Changing History Education so as not to offend religious groups
Posted by: DAVOhorn on 04 April 2007
dear all,
on the radio here the other night they discussed a recent article in a news paper in the UK regarding the teaching of History in UK schools so that religious groups are not offended by the truth.
Notably the non teaching of the Holocoust and the crusades as this offend Muslims to such an extent that they have resorted to threats of violence to the teachers and the schools. Also there have been incidents between pupils of differeing religions over what is the truth. It seems that the Imams in the mosques are not teaching the truth with regard to History and have put a religious slant to or omit to teach and stating that events DID NOT OCCUR.
A respondent on the radio program was a History teacher here in Sydney and he affirmed that this takes place here in schools. If HISTORY WAS TAUGHT HONESTLY AND ACCURATELY then all hell would break loose amongst the Muslim students their families and the local Mosque. He stated that threats had been made that the school was not to CONTRADICT THE TEACHINGS OF THE IMAMS IN THE MOSQUES.
WHAT THE **** IS GOING ON . ARE WE REALLY GOING TO ALLOW RELIGIOUS BIGOTS TO CHANGE THE HISTORY OF EUROPE PURELY BECAUSE THEY DO NOT LIKE THE TRUTH.
Certainly i have known victims of the Holocaust and they have told me their stories. I had a good education which taught about the 2nd world war and its horrors. My father fought in the 2nd world war. i have read books seen documentaries etc regarding the holocaust. I know friends who have been to the Concentration camps as they had family memebers who had died in the camps.
So what are we to do.
Deal with these Grossly Prejudiced Religious Bigots and protect society from this abhorrent bogotry.?
Or not offend the sensibilities of these bigots as they rewrite history and impose their prejudice on the rest of us.
This religious prejudice and bigotry i find very scary and indeed frightening as the lengths these people will go to to impose their WILL and version of history on us is also frightening.
Regards david
on the radio here the other night they discussed a recent article in a news paper in the UK regarding the teaching of History in UK schools so that religious groups are not offended by the truth.
Notably the non teaching of the Holocoust and the crusades as this offend Muslims to such an extent that they have resorted to threats of violence to the teachers and the schools. Also there have been incidents between pupils of differeing religions over what is the truth. It seems that the Imams in the mosques are not teaching the truth with regard to History and have put a religious slant to or omit to teach and stating that events DID NOT OCCUR.
A respondent on the radio program was a History teacher here in Sydney and he affirmed that this takes place here in schools. If HISTORY WAS TAUGHT HONESTLY AND ACCURATELY then all hell would break loose amongst the Muslim students their families and the local Mosque. He stated that threats had been made that the school was not to CONTRADICT THE TEACHINGS OF THE IMAMS IN THE MOSQUES.
WHAT THE **** IS GOING ON . ARE WE REALLY GOING TO ALLOW RELIGIOUS BIGOTS TO CHANGE THE HISTORY OF EUROPE PURELY BECAUSE THEY DO NOT LIKE THE TRUTH.
Certainly i have known victims of the Holocaust and they have told me their stories. I had a good education which taught about the 2nd world war and its horrors. My father fought in the 2nd world war. i have read books seen documentaries etc regarding the holocaust. I know friends who have been to the Concentration camps as they had family memebers who had died in the camps.
So what are we to do.
Deal with these Grossly Prejudiced Religious Bigots and protect society from this abhorrent bogotry.?
Or not offend the sensibilities of these bigots as they rewrite history and impose their prejudice on the rest of us.
This religious prejudice and bigotry i find very scary and indeed frightening as the lengths these people will go to to impose their WILL and version of history on us is also frightening.
Regards david
Posted on: 04 April 2007 by bornwina
quote:Originally posted by Deane F:quote:Originally posted by bornwina:quote:
If you don't want your children to learn what is taught (or not taught) in schools - then you have several alternative choices.
Oh really, like what? A practical solution please.quote:
What role do we expect schools to take in homogenising our societies?
None - the job of school is to prepare children for life experiences and contribution to society not some wanky politico agenda - if that includes learning about the holocaust and the religeous or cultural beliefs of others then fine.
