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: 05 April 2007 by JamieWednesday
quote:Anyway this is diverting from the real discussion.
Yep. So what should we teach?
Posted on: 05 April 2007 by acad tsunami
Online dictionaries are a very poor source of definitions - especially as many are American definitions. The Wikepedia entry is probably written by Jews and will eventually be contested. There are whole paragraphs in which the authors try to fudge the issue of semtitic (Jew and Arabs) and anti-semitic (jews only)as if only jews and not semites in general are prejudiced against. Fredrik is correct.
Posted on: 05 April 2007 by u5227470736789439
Dear Mike,
[On the use of the name of Guy Gibson's dog in a new film of the Dambusters]
Yes, but I doubt if it will.
The reason is that the use of the original name is not in the historical context offensive, so much as a reflection of the attitudes of a different time. If people are choosing to take offense, it is not one which is intended.
One of the benefits of this might be that the subsequent discussions might be that such a name probably would certainly be seen as offensive today, as times have changed, and in this respect for the better, now that we load such words with new meanings, and shades of meaning.
Are we allowed to mention the little promotional offers on Robertsons Jam and Marmalade, which have quietly and probably rightly by now been dropped, in their historical context?
The thing about History is it shows up how times have changed. Smoothing away these changes is far more dangerous in my view than confronting them and contextualising them.
Ultimately is this not exactly the topic of this thread? Given how horrible and unacceptable is even a lot of "Twentieth Century History" if, for example, if dicussing "Anti-Jewish" politics is not acceptable then the issues will not be popularly understood, and the risks of it all happening again increase, and not just against one group or another. Any racial or religeous group could be demonised in the same way, if the general public does not posess an understanding of the evils that can result. An knowledge of history is one guardian against this...
Kindest regards from Fredrik
[On the use of the name of Guy Gibson's dog in a new film of the Dambusters]
Yes, but I doubt if it will.
The reason is that the use of the original name is not in the historical context offensive, so much as a reflection of the attitudes of a different time. If people are choosing to take offense, it is not one which is intended.
One of the benefits of this might be that the subsequent discussions might be that such a name probably would certainly be seen as offensive today, as times have changed, and in this respect for the better, now that we load such words with new meanings, and shades of meaning.
Are we allowed to mention the little promotional offers on Robertsons Jam and Marmalade, which have quietly and probably rightly by now been dropped, in their historical context?
The thing about History is it shows up how times have changed. Smoothing away these changes is far more dangerous in my view than confronting them and contextualising them.
Ultimately is this not exactly the topic of this thread? Given how horrible and unacceptable is even a lot of "Twentieth Century History" if, for example, if dicussing "Anti-Jewish" politics is not acceptable then the issues will not be popularly understood, and the risks of it all happening again increase, and not just against one group or another. Any racial or religeous group could be demonised in the same way, if the general public does not posess an understanding of the evils that can result. An knowledge of history is one guardian against this...
Kindest regards from Fredrik
Posted on: 05 April 2007 by u5227470736789439
Dear TomK,
On-line [Wikipedia], or Oxford? Which would you choose for accuracy?
I see which one you choose for a debate, but that is not the question!
Kindest regards from Fredrik
On-line [Wikipedia], or Oxford? Which would you choose for accuracy?
I see which one you choose for a debate, but that is not the question!
Kindest regards from Fredrik
Posted on: 05 April 2007 by TomK
quote:Originally posted by acad tsunami:
Online dictionaries are a very poor source of definitions - especially as many are American definitions. The Wikepedia entry is probably written by Jews and will eventually be contested. Fredrik is correct.
Sorry but you should check your facts before making such statements. I'm not just talking about online dictionaries. EVERY dictionary I've checked has defined this as being specifically anti-Jewish, and it's been that way since the end of the 19th century. My humble Collins New English Dictionary has "wide spread outburst of hatred against members of the Jewish race leading to persecution and spoliation".
You and Frederik are wrong. The OED is correct.
Posted on: 05 April 2007 by u5227470736789439
Tomk,
Are you suggesting I made that up? Are you calling me a liar?
