Changing History Education so as not to offend religious groups

Dear All,

Please look up:

Triple M the radio station here in Sydney Australia and look for the program SPOONMAN then go to his forum and read the response to his program on teaching history.

regards David

quote:

Originally posted by DAVOhorn:

Or not offend the sensibilities of these bigots as they rewrite history and impose their prejudice on the rest of us.

David

I can understand your feelings about this issue.

However, if bigots are trying to rewrite history it is because somebody else wrote it in the first place.

It is all very well to think of schools as secular institutions but in the West the political and legal landscape is informed very strongly by christian values and perceptions.

You've used the word "truth" several times in your post as if it applies in some way to history. But this simply is not the case as far as I can see. History departments at universities are full of arguments and revisions - and all that needs to happen for one particular view to prevail is a consensus of opinion amongst those that own that particular piece of intellectual territory.

History is not immutable. The understanding of the past changes dramatically over the course of even a single person's lifetime.

The tone of your post suggests very strongly to me that this issue has triggered feelings that have a lot more to do with your fears than your principles. I apologise if this sounds patronising but your first post is very confronting.

Regards
Deane

Hold on Deane, are you inferring the holocaust didn't happen? Or at least that it may not be credible? Or that many Europeans didn't spend many years fighting religious/territorial wars with Arabic muslims in the last millennium?

quote:

Originally posted by JamieWednesday:

Hold on Deane, are you inferring the holocaust didn't happen? Or at least that it may not be credible? Or that many Europeans didn't spend many years fighting religious/territorial wars with Arabic muslims in the last millennium?

Jamie

No, no and no.

I do hope you find that my answers are not as loaded as your questions.

Deane

I assure you Deane, the questions were not loaded. (Otherwise they gould go off in my face)Merely seeking clarity. Much as I suppose we all seek from history.

There's no point being mealy mouthed about this - the holocaust happened, it is a lesson to humanity in general and particularly our young and should be taught in schools whether the local Imam likes it or not.

If they don't and it causes a counter reaction then that reaction should be addressed in a positive way - IMO of course.

quote:

The tone of your post suggests very strongly to me that this issue has triggered feelings that have a lot more to do with your fears than your principles.

Deane,

I think Dave's post is totally valid. Rather than triggering his own fears, he has obviously touched a raw nerve in you.

The examples he has set out, especially the Holocaust are fact, not fiction. Some of the detail about the crusades and the holocaust might well be missing or have become distorted. IMO history lessons should be used to demonstrate how caution is needed when reading "evidence" as well as learning about historical "facts" as we know them.

I'm all for freedom of speech and a broad education developing people with open minds, but the sort of bigots identified by Dave are anything but open-minded and have every intention of closing the minds of others. The sooner they are got rid of the better. That includes the new wave of creationists in America as well.

If our schools were only allowed to teach "truth", we wouldn't have any schools at all and scientific research would be dead in the water.

Cheers

Don

Them and us.

That's what David's thread is really about.

I'm not sure it's about the Holocaust. He is just using it as an illustration as far as I can see.

This thread has about a day before it's pulled - maximum. I hope I'm wrong.

Don

Thanks for your observations.

Deane

"Anyone can become angry - that is easy, but to be angry with the right person, to the right degree, at the right time, for the right purpose, and in the right way, that is not easy." -Aristotle

quote:

Them and us.

That's what David's thread is really about.

As in 'them' that oppose teaching of the holocaust and apparently make threats against those that do and 'us' who advocate the teaching of the holocaust for the lesson it teaches humanity?

So what's your point?

quote:

Them and us.

That's what David's thread is really about.

Nope.....I've just re-read Dave's post and he is quite specific. It is about Imans trying to dictate what must be taught in school history in the UK and what must not be taught and the reason for their demands.

The sooner their pathetic rants are silenced, the better. And based on what these reports claim has been said, I think we need to montitor more closely just what these Imans are actually preaching in their mosques on Fridays.

Cheers

Don

Sorry to sound suspicious here, but where does the original story come from?

I say that because the Daily Express(to name only the most guilty publication) here in the UK often runs stories like this. They almost always turn out to be baseless. That's why they're never followed up.

If David's sources are kosher(sic) then this is indeed an apalling and worrying development. I just need to be sure of the facts before I get het up though.

K

What is reported in the papers is no more "true" than what is claimed to be historic "truth".

Both are subject to the writer's and the reader's viewpoint.

Nor do I find it helpful to describe one attempt at genocide as "The Holocaust" when at least as many have been subject to genocide since - but because it did not happen in Europe, it seems less important. My viewpoint, obviously.

quote:

Originally posted by Nigel Cavendish:
Nor do I find it helpful to describe one attempt at genocide as "The Holocaust" when at least as many have been subject to genocide since - but because it did not happen in Europe, it seems less important.

