History teachers drop Holocaust & Crusades

[Tousi]

I get what you are saying Wuka but your apparent lack of concern over the issue tells me maybe you're saying, "...just drop it, let it go, we can't do anything about it", etc......Is this what you're saying or not?

 

[Reba]

How many atrocities are listed in the Bible that hasn't happened again?

Just because people remember does not mean it won't happen again.

That's besides the point, really.

I believe the teachers have made a choice to teach the children what they can rather than distract the students (and their communities) with a whole other agenda.

What other "distracting" topics should be dropped from the curriculum?

Slavery?

All wars?

Current events?

Economics?

Maybe we should skip history lessons completely.

 

[Foxrac]

The British department of education is bowing to increasing influence from its growing foreign population.


One in five babies born to foreign mother in UK - Telegraph

Yup, that's true about growing muslim population in Europe, also same with USA but Europe seems alot more.

 

[Wokamuka]

I'm saying that the article unfairly puts the teachers in the spot. This battle is between the School Board and the Parents. Funny, the article failed to put them in the spotlight.

Really, my K-12 studies never covered the Crusades. Are you guys really that upset that a country has stopped talking about the Crusades?

The British people are no stranger to the Holocaust. They've fought in the same war as the other allies. The same people who fought the wars and witnessed the concentration camps . . . it's their children teaching and their grandchildren going to school. Nobody's forgotten anything.

Just the same, this is an issue for the School Board and the Parents. The teachers, as a posting somewhere in here explained, were simply pawns thrown into the spotlight.

The teachers, clearly, have remained loyal to their purpose: to teach what they can. Controversial issues have their right in colleges/universities. In the public school, I'd rather that kid know his mathematics and grammar so that he can give me my change at McDonald's or Tesco's.

I can assure you, the British are no strangers to immigrants, especially the Pakis (a.k.a. "wogs"). I've visited Bradford . . . and that's more than enough for me.

I'd be more than happy to fill in the blanks with my child where the teacher hasn't covered. As many of you can note, the article did not say that the teachers were teaching an altered version of history. They were just not talking about it.

You fill in the blanks . . . or could many parents?

 

[Nomad]

We separate religion from government and this is our way of thinking. The muslims' way of thinking is the government and religion are intertwined. That is why, to them, Islamic governement is a must. I don't like this way of thinking and prefer to see religion out of the government the way the founding fathers intended.

Agreed

 

[Reba]

I'm saying that the article unfairly puts the teachers in the spot. This battle is between the School Board and the Parents. Funny, the article failed to put them in the spotlight.

Yes, it would be interesting to get the whole story.

Really, my K-12 studies never covered the Crusades.

Really? My public school education covered that. It was part of European history, and it was also influential in literature, architecture, and art. Did you even read Robin Hood?

Are you guys really that upset that a country has stopped talking about the Crusades?

It was a big influential chunk of history, and it is upsetting if parts of history are cut out of curriculum for reasons of political "sensitivity."

The British people are no stranger to the Holocaust. They've fought in the same war as the other allies. The same people who fought the wars and witnessed the concentration camps . . . it's their children teaching and their grandchildren going to school. Nobody's forgotten anything.

And what happens when the WWII generation dies out?

The teachers, clearly, have remained loyal to their purpose: to teach what they can. Controversial issues have their right in colleges/universities. In the public school, I'd rather that kid know his mathematics and grammar so that he can give me my change at McDonald's or Tesco's.

How can young adults become informed citizens without being taught history, and without learning about the political process? Not everyone goes on to college, and most people become voting age before they graduate from college.

I'd be more than happy to fill in the blanks with my child where the teacher hasn't covered.

Do you also "fill in the blanks" for all their other subjects? Do you feel you are getting your money's worth if there are a lot of "blanks" in your child's education?

As many of you can note, the article did not say that the teachers were teaching an altered version of history. They were just not talking about it.

Leaving out important events in history is altering the story.

 

[jillio]

Leaving out important events in history is altering the story.[/QUOTE]

Absolutely. It is called lying by ommission. Still dishonest by any other name.

