Winston Churchill, Adolf Hitler, and Joseph Stalin dropped from En

[kaze950]

*oops, sorry for the topic title error. I guess it couldn't fit it all


http://abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/07/13/1977438.htm?section=justin

I'm sure some of you have heard about the story.

Winston Churchill, Adolf Hitler, Mahatma Gandhi, Joseph Stalin and Martin Luther King dropped from England's history syllabus.

While they say

"Teachers know that they need to mention these pivotal figures. They don't need to be instructed by law to mention them in every history class.

I don't think this is good. I don't think we can leave it up to the teachers to decide what history is. IMO, Its like saying that you don't have to teach the numbers "3" and "7" in math class, so we'll leave it up to the teacher to decide which numbers to teach.

While I'm sure most teachers will talk about them, dropping these important figures from a required curriculum is not a good thing.

What do you all think of this?

 

[Fomar0153]

I never learnt about Mahatma Gandhi, Joseph Stalin or Martin Luther King anyway and my knowledge of Winston Churchill from history lessons was that he was prime minister during the second world war and that he once thought a week's ration was bearable to live on (thinking that was daily or something).
I also never studied egypt once. History was never seen as important at the schools I went to.

 

[holloway]

What are you talking about? This whole story is bullshit as all A Level history, nearly, is World War 2. That's the problem in the English system that is being debated- too much emphasis on Hitler and Churchill.

 

[Grandor]

That's dumb. These people earned their way into history, and even if they were nobody important, history revolves on everything that happens in the past. Obviously history books revolve around their topic, like the world, the country, or the state or district, but taking those out of the history book doesn't make them any less historical figures. In fact 1,000 years from now what we say or do here is history. People view history as the important stuff that happens from the past, but the fact of the matter is history is everything that happened in the past. And especially with these figures who are well known...that's like taking out the US history part where we had slaves. It's not are brightest moment, but we still include it in are history books so we can learn from are mistakes.

 

[arcthemonkey]

For one thing, Martin Luthor King has little to nothing to do with English history. I don't expect people from Germany to know about Reaganomics. Ghandi went to law school in Britain, and had political publicity during World War II, but ID don't think that's especially important or relevant.

I noticed in my U.S. History class that World War II often gets its own chapter, which is, in my opinion, really stupid. The book that was normally divided chapter-wise into 5 year periods, had two entire chapters devoted to WWII. Was it an important part of history? Sure, but I, personally, don't think it should be given that much weight.

Now, even considering World War II, you can't really talk about it without mentioning Hitler, but he really doesn't NEED to be an integral part of the lesson. I think it's clear that teachers will still mention Hitler, but to what extent is up to the teacher's discretion, which I think is appropriate.

Stalin is another figure who is tied in deeply with World War 2, but he's more relevant to US or Chinese history. Again, I'm sure he will still be mentioned. Maybe now we won't have to read two whole pages about his love life.

I have no idea what to say about Churchill, though. That's an odd move.

 

[Title Loan Man]

I noticed in my U.S. History class that World War II often gets its own chapter, which is, in my opinion, really stupid. The book that was normally divided chapter-wise into 5 year periods, had two entire chapters devoted to WWII. Was it an important part of history? Sure, but I, personally, don't think it should be given that much weight.

Well, the events before, during and after WW2 lasted at least ten years, so on your 5 years/chapter ratio it seems to fit...

 

[arcthemonkey]

Oh no, those years had their own chapters, they just focused on what was going on stateside, whereas the chapters on WWII almost never talked about anything in the United States, short of Pearl Harbor and whatever the president was doing.

 

[sixtyandaquarter]

Hmmm...
I really, personally, don't think any figure is more important or less important than any other - and should only be talked about in context of what is being taught. Talking about the Battle of the Bulge, then mention Eisenhower... but I don't need to learn about Eva Braun while studying WWII battles in class... really.
And yes - on a test that was filled with generals and battles, and such, there were three questions involving Eva Braun - for no friggin reason.
This test counted as a substantial amount of my grade - and was a joke, in my opinion, but that's off topic.

So, I'm fine with these people being dropped from the mandatory. They'll still be intricate, and will still be taught, but will not play a major role - unless it's necessary.

We'll cut the fat and have the needed info given, and the kids can go learn things on their own like most people do - and learn more, better, and with (possibly) less bias towards a subject.

 

[kaze950]

Well, I think Eva Braun is much less important than those figures in history.

And yes, kids learn on their own. The problem is that (most) kids, especially American ones, do not have any real incentive to learn history or anything, really, on their own. At least, judging from the people I know.

But, the figures mentioned are some of the most important figures in 20th century history, which is, IMO, what kids need to focus on, as what happened in the past 100 years is certain more relevant that some fact about the middle ages.

 

[sixtyandaquarter]

I don't get the statement about American kids having no incentive - but that's off topic.

What happened 100 years ago can be important... sure. No argument.
But is "who" as important as "why" and "how"?