The Holocaust was a deliberate, planned attempt to eridicate an entire people by means of industrial technology by a leading 'civilised' European power. As such, it is unique in history.
Of course there have been other mass slaughters, The Armenians by the Turks, Native Americans by European settlers etc.. Inexcusable as these are, they differ from the systematic, 'scientific' and 'rational' murder of Slavs, Roma, Gays and, primarily, Jews.

quote:

"The Holocaust"

I believe this is an expression used by the Jewish faith to describe their suffering during this period. Other victims of 'cleansing', mass murder, genocide have their own descriptive titles. The world at large seems to have accepted 'The Holocaust' as an understood description of this particular event.

quote:

Originally posted by Malky:
by means of industrial technology by a leading 'civilised' European power. As such, it is unique in history.

The "means" were unique, genocide is not.

quote:

Originally posted by JamieWednesday:

quote:

"The Holocaust"

I believe this is an expression used by the Jewish faith to describe their suffering during this period. Other victims of 'cleansing', mass murder, genocide have their own descriptive titles. The world at large seems to have accepted 'The Holocaust' as an understood description of this particular event.

Yes, I know that, but when did this word become currency for the Jewish (and that is the widely understood definition)genocide? and why does eveyone else's have no "special" name?

quote:

Originally posted by JamieWednesday:
BBC Report

It seems clear that the Governement is committed to the teaching of English history in English schools. A non-story then as far as this thread title is concerned.

I have telephoned two friends of mine who teach (one of whom is a Jewish music teacher) both said that no such demands have ever been at the schools where they teach.

No one would deny there were concentration camps where Jews died in WW2. The question is from what did the inmates die? Were they all murdered in a holocaust or did they all die of natural causes? Both extremes lack any credibility in my view and the truth lies somewhere in between the two extremes (as it nearly always does)so then we are left to determine how many were murdered (and whether this justifies the use of the word 'holocaust')and how many died of natural causes and disease.

What most people are unaware of is that is alleged by some that most of those who died in the concentration camps died of Typhus and their bodies were burned or piled into mass graves to limit the spread of the disease. If they died of Typhus can we say the Germans are responsible given the appalling conditions the inmates of the concentration camps were subjected to (I say inmates as not all the inmates were Jews - far from it)- yes, probably, although it must be remembered that Typhus was epidemic all over Europe during the war and tens of millions died from it.

So how do we quantify who died of what? Was there a policy to transport Jews and other 'undesirables' to 'death camps' where they were systematically slaughtered within days of their arrival or is the truth not quite so clear cut? It would seem that certainly many were slaughtered and many died of disease and natural causes but how many?

Personally I have no idea. I was not there. I would probably tend towards the prevailing view that there was a policy to slaughter all the Jews but I have never researched this in any detail. I am sufficiently disgusted by the thought of concentration camps to protest against the demonising of any minority be they Jews, Gipsy's, homosexuals or muslims.

History is written by the victors and it is one thing in one country and quite another thing in another country. Do children in France grow up hearing about the battles of Crecy and Agincourt? No, they don't. Do British children grow up hearing about some of the battles they lost in France during the 100 year war? No, they don't. History and propaganda go hand in hand. To talk of history as 'truth' in the sense of all history being always true is a nonsense.

quote:

Originally posted by Nigel Cavendish:
It seems clear that the Governement is committed to the teaching of English history in English schools. A non-story then as far as this thread title is concerned.

What a shock, a British rag indulges in a bit of Islamophobia to rack up some tension.

quote:

History is written by the victors and it is one thing in one country and quite another thing in another country

Err, I believe the German curriculum carries a fairly hefty chunk about these events and does not shy away from any of the associated issues...

quote:

Originally posted by JamieWednesday:

quote:

History is written by the victors and it is one thing in one country and quite another thing in another country

Err, I believe the German curriculum carries a fairly hefty chunk about these events and does not shy away from any of the associated issues...

I am glad to hear it.

quote:

Yes, I know that, but when did this word become currency for the Jewish (and that is the widely understood definition)genocide? and why does eveyone else's have no "special" name?

At a guess because it was picked up and used by the media/movies etc. I'm sure other victims of bigotry zeal have their own names for related events whether it's 'The Troubles' or a name in a foreign language which is thereby not picked up becaus eof translation issues. The Rwandan massacres in the nineties are referred to in many ways, perhaps because the Hutus and the Tutsis had been killing each other relentlessly for a hundred years or more (with no thanks to their 20th century Belgian governership of course), so although not previously on the scale of this period, it's less of an isolated event, however mind numbing the numbers slaughtered is?

quote:

Originally posted by Nigel Cavendish:

quote:

Originally posted by JamieWednesday:

quote:

"The Holocaust"

I believe this is an expression used by the Jewish faith to describe their suffering during this period. Other victims of 'cleansing', mass murder, genocide have their own descriptive titles. The world at large seems to have accepted 'The Holocaust' as an understood description of this particular event.

Yes, I know that, but when did this word become currency for the Jewish (and that is the widely understood definition)genocide? and why does eveyone else's have no "special" name?

My recollection is that the expression 'The Holocaust' was first came to be used to describe the events of the german concentration camps as a result of an american television drama, so called, and screened in the 1970's. I for one had never heard the expression used as such prior to that.