Please advise. Sincerely, Fredrik
Are you suggesting I made that up? Are you calling me a liar?
Please advise. Sincerely, Fredrik
Posted on: 05 April 2007 by TomK
quote:Originally posted by Fredrik_Fiske:
Dear TomK,
On-line [Wikipedia], or Oxford? Which would you choose for accuracy?
I see which one you choose for a debate, but that is not the question!
Kindest regards from Fredrik
Frederik FFS look up the correct word which is "anti-semitism". You'll note that I deliberately didn't refer to Wikipedia, prefering the more reliable OED which clearly defines anti-semitism as "anti-Jew".
Live in ignorance if you want. There's nothing more amusing than an ill-informed pedant.
Posted on: 05 April 2007 by acad tsunami
quote:Originally posted by mike lacey:
[QUOTE]
"The Dambusters" is going to be remade; would you feel happy if Guy Gibsons dog retains his original name - to ensure "precision of usage?"
Oh dear, will it be the Americans designing the bomb and flying the mission?
When the Dumbusters was shown on tv recently there was a voice over and the dog's name was changed to something like blackie.
Posted on: 05 April 2007 by acad tsunami
quote:Originally posted by TomK:
[QUOTE]
There's nothing more amusing than an ill-informed pedant.
On a point of pedantry I must point out that Billy Connelly is more amusing than an ill-informed pedant.
Posted on: 05 April 2007 by bornwina
quote:
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.
Well I was one of them and I wouldn't describe myself as poorly educated. My point is that nearly everyone in my experience views the term anti-semitic as anti-jewish - why are we getting hung up on terminology when the points of reference within this debate are not correct use of language but points of principal?
Posted on: 05 April 2007 by acad tsunami
quote:Originally posted by bornwina:quote:
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.
Well I was one of them and I wouldn't describe myself as poorly educated. My point is that nearly everyone in my experience views the term anti-semitic as anti-jewish - why are we getting hung up on terminology when the points of reference within this debate are not correct use of language but points of principal?
To answer you very valid question I must refer you to my answer which you quote above - Jews and Arabs share a common ancestry and they would do well to recognise this and embrace it and each other.
Posted on: 05 April 2007 by TomK
quote:Originally posted by acad tsunami:quote:Originally posted by TomK:
[QUOTE]
There's nothing more amusing than an ill-informed pedant.
On a point of pedantry I must point out that Billy Connelly is more amusing than an ill-informed pedant.
There are few things more amusing than an ill-informed pedant.
Posted on: 05 April 2007 by TomK
quote:Originally posted by bornwina:quote:
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.
Well I was one of them and I wouldn't describe myself as poorly educated. My point is that nearly everyone in my experience views the term anti-semitic as anti-jewish - why are we getting hung up on terminology when the points of reference within this debate are not correct use of language but points of principal?
You're right. We're getting hung up on terminology which is especially idiotic when the whole thing can be cleared up by looking up the correct word (i.e "anti-semitic") in a dictionary.
Posted on: 05 April 2007 by JamieWednesday
I agree. It's action that counts, not words, and we need action now.
COMMANDOS:
Hear! Hear!
REG:
You're right. We could sit around here all day talking, passing resolutions, making clever speeches. It's not going to shift one Roman soldier!
FRANCIS:
So, let's just stop gabbing on about it. It's completely pointless and it's getting us nowhere!
COMMANDOS:
Right!
LORETTA:
I agree. This is a complete waste of time.
[bam]
JUDITH:
They've arrested Brian!
REG:
What?
COMMANDOS:
What?
JUDITH:
They've dragged him off! They're going to crucify him!
REG:
Right! This calls for immediate discussion!
COMMANDO #1:
Yeah.
JUDITH:
What?!
COMMANDO #2:
Immediate.
COMMANDO #1:
Right.
LORETTA:
New motion?
REG:
Completely new motion, eh, that, ah-- that there be, ah, immediate action--
FRANCIS:
Ah, once the vote has been taken.
