View Full Version : How should History be taught in a Global society?
Zaknafien
09-13-2007, 14:12
Changing History
The Nation
Eric Foner
All history, the saying goes, is contemporary history. People instinctively turn to the past to help understand the present. Events draw our attention to previously neglected historical subjects. The second wave of feminism gave birth to a flourishing subfield of women's history. The Reagan Revolution spawned a cottage industry in the history of US conservatism.
Many years will pass before we can fully assess how our thinking about history has changed as a result of September 11. While historians ponder this question, conservative ideologues have produced a spate of polemical statements on how we should teach American history in light of recent events. In a speech less than a month after the tragedy, Lynne Cheney insisted that calls for more intensive study of the rest of the world amounted to blaming America's "failure to understand Islam" for the attack. A letter distributed by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, which she once chaired, chastised professors who fail to teach the "truth" that civilization itself "is best exemplified in the West and indeed in America."
In What's So Great About America, Dinesh D'Souza contends that freedom and religious toleration are uniquely "Western" beliefs. The publisher's ad for the book identifies those who hold alternative views as "people who provide a rationale for terrorism." With funding from conservative foundations and powerful political connections, such commentators hope to reshape the teaching of American history.
Historians cannot predict the future, but the past they portray must be one out of which the present can plausibly have grown. The self-absorbed, super-celebratory history now being promoted will not enable students to make sense of either their own society or our increasingly interconnected world.
Historians cannot choose the ways history becomes part of our own experience. September 11 has rudely placed certain issues at the forefront of our consciousness. Let me mention three and their implications for how we think about the American past: the upsurge of patriotism, significant infringements on civil liberties and a sudden awareness of considerable distrust abroad of American actions and motives.
The generation of historians that came of age during the Vietnam War witnessed firsthand how patriotic language and symbols, especially the American flag, can be invoked in the service of manifestly unjust causes. Partly as a result, they have tended to neglect the power of these symbols as genuine expressions of a sense of common national community. Patriotism, if studied at all, has been understood as an "invention," rather than a habit of the heart.
Historians have had greater success lately at dividing up the American past into discrete experiences delineated along lines of race, ethnicity, gender and class than at exploring the common threads of American nationality. But the immediate response to September 11 cut across these boundaries. No one knows if the renewed sense of common purpose and shared national identity that surfaced so vividly after September 11 will prove temporary. But they require historians to devote new attention to the roots of the symbols, values and experiences Americans share as well as those that divide them.
All patriotic upsurges run the risk of degenerating into a coercive drawing of boundaries between "loyal" Americans and those stigmatized as aliens and traitors. This magazine has chronicled the numerous and disturbing infringements on civil liberties that have followed September 11. Such legal protections as habeas corpus, trial by impartial jury, the right to legal representation and equality before the law regardless of race or national origin have been seriously curtailed.
Civil liberties have been severely abridged during previous moments of crisis, from the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 to Japanese-American internment in World War II. Historians generally view these past episodes as shameful anomalies. But we are now living through another such episode, and there is a remarkable absence of public outcry.
We need an American history that sees protections for civil liberties not as a timeless feature of our "civilization" but as a recent and fragile achievement resulting from many decades of historical struggle. We should take a new look at obscure Supreme Court cases--Fong Yue Ting (1893), the Insular Cases of the early twentieth century, Korematsu during World War II--in which the Justices allowed the government virtual carte blanche in dealing with aliens and in suspending the rights of specific groups of citizens on grounds of military necessity. Dissenting in Fong Yue Ting, which authorized the deportation of Chinese immigrants without due process, Justice David Brewer observed that, like today, the power was directed against a people many Americans found "obnoxious." But, he warned, "who shall say it will not be exercised tomorrow against other classes and other people?"
September 11 will also undoubtedly lead historians to examine more closely the history of the country's relationship with the larger world. Public opinion polls revealed that few Americans have any knowledge of other peoples' grievances against the United States. A study of our history in its international context might help to explain why there is widespread fear outside our borders that the war on terrorism is motivated in part by the desire to impose a Pax Americana in a grossly unequal world.
Back in the 1930s, historian Herbert Bolton warned that by treating the American past in isolation, historians were helping to raise up a "nation of chauvinists"--a danger worth remembering when considering the drumbeat of calls for a celebratory and insular history divorced from its global context. Of course, international paradigms can be every bit as obfuscating as histories that are purely national. We must be careful not to reproduce traditional American exceptionalism on a global scale.
September 11, for example, has inspired a spate of commentary influenced by Samuel Huntington's mid-1990s book The Clash of Civilizations. Huntington's paradigm reduces politics and culture to a single characteristic--race, religion or geography--that remains forever static, divorced from historical development or change through interaction with other societies. It makes it impossible to discuss divisions within these purported civilizations. The idea that the West is the sole home of reason, liberty and tolerance ignores how recently such values triumphed in the United States and also ignores the debates over creationism, abortion rights and other issues that suggest that commitment to them is hardly unanimous. The definition of "Western civilization" is highly selective--it includes the Enlightenment but not the Inquisition, liberalism but not the Holocaust, Charles Darwin but not the Salem witch trials.
Nor can September 11 be explained by reference to timeless characteristics or innate pathologies of "Islamic civilization." From the Ku Klux Klan during Reconstruction to Oklahoma City in our own time, our society has produced its own home-grown terrorists. Terrorism springs from specific historical causes, not the innate qualities of one or another civilization.
The study of history should transcend boundaries rather than reinforce or reproduce them. In the wake of September 11, it is all the more imperative that the history we teach be a candid appraisal of our own society's strengths and weaknesses, not simply an exercise in self-celebration--a conversation with the entire world, not a complacent dialogue with ourselves.
Odd that a topic containing the words "global society" has its main focus on the U.S. society.
It was my understanding that we are a failing superpower on the brink of collapse anyway, so how we percieve and teach history going forward is moot. :inquisitive:
Nice bit of societal bashing though, but hey, I never bought into the "global society" BS anyway. Nationalism has its roots firmly in place all over the world (EU constitution anyone?), and the romantic ideas of a global community are just that, left to authors who desire a utopia that is based on nothing more then themselves standing on a pulpit preaching to the congregation they have created in thier mind.
A discussion on the statistical output of fecal matter by nation would be a wonderful comparative article.
