ChatterBank5 mins ago
Proud Of Britain Yes
with all the loss of life tragedy, and schools jobs etc are you proud to british
thinking were te first to be vaccined and invention, harks back to, again
british inventions leading the world...
thinking were te first to be vaccined and invention, harks back to, again
british inventions leading the world...
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by fender62. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Ah. In that case, you're missing the key word at the end:
"I simply don't get the reluctance to study history honestly."
That extra word makes a big difference, I thought. I'm disagreeing in particular with the idea that we can, or should, focus on the "great" of our past while, in effect, brushing the less great (understatement) under the carpet, eg with "the past is the past", etc. Both aspects of history are important to get the complete picture, no? As long as one or the other isn't allowed to dominate, or at least is given its proper context, why is that a problem.
"I simply don't get the reluctance to study history honestly."
That extra word makes a big difference, I thought. I'm disagreeing in particular with the idea that we can, or should, focus on the "great" of our past while, in effect, brushing the less great (understatement) under the carpet, eg with "the past is the past", etc. Both aspects of history are important to get the complete picture, no? As long as one or the other isn't allowed to dominate, or at least is given its proper context, why is that a problem.
I'm sure you do, although presumably not all of it, and presumably, like everybody else, there is always more to learn.
But it also matters what parts we talk about, or teach to others, or use to define ourselves as a nation. It can't be right to define this country, or indeed any other country, only by part of its story.
But it also matters what parts we talk about, or teach to others, or use to define ourselves as a nation. It can't be right to define this country, or indeed any other country, only by part of its story.
I'm sad to see notable black people pushing for black history month, where they airbrush our history to suit their own agenda, and the poor kids have no way of knowing the truth or otherwise of what they are being taught.
Some of the outstanding black people I most admire are also dismissive of this.
They are, Denzel Washington, Morgan Freeman and Thomas Rowell.
On the other side of the debate is to me one of the most obnoxious of men, Kehinde Andrews, black professor of black studies at Birmingham University.
I think I have a good and fairly accurate view of our history, enough at least to protest when I think it is being manipulated, re-emphasised, to suit a political agenda.
Some of the outstanding black people I most admire are also dismissive of this.
They are, Denzel Washington, Morgan Freeman and Thomas Rowell.
On the other side of the debate is to me one of the most obnoxious of men, Kehinde Andrews, black professor of black studies at Birmingham University.
I think I have a good and fairly accurate view of our history, enough at least to protest when I think it is being manipulated, re-emphasised, to suit a political agenda.
Also, can we just stop this nonsense about me thinking my opinions "count for all". I don't think that, I have never thought that, and I will never think that. I have never implied otherwise, either.
I am arguing merely for history to be taught completely, without bias or deceit, without any attempt to airbrush; with criticism where it is due, with praise where that is appropriate too, but above all, with honesty.
I am arguing merely for history to be taught completely, without bias or deceit, without any attempt to airbrush; with criticism where it is due, with praise where that is appropriate too, but above all, with honesty.
Jim, how can history be taught in its, ''entirity?''
It is too vast a subject.
I know quite a bit, as do others, of life in Liverpool, the blitz, how people coped, fed their families, worked all day and still he!led out with fire watch, hospital helps etc.
And of course London got it worse.
We can only ever taste some of the key points, and little in detail.
A thousand people will produce a thousand stories, all with differing detail.
We can never know it all.
We can know enough though, to say, I am proud to be British, I am proud of my country.
It is too vast a subject.
I know quite a bit, as do others, of life in Liverpool, the blitz, how people coped, fed their families, worked all day and still he!led out with fire watch, hospital helps etc.
And of course London got it worse.
We can only ever taste some of the key points, and little in detail.
A thousand people will produce a thousand stories, all with differing detail.
We can never know it all.
We can know enough though, to say, I am proud to be British, I am proud of my country.
"Entirety" obviously can't be meant, and isn't meant to be taken, literally. I also don't know how exactly to answer Naomi's question. Specific events, or is this more about the tone of lessons, how to read history?
I guess in short it would come down to trying to teach that history is difficult, that change doesn't come easily, and that humans and society are often flawed; but we *can* overcome all of these challenges. It's just difficult. And the problem is, this sounds very negative, but it really isn't meant that way at all. We aren't the best we can be yet. What could be more hopeful than knowing there's still more progress to be made?
And that's maybe worse than depressing, because it's so cheesy. But, well... history is complicated. History lessons ought to embrace that complexity, rather than shy away from it.
Incidentally, this is also very obviously the entirely opposite message from the one Togo suggested I wanted to spread. People should be challenged by history, rather than merely comforted by it. Challenge doesn't have to be, and isn't, negative. Challenge makes you think. I'm confused why anyone would suggest I'd want otherwise.
I guess in short it would come down to trying to teach that history is difficult, that change doesn't come easily, and that humans and society are often flawed; but we *can* overcome all of these challenges. It's just difficult. And the problem is, this sounds very negative, but it really isn't meant that way at all. We aren't the best we can be yet. What could be more hopeful than knowing there's still more progress to be made?
And that's maybe worse than depressing, because it's so cheesy. But, well... history is complicated. History lessons ought to embrace that complexity, rather than shy away from it.
Incidentally, this is also very obviously the entirely opposite message from the one Togo suggested I wanted to spread. People should be challenged by history, rather than merely comforted by it. Challenge doesn't have to be, and isn't, negative. Challenge makes you think. I'm confused why anyone would suggest I'd want otherwise.
Latest Posts
Will Blasphemy Laws Be Reintroduced?
News15 mins ago
Crosswords19 mins ago
ChatterBank19 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles29 mins ago
