Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion History books and developmental appropriateness

DS, who is in first grade and turned 7 a couple months ago, brought home some books from a book swap. One was entitled "Attack on Pearl Harbor: The true story of the day America entered World War II." I figured he picked it out becasue of the cool-looking airplanes on the front and if he even opened the book, he wouldn't make it past the first page. Well I was wrong. He read the entire book in a half hour or hour and then told me all about it, and said how much he loved the book and was going to read it again. I asked him why Pearl Harbor was bombed and he said "Because the Japanese were trying to be tricky." This morning I found the book in his bed (he did apparently read it again), and there are sentences in there like "Rescue boats had trawled the harbor under the moonlight, pulling oil-covered bodies out of the water like slippery fish. All through the night, nervous marines, sailors, and soldiers had scanned the horizon waiting for the Japanese to return. They had even shot down five of their own planes in their panic. In the hospital ship, George saw burned sailors from the Arizona. Some looked like human sticks of coal, charred and black. Others were burned raw, their skin pink and puffy. That's when he knew how lucky he was. The attack was over, but for some, the nightmare was just beginning."
DS did not appear to be upset by this book but I wonder if it's really appropriate to let a 7 year old read about ugly historical events, killings, etc. Now I can sort of see why teachers are worried about kids reading books that are too advanced (although I still disagree)....but maybe I need to monitor more closely?

If the book is not inaccurate, and your son is not upset, what is the problem? The time period around World War II contains some even uglier events, which one expects history books to cover. Your son is correct that the Japanese were "tricky" in bombing Pearl Harbor before declaring war:

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/12/09/world/pearl-harbor-truly-a-sneak-attack-papers-show.html
Pearl Harbor Truly a Sneak Attack, Papers Show
By HOWARD W. FRENCH
New York Times
December 9, 1999

I didn't read the whole thing and don't think it's necessarily inaccurate, but I'm wondering if it's developmentally appropriate if they are not necessarily socially mature enough at that age to fully grasp the concepts. For instance if he now thinks the Japansese were "tricky" is he going to understand that that was in that context, or is he now going to wonder if Japanese people in general are not to be trusted. I suppose if an adult read the book with the child and explained everything, there's nothing to worry about, but I'm wondering if it's Ok for him to read these types of books on his own.

The Japanese did do evil thing during World War II, and I would not try to suppress information about their actions. If you want to present a balanced portrait of the Japanese, you could also mention that since World War II they have created a peaceful, affluent, and democratic society and are now staunch allies of the U.S.

I think it just depends on the kid, but I would absolutely be addressing the Japanese are tricky part, and get him a book on interment camps in the U.S. I would honestly be more concerned with the way the history was presented than with the graphic description. I don't think it is a negative thing for kids to learn about the real effects of war on individuals. And while I was older, maybe 9, when I read The Diary of Anne Frank I still remember being furious when my mom told me she thought I was too young to read it and that it was just depressing. I hid behind the couch to read it and silently fumed. I think giving him some additional context is appropriate.

http://www.amazon.com/Farewell-Manz...sr=1-5&keywords=japanese+interment+camps

Blackcat, those descriptions of bodies are kind of shocking, but some kids aren't really fazed by that kind of thing, I think because they lack the life experience to really get the reality of it.

Also, "age appropriate" is so individual. DD6 somehow got me to tell her the whole story of the Unabomber, and didn't turn a hair. But I tried reading her A Little Princess, by Frances Hodgson Burnett, and by a few pages in she was sobbing hysterically in my arms and we had to stop. So this is, like, the ultimate YMMV issue!

There's no easy answer to this once they start reading independently and choosing their own material. It's good that you're keeping the lines of communication open with your DS and getting him to talk about what he's read. I suppose when there are serious red flags one might confiscate a book for parental pre-approval.

We have found that having a newspaper in the house lets kids choose when to be exposed to things, and ask to know more (or why) when they need to. I think it's better than an all-at-once exposure down the road ("OK, kid, now you're ready for all the nasty truths.")

I wanted to add that yes, the bombing of Pearl Harbor was "tricky" but that I would make sure he understood that didn't mean that all Japanese people were tricky and that most nations have employed "trickiness" in times of war. If he is interested it might make sense to talk about what you feel are just/unjust reasons to go to war. Re: photos--personally I would do my best to keep my child from seeing images that would be very difficult to forget. I feel differently about words. Oh, and I would probably talk about the reasons that a similar attack would not happen today if I thought that was something my child would worry about.

My son and I did Susan Wise Bauer's Story of the World starting at age 4 and we were chugging along and enjoying it so much that I ordered the whole series - until, at age 5, child started having nightmares, started yelling about "an eye for an eye" and about "bloodshed" etc in his sleep. I actually sat next to his bed and recorded his words and then correlated them to the exact same words in SOTW.
Same thing happened after we read the biography of Abraham Lincoln - DS is a huge fan of that president - but did not realize that the moms of little boys can die suddenly until he read that Lincoln's mother died when he was around age 7. That caused days of anxiety at our house.
I have encouraged my son to read science non-fiction for the past 2 years instead.
My child is very emotional, sensitive and empathetic and prone to anxiety when topics of murder, death, war, poverty etc are discussed in detail. My point being that if your child is not ready for emotionally intense material, there is no need to encourage them to read history books that might trigger feelings of fear, worry etc. Wait until they are ready for "ugly historical events" and then let them process the information.
I may pick up read alouds of Story of The World again when my DS turns 7 this year as I think that he is able to handle more emotinally intense material now.

I have a similarly aged child who is also studying a historical subject that is older than her age. She's a kid who practices the snowman song from Frozen at home in order to get better at not crying during it because the kids sing it at school and crying embarrasses her.

We read the historical books together. End of story. She doesn't respond to historical materials nearly as dramatically as she relates to negative events in stories, and we've had really good discussions, but there is definitely material in them that I want to be there to discuss with her.