Should The More Renowned Figures Of History Be Featured In History Lessons?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2254705/Gove-faces-war-equality-activists-axes-Labours-PC-curriculum-dropped-greatest-figures-history-lessons-Leaked-drafts-new-history-curriculum-emerge.html

[anotheoldgit]

jno

/// More dead white males, that's what this nation needs. ///

How can such a disgustingly racist statement as this be allowed?

Imagine the outcry (and rightly so) if the skin colour of the males was reversed?

[jno]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_white_males

[emmie]

doesn't seem a particularly pleasant way of looking at historical figures who have made contributions to Britain, whether they are Churchill or the Iron Duke

[anotheoldgit]

jno

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-bias_curriculum

[jno]

it isn't, em, it's a way of defining those who aren't to be studied - like Mrs Seacole.

[emmie]

perhaps someone will change their mind, or more importantly see that she like many of her time and after have made huge contributions to our society, in medicine, law, the arts and so forth.

[jno]

the anti-bias curriculum sounds like an excellent idea, aog. I take it you didn't have one at school? I didn't either.

[anotheoldgit]

jno

/// the anti-bias curriculum sounds like an excellent idea, aog. I take it you didn't have one at school? I didn't either. ///

No such thing as political correctness in my days at school, our history lessons started from the Stone Age through to the Bronze and Iron age.

Then to the Ancient Brits, Saxons, Vikings, Romans etc, and to the Normans onwards including the Kings and Queens, and other famous persons.

Although I can never remember any black inventors, industrialists, poets, playwrights or explorers.

Do you think they were purposely kept away from us for some reason?

[pdq1]

Its a pity we have to downplay the creation of an Empire. Thats what put the 'Great' in 'Great Britain'. We did what the yanks are doing now with their global domination. If it wasn't for us India wouldn't have the marvellous railway system thanks to Brunel. We taught the world how to speak English and Livingstone taught those pesky Africans a few things.

There's a true saying "If you don't know what happened in the past there's no hope of planning a future"

[humbersloop]

//Then to the Ancient Brits, Saxons, Vikings, Romans etc, and to the Normans//

So, presumably also approval for wave after wave of aggressive immigrants bringing their foreign ways with them then?


/If it wasn't for us India wouldn't have the marvellous railway system thanks to Brunel.//

When making assertions about about knowing about what happened, it may be helpful to know Brunel had nothing to do with the Indian railway system. Or, more correctly, systems.

[anotheoldgit]

humbersloop

//Then to the Ancient Brits, Saxons, Vikings, Romans etc, and to the Normans//

/// So, presumably also approval for wave after wave of aggressive immigrants bringing their foreign ways with them then? ///

Not approval, this is the history of our land, most disappeared once the Normans had created some form of stability, which has lasted for almost a thousand years.

[Buenchico]

It's not only important to decide WHO should feature in history lessons but also WHAT should be taught about them.

For example, should Cromwell be portrayed as a hero or a villain? (There are those who love him and those who loathe him). Will Churchill be portrayed in the way that the propagandists wanted him to be seen in his day, or recognised for the war criminal that he really was?

[humbersloop]

just to help me understand your point, could you explain what you mean by
//some form of stability, which has lasted for almost a thousand years// please?

[anotheoldgit]

Buenchico

/// Churchill be portrayed in the way that the propagandists wanted him to be seen in his day, or recognised for the war criminal that he really was? ///

Have you any proof of that accusation?

He was the leader of a coalition government, during the period of a World War, what crimes against humanity did he, himself commit?

One might as well say that George VI was also a war criminal.

[anotheoldgit]

humbersloop

just to help me understand your point, could you explain what you mean by

//some form of stability, which has lasted for almost a thousand years// please?

I would have thought that was self-explanatory, the country was no longer split up into different Kingdoms, and had a succession of rulers from William Ist onwards.

Yes we all know in between we had varies conflicts each one involving who should rule, but then I did say "Some Form of Stability".

[Buenchico]

Churchill approved the blanket bombing of of targets in Germany, knowing full well that they were of little or no military significance but simply homes to hundreds of thousands of women and children. He did so solely in an attempt to lower German moral, not for any military advantage. Of course Hitler did the same but I seem to remember that two wrongs don't make a right.

[Zeuhl]

aog is clearly very happy to be ruled by people who came over from France and grabbed all the land

It's estimated that 20% of UK real estate is still held by people who can trace their line directly back to an ancestor who came over with Guillaume in 1066

[naomi24]

^^ Bloody immigrants! ;o)