John's comments about history texts
I don’t think Hakim’s VOCABULARY is any simpler than Boorstin’s. Her sentence structure, in general, is simpler. Her "tone" at points seems quite clearly directed toward young children. (You can almost hear her saying, "Now, children!") BUT . . . the CONTENT is in no way directed toward elementary-age children. And--and this is why we put Hakim off till the upper grades--she includes WAY (I mean, WAY!) more detail than any younger child will want to hear or know.
Hakim has lots more PICTURES and ILLUSTRATIONS. That is definitely a plus for younger kids. But the captions aren’t designed for young ones. . . . [One caption, chosen WHOLLY at random from the page I happened to open to in Volume 1 (p. 84): "These Indians are preparing a corn liquor drink. The woman in the foreground isn’t throwing up; she's mixing the corn with saliva to start fermentation. Corns wasn’t the only new food Europeans found in America. More are listed below."]
Our sense: neither book is "perfect" for younger kids. But Boorstin (in OUR opinion) is easier to take. His CONTENT (after the first few chapters) is more "on their level" even if his PRESENTATION isn’t perfect.
Does Hakim include more memorable stories about individuals and specific events? . . . Yes and no. It has lots of sidebars about interesting (but not necessarily to young children!) sidelights in history. It also, as I said, has lots of graphic illustrations.
FWIW. HTH. John
I’ve read Carson. And he is, most definitely, conservative. But . . . I would NEVER read that to someone below high school. Not because the language is necessarily harder than Hakim or Boorstin, but because the SUBJECT MATTER is drier--as I recall, more focused on political issues. And Carson, as I recall, doesn’t write with the same verve.
What I love about Boorstin is his focus on the SOCIAL history. I find that stuff fascinating. And I think kids do, too. John