Preaching the holocaust should not be taught from the pulpit (or equivalent) is unacceptable, surely you agree?
bornwina
Nice tone. I'll (attempt to) answer in kind.
The job you want schools to perform is just another version of your own wanky politico agenda. You don't like discussion or questioning - you want facts and truth and you want children to grow up to be just like their parents.
A practical alternative exists. Read "Summerhill" or Google "Democratic Schooling".
Taking a wanky politico tone from your pulpit really doesn't work. Surely you agree?
Deane
Deane, you appear to have spat your dummy and taken it that it is your wanky politico agenga I object to - I'm not sure I've done that or that you have revealed what you consider to be the tenets on which the education of our young should be based, but if the cap fits please be my guest and wear it.
I Googled democratic education - a system where students do as they want for as long as they want. Are you suggesting this is a more sensible model for an education than, say, the British or NZ system? When I was 14 I'd have been on the school field smoking most of the time I suspect.
Do you think the history of the second world war and the Nazi treatment of jews is an appropriate topic of study for our young?
I'll ignore your unfounded allegations as to what I do or do not believe or 'like'
Posted on: 05 April 2007 by Deane F
bornwina
It is indeed a practical and workable alternative. Democratic schools in NZ are subject to Ministry inspection just like any other school - and seem to work extremely well for troublesome children. My partner's child went to a democratic school. She has just entered medical school after completing a science degree. The point is, children will not learn unless they are emotionally secure. About the only structure imposed at such schools is a method for children themselves to resolve their disputes with each other.
State schooling in this country is often simply cruel.
This thread is not about the Sho'ah or WWII. Why is it that you want to draw me into taking a position about how it is taught to children?
Deane
It is indeed a practical and workable alternative. Democratic schools in NZ are subject to Ministry inspection just like any other school - and seem to work extremely well for troublesome children. My partner's child went to a democratic school. She has just entered medical school after completing a science degree. The point is, children will not learn unless they are emotionally secure. About the only structure imposed at such schools is a method for children themselves to resolve their disputes with each other.
State schooling in this country is often simply cruel.
This thread is not about the Sho'ah or WWII. Why is it that you want to draw me into taking a position about how it is taught to children?
Deane
Posted on: 05 April 2007 by bornwina
quote:Originally posted by Deane F:
bornwina
It is indeed a practical and workable alternative. Democratic schools in NZ are subject to Ministry inspection just like any other school - and seem to work extremely well for troublesome children. My partner's child went to a democratic school. She has just entered medical school after completing a science degree. The point is, children will not learn unless they are emotionally secure. About the only structure imposed at such schools is a method for children themselves to resolve their disputes with each other.
Deane
Deane, I daresay such a system will have its winners and loosers - I suspect for every medical graduate there is a percentage of ex pupils who end up on a hippy commune (and there's nothing wrong with that per se).
My view is that a curriculum based educational system which sets out to prepare for life experience and a sense of society (in which I believe teaching of WW2 and its horrors) is sensible. Emotional security for the child is fine but they need to be prepared for the discipline that life demands and the knocks you have to take.
quote:This thread is not about the Sho'ah or WWII. Why is it that you want to draw me into taking a position about how it is taught to children?
Because I find it bewildering that anyone could find it difficult to agree this specific area a valuable topic of study and from what I can gather you seem to face this dificulty. I am interested to know why? Feel free to tell me to mind my own f**king business if you wish.
Posted on: 05 April 2007 by JamieWednesday
This is good. I like this one.
Posted on: 05 April 2007 by Deane F
quote:Originally posted by bornwina:
Because I find it bewildering that anyone could find it difficult to agree this specific area a valuable topic of study and from what I can gather you seem to face this dificulty. I am interested to know why? Feel free to tell me to mind my own f**king business if you wish.
Oh, I have no difficulty with agreeing that this specific area is a valuable topic of study.
I certainly believe it happened, too. Yad Vashem is keeping the memories of the dead alive so that they will not fade and disappear which is what their murderers intended.