 

[Defmusicman]

Why are the Muslims offended by the teaching of the Holocaust as historical fact? They had nothing to do with it even though there's no love lost between them and the Jewish people. It was Adolf Hitler's "Final Solution" that resulted in the Holocaust. We cannot have religious groups dictating what is taught or not taught in public schools. Especially where history is concerned. The Muslims are free to set up their own schools in Britian and teach their own warped view of world history.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

:jaw: speechless!!!

The students have the right to know about history... Those history should NEVER deny!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Wokamuka]

Really? My public school education covered that. It was part of European history, and it was also influential in literature, architecture, and art. Did you even read Robin Hood?

I shouldn't have said that my K-12 studies never covered the Crusades. It did. We also covered more than 3,500 years of human history. The Crusades were but a blip.

If I remember the Crusades for anything, it would definitely be three things: 1) get the Arabs out of the Iberian peninsula, 2) the Pope sending children to fight Arabian men with swords, and 3) men would go down to sack and pillage villages/towns, bring the loot home, and retire on the gold looted (all this under the banner of religion & Jerusalem - which, obviously, really was just a rallying point). In fact, during this time, Christian and Muslim kingdoms allied together to fight another Christian/Muslim kingdom. The Crusades also brought about Christians killing Christians for not being Christian enough.

The period of the Crusades were influential in literature, architecture, and art? All culture is relative. No more than the Lydian's contribution to the world.

Robin Hood and the Crusades? Robin Hood (as many other stories and songs) was a story carried throughout human history . . . different places, names, and time - same plot (like the flood story). I've read the ballad, story, watched a musical, movies, movie remakes (and the comedy "Men in Tights"), and, well, it's a fictional account that rarely (if at all) mentions the Crusades.

It was a big influential chunk of history, and it is upsetting if parts of history are cut out of curriculum for reasons of political "sensitivity."

That's what the "government study" said. As we have already agreed, the whole story is not there. It should be obvious to anyone that the underlying theme of the Crusades and Holocaust is religion. Keep religion in their respective places of worship; keep education in schools. Furthermore, this "government study" has not specified what the local Mosques disagreed about.

And what happens when the WWII generation dies out?

It will go the way all wars, massacres, civilizations, and eras will go: a paragraph or two within an overall history. Who's to say that many other battles & wars aren't important enough to rant and rave about?

The Holocaust is not the only thing that happened in World War II. The Holocaust was not even the reason why World War II happened. (Trust me, the Jews won't forget and with so much documentation and museums throughout Europe and North America, it'll not be forgotten.)

Who's to say that Europe is just about the Crusades? Again, I honestly don't know what these mysterious "mosques" disagree with. I know that, obviously, there are two sides to a story . . . why not teach them both? Perhaps, that's the next step for Crusades-related curriculum. Until then, teaching one side is like a one-wheel bicycle.

How can young adults become informed citizens without being taught history, and without learning about the political process? Not everyone goes on to college, and most people become voting age before they graduate from college.

I fail to see how the knowledge of the Crusades and the Holocaust would help a young adult navigate the political process. You cannot force feed history to those who have no motivation (or who have emotional distaste) to learn. If they have the motivation to learn history, they'll dig it up, ask their parents, or ask their religious leader(s).

An informed citizenship does not happen in a classroom - or lack thereof. An informed citizenship comes from an active community.

Do you also "fill in the blanks" for all their other subjects? Do you feel you are getting your money's worth if there are a lot of "blanks" in your child's education?

I get the feeling that my parents were unusual in supervising my education. They were never trusting of any school system to sufficiently teach me. They were well aware that most people are resistant to helping public schools receive the resources they need (no to increased taxation while greater demands on public educators). In fact, I would find it surprising that a school says that they have too much money.

At any rate, my parents encouraged education at school and at home. Without one or the other, you miss out. Likewise, the teachers within the British school system could teach many, many other important things rather than risk disrupting class over two points in history.

Leaving out important events in history is altering the story.

