UK Schools drop the Holocaust from history

Post Reply New Topic

Well, we don't have to pay Native Americans and Japanese Americans large salaries the way Jews are getting for having suffered in the holocaust. The Jews are basically allowed visa in Germany and a lifetime support for living in the country as a "compensation" of what was done to them during the holocaust. Germans are the most hated ppl in Europe, again because of holocaust, even though they were not even alive yet.

As far as crusades go, same thing. Crusades is one of the main argumetnts that atheists are using against Christians, so "of course" it is going to offend Christians. Now there are FEW people who use the issue of Native Americans as argument against USA (like the ones protesting thanks giving day) but this is not nearly as widespread.

HERE IS A POINT: basically what causes ppl not to be honest about historical facts (like the wish to deny them or not teach them in schools) is the fact that too many emotinal strings are attached to them. So if you want to have an honest and unbiased academic environment, you should first make sure that no one faces prejudices BECAUSE of these facts, and then ppl will be a lot more open about talking and studying htem.

The UK seems to mostly be faltering in its basic lessons, such as elementary english and math skills. The avoidance of certain historical subjects does not reflect on how history itself is taught, merely a knee-jerk reaction to political correctness in certain areas of history. The sciences seem to be well covered, but all subjects will suffer if pupils cannot read and write with reasonable competence.

As for pride in our achievements.. yes, some places have great pride in what they have achieved regardless of shoddy teaching methodology. Various european nations have done some truly great things, and some f*****g shocking things as well.

The UK is hardly denying the holocaust by failing to teach it nor is it denying any other bad events.

Theres a LOT of history never covered in the curriculum, because there is a lot of history to cover. Theres a lot of bad history out there which evades schools for much the same reason. There is also a lot of history out there that cant really be covered correctly at GCSE level (11-16) simply because it is far too complex. GCSE History is more aimed at teaching pupils HOW to learn about history effectively. It actually starts to become irrelevant WHAT history is actually taught, because it is the technique they are aiming to teach.

Of course this falls down some if pupils then do not go on to higher education, but no system is flawless.

Who would be OFFENDED by teaching about the Holocaust? Is there something nefarious going on? It really doesn't make any sense. The only common thing of Holocaust and Crusades is the ruthlessness of ferenghi.

Well I also read that Scottish youth are no longer raised to be thrifty. As Happyslip's dad would say, "Disaster!"

happyslip home page

Yeah, they might as well. Or even yet, why invest in a history class if your not going to teach history properly at all.

=================================

Seriously, is it me or is the world becoming more cowardly and ignorant?

Its mostly for political reasons....

Well I am part Italian and I know about the role of Italy in WW2, but I am not "offended" by it, I know it is true and its a part of history, a very huge part of history. I know in my history class the textbooks focused more on the politics surrounding the war than the fighting and killing itself, but to drop the whole subject is just insane, and because it is all to avoid offending anyone makes it more insane. I wasn't offended as an American when I read about the Bay of Pigs! They will just have to remove every form of conflict from the history books and make all of history look like a great big flower picking picnic where nobody was ever hurt or died.

Our good friends, the Muslims are offended that Hitler didn't finsh the job.......... Alah Ackbar!! !

Be honest - how many of you have actually seen the report yourselves?

I think its wise to at least glance at the source material before generating a lot of opinion on the basis of a terse summary in a newspaper. Especially in cases like this, where the article references no quantifiable data whatsoever.

http://www.haevents.org.uk/PastEvents/O ... report.pdf

There is also the possibility to consider that certain teachers may not be particuarly specialized in certain subjects, and thus avoid contentious subjects because they know that some of their students will not learn, simply argue.

Think about trying to teach the holocaust to a classroom of muslims, many of whom will have ben informed otherwise, when you know little but what the set texts say. Sounds like a nightmare waiting to happen to me.

There is also the pupil body to consider. Some teachers will avoid certain subjects out of sympathy and concern for students.

Imagine you're planning to teach the holocaust to a class full of rowdy teens, and theres one jewish kid, who already gets picked on. you're liable to be just feeding the little sods ammunition, unless you are particularly skilled and can actually reach the kids.

Theres more to this than simply PC reaction. I note the article doesnt actually go into detail about what other subjects are avoided. That, I would like to know. I also find the comments after the article hilariously stupid.

"They dont teach history properly so we complain about forgetting who helped whom in ww2" ROFL.
Thats ironic, coming from americans.

A quick comparison between report and article shows up the fact that this is a bit of engineered scare-mongering, and that the article barely scrapes the top off the report.

The report does not state that all teachers are doing it, or even many at all, but that it does happen. Then it presents solutions to the issue.

So, hardly "holocaust denial" methinks.

Well, I doubt reality is as extreme as 'dumping teaching the holocaust', however...

The execution of six million Jews in a series of concentration/extermination/labour camps, this is what is generally meant by 'holocaust' - am I correct?
If this is the case, what of the three million plus blacks/catholics/homosexuals/communists/anarchists/pacifists etc... who were exterminated in theses same institutions? They are generally forgotten when talking about the 'holocaust' as it has become synonymous with 'antisemitism[sic]' and 'genocide'. Also there are another estimated three - five million Slavs, Ukranians etc... who were rounded up and executed in the village square in order to create 'living space' or as retributions for Partisan warfare?

To redefine the way in which we discuss history is not always bad, history is exactly that 'his story' it belongs to victors who have agendas, and the use of the 'holocaust' to further contemporary causes, is perhaps something we would be best to move beyond.

Perhaps we could revisit the realities of the geopolitical situation [as well as the strategic considerations] that led to the use of atomic weapons on two beautiful Japanese cities?

To question how things are viewed is essential, history is not an absolute and our attachments to various versions tie us to times and places that are well in the past, they often have no relevance to where we are here and now.
I suppose an example would be the question of Irish history, here in NZ there are many of us of Irish extraction and the time and distance has allowed us to address it differently, certainly the Catholic/Protestant rift is tempered, our willingness to accept uncomfortable truths etc...
To place some implied higher value on the lives of six million Jews and all but ignore the other deaths is something of an insult - don't you think? Personally I think that ALL the deaths were a tragedy, murder is an ugly thing, war is an ugly thing, when we discuss them honestly we perhaps discover this simple truth and steel our resolve to avoid repeats.

Now I imagine my anti Zionism combined with this will lead for calls for my head, lol... ah well, peace j

So you think Germany should be able to strip people of citizenship, steal their property, and even after losing the war not compensate the survivors or restore their citizenship?

Regarding the Native Americans, most of their suffering happened centuries ago, and actions that far back seem to be held to a different standard than those of the 20th century. At that time, the Dutch effectively enslaved entire countries like Indonesia to grow cash crops for them. The Netherlands gave up its colonies, but the Indonesians were never compensated. And Britain treated India as an entire country full of servants. There are still stolen Indian diamonds in the Crown Jewels. India was never compensated either.

But the 20th century is different - people in the West started believing in universal human rights. The Japanese Americans who were imprisoned in WWII (but not murdered, stolen from or stripped of citizenship) were indeed later compensated by the US government.


Germans are allowed to travel, live and work everywhere in the E.U. without visas just because of their citizenship. If this is hatred, can I have some too?

You misunderstood what I was talking about. I was NOT talking about ex-citizens of Germany or their children either. I was talking about something completely different. All of my familiy is Jewish, so some of my relatives moved from Soviet Union to Germany just because they were Jews. PAY ATTENTION NOW: they have NEVER been German citizens either before or after World War 2. NONE of my family tree has ever lived in Germany before the above described invitation to come over. The ONLY reason they moved to Germany is because Germany opened its borders to ALL Jews, regardless to their prior connection to Germany or lack thereof. All they had to do is present a proof of their Jewishness and they can freely settle in Germany.



The REAL reason why actions are not taken "that far back" is because all of the ppl that were involved are dead, and children are not responsible for what their ancestors have done. For that exact reason, even though World War 2 happened in 20-th century, it is still far enough in the past to safely say that most of the participants are dead, and most of the today's Germans were not even born.



Alright, if ppl in 20 century believe in "universal" rights, why wouldn't they be sorry for what was done to Indians few centuries ago? Even though it was few centuries ago, still "as observers that come from 20-th century" we should see the light.

I also think that ppl in 20-th century that believe in universal human rights are rather selective. For example, at the end of the war Dresden was bombed even though it was NOT needed to win the war; they bombed it just for the sake of bombing, and Germany wasn't compensated for it. My current girlfriend's grandmother is German and she was imprisoned by Soviets during World War 2 as someone on opposing side. She got no compensations what-so-ever because compensating Germans is not of taste; only compensating Jews is.

Also consider the fact that the countries that lost World War 2 are not allowed to have more ammunition than the one allowed by the contries that won the war. On the other hand, the "main" winners still have the right of Veto which affects the decisions of today taht are totally unrelated to the war; yet they have a say "just" because their ancestors happened to win the war. So this doesn't sound like a "universal" right.

I do understand where they are comming from though. For example when I was 6 years old I was bitten by the dog, and ever since that time I am afraid of dogs. So since ppl were "bitten" really hard by Hitler and others they are no longer rational. But even though I AM afraid of dogs and can't help it, I still acknowledge that it is not a good thing -- for example if someone has a dog I can't come to their appartment without making a nuisance out of myself by asking them to keep the dog in a different room. Same with the Nazi-phobia, alhtough I understand where they are comming from, you have to acknowledge taht it DOES have some damage on some ppl, which is the ultimate reason why ppl would want to remove such stuff from school programs.



Not as much as Jews were. I mean, Japaneeze just got financial compensation, and that is it. Now think of how much Jews got: appart from being financially compensated, they were ALSO allowed to move into Germany, and appart from that they were ALSO given a country Israel, and appart from that the whole Christian theology changed after the holocaust (look up "post holocaust christianity")



That applies to ALL Europeans not just Germans. I never said that Germans are discriminated "in every way possible". I was only talking about SOME ASPECTS of it. I mean, right now in 21-st century you won't see ANYONE being discriminated in the kind of literal sense you are talking about (unless we talk about third world contries or something like that). By "discrimination" I mean negative attitude that affects SUBJECTIVE decisions. Allowing ppl to travel all across the Europe is not subjective, that is objective; so if they were to allow everyone to do ti except for Germans this would lead to world's outcry. But when we talk about less cut and dry issues, the discrimination becomes more apparent.

For example, if Germany invites a lot of Jews into the coutnry who NEVER LIVED THERE BEFORE, it means that country's budget gets distributed on more ppl, so Germans live in more poverty. Also if Germany doesn't have sufficient ammunition because ti is forbidden to have it due to what happened in WW2 then again it is discrimnation. If World War 3 ever happens Germany won't be able to defend itself even though World War 3 would probabl be over Iraq and would have nothing to do with Hitler.

There is also a lot of negative opinions about Germans. I guess it is less serious but still nobody likes prejudice. Like for example the fact that ppl hate Germans. Like okay one of my ex-s was telling me about her ex that treated her like s**t, and one thing she inserted was "he was a fool blooded German". Now what does being German has to do with the way you handle relationships? When I challenged her on this one she just backed off and didn't konw what to answer. So this proves that ppl have a subjective negative attitude towards Germans that goes back to WW2

What's a holocaust?

I have never heard of this policy before. Is it written anywhere in German law?


People are sorry for the American Indians. There is affirmative action and I've heard some special scholarships to help them make their place in the society which destroyed theirs.


Germany killed far more civilians than the Allies. But even then the Allies gave Germany the Marshall plan to help it rebuild. Isn't that enough compensation? Do you think Germany would have given Poland a Marshall plan if they had won?


It's a pity the USSR didn't compensate here, but remember the USSR was a super power, there was no way the other Allies could force it.

It's ridiculous to say that only Jews are compensated for anything. In compensation for the invasion the Oder-Neisse border gave Poland territory from Germany. That territory is more than four times the size of Israel.


The Japanese Americans had a country to live in: the USA. They were not murdered or stolen from. The Jews who fled to Israel had nothing - there were German families living in their stolen homes, their own families had mostly been killed.

I don't know why Germany would allow Jews to move there (since they have Israel), but if so that is their choice; they don't have to. (Unless Germany decides Israel must be destroyed like some people in Europe seem to think. Then they, or other European countries, would have some responsibility to take back the Jews they earlier chased out of Europe.)


No, the more people there are working in a country, the more taxes the government gets to distribute, so Germans have more wealth.


I have never heard of this law - do you have a reference? I know the treaty of Versaille crippled Germany, but after WWII the Allies realised that was a mistake so instead of trying to cripple Germany they helped it recover with the Marshall plan. That is why Germany didn't cause a WWIII.


Yes, that is very sad. Nobody should be discriminated against. But this has nothing to do with "The Jews". Germany invaded many European countries (Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, France, Greece, Latvia, Belarus, Lithuania, Estonia, Ukraine, Russia...) If people in those countries dislike Germans it is because they remember how Germany treated them.

Well I am not in law school or anything so I am not sure where I would be albe to locate it. I guess you can look for it just as well as I can. BUt I DO know it is there, because my relatives are a living proof of it.



As far as scholarships, there are scholarships for all kinds of things, so I won't say it really counts. You can get a scholarship because you play well in basketball, and this would allow you to pursue a career in biochemistry.

Affirmative action is a whole other animal. It doesn't go to just indians but blacks as well. And it is not about prior discrimination; rahter it is about the fact that minorities that live RIGHT NOW might be less successful than white majority which would APPEAR like a discriminatin. Even though the actual reason might be about the INDIVIDUALS who are part of the minority group being not as hard working or not as intelligent as opposed to others discriminating against them -- I don't think there is a discrimination since colleges say that they are not even allowed to look at your racial background when you apply.

Now you might say that I just proven your point since it is not just Jews that get "unfair advantage" but others as well. Well, I guess if I came across as saying ti was "only" Jews then I probably misspoke. The bottom line si that there is a lot of reverse racism goes on, and the victims of reverse racism might well find the topics pertaining to actual racism offensive. This is why, for exaple, holocaust is being removed from British programs. And like other posters said, it is not just holocaust that has been removed from British programs but other things as well, so it doesn't have to be "just" jews. I am just trying to get a concept across why something is removed, I was NOT saying that is is the "only" thing that had to be removed.




USA could have compensated as one of the Allies. Now I know that USSR was the main country that was fighting Germany while USA was mainly fighting Japan. HOWEVER, if you look you will find that USA is basically a superpower taht has enough money to get involved in world's conflicts it was never meant to be a part of. So, as such, it would of helped the German victims if it wanted to.



I never said that Jews are the ONLY ones that get preferential treatment. There are others who have it too, including affirmative action to help blacks and other stuff. But lets get back on the CONTEXT of this thread. The question was why did British schools remove holocaust from history. Now, is holocaust the only subject British schools removed? No. As other posters have said British schools were removing a NUMBER of subjects that appear offensive to some. So IN THIS CONTEXT you don't have to argue that Jews are the "only ones" with preferential treatment. I am ONLY saying that they are AMONG many other such ppl. This would explain why holocaust is among MANY OTHER SUBJECTS british schools remove from the program.

Now, do I belive they have to remove things from the program just becausae it is too controversial? No. As a physicist, I believe in HONEST look at the truth, offensive or not. After all, Galileo was offensive as well, and if ppl didn't quit to be offended we would still believe that sun revolves around the earth. So, if it was up to me, I would most definitely include holocaust in British school programs AND I would also bring back all the other stuff they decided to leave out (including ancient history which I am at loss as to why THAT would be offended).

HOWEVER, I would also include a lot more -- for example just like ppl would stuyd holocaust orthodoxy they would also study holocaust revisionism and will be involved in debate about it. Just like in case of evolution and creation, students will learn both sides and debate about it. Basically the philosophy is NOT to leave out anything, but rather include MORE stuff. Now, am I saying that the particular items I want to include are the onese that agree with my point of view? No. If something is rubbish, then students will have enough information to konw it is rubbish since they konw all sides of a coin. So for example, I have nothing against teaching both Galileo's theory that earth revolves around sun, as well as the theories prior to Galeleo that sun revolves around earth. THen give students all the arguments on all sides. If you do THAT then I can GUARANTEE that students will be able to decide on their own that Earth revolves around sun because the arguments on favor of THIS theory basically outweigh all tis counter arguments. *BUT* the other good thing that will happen is that no one will be offended because all students will know that they were given all sides of a coin and they decided what they did because of THEIR intellect and not because teachers spoon fed them with something. Well, same with holocaust. I am sure no one would be offended of all sides of the coin would be taught, and still most students will still come to conclusion that 6 million Jews were gassed to death, if thats indeed the case.

