princess; in which the princess is taught by the Wise Woman and undergoes trials to test and sharpen her. The Wise Woman says, before they begin, “‘Rosamond, if you would be a blessed creature instead of a mere wretch, you must submit to be tried’ ‘Is that something terrible?’ asked the princess, turning white. ‘No, my child but it is something very difficult to come well out of. Nobody who has not been tried knows how difficult it is; but whoever has come well out of it—and those who do not overcome never do come out of it—always look back with horror, not on what she has come through, but on the very idea of the possibility of having failed, and being still the same miserable creature as before.’”3 I can truly say that I’m very glad I went through every trial I’ve had—not to have experienced it would have been to stay “the same miserable creature as before.” And the thought of having failed to change is horrifying! Our trials make us stronger, anyone can tell you that. Do you think Scarlett O’Hara regretted any of the things that made her strong? What about Ilsa Lund in Casablanca? Esther? Ruth? Rahab? What about Queen Elizabeth I of England who endured a lonely childhood and rough young-adulthood before ascending to the throne. Obviously, God began molding her at an early age into the wonderful ruler she became. The only way to be physically strong is to train your muscles to work and move as you want them too. Do you think that you will automatically become strong when troubles arise? No, you have to train your mind to work under pressure. You can’t just stand there with quivering lips and faint when problems arise like some of the girls in G.A. Henty books or Miss Elsie Dinsmore. I like several of the Henty books but one should not have a steady diet of the same type of thing. Try some Dickens or Shakespeare for variety. I’m going to digress for a second to bash Elsie Dinsmore: the books are unfit for anyone to read. They are as mushy and sappy as trashy romance novels; Elsie is over-dramatic, brainless, and weak. Why anyone would want her for a role-model is beyond me! I’ve skimmed Elsie’s Girlhood—very sappy and over-dramatic—and two of my girlfriends showed me Elsie’s Kith and Kin; we looked in disgust upon the first page where Elsie and her husband have a kissing session. (At least I think it was Elsie...maybe it was a relative of hers. Anyway, it doesn't matter.) We slapped the book shut, exchanged looks and my friend said, “That’s why we hate the Elsie Dinsmore books.” There are so many works of literature that are better than Elsie Dinsmore; try Betsy-Tacy or The Sarah’s Journey series instead. This brings up a very interesting point; are we trying to make women weak? I don’t want to be a guy, I love being a girl but I’m not just going to be weak and wimpy to make men feel strong. Think of a woman’s mentality during WWII, “I won’t/can’t join the army but I’ll help it along by serving in USO’s or at factories making equipment. If I sit at home nothing will get done and the country will fall apart.” You can maintain your femininity and still be spunky and strong. It’s all in personality and character; there are as many wimpy men as weak women and as many strong women as courageous men. I’ve noticed that several of these Christian instructional books use a very pathetic woman as an example and that is just not right! There was a book written, titled The Heart of the Rose, by Mabel A. McKee, in 1940. (Remember, just because a book is old, does not mean it’s good. It can be written from a biblical world view and still have nothing but fluff printed on the pages.) It has since been reprinted and I purchased this little book at the same time as Emotional Purity and Passion and Purity. On the back cover is a recommendation from Elizabeth Elliott, so I assumed it would be good. The story is a simple one: the brother is heading off to college, he and a pal are saying goodbye to two of their girl friends and then, later, the boy’s older sister instructs him in purity. It is written in the typical “flowery” style of Grace Livingston Hill and other late-nineteenth/early-twentieth century Christian authors. When I first read it, I enjoyed it but something wasn’t right. It took me awhile to figure out what but it is simply this: the girl that the young man likes, “Rose”, is number one, your typical blushing, shrinking, washout, weakling. She can’t seem to make up her mind and allows the young man hold her hand, though she acts like she’d rather not allow him the liberty. Later, the sister talks to her brother, “‘If you had kissed Rose tonight, it would have been easy for you to kiss her again. You haven’t yet, have you?’ He shook his head. ‘I am so glad,’ she continued. ‘It will be so much better for her. If she permits you these familiarities, she will permit others the same ones. She may soon become as reckless as Dorothy, and then we dare not think of the future.’”4 Read that twice please. If this logic is correct, then, I suppose that if you kiss your wife she will allow other men to kiss her as well? What kind of woman is so weak that she can’t keep herself for one man?! The conversation between sister and brother continues on for several pages, this is what the sister says, in response to the boy’s asking why he can’t let Rose know he cares for her. “‘You mean you will crush the petals of your own rose, and then enjoy the heart when it is opened. When you come back you may not even want to see the heart when it is opened; you are just a boy. If you do, there will be times when you will see those crushed petals and be sorry. You may blame yourself, but you will probably blame Rose. You may grow so discontented that you will blame another man. If you know she allowed you these caresses, these little familiarities, you will think she would allow others.’ He spoke with pride, ‘I know Rose.’ ‘We will look at it from her side. After she realizes those petals have been crushed by you she may be afraid of the future. She may be afraid that you have wondered far into the garden and come back to her a worn-out traveler. She may be afraid that you will not appreciate her and that you will not deal rightly with her.’”5 My, my, how far we go in making a point! Rose must be like Elsie Dinsmore—over-sensitive and romantic. In Rilla of Ingleside, Rilla promises her sweetheart Kenneth, that she won’t let anyone else kiss her while he’s gone fighting in World War I. She keeps that promise, though they do not meet again, until four years later, when the war ends. She is never, not once, afraid that Ken won’t appreciate her or not deal rightly with her. The Heart of the Rose’s basic message, once you plough through the melodrama, is to keep yourself pure for one person. That’s a great thing! But I don’t think using the example of an extremely weak girl is very convincing; there are other books that can make a point without resorting to that.