What is important to you may not be important to me. If anything, that argument sounds exactly like those who argued that the public school system should teach one religion's version of how the earth was created and the origin of Man.


Just the same, this was a horrible accusatory article , leaving much room for emotional speculation. Too much finger pointing at the educators and the "local mosques."

 

[Tousi]

Leaving out important events in history is altering the story.

Absolutely. It is called lying by ommission. Still dishonest by any other name.[/QUOTE]

And the sick thing about this omission is that it's a commisionable act, lol. Is that evan a word? lol...

 

[jillio]

Absolutely. It is called lying by ommission. Still dishonest by any other name.

And the sick thing about this omission is that it's a commisionable act, lol. Is that evan a word? lol...[/QUOTE]

Yeppers, its a word. And I agree!

 

[Wokamuka]

There is no omission here, folks.

All parties are familiar with the Crusades . . . they just have conflicting stories.

The teachers just don't want to get in the middle of it.

Nobody's lying . . . and nobody's omitting. Just not talking about in a public forum.

 

[Reba]

There is no omission here, folks.

"Teachers are dropping controversial subjects such as the Holocaust and the Crusades from history lessons..."

"Dropping" is omitting.

Also:

"...the same department deliberately avoided teaching the Crusades..."

All parties are familiar with the Crusades . . . they just have conflicting stories.

How do you know they are all familiar with it? You said yourself that it wasn't taught to you in school.

It seems that the teachers aren't even familiar with the subject matter:

"The researchers also warned that a lack of subject knowledge among teachers - particularly at primary level - was leading to history being taught in a 'shallow way leading to routine and superficial learning'."

 

[Reba]

...Robin Hood and the Crusades? Robin Hood (as many other stories and songs) was a story carried throughout human history. . . different places, names, and time - same plot (like the flood story). I've read the ballad, story, watched a musical, movies, movie remakes (and the comedy "Men in Tights"), and, well, it's a fictional account that rarely (if at all) mentions the Crusades.

The time of the story's setting was during the Crusades, and the reason behind Robin's struggle with the king's men. Robin supported Richard, who was away fighting in the Crusades.

No one is saying that the Crusades have to be a long, drawn-out part of the history lesson. But to intentionally drop a period of history just for reasons of political correctness or pressure is wrong.

... Keep religion in their respective places of worship; keep education in schools.

Like you stated, religion was a great influence on the history of mankind. So how can you teach history without mentioning the religious influences?

Furthermore, this "government study" has not specified what the local Mosques disagreed about.

Yes, I would like to see more background information.

It will go the way all wars, massacres, civilizations, and eras will go: a paragraph or two within an overall history. Who's to say that many other battles & wars aren't important enough to rant and rave about?

I don't think anyone is suggesting teachers "rant and rave" about historical events. They should teach about them.

The Holocaust is not the only thing that happened in World War II. The Holocaust was not even the reason why World War II happened. (Trust me, the Jews won't forget and with so much documentation and museums throughout Europe and North America, it'll not be forgotten.)

Just because it wasn't "the only thing that happened" doesn't mean it can be left out.

Even though the Jews haven't yet forgotten what happened, that doesn't mean the rest of the world keeps informed. There are many people who deny the Holocaust even now. What will happen when the living survivors are no longer here?

Who's to say that Europe is just about the Crusades?

I don't think anyone said that Europe is "just about the Crusades." But the Crusades are part of Europe's history. Then, what "controversial" historical event will be "dropped" next? If this precedent is accepted, then any historical event will be susceptible to omission.

Again, I honestly don't know what these mysterious "mosques" disagree with. I know that, obviously, there are two sides to a story . . . why not teach them both? Perhaps, that's the next step for Crusades-related curriculum. Until then, teaching one side is like a one-wheel bicycle.

Since we don't have access to the curriculum, we don't know whether or not "two sides to a story" were being taught. If it gets dropped, there will be no sides taught.

...You cannot force feed history to those who have no motivation (or who have emotional distaste) to learn. If they have the motivation to learn history, they'll dig it up, ask their parents, or ask their religious leader(s).

