Contrapuntal reading and Charlotte Mason

Contrapuntal Reading and Charlotte Mason

In Vol 6. Chapter 10 of Charlotte Mason’s Original Homeschooling Series Charlotte discusses her methods of the teaching of history, that is by reading children historical novels and volumes. I wish to explore the ideology of Charlotte’s era and then explain how in the year 2011 we need to read historical novels contrapuntally.

A close reading of the passage below reveals that Charlotte thought of herself as living in the Metropole (of the British Empire), that history was about great men,  and that history served the purpose of creating rational patriotic servants: 

The more educated among our 'Dominion' cousins complain that their young people have no background of history and as a consequence 'we the people' is their master thought; they would face the loss of Westminster Abbey without a qualm. What is it to them where great events have happened, great persons lived and moved? And, alas, this indifference to history is not confined to the Dominions; young people at home are equally indifferent, nor have their elders such stores of interest and information as should quicken children with the knowledge that always and everywhere there have been great parts to play and almost always great men to play those parts: that  any day it may come to anyone to do some service of historical moment to the country. It is not too much to say that a rational well-considered patriotism depends on a pretty copious reading of history, and with this rational patriotism we desire our young people shall be informed rather than with the jingoism of the emotional patriot.(Charlotte Mason's Original Homeschooling Series : Section II the knowledge of man p.170)

 Charlotte continues explaining her methods of teaching history, that historical volumes of British history need to be read to children and that the children should narrate back what they have learned. Then on page 174 Charlotte says that Mrs. Marshall's Our Island Story, is a capital book to be read to children (the Island being Britain). I happen to have two copies of H.E. Marshall's Our Island Story (it can be found online at Our Island Story) and thought that a read of the first paragraph or two of the history of Australia, from Our Island Story would be interesting:

CHAPTER CVIII

VICTORIA—UNDER THE SOUTHERN CROSS

"Let no one think much of a trifling expense; Who knows what may happen a hundred years hence? The loss of America what can repay? New colonies seek for in Botany Bay."

[500] IN the days of King George III. there was a great sailor called Captain Cook. He made many voyages into unknown seas and discovered new lands. Among these lands were the islands of Australia and New Zealand.

It was in April 1770 A.D. that Captain Cook first landed in Australia, in a bay which he called Botany Bay, because there were so many plants of all kinds there. At that time the island was inhabited only by wild, black savages, and Captain Cook took possession of the whole eastern coast in the name of King George, calling it New South Wales.
While America was a British colony, wicked people, instead of being sent to prison for punishment, as they are now, were sent to work on the cotton plantations or farms there. After America was lost, convicts, as these wicked people are called, could no longer be sent there, and British statesmen began to look round for some other country to which they could be sent.
[501] Then it was that Australia was thought of. It was decided to form a convict colony there. It was hoped that free people would go too, and that soon Australia would become as great a colony as America had been.

If I am to read this opening passage contrapuntally I would ask a number of questions. I would ask Was Captain Cook really great? Did he discover new lands or were there people already living in these lands? Whose concept is the discovery concept? What would the Dutch think of this statement? Why were the people that Captain Cook first encountered when arriving at, then unnamed, Australian shores described as wild, why were they described as savages instead of contemporaries who were culturally different? Who were the wicked people named convicts? Why were they being shipped to far off countries? Why is Australia described as becoming great and not already great? What is meant by this? Are there groups of people in this passage that I as a reader am being encouraged to view as being entitled and other groups as unentitled by the language that is being used? Am I being constructed to view capitalism as a more civilized or ideologically sound concept? and so on.

This talk by Chimamanda Adichie explains why we need to read contrapuntally.