introducing history to the three-year-old.

[ellemenope]

We just got back from a long road trip/vacation where DD turned three, and it has really become apparent to all of us that she is on a very atypical academic trajectory.  We visited over a dozen different museums, galleries, zoos, aquariums, and science centers, and it was so interesting how she enjoyed those museums and galleries geared towards older children and adults more than the children's museums.  We even decided to go back to one particular history museum two more different days because she enjoyed it so much.  She was just so much calmer and relaxed when she was taking it all in, and remembering so much.

At these museums she really enjoyed learning more about the presidents, space programs, and dinosaurs, but we did not see her interest in war budding until it was too late.  It threw us for a loop.  Now, I was really not keen on her being exposed to such concepts like war, but as I am sure many of you have experienced, sometimes before you know it your child is already halfway down a slippery slope, and the only way to help them, is to just give them more information.  You must go down.  That is how I felt anyway. 

Before we knew it she had a seemingly innate understanding of war (after a day spent at an aquarium, American history museum, and sightseeing, she commented that her favorite part of the day was World War II and began going on and on about Adolf Hitler and atom bombs) as well as history in general; that these events occur in the past and it can be interesting to learn about.  She has always been very good with sequencing and time, so I suppose this is just an extension of that.  And, looking back on it, for the last few months she has also become hellbent on understanding how and why people and animals can be cruel to one another.  

So, long story short, we allowed her to learn a bit about war at these exhibits, and she now has a very concrete albeit simple understanding of at least six major wars.  She just loves to talk about them. She talks abut the red coats, muskets, King George III, slavery, bayonets, Lincoln's assassination, mustard gas, trench warfare, Pearl Harbor, the Berlin wall, and Terrorism and so much more. This is not an exaggeration.  And, again, these are not things I am happy that she knows anything about.  She is just drawn to the macabre these days.  But, I do want to say that she still gets enormously confused about things and is demanding more information of us, which is why I need some resources/help.

I am very curious how you helped your young child navigate through history.  Also, I would love some book recommendations.  It would be great to find a series that is historical fiction filled with facts and information aimed at grade 1-3.  Something that flows well and is easy to read.  Or, even something like an early textbook.  I have looked at the bookstore and found that the younger history books seem to focus on ancient world history, which she has yet to show an interest in.  She is really working on the modern world, and specifically loves war and other interactions between countries and world leaders as they relate to the United States.

This is not that big of a deal.  I am sure once I invest any time and effort into this, she won't want anything to do with it anymore.  Which would be fine.  I'm just curious.  I am a little embarrassed about all this, which is probably why I felt the need to explain a lot in this post. This issue just hasn't come up for my friends yet, and I don't think I have read anything about this in the past.  

[joensally]

I'm unclear - do you want her to have more information?

[ellemenope]

I think (but I'm not sure) that I would like some references that were already censored for the young child.  I feel like it would be easier to have a book or books on the subject that she might accept as the end-all be-all.  If that would satiate her hunger, maybe we could move on to something else.

But, I'm not sure what the appropriate thing to do is.

[joensally]

That is a tough one.  Personally, I have redirected (read: redirect, redirect, redirect, repeat...) when I've wanted to avoid something with the kids.  My kids are pretty sensitive and I've had to help them navigate through stuff.  They also tend to inhale subject matter.  I have things I understood but wasn't emotionally ready to handle as a child that's made me sensitive to this with my kids.

Not knowing her preferences (I can tell looking at a book what would appeal to my kids, but they're different in their preferences), I can only suggest running searches on amazon.com.  DK and Eyewitness books are good.  This one might be a good one for her, we have it and enjoy it:

http://www.amazon.com/History-Book-DK-Publishing/dp/0756668824/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1311444378&sr=1-5

Also, The Story of the World book 4 is modern times, and I think would be intended for 8 or 9 year olds in the classical rotation.  It's also available in audio cd.  There's actually a lot available, but it's about style and format, never mind difficult subject matter.  Here's a list of some books around "if you were a kid in..."  Too bad she's not into ancients, as there's a lot of mythology for kids and there's a fair bit of battling!

Usborne probably has some suitable stuff.

Have you got her playing strategy games yet? 