The Holocaust was the result of two thousand years of christian anti-semitism. I'd certainly like to see that taught in schools.
Fat chance.
Deane
Posted on: 05 April 2007 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
quote:Originally posted by Deane F:
.
The Holocaust was the result of two thousand years of christian anti-semitism. I'd certainly like to see that taught in schools.
Fat chance.
Deane
Actually it was a result of the Nazi policy of End Losung. ( sp? )
You seem to have no problem with school curricula being amended so as to avoid the risk of offending some ethnic groups. The Holocaust was an unimaginably horrific event, it should be incumbent on the educational system to let future generations know what can happen, and what did.
I have the feeling that your geographical distance makes it hard for you to understand the horror of these events.
Posted on: 05 April 2007 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
quote:Originally posted by acad tsunami:
I know nothing of what Irving preaches. I know nothing of what any holocaust denier preaches
But you know that he is a Holocaust denier, as you link the two.
So you do know something of what he preaches; Holocaust denial.
Posted on: 05 April 2007 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
quote:Originally posted by Fredrik_Fiske:
Dear Mike,
Why?
"Anti-Jewish" is precise. "Anti-semite," when used for the same meaning as "Anti-Jewish" lacks precision, and may require a wasteful subsequent clarification.
Kindest regards from Fredrik
Hi Fredrik
Like I said, I feel uncomfortable in saying "anti Jew/Jewish". In general, "anti-Semitism" is used to describe hatred of Jews; even though strictly speaking its inaccurate. I really don't feel it requires clarification, its pretty clear what is meant, and I think most people would share my underatanding.
Regards
Mike
Posted on: 05 April 2007 by Deane F
quote:Originally posted by mike lacey:
Actually it was a result of the Nazi policy of End Losung. ( sp? )
Oh really? And this Nazi policy just came out of nowhere?
quote:You seem to have no problem with school curricula being amended so as to avoid the risk of offending some ethnic groups.
You get this from what? The fact that I haven't made a statement in support of the thread starter? Draw whatever inferences you like.
quote:The Holocaust was an unimaginably horrific event, it should be incumbent on the educational system to let future generations know what can happen, and what did.
What can happen, what did, and why. An educational system should also encourage discussion and variance of opinion.
quote:I have the feeling that your geographical distance makes it hard for you to understand the horror of these events.
Are you celebrating Pesach, Mike? Ever set foot in a Shul? Touched a Scroll? Worn a yarmulke? Contemplated studying for four years to convert to Judaism. Contemplated adult circumcision? Thought about the consequences of taking up rights under the Law of Return and being called into the Israeli military? Your feeling that I have somehow completely missed the Sho'ah along my path due to my geographical location would be laughable if it wasn't so tiresomely typical.
Deane
Posted on: 05 April 2007 by bornwina
quote:Originally posted by Deane F:
Oh, I have no difficulty with agreeing that this specific area is a valuable topic of study.
Deane
Deane
So glad you've cleared that up. Would you agree with me also then that those that oppose or take action against its teaching should not be tolerated or appeased?
Posted on: 05 April 2007 by u5227470736789439
quote:Originally posted by mike lacey:
Hi Fredrik
Like I said, I feel uncomfortable in saying "anti Jew/Jewish". In general, "anti-Semitism" is used to describe hatred of Jews; even though strictly speaking its inaccurate. I really don't feel it requires clarification, its pretty clear what is meant, and I think most people would share my underatanding.
Regards
Mike
Dear Mike,
That an imprecise statemen seems pretty clear to you and [you think] most people is the kind slack abuse of the languade, which someone in authority and finance should avoid. If everyone just abused the language like this nothing would mean anything it was meant to in time, and we would be left with nothing that was common in meaning as we could say anything simply meant what we want it to!
I am surprised that a ex-military gentlemen should struggle with correct and precise usage of the English Language, let alone an advisor on finance.
Kindest regards from Fredrik
Posted on: 05 April 2007 by bornwina
quote:
Dear Mike,
That an imprecise statemen seems pretty clear to you and [you think] most people is the kind slack abuse of the languade, which someone in authority and finance should avoid. If everyone just abused the language like this nothing would mean anything it was meant to in time, and we would be left with nothing that was common in meaning as we could say anything simply meant what we want it to!