:thumbsdown:
Nice bit of societal bashing though, but hey, I never bought into the "global society" BS anyway. Nationalism has its roots firmly in place all over the world (EU constitution anyone?), and the romantic ideas of a global community are just that, left to authors who desire a utopia that is based on nothing more then themselves standing on a pulpit preaching to the congregation they have created in thier mind.
Until about 60 years ago you could have said the same about peace in Europe.
Also don't underestimate the internet, I already have a global community and you're part of it, whether you want or not. ~;)
Until about 60 years ago you could have said the same about peace in Europe.
Also don't underestimate the internet, I already have a global community and you're part of it, whether you want or not. ~;)
bah, how about we compare feces output instead?
bah, how about we compare feces output instead?
What's that supposed to mean?
Whether you like it or not we live in a global community, not some one world government peace on Earth crap, but a world were you are forced to deal with people all over the world. Two dorm rooms down from me is a Chinese student named Roy, I'm going to bet the clothes you are wearing weren't made in the country you live in, etc. Actions in one nation affect all others now.
macsen rufus
09-13-2007, 16:08
Maybe you think the folks next door don't matter as much as you do, Odin, but it doesn't alter the fact that you have neighbours -- and we're all depositing our faecal matter in the same backyard. That makes it a global community, even if you want to be the odd guy at the end of the street with his curtains closed all day.
What's that supposed to mean?
What do you think it means genius?
Whether you like it or not we live in a global community, not some one world government peace on Earth crap, but a world were you are forced to deal with people all over the world.
No kidding really?
Two dorm rooms down from me is a Chinese student named Roy, I'm going to bet the clothes you are wearing weren't made in the country you live in, etc.
Yes, im sure the history lessons of the future will be ripe with example of how the imperialist declining US society fell to an economic chinese jugernaut that is primary growth sourse is manufacturing revenue based on said US consumption.
Actions in one nation affect all others now.
Brilliance, alas this dosent negate the fact the article is written from a perspective of how the US should be teaching history in the authors interpretation of a global society. It also dosent negate the notion of nationalism which is firmly routed all over the world (want to bet on that one too sport?) and that global societies as presented here are a long, long way off.
Of course Gene Roddenberry was right about the cell phone, so who knows maybe the starship enterprise will be bravely going where no man has gone before, bespeckled of course with all ethnicities represented from one singular community called earth....
:gathering:
Maybe you think the folks next door don't matter as much as you do, Odin, but it doesn't alter the fact that you have neighbours -- and we're all depositing our faecal matter in the same backyard.
Who talking abotu next door? This article is about a global society, and in that sense i dont give a dam what the hell you do in your country or how you teach your history.
That makes it a global community, even if you want to be the odd guy at the end of the street with his curtains closed all day.
Or better yet I could be like you, the guy at the top of the street on the soap box telling everyone else how they should be thinking and how they should be teaching thier history.
macsen rufus
09-13-2007, 16:46
Who talking abotu next door? This article is about a global society, and in that sense i dont give a dam what the hell you do in your country or how you teach your history.
Right, so you're one of the guys who says "Maybe Iran calls America the Great Satan and teaching how we've :daisy:ed them over, let it go, my fellow Americans."??
the guy at the top of the street on the soap box telling everyone else how they should be thinking and how they should be teaching thier history
AFAIK "The Nation" is a US publication, the end of the street is a little closer to you than I am...
But, true, if I see I a liar, I'll call him on it.
Right, so you're one of the guys who says "Maybe Iran calls America the Great Satan and teaching how we've :daisy:ed them over, let it go, my fellow Americans."??
I couldnt care less what they do in Iran, however when there "great satan" rhetoric ends up being real support for terrorist organizations then yep :daisy: them.
AFAIK "The Nation" is a US publication, the end of the street is a little closer to you than I am...
the article was written on how the U.S. should teach the history of 9/11 in a global context. So maybe we arent so much different then are we macsen? if i see BS, I call it BS.
if I see I a liar, I'll call him on it.
The problem is in the context of this article, that its not just "calling him on it" its then going further and attempting to direct the discussion in broader terms in a "global society".
If you, or the author is that arrogant that you feel you need to pontificate about how a an event that occurred here, and had its greatest impact here should be applied in global terms here, then your far more bold then I.
bah, how about we compare feces output instead?
Pictures or descriptive text?:inquisitive:
Pictures or descriptive text?:inquisitive:
You start, and in the end we can tell each other exactly how to present the findings to the other. Basically, you get to tell me how I should interpret my :daisy: and i get to tell you how to interpret yours.
Getting theme now?
:thumbsup:
macsen rufus
09-13-2007, 17:48
Maybe we're working on different definitions of "global society", which was all I was originally refuting in what you posted. A la Voltaire, we should define our terms before the conversation :embarassed:
I believe - I may be wrong - that you see "global society" as having some sort of overarching organisation or at least consensus from which you can dissent. I don't - I see it as a statement that we all operate in the same space, and have to bump off each other every once in a while, and that it's not possible to withdraw from it. Isolationism is futile, unless you leave the planet entirely. Even the remotest hermit in the Himalayas breathes the same atmosphere as you and I, and in which nations of east and west, for instance conducted so many nuclear weapons tests. He may well be ignorant of the history of those tests - that doesn't keep the strontium out of his bones. His isolation is a de facto fallacy.
But seeing as we are inevitably going to bump into each other, I think it's a good idea to appreciate that the other moving bodies do not necessarily follow the same laws of motion that we do, nor do they necesarily understand how we are going to move in certain circumstances. Increased knowledge is always a good thing, on all sides. Collisions there will always be, but I'd rather see the sort that result in "Hey, watch your step, bud!" to the sort that results in 9/11. Your not caring how history was taught in Afghanistan during the 1990s did not prevent that event. Afghans not caring what US citizens learn about Afghanistan has deflected no carpet bombing.
The way history is taught and built into a national, cultural or religious mythos will have impacts outside it's own sphere. It is inevitable. Just as it is probably inevitable that all local perceptions will be distorted, every national mythos will be distorted, and that every nation will engage in some misguided actions due to that distortion of perception.
IMHO history needs to be taught in a way that understands that history teaching has a perspective, with objectivity, and academic and rational rigour, and free from any sort of political or religious control. I don't think that will happen, however.