You cannot force feed math and science to those who have no motivation to learn. If they have the motivation to learn math and science, they'll dig it up, ask their parents, or ask their religious leaders.

Does that make any sense? No.

Is teaching the same as force feeding?

An informed citizenship does not happen in a classroom - or lack thereof. An informed citizenship comes from an active community.

How do young citizens learn about the political process before they become voting age? How do they learn about the Constitution? How do they learn about the process that Congress undertakes to make laws? How do they know what the Supreme Court does? How do they know how Senators, Representatives, and the President are elected? How do know who's eligible for those positions, and what the responsibilities and limits are for each position? How do they learn the process for contacting their representatives, and addressing grievances?

They need to know those things before they graduate from high school. After that, keeping up with current events is their own responsibility. But they need to acquire the tools while they're young.

I get the feeling that my parents were unusual in supervising my education. They were never trusting of any school system to sufficiently teach me.

Of course no parents should just turn their children over to the schools without keeping an eye on what they're learning, and how they're being taught. If they aren't satisfied, then they need to take action.

They were well aware that most people are resistant to helping public schools receive the resources they need (no to increased taxation while greater demands on public educators). In fact, I would find it surprising that a school says that they have too much money.

People aren't resistant to paying for a good education; they are resistant to waste and mismanagement.

At any rate, my parents encouraged education at school and at home. Without one or the other, you miss out.

Of course education also takes place outside of school. But when kids are in school, they should be getting the education that their parents paid for.

Likewise, the teachers within the British school system could teach many, many other important things rather than risk disrupting class over two points in history.

Why should teaching those topic disrupt class? Which other "disruptive" topics will have to be dropped?

What is important to you may not be important to me. If anything, that argument sounds exactly like those who argued that the public school system should teach one religion's version of how the earth was created and the origin of Man.

And guess what? The Christians lost. The public schools didn't drop evolution from their schools for Christians. So why should schools drop the Holocaust and Crusades for Muslims?

 

[dreama]

Schools drop Holocaust lessons to avoid offence
Alexandra Frean

Teachers are dropping controversial subjects such as the Holocaust and the Crusades from history lessons because they do not want to cause offence to children from certain races or religions, a report claims.

Things like this make me feel ashamed to be british.

I see nothing wrong in teaching controversal subjects.

 

[Wokamuka]

"Teachers are dropping controversial subjects such as the Holocaust and the Crusades from history lessons..."

Obviously because the students are already well aware of the subject matter . . . oh wait, nobody asked the students, did they?

"The researchers also warned that a lack of subject knowledge among teachers - particularly at primary level - was leading to history being taught in a 'shallow way leading to routine and superficial learning'."

Are you trying to tell me something new by repeating common knowledge? Did you not know? Teachers are never qualified enough. Teachers are never sufficiently knowledgeable. Teachers never teach properly. Teachers are evil, old fashioned, and abusive. Teachers can do no right. In all of my life, I've yet to read an article/report/review that favored teachers. Oftentimes, I see teachers put into the spotlight when it comes to controversy (i.e., evolution, abstinence, big bang, and so on). The message is repetitively clear: everyone knows what's best for the children except teachers.

"But to intentionally drop a period of history just for reasons of political correctness or pressure is wrong."

So you believe that a teacher should continue to teach a class on a subject matter already covered by their own respective communities/religions? The article accuses the teachers of doing it for that reason. I believe the teachers are looking at the bigger picture: teach what they can and as much as possible. It's the Board of Education and the parents who should be inspired to talk about it. Perhaps, that was the intent of the article.

"So how can you teach history without mentioning the religious influences?"

I believe you can teach history without being blasphemous or offensive to other religions. If you want a perspective tailored to your own preferences, homeschool 'em or send them to a private/religious school of your choice. Public schooling has been a minimal standard - not the standard.

"I don't think anyone is suggesting teachers "rant and rave" about historical events. They should teach about them."

Allow me to rephrase the question: Who's to say that many other conflicts and periods aren't important enough to teach about?

"What will happen when the living survivors are no longer here?"