Seems a little pedantic Fredrik. Just carried out a straw poll at work as to the meaning of anti-semitism - every person said anti-jew, therefore anti-semitic could be said now to meen anti-jew and to blur its meaning within a debate seems pointless to me.
Posted on: 05 April 2007 by JamieWednesday
So, what should be taught in the schools then?
Posted on: 05 April 2007 by Paul Ranson
quote:The Holocaust was the result of two thousand years of christian anti-semitism.
I don't think that is a sustainable argument.
quote:I'd certainly like to see that taught in schools.
Clearly the Holocaust should be taught in the context of some general Jewish history, especially in Europe.
Personally I don't see much point in detailed curricula, I was never taught WW2 at school, perhaps because it was relatively recent history. But you find out about it because you read stuff. And that's really, really easy today. Check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Solution and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pale_of_Settlement : instant education with access to original sources. I had to make do with Catch 22, The Colditz Story and the Dambusters.
Paul
Posted on: 05 April 2007 by JamieWednesday
Oh yes please put Catch 22 into the curriculum. Imagine the fun in todays 13 year olds trying to explain that one. I mean, like, whatever...And then there's Guy Gibson's dog Nigga. Historical context see..?
Posted on: 05 April 2007 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
Fredrik
Looks to me like I've dome something to upset you, as I cannot think of any reason why you are persisting here.
For the third time now, I feel uncomfortable with the phrases "anti Jew/Jewish", so I avoid using those phrases whenever I can.
I hope that is clear enough.
Regards
Mike
Looks to me like I've dome something to upset you, as I cannot think of any reason why you are persisting here.
For the third time now, I feel uncomfortable with the phrases "anti Jew/Jewish", so I avoid using those phrases whenever I can.
I hope that is clear enough.
Regards
Mike
Posted on: 05 April 2007 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
quote:Originally posted by Deane F:
Are you celebrating Pesach, Mike? Ever set foot in a Shul? Touched a Scroll? Worn a yarmulke? Contemplated studying for four years to convert to Judaism. Contemplated adult circumcision? Thought about the consequences of taking up rights under the Law of Return and being called into the Israeli military?
I'm sure that we are all very impressed at this list; are you implying that I cannot view the Holocaust as horrific because you think I'm a Goy Boy, ot that only the Chosen can comment on this issue?
quote:Your feeling that I have somehow completely missed the Sho'ah along my path due to my geographical location would be laughable if it wasn't so tiresomely typical.
Deane
Wrong, its based on what I see as your view that it is no big deal that this subject is being removed from the syllabus of some schools in the UK.
So, on the one hand I'm not Jewish enough, on the other I'm worrying about the Holocaust too much.
Dichotomy? I look forward to your clarifications
Perhaps you would also expand on why my thoughts are "tiresomely typical".
10/10 for Hutzpah, btw.
Posted on: 05 April 2007 by TomK
quote:Originally posted by Fredrik_Fiske:
Mike Lacey wrote:
"I think its fair to say that in common parlance, anti-Semitism refers specifically to hatred of Jews.
"To suggest otherwise, while accurate in point of fact is disigenuous.
"I used the phrase "anti Semitic" as I feel uncomfortable saying "anti Jew/Jewish."
End of quotation.
______________
Dear Mike,
Why?
"Anti-Jewish" is precise. "Anti-semite," when used for the same meaning as "Anti-Jewish" lacks precision, and may require a wasteful subsequent clarification.
Kindest regards from Fredrik
Check any dictionary including the OED and you'll see that anti-Semitism refers specifically to Jews.
Posted on: 05 April 2007 by u5227470736789439
Dear Mike,
I am not particualrly pron to "pedantry" but I do regard precision of usage to be important when it comes to this particular issue, because people who want to divert the debate away from the real issue then have a red herring to chase, and muddy the waters on the real issue!