[moominmamma]

I'm in the redirect camp as well. Best if it's done in a very off-hand way, lest one's kid gets the impression that the topic is tasty forbidden fruit. My ds was fascinated by slavery for a while. I just kept casually telling him that luckily we don't have slavery any more, that owning another person is very sad for that other person because they can't do what they want to, and could he think of anything happy to talk about? My eldest picked up a newspaper when she was a young four and asked "What does genocide mean, mommy?" By expressing a completely nonchalant attitude and saying something like "Oh, just a term they sometimes use for 'killing' ..." I was able to avoid feeding what might have become a relentless line of questioning. 

I really think that even if a child of 3 or 4 seems to be handling information about war and various atrocities in a matter-of-fact way without any emotional trauma, extreme caution is advisable. There's no telling what might happen to those bits of knowledge when the child reaches a new stage of emotional development and, for example, begin grappling with a new understanding of their own mortality and that of their parents. I have a friend who lived in Whitehorse in northern Canada on 9/11, where the city was evacuated as the US military forced down two Korean planes that were feared to be part of the hijacking plot unfolding in the eastern US. Her very bright almost-3-year-old heard the US military planes, heard the sirens and bullhorns, and was swept along in the evacuation, seeming to endure it matter-of-factly. He asked questions in the days that followed and his mom reassured him that there had been a mistake, and everything had been fine where they lived and that the bad stuff had only taken place very far away. Everything seemed fine. Then at age 5 he went to meet his grandma at their small local airport, experienced the sound of aircraft landing close at hand, and for about two or three years thereafter had some pretty severe sleep troubles, nightmares and separation anxiety.

Just something to think about.

Miranda

[FarmerBeth]

You might try historical fiction aimed at kids, with a broader range of topics than just war.  Magic Treehouse has both fiction and nonfiction accompanying guides.  We're Canadian and Dear Canada and Canadian Girl (both historical fiction with factual information at the back) were popular, and the American Girl series were great as well.  These last three cover more modern history, including wars and topics more pertinent to North Americans.

I'm for some redirecting, too.  That being said, if your daughter reads fluently with understanding at this young an age (my DD was in this situation at age three and I've been through this) it can be hard to shelter her from some information, especially if she is determined.  Keep the communication lines open to help her through those confusing topics, and be aware of listening to news or reading newspapers in sight/hearing of your daughter, so that you can filter the news for her more appropriately.

[Roar]

Joining the chorus for lowkey redirection.

One good thing you have going for you at 3 is that she's not already cycled through most of the easy obsessions so probably it won't take a lot to get her moving on to something else.

In the category of easy going historical fiction you may want to take look at some of the books by Jean Fritz such as Shh We're Writing the Constitution.

[UpToSomeGood]

I wouldn't redirect a child away from an interest in world history.  I would feed it instead, just as I'd feed any other academic interest.  I don't think you do a child any favors by shielding them from all knowledge of human realities such as war, and there is material available on WW II that wouldn't trouble a child unless the child were unduly sensitive.  Here's a decent children's nonfiction book on World War II: http://www.amazon.com/dp/0756630088

[moominmamma]

Originally Posted by UpToSomeGood 

I don't think you do a child any favors by shielding them from all knowledge of human realities such as war, and there is material available on WW II that wouldn't trouble a child unless the child were unduly sensitive.  Here's a decent children's nonfiction book on World War II: http://www.amazon.com/dp/0756630088

I don't think anyone was suggesting shielding a child from all knowledge of war, just gently redirecting a child from relentlessly pursuing war as an interest, particularly (IMO) when it strays into the topics of genocide and terrorism. Redirection, not censorship. I think you can often feed an interest so that it will tend to move away from a problematic line of inquiry. Moving from the Luftwaffe to the history of aviation rather than the gas chambers, for instance. I also think that there's a huge difference between feeding an interest in war at age 6 and feeding it at age 3.

Personally I think at little shielding at age barely-three is indeed doing the child a favor. There is plenty of time to discover evil in the world. I would prefer that at age 3 my kids be developing the belief that the world is basically a good and kind place -- because I believe that's the how it is. This is obviously an issue of philosophy -- personal and parental; I simply believe that until children have a certain maturity of world view that I would like to stack the deck a little towards goodness and kindness, since so much of what is in history books and in the media stacks the deck it other way. At age 9 I bought my eldest a book on genoicide. At age 4 I redirected her questioning.

Miranda

[UpToSomeGood]

Yes, I think this is the second time you've voted for "redirection".  Again, I'd feed an academic interest in history.  Who knows-- you might be "redirecting" a great historian in the wrong direction.  The OP's child doesn't seem to show any signs of extra sensitivity where giving her access to the information she seeks would be a problem. 

Personally, I haven't seen evidence that exposing children matter-of-factly to correct information about war, sex, etc. has a negative effect, as long as that information is not shocking.  The OP's child knows that war exists and is fascinated by it; and there's nothing wrong with that.

I believe that a mistaken emphasis on shielding children from reality at all costs results in dumbed-down fare such as "Blue's Clues" and loads of other mind-numbing drivel.  I wouldn't expose my children to such things; I would view that as a disservice.  And when they show aptitude or interest in a certain area, I encourage it.

 

Originally Posted by moominmamma 

I don't think anyone was suggesting shielding a child from all knowledge of war, just gently redirecting a child from relentlessly pursuing war as an interest, particularly (IMO) when it strays into the topics of genocide and terrorism. Redirection, not censorship. I think you can often feed an interest so that it will tend to move away from a problematic line of inquiry. Moving from the Luftwaffe to the history of aviation rather than the gas chambers, for instance. I also think that there's a huge difference between feeding an interest in war at age 6 and feeding it at age 3.

Personally I think at little shielding at age barely-three is indeed doing the child a favor. There is plenty of time to discover evil in the world. I would prefer that at age 3 my kids be developing the belief that the world is basically a good and kind place -- because I believe that's the how it is. This is obviously an issue of philosophy -- personal and parental; I simply believe that until children have a certain maturity of world view that I would like to stack the deck a little towards goodness and kindness, since so much of what is in history books and in the media stacks the deck it other way. At age 9 I bought my eldest a book on genoicide. At age 4 I redirected her questioning.

Miranda

[moominmamma]

Originally Posted by UpToSomeGood 

I believe that a mistaken emphasis on shielding children from reality at all costs ....

But nobody is suggesting this .

Miranda

[mamapigeon]

How about the Dear America books? I agree with a PP that the American Girl books might be a good choice too.

[joensally]

Originally Posted by UpToSomeGood 

Yes, I think this is the second time you've voted for "redirection".  Again, I'd feed an academic interest in history.  Who knows-- you might be "redirecting" a great historian in the wrong direction.  The OP's child doesn't seem to show any signs of extra sensitivity where giving her access to the information she seeks would be a problem. 

Personally, I haven't seen evidence that exposing children matter-of-factly to correct information about war, sex, etc. has a negative effect, as long as that information is not shocking.  The OP's child knows that war exists and is fascinated by it; and there's nothing wrong with that.

I believe that a mistaken emphasis on shielding children from reality at all costs results in dumbed-down fare such as "Blue's Clues" and loads of other mind-numbing drivel.  I wouldn't expose my children to such things; I would view that as a disservice.  And when they show aptitude or interest in a certain area, I encourage it.

 

I was exposed to things I wasn't ready for emotionally.  It left some stuff and I still have visceral,  uncomfortable reactions to certain historical events.  That doesn't mean it's true for others, but it does mean that it's possible.

Redirecting a child who has already had highly visual and thorough exposures to information such as exists in a good exhibit is not extinguishng a future passion.  It's deferring it.

I believe many child development theories would support exposure to content through fiction/fantasy initially to allow a child to process the information at a pace natural for them.  My kids were exposed to Aesop's Fables, various mythologies etc etc.  They were then more prepared emotionally for the reality of war in a time period or geography closer to their own.

[Roar]

Originally Posted by UpToSomeGood 

 on WW II that wouldn't trouble a child unless the child were unduly sensitive. 

Unduly sensitive. You know you are posting on the gifted board right?  Your unduly sensitive would be what we might also call a typical gifted child.

Existential depression is a real risk for even quite young gifted kids. The free ebook that was recently posted on this list talks about that. Because a child has the ability to memorize or place events in time, doesn't mean they have the emotional maturity to handle them. Also, as another poster mentioned a kid could seem to be handling and processing it fine at three but then experience it as a form of trauma at five.

There is quite a lot of distance in the universe between Blues Clues and Auschwitz. There is plenty of places to gently redirect a younger child to continue to learn and enjoy topics of substance.

[joensally]

Originally Posted by Roar 

Unduly sensitive. You know you are posting on the gifted board right?  Your unduly sensitive would be what we might also call a typical gifted child.

Existential depression is a real risk for even quite young gifted kids. The free ebook that was recently posted on this list talks about that. Because a child has the ability to memorize or place events in time, doesn't mean they have the emotional maturity to handle them. Also, as another poster mentioned a kid could seem to be handling and processing it fine at three but then experience it as a form of trauma at five.

There is quite a lot of distance in the universe between Blues Clues and Auschwitz. There is plenty of places to gently redirect a younger child to continue to learn and enjoy topics of substance.

What Roar said.  I did get a chuckle out of the use of "unduly" in relation to sensitivity.

[miriam]

.  

Edited by miriam - 5/31/12 at 6:06pm

[UpToSomeGood]

As the parent of a profoundly gifted child (and a profoundly gifted person myself), I've taken the time to learn about giftedness-- both the reality and the unfounded claims about giftedness.  You can cite nothing to support the idea that the "typical" gifted child would be harmed by, for instance, reading the book to which I linked, or learning about WW II in general.  It's fashionable to talk about overexcitabilities, sensitivity, existential depression, etc.-- but if there were in reality any substance to the idea of gifted children being in general so fragile, there would be ample support besides moms on a board talking about redirection and their personal choices.

I guess we might say that existential depression is a real risk for everyone, and that quite young gifted kids are also at risk for being hit by meteorites.  What percentage of quite young gifted kids would be actually harmed by learning about the historical events of WW II, instead of being guessed at potentially being harmed?  Do you have stats to share?

There is no actual need for the OP to censor her child's chosen learning topics via "redirection".  Until a child shows actual emotional oversensitivity issues, there's no need to treat her as abnormal.
 

Originally Posted by Roar 

Unduly sensitive. You know you are posting on the gifted board right?  Your unduly sensitive would be what we might also call a typical gifted child.

Existential depression is a real risk for even quite young gifted kids. The free ebook that was recently posted on this list talks about that. Because a child has the ability to memorize or place events in time, doesn't mean they have the emotional maturity to handle them. Also, as another poster mentioned a kid could seem to be handling and processing it fine at three but then experience it as a form of trauma at five.

There is quite a lot of distance in the universe between Blues Clues and Auschwitz. There is plenty of places to gently redirect a younger child to continue to learn and enjoy topics of substance.

[UpToSomeGood]

There's a long string of those suggestions.  The OP's child has already learned about the historical events she is eager to explore further, so "redirecting" her won't prevent that; the cat's out of the bag.  You and others suggest "redirecting" a precocious child away from her chosen area of interest.  That's not properly "redirection", but "extinguishment".
 

Originally Posted by moominmamma 

But nobody is suggesting this .

Miranda

Edited by UpToSomeGood - 7/24/11 at 8:48pm

[Tjej]

Well... I'm all for being honest and open with my kids, but I'm in the redirect camp.  I was 19 when I went to Aushwitz and Berkenau and it was a tremendous thing to digest even then.  There is a difference between hearing about stuff and seeing it in real life, but there is also a lot more good media available now to immerse someone in an experience that they may not be ready to really have. 

I think we hurt our children when we think that they are mature enough to handle the whole truth about everything.  Time and living and experience help us frame experiences. 

Now, my kids are 3 and 5.  My 3yo would probably LOVE to learn all about WWII and he'd talk about gas chambers and Nazis and exterminating a race of people.  He's probably go tell everyone about it too.  He sure told people about the "drinking blood" we saw in the DVD from the library (it was something on early peoples and the narrator visited a culture that drank the blood then ate a reindeer).  His personality is very driven and he finds evil/killing interesting.  But I give him good chapter books and legends with knights and clear good triumphing over evil instead of true tales of evil, for now.  I don't think that at 3 I am stifling his interests or stopping him from becoming a great historian if that is where life takes him.  I think I am being a loving mother who is interested in shaping his character and giving him a safe place in the world to grow and develop.

UpToSomeGood - It seems you are not a particularly sensitive person, nor one who has been mired in the depths of existential depression.  Both attributes are perfectly valid, however you do yourself and others a disservice when you blanket-deny the validity of the experience of others.

OP - American Girl books and DK or Osborne books are a great way to go, as others have mentioned above.  I also would go toward fantasy stories like Narnia or other fables as well.

[UpToSomeGood]

Originally Posted by Tjej 

UpToSomeGood - It seems you are not a particularly sensitive person, nor one who has been mired in the depths of existential depression.  Both attributes are perfectly valid, however you do yourself and others a disservice when you blanket-deny the validity of the experience of others.

That's not what I've done, though.  I've simply denied that all gifted children are too sensitive to learn anything further about WW II, after initially learning a great deal about the war and expressing a serious further interest in it.