REG:
Well, obviously once the vote's been taken. You can't act another resolution till you've voted on it...
JUDITH:
Reg, for God's sake, let's go now!
REG:
Yeah. Yeah.
JUDITH:
Please!
REG:
Right. Right.
FRANCIS:
Fine.
REG:
In the-- in the light of fresh information from, ahh, sibling Judith--
LORETTA:
Ah, not so fast, Reg.
JUDITH:
Reg, for God's sake, it's perfectly simple. All you've got to do is to go out of that door now, and try to stop the Romans' nailing him up! It's happening, Reg! Something's actually happening, Reg! Can't you understand?! Ohhh!
[slam]
REG:
Hm. Hm.
FRANCIS:
Oh, dear.
REG:
Hello. Another little ego trip for the feminists.
LORETTA:
What?
FRANCIS:
[whistling]
REG:
Oh, sorry, Loretta. Ahh, oh, read that back, would you?
COMMANDOS:
Hear! Hear!
REG:
You're right. We could sit around here all day talking, passing resolutions, making clever speeches. It's not going to shift one Roman soldier!
FRANCIS:
So, let's just stop gabbing on about it. It's completely pointless and it's getting us nowhere!
COMMANDOS:
Right!
LORETTA:
I agree. This is a complete waste of time.
[bam]
JUDITH:
They've arrested Brian!
REG:
What?
COMMANDOS:
What?
JUDITH:
They've dragged him off! They're going to crucify him!
REG:
Right! This calls for immediate discussion!
COMMANDO #1:
Yeah.
JUDITH:
What?!
COMMANDO #2:
Immediate.
COMMANDO #1:
Right.
LORETTA:
New motion?
REG:
Completely new motion, eh, that, ah-- that there be, ah, immediate action--
FRANCIS:
Ah, once the vote has been taken.
REG:
Well, obviously once the vote's been taken. You can't act another resolution till you've voted on it...
JUDITH:
Reg, for God's sake, let's go now!
REG:
Yeah. Yeah.
JUDITH:
Please!
REG:
Right. Right.
FRANCIS:
Fine.
REG:
In the-- in the light of fresh information from, ahh, sibling Judith--
LORETTA:
Ah, not so fast, Reg.
JUDITH:
Reg, for God's sake, it's perfectly simple. All you've got to do is to go out of that door now, and try to stop the Romans' nailing him up! It's happening, Reg! Something's actually happening, Reg! Can't you understand?! Ohhh!
[slam]
REG:
Hm. Hm.
FRANCIS:
Oh, dear.
REG:
Hello. Another little ego trip for the feminists.
LORETTA:
What?
FRANCIS:
[whistling]
REG:
Oh, sorry, Loretta. Ahh, oh, read that back, would you?
Posted on: 05 April 2007 by u5227470736789439
Dear TomK,
Then I would say that the Dictionary has at least a "questionable" view of the definition of Anti-semite! Fox-hunter, someone hunts foxes. Anti-fox-hunter, some one who opposes this action!
Interestingly the issue was brought to my attention by a Cambridge English professor in a debate on Anti-sematism! I think I would take his word over yours to be honest as it was offered a a way of being totally "precise" when I was taking a line in debate [futunately for me] aginst Anti-Jewish politics in the Twentieth century! I was criticised for useing the word Semite.
So whilst you have it in print so do I, which might tell you something about the existence of the "absolute truth," and believing everything you see in print, whatever the source.
I think the real meaning of Semite is useful in another direction. It points up the common ancestry of the middle eastern ethnic group, who once presumably had no more than average familly tiffs! That should the aim once more!
Kindest regards from Fredrik
Then I would say that the Dictionary has at least a "questionable" view of the definition of Anti-semite! Fox-hunter, someone hunts foxes. Anti-fox-hunter, some one who opposes this action!
Interestingly the issue was brought to my attention by a Cambridge English professor in a debate on Anti-sematism! I think I would take his word over yours to be honest as it was offered a a way of being totally "precise" when I was taking a line in debate [futunately for me] aginst Anti-Jewish politics in the Twentieth century! I was criticised for useing the word Semite.