I really don't know how history is taught in Britain's schools these days, it's a long time since I was inside one, and when I was I had little interest in the subject. So I've had to come back to it in later life, and re-educate myself, and in doing so, I have been astounded and perturbed to discover that so much that passes for "history" these days is driven by blatant revisionist agendas (even if you look at something as remote as the Middle East in the BRONZE AGE :inquisitive: ). If we are to keep any track of objectivity, there needs to be a global perspective, somewhere to step back to in order to take in a wider view. If you stay inside the box, all you see is the insides of a box, and often as not you'll be trapped in there with some nutter trying to redecorate the walls, painting a picture here, removing a text there, or redefining his genetic origins in a corner.
Maybe more pertinent to another thread, but to quote Orwell: "Whoever controls the past controls the present. Whoever controls the present controls the future."
THAT's why we should care how history is taught - everywhere - but firstly in our own backyards, of course, but we cannot pretend that what we don't know about can't hurt us, or that deliberating ignoring it can protect us.
Devastatin Dave
09-13-2007, 18:02
AFAIK "The Nation" is a US publication
It might be "published" in the US, but it is FAR from and "American" publication. Its a great news source for 5th columnist infiltrating this great nation.
I believe - I may be wrong - that you see "global society" as having some sort of overarching organisation or at least consensus from which you can dissent.
You have simplified my view, but for the most part your correct, particularly "consensus from which you can dissent" I dont believe consensus is possible given geography, history and nationalism.
Isolationism is futile, unless you leave the planet entirely. Even the remotest hermit in the Himalayas breathes the same atmosphere as you and I, and in which nations of east and west, for instance conducted so many nuclear weapons tests. He may well be ignorant of the history of those tests - that doesn't keep the strontium out of his bones. His isolation is a de facto fallacy.
Your using an awfully broad brush to paint a picture. Breathing air is far different then the presentation of a historical event.
Your not caring how history was taught in Afghanistan during the 1990s did not prevent that event. Afghans not caring what US citizens learn about Afghanistan has deflected no carpet bombing.
Your absolutely correct, neither would have been prevented from how history was taught on the otherside. Again, we seem to be in agreement on more then i thought.
The way history is taught and built into a national, cultural or religious mythos will have impacts outside it's own sphere. It is inevitable. Just as it is probably inevitable that all local perceptions will be distorted, every national mythos will be distorted, and that every nation will engage in some misguided actions due to that distortion of perception.
This is becoming long in the tooth, but okay, yes I agree, yet there is no universal application of ones perception, its often exclusive to a minority, on a global scale.
IMHO history needs to be taught in a way that understands that history teaching has a perspective, with objectivity, and academic and rational rigour, and free from any sort of political or religious control. I don't think that will happen, however.
Now we are finding division, in the case presented in the article 9/11 cannot be deviod of political or religous content, because that would defy its cause and subsequent reactions.
This is clearly a case where perception is in the eye of the individual or group of individuals, not in the whole.
If we are to keep any track of objectivity, there needs to be a global perspective, somewhere to step back to in order to take in a wider view. If you stay inside the box, all you see is the insides of a box, and often as not you'll be trapped in there with some nutter trying to redecorate the walls, painting a picture here, removing a text there, or redefining his genetic origins in a corner.
There in lies the paradox of your argument, objectivity is a subjective concept. If we infact were a "global society" that subjectivity wouldnt be present. I can try and be objective but alas as a race we havent achieved it yet and its my contention that its folly to do so (given our less then stellar track record).
Tribesman
09-13-2007, 19:10
It might be "published" in the US, but it is FAR from and "American" publication.
Does that mean that it publishes things that in your opinion are not true blooded flag waving "patriot" stuff ?
You start, and in the end we can tell each other exactly how to present the findings to the other. Basically, you get to tell me how I should interpret my :daisy: and i get to tell you how to interpret yours.
Getting theme now?
:thumbsup:
Yes, but now I don't want anymore. :scastle:
Its a great news source for 5th columnist infiltrating this great nation.
Those are everywhere, always watch your back.
Geoffrey S
09-13-2007, 21:14
The point is moot. Which global society? I don't see one. :inquisitive:
Goofball
09-14-2007, 00:17
It might be "published" in the US, but it is FAR from and "American" publication. Its a great news source for 5th columnist infiltrating this great nation.
Anybody want to bet that Dave has one of those fancy rolls of toilet paper that has a new "word of the day" on every square?
I'm betting Dave deposited the residue of his fecal matter on the word "fifth column" sometime earlier this week.
Speaking of September 11th, I just came back from a BBQ at my kid's school and a few of us parents were wondering why all the elementary school kid's agendas have September 11th marked with a small blue and red ribbon in the corner of the date box. None of the parents are anti-American (though they all detest Bush), one is even a local fireman who constantly wears a 9/11 NYFD ball cap, but even he was wondering why 9/11 is noted in a nine year-olds agenda to the exclusion of every other historical incident.
We all thought it reeked of propaganda and was out of place. I think our concerns are going to be brought up with the school governing board. It will be interesting to hear what they have to say.
Boyar Son
09-14-2007, 00:50
Speaking of September 11th, I just came back from a BBQ at my kid's school and a few of us parents were wondering why all the elementary school kid's agendas have September 11th marked with a small blue and red ribbon in the corner of the date box. None of the parents are anti-American (though they all detest Bush), one is even a local fireman who constantly wears a 9/11 NYFD ball cap, but even he was wondering why 9/11 is noted in a nine year-olds agenda to the exclusion of every other historical incident.
We all thought it reeked of propaganda and was out of place. I think our concerns are going to be brought up with the school governing board. It will be interesting to hear what they have to say.
your mad at the rememberance of 9-11?
your mad at the rememberance of 9-11?
Not at all. I have great empathy for my American friends and family.
My (our) concern is why 9/11 is noted in a nine-year old's Canadian school issue agenda to the exclusion of all other historical events. It is odd, if not downright questionable.
I agree Beirut, making it look like the only important thing during a year sounds like a very bad idea.
Devastatin Dave
09-14-2007, 03:13
Anybody want to bet that Dave has one of those fancy rolls of toilet paper that has a new "word of the day" on every square?
I'm betting Dave deposited the residue of his fecal matter on the word "fifth column" sometime earlier this week.