Anyway, going back to what we were discussing. Basically as it is British schools are choosing the root of "taking away" stuff as opposed to "adding" stuff, so I definitely do NOT agree with what they are doing at all. Taking away stuff will only compound a problem of students not being able to think for themselves. *HOWEVER* even though I don't agree with them, I also know that the "cause" of a problem is the fact that holocaust became offensive to ppl, and the reason it became offensive is because of all the politics that goes on. So what I am saying is that "on the long run" may be try to make politics more neutral which would allow for the holocaust to be less offensive and thus allow more free thought. Okay think what would happen if Catholic church had to endure a heavy sanctions on the event that it turns out that Earth revolves around Sun. In this case this subject would not be politically correct and we would to this day think Sun revolvees around Earth. Alright, I am not saying that wiht holocaust it is perfect analogy -- the chances are that 6 million DID die. But still, if money was involved in debate between Galileo and catholic church then I am sure this would of been left out of school programs in order not to "offend" students, so even though we might still have a right answer by now, the educational program would of been a lot worse as you would have to wait till college to even start talking about planetary system.

The good news, though, is that whether earth revolves around sun or sun revolves around earht, it has NO REAL CONSEQUENCE TO ANYONE. The reason for this is simple: Catholic church persecutted Galileo back in 16-th century and no one involved is alive today. For THAT reason no one is "emotionally" involved in the outcome of this debate which allows ppl to be objective. If people were to do the same about World War 2, by saying that no country or peoples get preferential treatment for what have happened because no one is alive today, then the same thing would happen: students would think of World War 2 as a detached intellectual subject that doesn't personally involve any of them or their families, and they would be able to think of it just as objectively as they do about planetary system. Just like Catholic students are not any more offended by Galileo than non-catholic ones, in teh same way German students won't be any more offended by holocaust than non-German ones. But what needs to happen is for Germany to stop being involved in it.

Once again, I never said it twas "just" holocaust or "just" Jews. On the contrary, there is a LONG list of things that are being removed from British programs. So it is far larger phenomenon of ppl being unneceserely prejudiced; Jews is just one example. In fact if it wasn't for prejudice probably aspies would fit a lot better into NT world (and there are no Jews here involved, lol).



Okay if Jews had no country to live in, they should have been given Israel a long time before World War 2 ever occured. I have nothing against Jews having Israel because they dont' have a country. The ONLY thinig I am saying is that I don't want it to be linked to the holocaust. You have political DECISIONS (who has what country) on one hand, and you have HISTORY (holocaust, etc) on the other hand. If such were the case, then I am sure far less ppl would be offended by HISTORICAL subjects, hence they won't be asking to remove parts of history from british schools either.



Japaneeze americans were imprisoned for the period of war so that is a lot. And by the way Jews didn't have to be murdered -- Germans allowed them to leave the country before the whole holocaust began, and most Jews chose not to. On the other hand, Americans never let Japaneeze leave the country the argumetn being that if they left they would be helping Japan.



Well, even if it looks like their choice, it is probably the fact that the rest of the world guilt-tripped them into choosing it.




From what I heard, Jews don't even have to work there because they are payed the salary for being victims of holocaust.



Marshall plan and the decision to limit Germany's ammunition are two completely different things. Yes, Marshall plan was enforced, but they never reversed a decision about Germany not having ammunition.


Yes, that is very sad. Nobody should be discriminated against. But this has nothing to do with "The Jews". Germany invaded many European countries (Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, France, Greece, Latvia, Belarus, Lithuania, Estonia, Ukraine, Russia...) If people in those countries dislike Germans it is because they remember how Germany treated them.[/quote]

Once again I am not saying it is "just" Jews. Still, the fact is that Germans are facing prejudices for what have happened before they were even born. Hence, the whole topic becomes offensive, hence the whole issue of it being removed from the program. Once agian, i don't agree with things being removed from the program. So instead of removing it from the program, may be try to include some other stuff, like to teach children tolerance. The way that in USA they go out of the way to teach tolerance to minorities, if they were to teach tolerance to Germans, then it won't be so offensive even if they did include holocaust back into a program.