So whilst you have it in print so do I, which might tell you something about the existence of the "absolute truth," and believing everything you see in print, whatever the source.
I think the real meaning of Semite is useful in another direction. It points up the common ancestry of the middle eastern ethnic group, who once presumably had no more than average familly tiffs! That should the aim once more!
Kindest regards from Fredrik
Posted on: 05 April 2007 by Nigel Cavendish
But we could, if we so wished, agree that anti-semite in practically all common usage means anti-Jew.
Unless individuals have some particular reason for insisting on some other definition?
Unless individuals have some particular reason for insisting on some other definition?
Posted on: 05 April 2007 by u5227470736789439
Dear Nigel,
The professor's point was there is a potential for missing the meaning, and he advised the use of "Anti-Jewish" as being completely without any dounbt as to its meaning.
ATB from Fredrik
The professor's point was there is a potential for missing the meaning, and he advised the use of "Anti-Jewish" as being completely without any dounbt as to its meaning.
ATB from Fredrik
Posted on: 05 April 2007 by TomK
quote:Originally posted by Fredrik_Fiske:
Dear TomK,
Then I would say that the Dictionary has at least a "questionable" view of the definition of Anti-semite! Fox-hunter, someone hunts foxes. Anti-fox-hunter, some one who opposes this action!
Interestingly the issue was brought to my attention by a Cambridge English professor in a debate on Anti-sematism! I think I would take his word over yours to be honest as it was offered a a way of being totally "precise" when I was taking a line in debate [futunately for me] aginst Anti-Jewish politics in the Twentieth century! I was criticised for useing the word Semite.
So whilst you have it in print so do I, which might tell you something about the existence of the "absolute truth," and believing everything you see in print, whatever the source.
I think the real meaning of Semite is useful in another direction. It points up the common ancestry of the middle eastern ethnic group, who once presumably had no more than average familly tiffs! That should the aim once more!
Kindest regards from Fredrik
" think I would take his word over yours to be honest ". You're not taking my word. Do you think I just made all this up? What you mean here is that you're taking his word over the OED. Jeez. None so blind as those who will not see. Live in your own little pig-headed world if you want but it doesn't change the fact that "anti-semitic" means "anti-Jewish". Take it up with the editors of the OED if you feel they're wrong.
Posted on: 05 April 2007 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
Frefrik
Really, you have made your point; Erik agrees with you, most of the rest of the posters here do not.
Even Nigel and I agree here; any chance you could let this one drop as the original issues are being clouded by what some might view as your pedantry.
Regards
Mike
Really, you have made your point; Erik agrees with you, most of the rest of the posters here do not.
Even Nigel and I agree here; any chance you could let this one drop as the original issues are being clouded by what some might view as your pedantry.
Regards
Mike
Posted on: 05 April 2007 by u5227470736789439
Dear Mike,
Last word on it, I promise.
Did you see my post about the Dambusters? It is a valid contribution I think, though again it is something I am sure the PC brigade will disapprove of!
ATB from Fredrik
PS: I also made a point [for BB] about segregated education, which is valid. I am not asking you to answer these things, but rather pointing out that I have an interest in the subject, and a view. I also posted a link to my old Majdanek Thread, which is pertinent...
Last word on it, I promise.
Did you see my post about the Dambusters? It is a valid contribution I think, though again it is something I am sure the PC brigade will disapprove of!
ATB from Fredrik
PS: I also made a point [for BB] about segregated education, which is valid. I am not asking you to answer these things, but rather pointing out that I have an interest in the subject, and a view. I also posted a link to my old Majdanek Thread, which is pertinent...
Posted on: 05 April 2007 by acad tsunami
quote:Originally posted by TomK:quote:Originally posted by Fredrik_Fiske:
Dear TomK,
Then I would say that the Dictionary has at least a "questionable" view of the definition of Anti-semite! Fox-hunter, someone hunts foxes. Anti-fox-hunter, some one who opposes this action!
