British values classes considered

A for todays most silly story :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

The government is to review whether "core British values" should become a compulsory part of the curriculum for 11 to 16-year-olds in England.
In response to last year's London bombings, ministers want to adapt the current citizenship classes in an attempt to make society more unified.

Education minister Bill Rammell criticised "narrow and unhelpful" interpretations of Islam.

He ordered an urgent review of university Islamic courses.

But critics say a government definition of British values would be too vague and that education cannot prevent extremism.

'Radicalisation'

The six-month-long schools review will ask how all children can develop a strong sense of British identity by learning about Britain's culture and traditions, including the contributions from different communities.

Mr Rammell said: "We know that young people of all faiths and of none are more prone to become radicalised than other groups in society.

"This is true in terms of extreme left and extreme right politics, as well as extremist religious views."

Mr Rammell added: "I want to be very clear that none of this is about silencing voices - far from it.

"It is quite legitimate to voice concern, dissent, frustration, even anger. Of course, that must be at the heart of our democracy."

He said: "There is reason to think that in some cases students are being exposed more than any of us would like to wrong-headed influences, under the name of religion.

"In particular, exposed to teachings that either explicitly condone terrorism, or foster a climate of opinion which is at least sympathetic to terrorists' motivation.

"I am worried about this, so are colleagues in government, so above all are Muslims that I have spoken to."

The UK was multicultural but there needed to be a debate about the things shared by all communities, which bound society together, he added.

In a speech at South Bank University, Mr Rammell said the Islam review followed nine months of conversations with Muslim students about their grievances in education.

But Shadow Higher Education Minister Boris Johnson said: "It is not a question of teaching British values; it is a question of teaching British history.

"There is nothing exclusive or divisive in pointing out the fantastic achievements of the British people.

"For 30 years the British education establishment has cow-towed to the doctrines of multiculturalism and they have deprecated all the institutions and symbols that unite the country."

However, Harris Bokhari, from the Muslim Association of Britain, told the BBC's Five Live it was a "knee-jerk reaction" because teaching British values in schools would not have prevented the London bombings.

"What was the reason why these people actually committed these disgusting acts?

"And unfortunately it was our foreign policy, it was the issue of the illegal war, the illegal occupation of Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, the continuing abuses of the Palestinian people, the illegal occupation of Palestine by the Israeli state."

The university review will ask whether religiously oriented courses rely on narrowly interpreted beliefs which might fuel extremism.

It will also look into the spiritual advice available to students and suggest material that might help explain Islam and what it means to be a Muslim in a multi-faith society.

In a separate development, a government-backed study has suggested many Muslims in England face bleak employment prospects and endure poor standards of housing, which fuel feelings of alienation.

---

How about just having HISTORY lessons to talk about where as a country we came from and what the outcome of having an empire has ment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShadesWolf

How about just having HISTORY lessons to talk about where as a country we came from and what the outcome of having an empire has ment.

---

Schools everywhere gleefully overlook that part of British History. There are people in Scotland who don't even know Britain had an Empire... all we learn in History is the Jacobite Rebellion and Highland Clearances, Urbanisation in the 19th century, slavery (where white people are blamed for everything, of course), the World Wars, the History of the Welfare State, and the Civil Right Movement in the USA. Oh, and the Romans, the Vikings, and the Wars of Independence.

When I was at school, many years ago :skull:

We learnt, prior to me taking it as an option, Russian revolution, French Revolution and the American war of independance. We touched very quickly on the two previous years, as it was called humanities, Norman and Viking history.

At O level we covered Social and economic history, so basically the Industrial rev

i have basically just done history and all we learn of is the 2 world wars, the politics leading to the 2nd world war, the history of medicine (that was so boring :inquisitive: ), the russian revolution and a little on vietnam
in primary we learned about things like the egyptians and the romans but it was so broad that it was hardly a teaching basis

i learned nothing of the british empire except through my own discoveries thanks to my love of the Sharpe series by Bernard Cornell... i doubt many people do realise that britain had a huge empire that effected the world immensly, when people my age think of an empire they think of either some ancient empire such as the romans, or the current american 'empire'

maybe we should be teaching about our histories so that young people get a sense of what it is (or was) to be 'British'

Same. For GCSE, all we're doing is relatively modern history. From 1914 to 1991, but missing out WWII :sad: Hardly any detail on the post WWII era though, just a quick glance. Nothing to do with the Empire. All that our new (****py) teacher told us about the Empire was that 'it's colonies provided money'. Wow. Now that must take a genius to work out, mustn't it? Too much emphasis on modern history in schools IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiberius

All that our new (****py) teacher told us about the Empire was that 'it's colonies provided money'.

---

This is about all that most people are taught about the Empire. Which leads people onto believing that the people of the colonies were taxed to provide money to Britain. Which is wrong. Money from the colonies was through trade. Taxes on the colonies didn't even pay for all their defence, HM Treasury forked out that bill.

We’re Multicultural, right? So just to prove this we’re going to shove these "British values" that we just made up down your throats. Yah. Sure.