I think you know exactly where I stand on the isuue of "Anti-Jweish" attitudes and I condemn it!
In fact I condemn anything that encourages any "anti-" response at all. This is why I disapprove of any move towards segrgated education for one example. But I certainly think it should be discussed and examined fully, and not least in the History class room nowadays.
Kindest regards from Fredrik
I am not particualrly pron to "pedantry" but I do regard precision of usage to be important when it comes to this particular issue, because people who want to divert the debate away from the real issue then have a red herring to chase, and muddy the waters on the real issue!
I think you know exactly where I stand on the isuue of "Anti-Jweish" attitudes and I condemn it!
In fact I condemn anything that encourages any "anti-" response at all. This is why I disapprove of any move towards segrgated education for one example. But I certainly think it should be discussed and examined fully, and not least in the History class room nowadays.
Kindest regards from Fredrik
Posted on: 05 April 2007 by u5227470736789439
Dear TomK,
So the OED is different from other Oxford Dictionaries:
Originally posted by Fredrik Fiske earlier in the Thread:
Semite: noun and adjective. Member of any of the races supposed to be descended from Shem [Genisis x.20 and following] including especially the Hebrews, Arameans, Phoenicians, Arabs, and Assyrians... Extract from the Concise Oxford Dictionary.
ATB from Fredrik
So the OED is different from other Oxford Dictionaries:
Originally posted by Fredrik Fiske earlier in the Thread:
Semite: noun and adjective. Member of any of the races supposed to be descended from Shem [Genisis x.20 and following] including especially the Hebrews, Arameans, Phoenicians, Arabs, and Assyrians... Extract from the Concise Oxford Dictionary.
ATB from Fredrik
Posted on: 05 April 2007 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
quote:Originally posted by Fredrik_Fiske:
Dear Mike,
I am not particualrly pron to "pedantry" but I do regard precision of usage to be important when it comes to this particular issue, because people who want to divert the debate away from the real issue then have a red herring to chase, and muddy the waters on the real issue!
We'll have to agree to differ here Fredrik - but a quick question for you - "The Dambusters" is going to be remade; would you feel happy if Guy Gibsons dog retains his original name - to ensure "precision of usage?"
Posted on: 05 April 2007 by TomK
quote:Originally posted by Fredrik_Fiske:
Dear TomK,
So the OED is different from other Oxford Dictionaries:
Originally posted by Fredrik Fiske earlier in the Thread:
Semite: noun and adjective. Member of any of the races supposed to be descended from Shem [Genisis x.20 and following] including especially the Hebrews, Arameans, Phoenicians, Arabs, and Assyrians... Extract from the Concise Oxford Dictionary.
ATB from Fredrik
Check anti-semitic in the same dictionary. Trust me. I've been in the same discussion before and I started off under the same impression as you but it only took about 5 minutes to refer to several dictionaries (on-line and regular) and find out that "anti-semitic" is not just "semitic" with anti stuck in front. It refers specifically to Jews.
Posted on: 05 April 2007 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
Even Wikipedia agress, Tomk.
Posted on: 05 April 2007 by acad tsunami
quote:Originally posted by bornwina:
[QUOTE]
Seems a little pedantic Fredrik. Just carried out a straw poll at work as to the meaning of anti-semitism - every person said anti-jew, therefore anti-semitic could be said now to meen anti-jew and to blur its meaning within a debate seems pointless to me.
Bornwina,
The fact that a majority of poorly educated people use a term incorrectly is no reason to dumb down and join in now is it?
There is good reason to insist on the correct meaning which has nothing to do with pedantry and that reason is to show that Semites such as Jews and Arabs share a common ancestry. They have lived in peace before and I hope they will live in peace again.
Posted on: 05 April 2007 by TomK
quote:Originally posted by mike lacey:
Even Wikipedia agress, Tomk.
It's good for a pub argument as there's always some smart alec who starts spouting what semitic means (as if nobody else knows!) therefore anti-semitic must mean etc etc. A good case for requiring pubs to have to have a supply of dictionaries available to sort things out before they get too heated!
Anyway this is diverting from the real discussion.