Interestingly the issue was brought to my attention by a Cambridge English professor in a debate on Anti-sematism! I think I would take his word over yours to be honest as it was offered a a way of being totally "precise" when I was taking a line in debate [futunately for me] aginst Anti-Jewish politics in the Twentieth century! I was criticised for useing the word Semite.
So whilst you have it in print so do I, which might tell you something about the existence of the "absolute truth," and believing everything you see in print, whatever the source.
I think the real meaning of Semite is useful in another direction. It points up the common ancestry of the middle eastern ethnic group, who once presumably had no more than average familly tiffs! That should the aim once more!
Kindest regards from Fredrik
" think I would take his word over yours to be honest ". You're not taking my word. Do you think I just made all this up? What you mean here is that you're taking his word over the OED. Jeez. None so blind as those who will not see. Live in your own little pig-headed world if you want but it doesn't change the fact that "anti-semitic" means "anti-Jewish". Take it up with the editors of the OED if you feel they're wrong.
Language is plastic - it changes over time. The term anti-semitic IS commonly used to mean anti-jewish and the OED may have changed the definition in line with common usage but the original and correct meaning is as Fredrik said. I agree with Fredrik that 'anti-jewish' leaves no doubt as to the meaning. It is the Jews themselves and those who support them at the expense of Arabs whose interest it is to separate them from their Arab brothers and use the term anti-semitic in its new (debatable) narrow meaning. I don't agree that the term anti-semitic should be hi-jacked by one group of Semites for political reasons - the justification, in part, of Zionism. Semites are unquestionably both Jews and Arabs thus the term anti-semitic is anti Jew and anti Arab. I rest my case. Time to move on.
Posted on: 05 April 2007 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
Can anyone - ANYONE- show me a single instance of the words "anti-Semitic" being used to indicate anti-Arab hostility? Or anything other than "anti-Jew/Jewish"?
Posted on: 05 April 2007 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
quote:Originally posted by acad tsunami:
It is the Jews themselves and those who support them at the expense of Arabs whose interest it is to separate them from their Arab brothers and use the term anti-semitic in its new (debatable) narrow meaning. I don't agree that the term anti-semitic should be hi-jacked by one group of Semites for political reasons
Hmmmm....
Posted on: 05 April 2007 by u5227470736789439
Dear Mike,
Sometimes in a debate it is crucial to define terms for it to be meaningful. Therefore a degree of over-engineering in "precision of usage of language" can be useful and the old professor was right enough in his advice, especially in print.
On the other hand you asked me to stop mentioning it, so I shall not - though I will say I cannot answer you request positively in the printed form!
The odd thing is that if we were face to face we would have cleared this up in thirty seconds as to definitions. No you have not offended me in this as you suggested may have been the case earlier.
To get back to the topic, perhaps you would care to look at my answer to you question to me about the new Dambusters film even if you keave out what I have written elsewhere, though those contributions have found no answers from anyone else here, which is a shame as they are valid debating points.
Kindest regards from Fredrik
Sometimes in a debate it is crucial to define terms for it to be meaningful. Therefore a degree of over-engineering in "precision of usage of language" can be useful and the old professor was right enough in his advice, especially in print.
On the other hand you asked me to stop mentioning it, so I shall not - though I will say I cannot answer you request positively in the printed form!
The odd thing is that if we were face to face we would have cleared this up in thirty seconds as to definitions. No you have not offended me in this as you suggested may have been the case earlier.
To get back to the topic, perhaps you would care to look at my answer to you question to me about the new Dambusters film even if you keave out what I have written elsewhere, though those contributions have found no answers from anyone else here, which is a shame as they are valid debating points.
Kindest regards from Fredrik
Posted on: 05 April 2007 by Don Atkinson
quote:Jews and Arabs share a common ancestry and they would do well to recognise this and embrace it and each other.
The whole human race (probably) shares a common ancestry and would do well to recognise this. It can't be much more than 75,000 years since the first of our (probable) ancestors decided to leave Africa.
Cheers
Don