The worst thing is that i seen some kid get interviewed about it and they said it was racist, now wtf, I think this is a good idea, but they will go about it the wrong way, we should be taught about how awesome it is to be british by relating to the empire, and how we have practically created the modern world single handed.
But most likley they will just go on about being multi-cultural and how we should all hold hands, smile and get along with eachother, which will never happen.

In a separate development, a government-backed study has suggested many Muslims in England face bleak employment prospects and endure poor standards of housing, which fuel feelings of alienation.


Then why dont they go home ie back over the channel ey?

Well, Ragnar, you've just confirmed my concerns about "British values".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A.Saturnus

Well, Ragnar, you've just confirmed my concerns about "British values".

---

Well im entitled to my opiniona nd to be honest its not jsut my opinion, many people feel this way in the country and with the way the government is acting about immigration issues is surely goign to lead to more people thinking the way i do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A.Saturnus

Well, Ragnar, you've just confirmed my concerns about "British values".

---

I feel that I must point out that these are not British Values, rather the gentleman's opinion. He is digressing somewhat from the point, although it is still connected.

Meh im in BNP mood im pissed off with life in general, ill probably come back to earth soon though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A.Saturnus

Well, Ragnar, you've just confirmed my concerns about "British values".

---

Like Duke Malcolm said, don't make the mistake of assuming that King Ragnar represents all Britons and their values.

Can you describe British values?
History and values are differentmattters. You ma teach values with history in choosing what and how you want it, but still, you have to clarify what are British values. :help:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

Can you describe British values?
History and values are differentmattters. You ma teach values with history in choosing what and how you want it, but still, you have to clarify what are British values. :help:

---

A start would be to explain to our youth why we have the society we have today.

Most of us have comon history, that being the British empire.

I don't see that such values classes would remedy any radicalisation. That's
more likely to occur due to other factors, far removed from a lack of sense of
identity. On the issue of history, I would say that if anything, the empire brings
with it the negative aspects of colonisation which would only serve to reflect an
image of the British that would not be helpful.

Would not say, however, that it should be overlooked, but I don't believe that
teaching about it in school would have much of an impact beyond those few
who feel engaged enough to go on and learn more themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duke Malcolm

I feel that I must point out that these are not British Values, rather the gentleman's opinion. He is digressing somewhat from the point, although it is still connected.

---

Don't worry, I'm taking Ragnar's post as that what in obviously is, namely the opinion of an irritated youth. But like Brenus, I don't know what "British values" actually are. That isn't because of unfamiliarity with British culture, I also don't know what "German values" or "Belgian values" exactly are, in spite of living in these countries most part of my life.
So, asked provocative, are "British values" qualitatively different from "conservative ideals"?

Usually a lot of things are only taught for the benefit of those who are curious. Those who have no interest whatsoever will just take the exams and forget.

I've no idea what British values are. Not being everyone else possibly.

Oh yeah, and the class system. Money doesn't matter, you could be a lower-class milionaire and a penny-less upper-class knob. It's not even all about birth. I can't make it out, and I'm kind of immersed in it. School definately plays a part, irritatingly.

Quote:

---

That isn't because of unfamiliarity with British culture, I also don't know what "German values" or "Belgian values" exactly are, in spite of living in these countries most part of my life.

---

That's pretty much it. National values are none existant, only human values. Your country can follow a political ideology, or have a majority under a single faith and set of traditions, but that's pretty much it. Free speech? How the hell is that something uniquely British? The Monarchy? How the hell is that something uniquely British? The English Language? How the hell is that.. you get the point. It is, I'm afraid, complete and utter arse.

Quote:

---

But Shadow Higher Education Minister Boris Johnson said: "It is not a question of teaching British values; it is a question of teaching British history.

"There is nothing exclusive or divisive in pointing out the fantastic achievements of the British people.

"For 30 years the British education establishment has cow-towed to the doctrines of multiculturalism and they have deprecated all the institutions and symbols that unite the country."

---

Yay Boris! Testify!...god- I love that man (not in that way) :laugh4:

Quote:

---

However, Harris Bokhari, from the Muslim Association of Britain, told the BBC's Five Live it was a "knee-jerk reaction" because teaching British values in schools would not have prevented the London bombings.

"And unfortunately it was our foreign policy, it was the issue of the illegal war, the illegal occupation of Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, the continuing abuses of the Palestinian people, the illegal occupation of Palestine by the Israeli state."

---

I love it when a muslim makes a statement, they always seem to find a way to get the 'illegal occupation of Palestine by the Israeli state' in there somewhere, come hell or high water...

Jeez...let it go man...half the world has 'claim' on the other half in some way/shape or form...most have learned to let it go....

You vile Americans..return the 13 colonies!... :wall:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Justiciar

That's pretty much it. National values are none existant, only human values. Your country can follow a political ideology, or have a majority under a single faith and set of traditions, but that's pretty much it. Free speech? How the hell is that something uniquely British? The Monarchy? How the hell is that something uniquely British? The English Language? How the hell is that.. you get the point. It is, I'm afraid, complete and utter arse.

