Return to the Latest on No Left Turns
Add Your Comments
Comment 1 by Matt Mingus
*sigh* . . . It only got more depressing as I read further:
. . . Adolf Hitler, Mahatma Gandhi, Joseph Stalin and Martin Luther King have also been dropped from the detailed guidance accompanying the curriculum. . .
Exactly how do you teach the modern history of Western Civilization without these men?
Link to this Comment | 7/13/2007 3:46 PM
|
Comment 2 by David Frisk
What makes you think the liberal Blob is interested in teaching the "history of Western Civilization," young man?
By their lights, they're probably doing perfectly fine. The Three R's aren't reading, writing, and 'rithmetic. They're Racism, Reproduction, and Recycling.
Link to this Comment | 7/13/2007 4:07 PM
|
Comment 3 by Dan
They'll begin studying "the glories of islam" soon. Their own culture, mother of parliaments, mother of the Anglosphere, they deride, and the longest running totalitarianism in human history, they're slowly embracing, along with the vicious anti-semitism. You need a Dickens and a Tolkien to do the tale justice.
Link to this Comment | 7/13/2007 4:38 PM
|
Comment 4 by David Frisk
Ethnic cleansing, in slow motion, of course.
Link to this Comment | 7/13/2007 4:47 PM
|
Comment 5 by R.O.B.
This is entirely stupid and disheartening. Winston Churchill was THE most important Briton of the 20th Century and one of the greatest--if not the greatest-British leaders of all time. The fact that they are removing Hitler, the man who came closer than any man in modern history to destroying the British Empire, is equally deplorable.
Link to this Comment | 7/13/2007 8:57 PM
|
Comment 6 by Matt Mingus
David -
What liberal wouldn't enjoy denouncing Hitler's fascism? Or delight in emphasizing MLK Jr. and Gandhi's calls for world peace through non-violent, civil disobedience?
It has not been my experience that liberal professors will shed themselves of their obligations to do their jobs (in this case, teach history) for shrewd political gain. Sure, they tint it and slant it (as does the right), but they don't just throw it out the window. Well, maybe some do. Lucky for me (and for all of us) most of them are in England.
R.O.B. - It is disheartening. Didn't the Brits vote him the greatest Briton ever or something a few years back in some BBC poll? Not to mention Stephen King using his name for the cat in "Pet Sematary"! No, in all seriousness - England is being silly. Here's hoping we never do something dumb like that.
Link to this Comment | 7/13/2007 9:23 PM
|
Comment 7 by Matt Mingus
Oops. I just read the rest of that article and it actually mentioned that BBC poll. My bad.
Link to this Comment | 7/13/2007 9:34 PM
|
Comment 8 by Will Morrisey
We can guess, but do we know who/what will replace these political men? I'm inclined to think that this is a move away from giving students the educational background that would come in handy if they would govern themselves. Studying Churchill and Hitler, Gandhi and Stalin, enables students to make distinctions between republicanism and tyranny, to think about empire and independence. But if you're being trained merely to produce, consume, and obey, you won't be needing any such distinctions or thoughts.
Link to this Comment | 7/13/2007 9:29 PM
|
Comment 9 by David Frisk
Matt, I wasn't talking about liberal teachers and profs (in general), but about liberal educrats (in general). While the Blob can always be counted on to teach about Nazism and the Holocaust -- these are among the very few modern forms of evil it recognizes -- it cannot be counted on to appreciate a Churchill for ANYTHING else. His significance to such people, insofar as they admire him, is about Nazism, period. And there is far more to Churchill -- including his anti-Nazi leadership -- than mere anti-Nazism.
Link to this Comment | 7/14/2007 2:23 AM
|
Comment 10 by Don in AZ
What's left unsaid in this article is what names remain on the list. This may be a story about a trimming back of what's mandatory, leaving those decisions up to the teacher. That in itself is not always a good thing. But the story is very definitely not about a requirement to ban discussion of Churchill.
I'm not trying to defend any attempt to downplay the role of Churchill in western history. I'm just wondering if this is one of those stories that is written in a way to stir emotions when the underlying story is far less than it would seem.
Link to this Comment | 7/14/2007 9:21 AM
|
Comment 11 by John Moser
Don's right. If you read the article, it says that those names were left off the list because they were so obvious that they were unnecessary.To illustrate a similar case, in my courses I provide my students with lists of names they need to know. In a course on the United States in the first half of the 20th century I would never include FDR on that list (or any of the presidents, for that matter). Does that mean I wouldn't be discussing FDR in the course? My students know better.
Link to this Comment | 7/14/2007 12:48 PM
|
Add New Comment
To add a new comment, please visit the new No Left Turns site at http://nlt.ashbrook.org.
|