There will no longer be any interest in the subject. It's an inevitable and natural evolution of society.

If you feel so strongly about people not forgetting the Crusades and the Holocaust, open up a museum, write a book, and/or teach your own children. It's a bit concieted to demand other people teach a personally acceptable version of history to your (and other) children.

"Then, what "controversial" historical event will be "dropped" next?"

The better question is: what past historical events have been dropped because of offense to others within the community? Would anyone even care?

"If it gets dropped, there will be no sides taught."

If the teachers did not know that the local mosques had different stories, they would be teaching it. Obviously, sides are being taught to the students who, in turn, share them with the teacher and class. Apparently, some parents still believe in teaching their own children.

"Is teaching the same as force feeding?"

Please find me a mosque who'll insist that 2 + 2 = 5. Math is absolute. Science, with theories, is also left to perspectives. This article, though, was talking about historical events, which is always subject to interpretation and is dubiously absolute.

"How do young citizens learn about the political process before they become voting age? How do they learn about the Constitution? How do they learn about the process that Congress undertakes to make laws? How do they know what the Supreme Court does? How do they know how Senators, Representatives, and the President are elected? How do know who's eligible for those positions, and what the responsibilities and limits are for each position? How do they learn the process for contacting their representatives, and addressing grievances?"

My schooling called it Civics class. Civics was different from history. History tells you how the Constitution came to be. Civics tells you what the Constitution is. I agree that each student needs to know their civic duties before graduating from basic schooling. It's history that the article and I am talking about.

"People aren't resistant to paying for a good education; they are resistant to waste and mismanagement."

Waste and mismanagement on the school's side or on the government's side? Are you saying that the students should pay for the crimes of the government?

"But when kids are in school, they should be getting the education that their parents paid for."

I've seen parents send one child to school for more than $5,000 per school year. Yet, these same parents get upset when they pay a $400 school tax. Again, the government is being blamed while the school suffers. Something is not working here and it's not the teachers and their 30+ per class students.

Let's be realistic here: playing the blame game never works. You're either part of the solution or you're not.

"Why should teaching those topic disrupt class? Which other "disruptive" topics will have to be dropped?"

A teacher has to allocate a time for each topic/subject. The more they have to focus on one topic; the more other topics will not get talked about. I'd rather just let the children talk about it with each other, their parents, or religious leaders and to use what available time to cover other important subjects.

"So why should schools drop the Holocaust and Crusades for Muslims?"

I suggested in a previous posting that a perspective acceptable to everyone in the community should be developed and taught. Until then, I'd encourage the teachers to cover as many other subjects possible.



Take note of these phrases in the same article:

emotive and difficult subjects
emotive and controversial history
highly contentious or charged versions of history

In the responses within this forum and those posted elsewhere (added with the article), it's clearly emotive and not difficult nor controversial.

The article also says that because the students are not emotive, the class would be boring. Go figure . . .

 

[SJCSue]

It's NYS Law!

It's NYS law to teach the Holocaust to students. Maybe, NYS has a very large Jewish population (especially in NYC and on the Island).

 

[jillio]

Things like this make me feel ashamed to be british.

I see nothing wrong in teaching controversal subjects.

If one avoids controversy in classroom subject matter, students do not develop their critical thinking skills, thus impairing their ability to make reasonable judgement throughout their lifetime. Critical thinking is the most important skill that comes from teaching and discussing controvery in the classroom.

 

[Reba]

Obviously because the students are already well aware of the subject matter . . . oh wait, nobody asked the students, did they?

I didn't know that students were involved with developing curriculum these days.

Are you trying to tell me something new by repeating common knowledge? Did you not know? Teachers are never qualified enough. Teachers are never sufficiently knowledgeable. Teachers never teach properly. Teachers are evil, old fashioned, and abusive. Teachers can do no right. In all of my life, I've yet to read an article/report/review that favored teachers. Oftentimes, I see teachers put into the spotlight when it comes to controversy (i.e., evolution, abstinence, big bang, and so on). The message is repetitively clear: everyone knows what's best for the children except teachers.