Actually I use a more enviromentally friendly method. It involves a Canadian flag and there is little waste. When its too soiled, I simply print out any number of your postings and use that.
Devastatin Dave
09-14-2007, 03:19
I agree Beirut, making it look like the only important thing during a year sounds like a very bad idea.
Its because it is still realatively recent and there was a large loss of life. The bombings in England and Spain were just not to the scale of September 11th. But don't worry, the religion of peace is bound to kill a whole lot on a different date so we can forget about September 11th with all the other dates of Islamic terror. :2thumbsup:
seireikhaan
09-14-2007, 03:25
Not at all. I have great empathy for my American friends and family.
My (our) concern is why 9/11 is noted in a nine-year old's Canadian school issue agenda to the exclusion of all other historical events. It is odd, if not downright questionable.
I'm with the lumberjack on this one. Earlier this week, we had a two minute 'moment' of silence in rememberance of 9/11. Curiously, we never have one for Pearl Harbor on December 7. Or come to think of it, we never have any rememberances for ANY historical event other than 9/11. Considering I go to a Catholic school, you'd think that, according to the supposed standards of morality and empathy and so forth, we should have one for August 6 and August 9, when we dropped Little Boy and Fat Man on the Japanese. Afterall, according to Catholic teaching, all humans are equal regardless of national affiliation. But then, my school is a cesspool of hypocrisy and staunch republicanism, so I'm not really all that surprised.
Devastatin Dave
09-14-2007, 03:42
I'm with the lumberjack on this one. Earlier this week, we had a two minute 'moment' of silence in rememberance of 9/11. Curiously, we never have one for Pearl Harbor on December 7. Or come to think of it, we never have any rememberances for ANY historical event other than 9/11. Considering I go to a Catholic school, you'd think that, according to the supposed standards of morality and empathy and so forth, we should have one for August 6 and August 9, when we dropped Little Boy and Fat Man on the Japanese. Afterall, according to Catholic teaching, all humans are equal regardless of national affiliation. But then, my school is a cesspool of hypocrisy and staunch republicanism, so I'm not really all that surprised.
Do you have any clue as to what the Japanese were doing during that time frame or the fact we were at war with them? Tell that to a WW2 vet and see how they feel about your empathy about the Japanese. Again, this is a recent event, more civilians killed in 1 day in "our" nation's history. Like I said earlier, a much worse Islamic attack will come on a different day and then some of us can mourn while the rest of you moan about moral relativism.:no:
Proletariat
09-14-2007, 03:47
I really think it's a recency thing, Beirut. Do you really think whomever designed the agenda has the idea that American deaths are more significant than others? That maybe an American 'infiltrated' the agenda committee, twisted a few arms, bought off some folks, and had this bit of propaganda slipped in?
I know you have some close American relatives (iirc) and have mentioned your admiration for alot of American qualities and values on this board, so I don't think your taking a cheap shot or US bashing or whatever. Just think the suspicion is prolly unnecessary.
seireikhaan
09-14-2007, 04:01
Do you have any clue as to what the Japanese were doing during that time frame or the fact we were at war with them? Tell that to a WW2 vet and see how they feel about your empathy about the Japanese. Again, this is a recent event, more civilians killed in 1 day in "our" nation's history. Like I said earlier, a much worse Islamic attack will come on a different day and then some of us can mourn while the rest of you moan about moral relativism.:no:
I am quite aware of the Japanese torture camps, bamboo up the fingernails, etc...Are you aware as to the Catholic Church's teachings regarding human life and civilian deaths? The church is vehemently against the involvement of civilians in warfare, and the destruction of Nagasaki and Hiroshima obviously resulted in a massive number of civilian deaths. I am not saying whether or not it was right to drop the A-bombs; rather, I am pointing out the hypocrisy of my school, which is backed by the church.(which is a favorite pasttime of mine)
Its because it is still realatively recent and there was a large loss of life. The bombings in England and Spain were just not to the scale of September 11th. But don't worry, the religion of peace is bound to kill a whole lot on a different date so we can forget about September 11th with all the other dates of Islamic terror. :2thumbsup:
Yes, I can understand that to some degree.
I just think that small kids can be easily influneced, if I had seen that as a kid the notion that 9/11 has to be something really, really special would have sticked for a long time I guess. While you are right that we shouldn't sleep because some scumbad is probably playing another attack, we also shouldn't go all barbaric on the Middle East or cower in fear, I always thought there was a secret service for a reason.
Like I said earlier, a much worse Islamic attack will come on a different day and then some of us can mourn while the rest of you moan about moral relativism.:no:
I yield to your humanity. Obviously I was incorrect. Also, your other posted statement about the tragedy being recent and the loss of life large has great merit.
If you would, since I am a bit slow on these matters, please look back to the elementary school books for the grade four classes in your district from 1995 onward and let me know on what date the children in your neighbourhood mourned the hundreds of thousands killed in the Rwandan genocide. I think at that point it was both recent and constituted a very large loss of life. Also, what colour was the ribbon or symbol in the textbooks that denoted the date?
Also, given your age, I'm curious what day your own elementary school classes cited as a mourning day for the victims of the chemical disaster in Bhopal, India. That would have been very recent and there was a large loss of innocent life. Was there a coloured ribbon in your textbook as remembrance for the thousands killed and blinded?
Thanks Dave, let me know when you have the time.
Seamus Fermanagh
09-14-2007, 04:37
I am quite aware of the Japanese torture camps, bamboo up the fingernails, etc...Are you aware as to the Catholic Church's teachings regarding human life and civilian deaths? The church is vehemently against the involvement of civilians in warfare, and the destruction of Nagasaki and Hiroshima obviously resulted in a massive number of civilian deaths. I am not saying whether or not it was right to drop the A-bombs; rather, I am pointing out the hypocrisy of my school, which is backed by the church.(which is a favorite pasttime of mine)
My diocese was pretty clear about mourning the deaths and praying for peace. I recall one priest a couple of years ago being very forthright about the difference between actively defending your country and freedom (laudable) and taking joy from doing so (questionable to sinful depending).
The church is against violence in all forms.
Proletariat
09-14-2007, 04:41
Nvm
Devastatin Dave
09-14-2007, 08:14
I yield to your humanity. Obviously I was incorrect. Also, your other posted statement about the tragedy being recent and the loss of life large has great merit.