WWII example of what I mean...
Why did the war start? How did it start? Where/when did it start? Who started it? - that's the base, in my oppinion, order of importance. By answering Why, How, and if you haven't already, then by Where you'll probably have named Hitler. Go on to talk about the end and you'll have named nearly anyone of consequence. But it's not the people who matter.

What happened, and how is more important in WWII - and almost all of history - than who was involved. The who in inconsequential compared to why and how.

I've gotten so wrapped up trying to remember people's names and dates, and the places events happened in there are events I can tell you everything about - who was there, what happened, where and when it happened... yet I can't remember why.

I know Archduke Franz Ferdinand was Austria-Hungary and was assassinated. I know someone named Princip shot him. I know it was June 1914 (okay... umm... maybe 1915...?). I know it caused WWI. Why? How? No clue. I couldn't tell you if my life depended on it. I have no clue why he did it, and how that caused the great war to end all wars - but I know it did. That's what my school stressed, who's and where's and when's - not why's and how's. I had to memorize names, places, and times - the rest didn't matter, which is crap.

 

[Rain]

I know Archduke Franz Ferdinand was Austria-Hungary and was assassinated. I know someone named Princip shot him. I know it was June 1914 (okay... umm... maybe 1915...?). I know it caused WWI. Why? How? No clue. I couldn't tell you if my life depended on it. I have no clue why he did it, and how that caused the great war to end all wars - but I know it did. That's what my school stressed, who's and where's and when's - not why's and how's. I had to memorize names, places, and times - the rest didn't matter, which is crap.

I'm in the exact same boat lol. All I know is that around 90 years later it was the reason for the naming of the band Franz Ferdinand. ':|

 

[Megadeth425]

Even if teachers are deciding what history to teach, it still can't be as bad the revisionist history I got spoon-fed where everyone was happy, settlers didn't bring diseases that killed off the natives, slavery never happened in Canada, and anything else that shows the system isn't perfect.

 

[Fafnir]

Even if teachers are deciding what history to teach, it still can't be as bad the revisionist history I got spoon-fed where everyone was happy, settlers didn't bring diseases that killed off the natives, slavery never happened in Canada, and anything else that shows the system isn't perfect.

That's what happened in my elementary... and then Jr. High got good. I loved learning about Soviet Russia. Of course, those mistakes weren't part of Canada's history, so I can see why they got more truthful on that bit(then again, middle school's SS didn't have much on Canada at all really).

 

[arcthemonkey]

Now you see, people are always talking about "revisionist" history, but I never got any of that outside of early grade school.

I was always taught that we screwed the Native Americans, Columbus had about nothing to do with discovering North America (Vikings and Romans would have beaten him anyway), and pretty much everyone is still racist and probably always will be. We also had people who were dying from AIDs, guys with no jaw from chewing tobacco, and convicts come in and talk to us in assemblies about how messed up the world is.

No sunshine and rainbows in my schools

(Please note, I attended public and private/christian schools, both of them were pretty much the same, except one of them had a bible class. Care to guess which one? I actually had safe-sex PLUS abstinance based sex-ed at the christian school I went to for a year or two in 6th or 7th grade. Our english teacher said I mispelled words if I but a tail on 'b's though. Bitch. In another, bizarre coincidence, the school was built literally next door to the Indian Casino, and was surrounded by the Indian Reservation. They killed the school's dog (The teens who did that got arrested for it, among other things)! Good old Susanville, California.)

 

[kaze950]

A 'tail' on b's?

pretty much everyone is still racist and probably always will be.

There are much less racists in America than the Jesse Jacksons of the world would have you believe.

 

[arcthemonkey]

So it is all sunshine and rainbows, eh?

 

[tensuke]

Take out Hitler? And Winston Churchill, the former prime minister of their own country during a major world war?
What will these Brits do next...

(Note: That's not an insult, if anyone takes it as one...)

 

[kaze950]

So it is all sunshine and rainbows, eh?

There is an alternative to either "sunshine and rainbows" and "everybody is a racist"

 

[arcthemonkey]

Not in a world of appropriately placed exhaggerations and generalizations!

 

[Tdata]

While i want to give a long statement on this topic, I'm not going to. I'll just say a few things.

1. History is written by the victors.
2. History books are never accurate as they are based upon 'eyewitness' accounts and other corruptible sources.
3. Rarely do two different history books agree on all points of a certain event.
4. History books ignore information that show the country in a bad light.

I have a question that should be easyw to find out, even though it isn't. How many Japanese civilians were killed as a result of the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Don't look in anything but American history books and you will not find the answer. I'm holding a textbook in my hand that only mentions the bombings as the ending point in WWII for Japan. Nothing more. And this is a College Textbook.

The answer is around 85% of the people killed were civilians. There is also no mention about the internment camps for Japanese people in America. Admittedly they were nowhere near as bad as the German's concentration camps, but there is no mention of this fact.

Geez and i was hoping to keep it shorter...