What's the rant for? I never said all that. Teachers are often stuck with politically correct, union driven courses at teachers' colleges instead of getting enough course hours in their majors. Their hands are tied by school boards, state curriculum requirements, pressure to teach the tests, and bureaucratic principals. Some face disrespectful and even violent students.

So you believe that a teacher should continue to teach a class on a subject matter already covered by their own respective communities/religions?

Huh?

The article accuses the teachers of doing it for that reason. I believe the teachers are looking at the bigger picture: teach what they can and as much as possible. It's the Board of Education and the parents who should be inspired to talk about it. Perhaps, that was the intent of the article.

I agree that the boards of education need to get some backbone and withstand political correctness pressures.

I believe you can teach history without being blasphemous or offensive to other religions.

Yes, that's right. It also shows by example how to reasonably discuss "controversial" topics. But completely dropping subjects isn't accomplishing that goal.

If you want a perspective tailored to your own preferences, homeschool 'em or send them to a private/religious school of your choice.

I did. But that doesn't mean we should ignore what's happening to the public schools.

There will no longer be any interest in the subject. It's an inevitable and natural evolution of society.

So, don't teach history at all?

The better question is: what past historical events have been dropped because of offense to others within the community? Would anyone even care?

Do two wrongs make a right? Should we perpetuate past mistakes?

If the teachers did not know that the local mosques had different stories, they would be teaching it. Obviously, sides are being taught to the students who, in turn, share them with the teacher and class. Apparently, some parents still believe in teaching their own children.

So, what's wrong with teaching the history of the Holocaust, the Crusades, and any other potentially controversial event? If it opens up conversation at home within the family, then that's a good thing. The parents are always free to give their side of the story to their children.

... This article, though, was talking about historical events, which is always subject to interpretation and is dubiously absolute.

Different perspectives, yes. Totally ignoring, no.

My schooling called it Civics class. Civics was different from history. History tells you how the Constitution came to be. Civics tells you what the Constitution is. I agree that each student needs to know their civic duties before graduating from basic schooling. It's history that the article and I am talking about.

I believe they need both.

Waste and mismanagement on the school's side or on the government's side? Are you saying that the students should pay for the crimes of the government?

Waste and mismanagement at every level, and it usually works from the top down.

Waste needs to be eliminated, and mismanagement needs to be corrected. Then the students will benefit, not suffer from those "crimes".

I've seen parents send one child to school for more than $5,000 per school year. Yet, these same parents get upset when they pay a $400 school tax.

When parents spend $5,000 on tuition, they have control over where they spend their money. It's a choice. When they pay $400 in taxes, they have no control in how that money is spent.

I'm kind of surprised that a family that can afford $5,000 per year tuition lives in a house that is taxed only $400 per year for schools.

Again, the government is being blamed while the school suffers.

So we should just ignore what's happening?

Something is not working here and it's not the teachers and their 30+ per class students.

The average class size in the USA is below 30. Elementary school, 21.1 students; secondary school, 23.6 students. Of course, that's just an average. Some schools have to add on mobile classrooms (trailers) to ease overcrowding, and some schools are closing in places where the population is diminishing, such as in the Rust Belt.

Highest degree earned, number of years teaching experience, and average class size for teachers in public elementary and secondary schools, by state: 1999-2000

Let's be realistic here: playing the blame game never works. You're either part of the solution or you're not.

Before a problem can be solved it must be uncovered and identified.

A teacher has to allocate a time for each topic/subject. The more they have to focus on one topic; the more other topics will not get talked about. I'd rather just let the children talk about it with each other, their parents, or religious leaders and to use what available time to cover other important subjects.

In that case, why not just let the kids blog about the subjects and get all their learning from Wikipedia?

Good grief. :roll:

What do you consider to be "other important subjects"? And why should your choice of subjects be considered over the choices of other people? What if the other parents don't agree with your choices?

I suggested in a previous posting that a perspective acceptable to everyone in the community should be developed and taught.

Where does that community exist? (That is, where in the free world does that community exist?)