If you would, since I am a bit slow on these matters, please look back to the elementary school books for the grade four classes in your district from 1995 onward and let me know on what date the children in your neighbourhood mourned the hundreds of thousands killed in the Rwandan genocide. I think at that point it was both recent and constituted a very large loss of life. Also, what colour was the ribbon or symbol in the textbooks that denoted the date?
Also, given your age, I'm curious what day your own elementary school classes cited as a mourning day for the victims of the chemical disaster in Bhopal, India. That would have been very recent and there was a large loss of innocent life. Was there a coloured ribbon in your textbook as remembrance for the thousands killed and blinded?
Thanks Dave, let me know when you have the time.
I think you misunderstand me... I don't give a #### if your little insignificant piss-ant country observes 9-11 or any other issue about my country. In fact, if I was you in the great white north I wouldn't care either. That was not my point. I give enough in taxes to third world turds to clear my "global society" concience. I know how the "global society" views my country and how they really feel about 9-11 to understand. Harsh but true, now go deny more wildlife their homes and #### their global comunity as well. :thumbsdown:
I'm with Beirut on this, why is any date more significant than any other. Plenty has happened in the course of humanity and placing one day above all others seems very vain and arrogant. But there seems no point adding my opinion, because it's already been expressed that there is no respect for "the Other", too caught up in "the Self".
Papewaio
09-14-2007, 09:58
Its because it is still realatively recent and there was a large loss of life. The bombings in England and Spain were just not to the scale of September 11th.
Shouldn't the kids textbook have a picture of muddy water against every day of the week then?
About 4,500 children die each day from unsafe water and lack of basic sanitation facilities. Countless others suffer from poor health, diminished productivity and missed opportunities for education.
http://www.unicef.org/wes/index_31600.html
I don't give a #### if your little insignificant piss-ant country
Actually, we're bigger than you. (But it's fine if you say size doesn't matter Dave, we understand.)
In fact, if I was you in the great white north I wouldn't care either.
On the contrary, we do care a great deal. To say if you were us that you wouldn't care is just painting yourself in an lonely isolationist corner because it's easier and more convenient to stomp your feet and say "Nobody likes me!" and use that excuse for acting without regard for others. I see the kids do it all the time.
...now go deny more wildlife their homes.
Will do. I'm off in 45 minutes. Going to be a big one today. Vroom-vroom. :sunny:
Incongruous
09-14-2007, 12:04
It might be "published" in the US, but it is FAR from and "American" publication. Its a great news source for 5th columnist infiltrating this great nation.
Wow! Can you're books now choose their nationality?
I must say I am impressed. I always thought my Pilger books looked Eastern...
Incongruous
09-14-2007, 12:07
Its because it is still realatively recent and there was a large loss of life. The bombings in England and Spain were just not to the scale of September 11th. But don't worry, the religion of peace is bound to kill a whole lot on a different date so we can forget about September 11th with all the other dates of Islamic terror. :2thumbsup:
Oh good, I was waiting for the Republicans to do something new this season!
Seamus Fermanagh
09-14-2007, 14:45
Oh good, I was waiting for the Republicans to do something new this season!
If you're going to wait around for EITHER the GOP or the Dems to do something new, might I suggest hand-calculating the full value of pi to keep your time occupied.....
Shouldn't the kids textbook have a picture of muddy water against every day of the week then?
About 4,500 children die each day from unsafe water and lack of basic sanitation facilities. Countless others suffer from poor health, diminished productivity and missed opportunities for education.
http://www.unicef.org/wes/index_31600.html
Yep, in thier country you bet they should. In mine, I prefer to have societial ethical and moral trends help to dictate what is taught and how, not a group of people who have a belief of how a universal application of an event should be applied.
The question becomes (in your example) how is it portrayed? Are the unsafe sanitation conditions due to government mismanagement? Lack of income of said families? Oppression by the rich?
I much prefer the choice of depiction from multiple sources then a singular source attempting a global view of the 4500 kids plight. It minimalizes the complexities of the condition, and devalues the plight.
Kagemusha
09-14-2007, 15:05
All nations have their traumas. Why should those be boosted on every occasion.Let the dead rest in peace.
I don't mind the moments of silence and all that, but the name they chose bugs me. "Patriot Day" sounds too much like a propaganda ploy. It's got nothing to do with patriotism, just death, fear, and random acts of heroism. I guess "National Intelligence Screwup Day" and "Farcical Airline Security Day" were taken...
As to why the Canadian children have it marked down, who knows? They lost several citizens in the attacks as well, or maybe they are just being sympathetic?
Goofball
09-14-2007, 17:32
Anybody want to bet that Dave has one of those fancy rolls of toilet paper that has a new "word of the day" on every square?
I'm betting Dave deposited the residue of his fecal matter on the word "fifth column" sometime earlier this week.Actually I use a more enviromentally friendly method. It involves a Canadian flag and there is little waste.
Fortunately, as a Canadian, I am secure in the knowledge that our worth, honour, and contribution to the world as a whole really have nothing to do with a multi-coloured bit of cloth that flies atop a pole. So, unlike you, I don't throw a screaming hissy-fit when somebody does something to a flag.
When its too soiled, I simply print out any number of your postings and use that.
Given the angular, abrasive nature of crumpled up printer paper, I can at least take comfort in the fact that my posts are a pain in your ass, both figuratively and literally...
:clown:
Devastatin Dave
09-14-2007, 18:43
Given the angular, abrasive nature of crumpled up printer paper, I can at least take comfort in the fact that my posts are a pain in your ass, both figuratively and literally...
:clown:
My ass is so worn and calloused that your posts cannot hurt it!!!!
Tribesman
09-14-2007, 19:10
I know how the "global society" views my country and how they really feel about 9-11 to understand.
Wow not only a genius but a phsycic as well , your depth of knowledge truly humbles us all Dave:bow:
So, unlike you, I don't throw a screaming hissy-fit when somebody does something to a flag.
Awww thats not nice Goof . :laugh4:
Boyar Son
09-14-2007, 22:01
Not at all. I have great empathy for my American friends and family.
My (our) concern is why 9/11 is noted in a nine-year old's Canadian school issue agenda to the exclusion of all other historical events. It is odd, if not downright questionable.
ah, Well I guess if you think about it we only really mourn what happened in our life time or close to it.
We dont see anyone getting mad at the Mongols for attacking europe and the mid-east.
ajaxfetish
09-14-2007, 22:27
ah, Well I guess if you think about it we only really mourn what happened in our life time or close to it.
We dont see anyone getting mad at the Mongols for attacking europe and the mid-east.
Do the agendas have an Indian Ocean Tsunami remembrance on Dec. 26? That was more recent than 9/11 by over 3 years and unless I'm really screwing the math up, 230,000 casualties is a greater loss of life as well.
Ajax
Boyar Son
09-14-2007, 22:46
Do the agendas have an Indian Ocean Tsunami remembrance on Dec. 26? That was more recent than 9/11 by over 3 years and unless I'm really screwing the math up, 230,000 casualties is a greater loss of life as well.
Ajax
I dont know ask Beirut.
Tribesman
09-14-2007, 22:50
Do the agendas have an Indian Ocean Tsunami remembrance on Dec. 26? That was more recent than 9/11 by over 3 years and unless I'm really screwing the math up, 230,000 casualties is a greater loss of life as well.
Yeah but that was gods punishment to Scandanavians
Seamus Fermanagh
09-15-2007, 22:16
My ass is so worn and calloused that your posts cannot hurt it!!!!
Dave,
Please do NOT provide me witht the details here. Please. I'll send money if I have to. Please. Be kind......
HoreTore
09-15-2007, 23:57
Do the agendas have an Indian Ocean Tsunami remembrance on Dec. 26? That was more recent than 9/11 by over 3 years and unless I'm really screwing the math up, 230,000 casualties is a greater loss of life as well.
Ajax
yes, but you see; that was 230,000 humans nobody cares about, while 9/11 was 5000 very important westerners... As well as hurting our business, instead of somebody elses.
So clearly, 9/11 trumps the tsunami.
Papewaio
09-16-2007, 23:21
Yep, in thier country you bet they should. In mine, I prefer to have societial ethical and moral trends help to dictate what is taught and how, not a group of people who have a belief of how a universal application of an event should be applied.
The statement was that 9/11 should be remembered in other countries because of the intensity and recent nature of the events. My example was 50% larger in intensity and happening daily way before and since 9/11. So if 9/11 gets a coloured ribbon in a diary for Canadian school kids... surely a larger issue should get a mark for every day of the week in Canadian text books?
Given the multiple reasons for the poor water quality, I'm sure some of it is due to political violence (civil war, terrorism, religious strife etc)... in fact given that it is 4500 kids per annum and there is 365 days in a year... less then two-thirds of a percent of those that die have to be killed due to political violence to out weigh 9/11 in a single year (as in same root cause)... so in 6 years since 9/11 only 0.1% of the deaths due to unpotable water have to be caused by political violence to outweigh 9/11 (again as caused by political lead violence, not say bottled water that has e.coli in it)... it is as a whole regardless of root cause a catastrophe that is a thousand times larger then 9/11... so doesn't it deserve some acknowledgement too?
AntiochusIII
09-17-2007, 00:56
it is as a whole regardless of root cause a catastrophe that is a thousand times larger then 9/11... so doesn't it deserve some acknowledgement too?Let me be the Captain of the Obvious and says that numbers and reality have nothing to do with that. Our old favorite Uncle Iosif with his scratchy quotation made it rather clear, no? One death is great sorrow and six millions are just numbers.
Is it unjust? Probably. Is it idiotic? May be. Nine years olds shouldn't be "remembering" any tragedy at their age. Do I care? Not so much. They're not my children; Beirut said he will take action, no? People will ask why the hell are they doing this propaganda and that's fair enough -- and yes it's propaganda; these are elementary school kids at best. One doesn't need a central authority and an evil mastermind to create propaganda; it can even be unintentional or "harmlessly done" like this case.
As to why it's there and not the Tsunami, I'd say that the spectacular event of 9/11 was truly Osama's masterstroke at least in terms of political and social impact in the Great Satan's world. The Tsunami was much, much more destructive, with so many more lives lost; but it did not force Congress to put forward a Patriot Act or put the USA to enter two wars. It did not enter the psyche of American thought -- and Canadian, by proxy, though not as much -- the way "terrorism" has had since 9/11.
What I am saying might be taken as belittling the deaths of those in 9/11; frankly, that's not my intention, though neither do I care if I appear such to others.
I don't really understand the OP article however. What is it trying to say anyway? That mainstream history teaching is all balloons and bubblegums? Well, duh.
P.S. Back in the Backroom! [Man was Uni boring]
The statement was that 9/11 should be remembered in other countries because of the intensity and recent nature of the events. My example was 50% larger in intensity and happening daily way before and since 9/11.
Yes thats true, I dont think your incorrect as to the severity of the example you gave.
So if 9/11 gets a coloured ribbon in a diary for Canadian school kids... surely a larger issue should get a mark for every day of the week in Canadian text books?
As a resident of that country, a taxpayer and a voter, that would be up to you. Would you prefer to have someone dictate how an event should be taught in your country? The gist of the article as I read it was that there should be a global approach to a historical event (9/11 as an example). I disagree with this premise, it seems you do to, am I reading you correctly?
Given the multiple reasons for the poor water quality, I'm sure some of it is due to political violence (civil war, terrorism, religious strife etc)... in fact given that it is 4500 kids per annum and there is 365 days in a year... less then two-thirds of a percent of those that die have to be killed due to political violence to out weigh 9/11 in a single year (as in same root cause)... so in 6 years since 9/11 only 0.1% of the deaths due to unpotable water have to be caused by political violence to outweigh 9/11 (again as caused by political lead violence, not say bottled water that has e.coli in it)... it is as a whole regardless of root cause a catastrophe that is a thousand times larger then 9/11... so doesn't it deserve some acknowledgement too?
It should definately be acknowledged, and each country/society should be able to do so on thier terms. Thats my issue with this article it seems to be a "global" approach to local issues. 9/11 may have impacted the world with its aftermath actions, but it had a far different impact to someone in Manhattan then it did to the plant worker in Bombay.
We should be able to manage several perspectives as to causes and reactions to several issues regardless of location.
Rodion Romanovich
09-17-2007, 16:58
Seeing as the only thing we can learn from history is that we can't learn anything from history, sometimes I think we should just screw history lessons completely and let the kids go play football or play war with sticks and stones (or plastic guns, which would increase the income of toy manufacturers and thus also the BNP).
Papewaio
09-18-2007, 02:56
As a resident of that country, a taxpayer and a voter, that would be up to you. Would you prefer to have someone dictate how an event should be taught in your country? The gist of the article as I read it was that there should be a global approach to a historical event (9/11 as an example). I disagree with this premise, it seems you do to, am I reading you correctly?
Actually I think both should be taught that way it can be put in its proper context and why they have different outcomes. I think history is filtered through the lens of society, as we aren't a global society yet (which has many pros and cons) we should then have history that is applicable and viable to those it is being taught to.
9/11 is a significant event. It is a large man made disaster that was planned to happen.
Children dying because of unpotable water is a larger event. The reason that it isn't as big news is several fold. The number one is not that they are third worlders, it is because they die as a spin-off of other events. It is not a man made disaster that was planned to wipe them out.
I would probably split hairs and teach 9/11 as a historical event (man-made, planned and acted out) and children dying from dirty water as social studies (a function of the societies and group dynamics that they lived in, a faceless act that leads them to being a faceless stat).
What I wouldn't do is publish one event in a diary to the exclusion of all else. A myopic approach to society filters out far to much and over-simplifies the event, doing other events and the one being focused on a disservice. History after all is a series of events, not just a singular one, and by being singular it takes it out of context and a reasonable measure of understanding.
KukriKhan
09-18-2007, 14:49
Trying to find an example/instance of 9-11 being noted on a Canadian school calendar, I started with The Ministry of Ed's (http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/general/list/calendar/holidaye.html) site and came up short. Visiting some local school districts' sites, I similarly find no reference to 9-11 being singled out.
I conclude that the most probable answer is that Beirut's local school board bought student workbooks-agendas from a US publisher (I wonder if July 4th is noted), perhaps because they were cheaper.
Bah! In my day we used little tiny hammers and little tiny chisels to carve out our lessons on pine boards. Pointy sticks in the dirt were used for temporary 'figgerin'; and we walked 20 miles barefoot in the snow, both ways... and we liked it!
:)
I conclude that the most probable answer is that Beirut's local school board bought student workbooks-agendas from a US publisher (I wonder if July 4th is noted), perhaps because they were cheaper.
I checked when I saw the ribbon symbol in the 9/11 date square and I'm sure they were printed in Canada. I'll check again in the morning, I don't want to go into their room right and get their school bags and wake them up.
Good question about July 4. I'll check and let you know.
Cronos Impera
09-19-2007, 10:02
The "Global Society" concept is the result of Mercantlism and was driven by the US need to expand its economic influience over Third World countries and so on.
There wasn't a Third World before US expansion and African tribes preety much considered themselves just normal beings nor poor nor rich.
But for the US the African breadline was just an excuse to make money and expand their off-shore companies to more markets.
In the future there won't be any more states, nations or even distinct languages. Instead the future will belong to corporate empires splitting areas of influience among themselves.
So it makes sense teaching corporate history as Global History.
Globalism is a technoligy driven event, logical consequence of better and faster communication. Sit back and enjoy, little else you can do.
Incongruous
09-19-2007, 10:30
The "Global Society" concept is the result of Mercantlism and was driven by the US need to expand its economic influience over Third World countries and so on.
There wasn't a Third World before US expansion and African tribes preety much considered themselves just normal beings nor poor nor rich.
But for the US the African breadline was just an excuse to make money and expand their off-shore companies to more markets.
In the future there won't be any more states, nations or even distinct languages. Instead the future will belong to corporate empires splitting areas of influience among themselves.
So it makes sense teaching corporate history as Global History.
A wrong headed assumption I feel.
The creation of the Global south is more than just a simple expansion of global markets under the eye of a single superpower. Africa was cracked open before the US got there, indeed some may say that it was under exploitation from others before the Europeans got there. To lay the blame on one or even a few countries, is an historical absurdity. God one could put forward a case that the reason for rapid expansion of the Roman Empire in the First Century was in fact a drive by the Equestrians for more markets. A flawed argument I believe.
I would like you to back up or even explain the assumptions you made about the eventual state of Global affairs in the future.
Ya, and way before america became a superpower, did spawn a few banana-republics in South/middle america but that was later. Europe and especially Belgium was the big cheese in Africa and before that the arabs. Read up on tippu tip, one of the more notorius ones. My canoe my beautifull canoe :beam:
Papewaio
09-20-2007, 02:58
The "Global Society" concept is the result of Mercantlism and was driven by the US need to expand its economic influience over Third World countries and so on.
There wasn't a Third World before US expansion and African tribes preety much considered themselves just normal beings nor poor nor rich.
Have you ever seen the old maps with a quarter of the globe covered in a pink hue?
Or the Dutch influence in far shores such as Formosa (Taiwan) or Indonesia or Van Diemen's Land (Tasmania)...
etc
Soulforged
09-20-2007, 03:25
Do the agendas have an Indian Ocean Tsunami remembrance on Dec. 26? That was more recent than 9/11 by over 3 years and unless I'm really screwing the math up, 230,000 casualties is a greater loss of life as well.
I think the Rwanda example has more merit concerning this matter. We clearly remember more those tragedies provoqued by humans upon humans, and we remember more the closer in time and space we're to it, I don't think that the quantity of lives counts. I think it all has to do with the disgust it produces to witness humans killing humans, there's will and intention, nature doesn't act at all. The OJ Simpson case, the Manson case and the Columbia case are all remembered because of that same fact, while the terrible earthquake that ended the lives of thousands of people on Peru is barely mentioned on this forum.
EDIT: Yes I know ironic that all the cases I mention are american cases, but if I name others perhaps the rest of the people here won't remember them or know them at all...:sweatdrop:
The study of history should transcend boundaries rather than reinforce or reproduce them. In the wake of September 11, it is all the more imperative that the history we teach be a candid appraisal of our own society's strengths and weaknesses, not simply an exercise in self-celebration--a conversation with the entire world, not a complacent dialogue with ourselves.Agreed with this, I couldn't have said it better. But then again, forums, like this one, help a lot to make things that way.
Geoffrey S
09-20-2007, 15:19
Have you ever seen the old maps with a quarter of the globe covered in a pink hue?
Or the Dutch influence in far shores such as Formosa (Taiwan) or Indonesia or Van Diemen's Land (Tasmania)...
etc
Indeed, a different kind of globalization (large area, low intensity and impact) to what we have now (large area, high intensity and impact), but that shows it's not a completely recent phenomenon. All this stuff about corporate empires being the future ruling over nationstates... it's a very simplistic view that ignores the historical context; people barely agree on the definition of globalization, let alone the direction it's heading in or its implications for individual nation states. Things will change, that's clear, but haven't they always done so?
Soulforged
09-20-2007, 18:45
Indeed, a different kind of globalization (large area, low intensity and impact) to what we have now (large area, high intensity and impact), but that shows it's not a completely recent phenomenon. All this stuff about corporate empires being the future ruling over nationstates... it's a very simplistic view that ignores the historical context; people barely agree on the definition of globalization, let alone the direction it's heading in or its implications for individual nation states. Things will change, that's clear, but haven't they always done so?
The globalization process is only one, it begun with mercantilism which forced international relationships to progress at a certain level of exchange (beggining by manufactured products), and then it hasn't stopped since. Today we export and import much more than just manufactured products, I think that the article makes the point, sound point, that we ought to begin exporting and importing history.
Geoffrey S
09-20-2007, 22:54
The globalization process is only one, it begun with mercantilism which forced international relationships to progress at a certain level of exchange (beggining by manufactured products), and then it hasn't stopped since.
Arguably globalization isn't the same process as mercantilism. Things certainly changed for the worse between the two world wars, and it's debatable if the process after WW2 is the same as the one before WW1.
Today we export and import much more than just manufactured products, I think that the article makes the point, sound point, that we ought to begin exporting and importing history.
I disagree about exporting and importing history, in a way. I agree that more general knowledge on the rest of the world in basic education is a must (topography, population numbers), but what the article comes dangerously close to in my opinion is a relativist approach to history in which supposed universal values can be applied to vaguely similar processes around the world processes (terrorism, nationalism, globalization itself). While it's definitely plausible that in some form such universal values exist it's impossible to teach them at a low level as suggested without losing the essentials of the arguments, without emphasising the uniqueness of each situation, and without the final summary becoming a simplistic version of a decent explanation.
To some degree such simplification is already clearly noticeable in school history books on national history which in general aim to raise feelings of nationhood (ie. start of the people to the development of the nationstate), let alone what would happen if such principles are applied to a far more abstract and easily-abused process such as globalization. A lot of people already struggle seperating fact from fiction, objectivity from propaganda with regards to their own nation and even more so when it comes to foreign countries: I say that would need sorting out way before a start can be made educating about the rest of the world without descending into biased, and potentially dangerous simplifications of such major processes.
Edit: humbug. Reading that again is thoroughly confusing. I'll probably have to type out something more coherent another time when I've had some sleep...
Soulforged
09-21-2007, 03:33
Arguably globalization isn't the same process as mercantilism. Things certainly changed for the worse between the two world wars, and it's debatable if the process after WW2 is the same as the one before WW1.I really didn't meant that mercantilism and globalization were or are one and the same, just that they begun at about the same time, one being the cause of the other.
I disagree about exporting and importing history, in a way. I agree that more general knowledge on the rest of the world in basic education is a must (topography, population numbers), but what the article comes dangerously close to in my opinion is a relativist approach to history in which supposed universal values can be applied to vaguely similar processes around the world processes (terrorism, nationalism, globalization itself). While it's definitely plausible that in some form such universal values exist it's impossible to teach them at a low level as suggested without losing the essentials of the arguments, without emphasising the uniqueness of each situation, and without the final summary becoming a simplistic version of a decent explanation.If you apply the same set of values to different situations that's more like absolutism, not relativism. Now I don't think that the article is suggesting that, I believe that he parts from the ignorance of a certain public in general and how to remedy that. Now as Hannibal used to say "communication, Clarice" that's the option he offers as solution for this problem. A conversion (or as an analogy: trade) between different nations or States, opposed versions of the same tale looking for intersections or contrary versions of them to look for agreements, in general bigger knowledge for everyone involved by knowing the other part. After all you can't really understand a nation or an State if you don't know its history...Hard task though, that of teaching global history...
To some degree such simplification is already clearly noticeable in school history books on national history which in general aim to raise feelings of nationhood (ie. start of the people to the development of the nationstate), let alone what would happen if such principles are applied to a far more abstract and easily-abused process such as globalization. A lot of people already struggle seperating fact from fiction, objectivity from propaganda with regards to their own nation and even more so when it comes to foreign countries: I say that would need sorting out way before a start can be made educating about the rest of the world without descending into biased, and potentially dangerous simplifications of such major processes.
This is true, but I believe that the simplification is not based on a reduction to axioms, is more of a vehicle to conviniently teach a swallowable version of such a big history in an space of 10 years aprox. (I don't know how much primary and college lasts in your country), if that's what you meant. A sociologist once said (I don't remember his name, but he was german) on a EU conference that to form a nation's identity, as that of an individual, the things that stain its history are as important as the things that make them shine, refering specifically to the issue of the Nazi process, when people suggested that it had to be concealed or told in such a way that it really didn't form a part of the nation's identity. I think that's a clear point made by the article, and one with which I strongly agree, even more being argentinian I had a lot of bad things to tell...:yes:
Edit: humbug. Reading that again is thoroughly confusing. I'll probably have to type out something more coherent another time when I've had some sleep...Do not worry I think I got it :2thumbsup:
Papewaio
09-21-2007, 05:59
Indeed, a different kind of globalization (large area, low intensity and impact) to what we have now (large area, high intensity and impact), but that shows it's not a completely recent phenomenon. All this stuff about corporate empires being the future ruling over nationstates..
Although I agree mostly with what you say, I think previously the intensity was somewhat stronger... East India Company was certainly a corporate empire that modern corporations could only dream of having that relative power and control levels...
Incongruous
09-21-2007, 06:43
I feel Mercantilism is in a position of direct opossition to the free market features of Globalization.
Indeed many on the global south (and some in the global north) simply believe Globalization to be a new buzz word for capitalism. Thus also of Neocolonialism.
I believe that Globalization, although a result of Europe's Mercantilist policies from the 16th cen. onwards, is an unwelcome idea. The idea that it entails a free market is probably their worst nightmare come true.
A feeling mirrored by those of the global south.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.