---

:2thumbsup:

In private school the colonial era was covered very thoroughly. The British, French, and Spanish empires were described in detail and also the reasons for having the empires were also taught.(Including mercantilism, trade routes, ect.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lancelot

You vile Americans..return the 13 colonies!... :wall:

---

Yes France return Gascony and Calais and Normandy....
I could go on :sweatdrop:

“Yes France return Gascony and Calais and Normandy....” No, it is England, remember who win in 1066. Accept France never gave you your independence. Back to mammy… And who won the 100 years war…? As I said, all depend on HOW you interpret history. By the way, Scotland also belong to France due the secret treaty between France and Scotland when Mary, Queen of Scotland married the French King I don’t remember the name!!!:laugh4:

Quote:

---

That's pretty much it. National values are none existant, only human values. Your country can follow a political ideology, or have a majority under a single faith and set of traditions, but that's pretty much it. Free speech? How the hell is that something uniquely British? The Monarchy? How the hell is that something uniquely British? The English Language? How the hell is that.. you get the point. It is, I'm afraid, complete and utter arse.

---

Wait a minute. Where did it say that to be a British value, something had to be exclusively British?

I might think that telling the truth and being honest in business are British values, but even if I did think that I am not implying that I think that every other nation must tell lies and be dishonest. Or, for that matter, that every person in Britain is truthful and honest. All I would be saying is that, in Britain, being truthful and honest are qualities that are generally valued.

I fail to see why anyone has a problem with the concept of British values on that basis. I would not expect any list of British values to differ very much from a list headed "Western European values", marginally more sceptical, a fair bit more individual, that would be about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“Yes France return Gascony and Calais and Normandy....” No, it is England, remember who win in 1066. Accept France never gave you your independence. Back to mammy… And who won the 100 years war…? As I said, all depend on HOW you interpret history. By the way, Scotland also belong to France due the secret treaty between France and Scotland when Mary, Queen of Scotland married the French King I don’t remember the name!!!:laugh4:

---

Scotland does not belong to France, even if Mary married a French King. It would still go to Mary's first born son -- James VI...

So if we belong to France :dizzy2: :book:

Why then in 1337 was Edward III not made king.
He was infact family :idea2:

“He was infact family” He was, but from the female side. So, the other contestant to the throne re-acted the so-call Salique law, pretending that the throne couldn’t go “en-quenouille”, which means by the female.
The Salique law was from a Germanic tradition coming from the Francs salien. Clovis put it in writing. It gave the rules for the succession for the lands, excluding the women, but they could still be heritage others possessions. It didn’t concern the succession of the Throne (which is a title), but, well, the lawyers twisted a little bit the concept.

Edward was the son of Edward II and Isabelle of France, daughter of Phillip II Le Bel (the one who slaughter the Templars) and Jeanne I Queen of Navarre.

Yep.

lawyers - say no more :help:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English assassin

Wait a minute. Where did it say that to be a British value, something had to be exclusively British?

I might think that telling the truth and being honest in business are British values, but even if I did think that I am not implying that I think that every other nation must tell lies and be dishonest. Or, for that matter, that every person in Britain is truthful and honest. All I would be saying is that, in Britain, being truthful and honest are qualities that are generally valued.

I fail to see why anyone has a problem with the concept of British values on that basis. I would not expect any list of British values to differ very much from a list headed "Western European values", marginally more sceptical, a fair bit more individual, that would be about it.

---

I never assumed British values had to be exclusive. But take your example. What would be the point in teaching people that it is a British value to be truthful and honest? I don't think you'll find any culture on this planet that does not see these as qualities, so what's the point of calling them "British"? Is "not being hit by a meteor" also a British value?

But ok, maybe that's a bad example. I'm sure you can find examples that are less trivial. But I'm still not sure what's the point of calling them British values, especially in the context of teaching them to immigrants. From a humanist perspective, traditions are not a basis for normatives. You can't justify a rule by saying "cause we're in Britain and that's the way we do it here". Well, you can, but that's an inane ethical system. To be acceptable, rules have to have a basis in form of a general principle. Which is best not locally bound. That's something I particular like about the German Constitution. Its first principal is "A human's diginity is untouchable". To say that's a German value would be entirely the wrong message. This principle is meant to be universal. It's not just for Germans or people in Germany. It counts for all humans, in all places, at all times. It is an eternal, never-changing part of being human.
If these "British values" or "European values" or "Western values" are ethical principles, we shouldn't call them "British", "European" or "Western", because they are meant to be universal. We shouldn't tell a man from Saudi-Arabia that inequality of men and women isn't part of British culture and therefore not the standard here, we should tell him that inequality of men and women is wrong, was always wrong and will always be wrong. Here, in Saudi-Arabia, on the moon and in the galaxy M33.
If these values are not based on ethical values, they are just folklore and don't have to be taken seriously.

About British values: For whatever reason the woman in charge of my bank account thought I was Serb, probably because it was my last address before to come in England. So, we went with my English wife to deal with some financial subjects. I don’t remember why, but the conversation went on and she ask me if I got my British Nationality. I said no, I am French, I don’t need to be English, and added: “I refuse to consider Waterloo as a victory” (joke). She looked a little bit embarrassed.
Perhaps the Values are just a point of view on events, a feeling about events, a reading of history.:inquisitive: