British Teachers Avoiding Subjects (Holocaust, Crusades) That Offend Muslim Students

Seriously, what is going on over there? First you surround George Orwell's house with surveillance cameras, and now your teachers are too cowardly to offend people by disseminating accurate history. U.K., wha'happen?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Teachers drop the Holocaust to avoid offending Muslims

By LAURA CLARK
Last updated at 00:14am on 2nd April 2007

Schools are dropping the Holocaust from history lessons to avoid offending Muslim pupils, a Governmentbacked study has revealed.

It found some teachers are reluctant to cover the atrocity for fear of upsetting students whose beliefs include Holocaust denial.

There is also resistance to tackling the 11th century Crusades - where Christians fought Muslim armies for control of Jerusalem - because lessons often contradict what is taught in local mosques.

The findings have prompted claims that some schools are using history 'as a vehicle for promoting political correctness'.

The study, funded by the Department for Education and Skills, looked into 'emotive and controversial' history teaching in primary and secondary schools.

It found some teachers are dropping courses covering the Holocaust at the earliest opportunity over fears Muslim pupils might express anti-Semitic and anti-Israel reactions in class.

The researchers gave the example of a secondary school in an unnamed northern city, which dropped the Holocaust as a subject for GCSE coursework.

The report said teachers feared confronting 'anti-Semitic sentiment and Holocaust denial among some Muslim pupils'.

It added: "In another department, the Holocaust was taught despite anti-Semitic sentiment among some pupils.

"But the same department deliberately avoided teaching the Crusades at Key Stage 3 (11- to 14-year-olds) because their balanced treatment of the topic would have challenged what was taught in some local mosques."

A third school found itself 'strongly challenged by some Christian parents for their treatment of the Arab-Israeli conflict-and the history of the state of Israel that did not accord with the teachings of their denomination'.

The report concluded: "In particular settings, teachers of history are unwilling to challenge highly contentious or charged versions of history in which pupils are steeped at home, in their community or in a place of worship."

But Chris McGovern, history education adviser to the former Tory government, said: "History is not a vehicle for promoting political correctness. Children must have access to knowledge of these controversial subjects, whether palatable or unpalatable."

The researchers also warned that a lack of subject knowledge among teachers - particularly at primary level - was leading to history being taught in a 'shallow way leading to routine and superficial learning'.

Lessons in difficult topics were too often 'bland, simplistic and unproblematic' and bored pupils.

https://img215.imageshack.us/img215/...hellnawlh9.gif

Don't believe everything you read in the Daily Mail. It would be interesting to read the actual report but since the journalist does not identify the report's title, authors or who commissioned it, I haven't found it. I have found reference to a report commissioned by the Historical Association (a Professional Association of History Teachers) about controversial issues at primary level. This would not cover coursework. Until we find the actual report the article is based on, we won't know what its actual findings are.

Avoiding controversy does not sound like the sort of thing any of the history teachers I know would do.

Daily Mail. That should tell you all you need to know about the slant, Lemur. If I read the article properly, there were anecdotes from only three schools.

There is certainly a problem with schools (across Europe) trying to be overly politically correct. History as a whole is threatened as a core subject in many places precisely because of the difficulties presented by interpretation. In the UK, because of the very restrictive curriculum, there is little time for debate. Students are coached to pass exams, not to engage in thinking. Thus sensitive subjects can be avoided, but I would imagine this is more to do with avoiding real teaching and getting the school up the league tables rather than Muslim sensitivities.

Daily mail is teh filth. But the story ran in the Grauniad too.

Report available here http://www.dfes.gov.uk/research/prog...page=11&type=0 scroll to the bottom of the page.

I might give it a read at lunchtime, but from a skim it looks as if what happened was that two paragraphs of a useful piece of research that may inform practice in a difficult area has been reported by journos.

A very very quick skim of the report shows neither cause for complaceny or alarm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English assassin

Report available here http://www.dfes.gov.uk/research/prog...page=11&type=0 scroll to the bottom of the page.

---

Thank you for the link.

It reads (on quick skim) as an intelligent investigation into teaching emotive and controversial history and how to upskill teachers so they don't avoid or misrepresent views.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

It found some teachers are reluctant to cover the atrocity for fear of upsetting students whose beliefs include Holocaust denial.

---

If you put it this way, this is certainly the case in The Netherlands. In some schools with large numbers of pupils from Moroccan and other Arab homes these lessons tend to degenerate into bickering and acrimony. Orhers have found ways to tackle the subject, most don't have the problem at all. It's really more of a symbolic fracas. A bit like the evolution/creation issue in American schools: some schools in certain States become virtual battlegrounds, whereas most States don't have any curriculum infighting whatsoever.

I lifted this from the document provided in the link-

Quote:

---

For example, a history department in a northern city recently avoided selecting the Holocaust as a topic for GCSE coursework for fear of confronting anti-Semitic sentiment and Holocaust denial among some Muslim pupils.

---

Completely unacceptable. Religon has no place in a classroom (except obviously in religious studies). And if any student was ignorant enought to deny the holocaust in a class I was teaching...I...I dont know what Id do quite frankly- think s/he was a bloody moron for starters...

Ignorant beliefs should be challenged not allowed to grow.

Quote:

---

In another department, teachers were strongly challenged by some Christian parents for their treatment of the Arab-Israeli conflict and the history of the state of Israel that did not accord with the teachings of their denomination.

---

Again, get all religon out of the classroom.

Quote:

---

In another history department, the Holocaust was taught despite anti-Semitic sentiment among some pupils, but the same department deliberately avoided teaching the Crusades at Key Stage 3 because their balanced treatment of the topic would have directly challenged what was taught in some local mosques.

---

Good, a balanced treatment should be taught and challenge what was taught in some mosques.


It may only be a school here and there at the moment but you can bet your ass, this phenomenon will likely spread.

This whole affair seems to be another example of the many 'benefits' of religion...we are now at the beginnings of a stage where a (hopefully) balanced, as partisan as possible view on some contentious periods of history is now too much to ask of the education system.

And more to the point, why should students who dont have any particular religious affiliation have to loose out? There is a simple answer here- leave your religion at the door- be good historians and try to be objective.

Quote:

---

It may only be a school here and there at the moment but you can bet your ass, this phenomenon will likely spread.

---

Hence the need for the report, which is rather good, really.

If you don't understand history, you are doomed to repeat it.

If anti-semitism is rife in a class, the teacher should change the topic from Holocaust to anti-semitism and explain how it works. Most teachers think anti-semitism is mere ignorance. It's not. Anti-semitism is a condition.

An antisemite is capable of simultaneously defending two or more of the following statements (or even all of them, if pushed):

• The Holocaust never happened, it's propaganda
• The Holocaust was justified because Israel, too, commits genocide
• The Jews perpetrated their 'own' Holocaust for propaganda purposes
• There are no Jews, only Semites
• Jews are everywhere

I covered all this stuff. Daily Mail is full of rubbish. It's designed to annoy British people to prevent them picking up on important topics and getting in the way of government. Whilst they run around trying to beat up paedophiles/teachers/boogeymen, the government can go and gut Britain with impunity.

What's more of an issue is not teaching any history between the Tudors and WW1.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDC

What's more of an issue is not teaching any history between the Tudors and WW1.

---

You mean the British schoolkids don't get to learn how to be a Jacobin?

Holy!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiochusIII

You mean the British schoolkids don't get to learn how to be a Jacobin?

Holy!

---

This is taught only in Scotland, so that they can learn to hate the English. This is culture or identity or something.

Mind you this a marginal improvement over Wales, where they have to learn Welsh, so that they can tell each other how much they hate the English, without the English understanding.

If they had any sense they would all learn Chinese. They could still tell each other how much they hate the English without the English understanding, but they would also know a language that might actually be some use to them.

Hmm. I remember being taught that the Israelis were invited by Palestinians who gave them their worst land, that the Israelis then worked harder than the Palestinians had and made the land rich and green and stuff, and that the Palestinians were then jealous and since then have tried to kick out the Israelis. In hindsight, I find it strange to have been taught that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

Hmm. I remember being taught that the Israelis were invited by Palestinians who gave them their worst land, that the Israelis then worked harder than the Palestinians had and made the land rich and green and stuff, and that the Palestinians were then jealous and since then have tried to kick out the Israelis. In hindsight, I find it strange to have been taught that.

---

Well, it's a nice change that the British weren't being blamed, anyway. Ironic too, since with Mr Balfour's declaration and the mandate there must be a pretty good argument that we are in fact to blame for this one.

It's rather sad that we are scared of offending a minority group who happen to reside in our society(ies). The whole point in a minority is exactly that, they are few in number and influence. As such any teaching/journalism/entertainment/etcetera should be focused towards the majority of society, not small minority groups!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English assassin

Mind you this a marginal improvement over Wales, where they have to learn Welsh, so that they can tell each other how much they hate the English, without the English understanding.

---

[rant mode]It's the same with Frisian and related mumbling in The Neds. Identity. Roots. Cultural heritage. Local pride. And I am paying for this. I pay taxes so that my fellow-citizens can learn dumbspeak which is incomprehensible to me, the rest of the nation and the entire civilised world.[/rant mode]

If I were British, I would tell the Welsh in the nicest possible way that they can all go llynwannfrthwythgogh themselves. ~;)

Would you have said that about Latin? Latin, although a dead language, is certainly not worthy to be dumped.

As for the Welsh speaking Welsh, why not? It's their language. Would you like it if people told you that learning Dutch was stupid because outside of Holland almost no one speaks it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignoramus

Would you have said that about Latin? Latin, although a dead language, is certainly not worthy to be dumped.

As for the Welsh speaking Welsh, why not? It's their language. Would you like it if people told you that learning Dutch was stupid because outside of Holland almost no one speaks it?

---

You understand full well what I mean. In the long run local patriotism always harms the locals.

EDIT My post above was a bit harsh though, I'll change it

Yes, but no-one in Wales speaks Welsh either. The few who do speak English as well.

Honestly, I was made to attend Welsh lessons for twelve years. It was a complete and utter waste of time, enacted by a bunch of rose-spectacle wearing assembly ministers who secretly wish we were all still working down pits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

It's the same with Frisian and related mumbling in The Neds. Identity. Roots. Cultural heritage. Local pride. And I am paying for this. I pay taxes so that my fellow-citizens can learn dumbspeak which is incomprehensible to me, the rest of the nation and the entire civilised world.

If I were British, I would tell the Welsh they can all go llynwannfrthwythgogh themselves.

---

Off course, one could also consider to learn the language of his minority fellow Dutchmen/UK citizens as a token of respect and intrest in their language and culture... It would be a less narrow-minded attitude or am I mistaken?

For instance, Belgium is a fine example of what happens when two different parts of the population aren't intrested in each other at all culturally and if one part consistently refuses to learn or even show intrest in the language of the other part, even if they move to said other part and decide to live there permanently.

[sarcasm]But who am I to argue about all that. After all, being Flemish is equal to being a separatist, isn't it?[/sarcasm]

Andres, while there's nothing wrong with a people learning their own language, particually when songs and ancient epics are written in it, to ask everyone else in the country to learn it as well "as a token of respect" is more than likely what gets Adrian's back up.

Were I to do that I would need to learn Welsh, Cornish, Irish Gaelic and Scotish Gaelic, bear in mind that aside from the last two none of those have a great deal in common and none are closely related to my Germanic English.

While I'm at it I should probably try to learn Northern English, which, I swear, is closer to Norse or Danish than anything else, I suppose I could also learn Swedish, as my family comes from there.....

The idea is as unworkable as selective history. Yes, all history is subjective, rather than objective because history is a narrative of events and once you create the narrative you are arranging things and filling in gaps with your own opinions.

That said, histories which are skewed because of religion are truly pathetic. If you need to alter reality to justify your beliefs you can't justify your beliefs.

There was a girl at my school who refused to attend RE because she was a Jehovah's Witness. She dropped out of school at 14 because the GCSE was compolsory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndresTheCunning

Off course, one could also consider to learn the language of his minority fellow Dutchmen/UK citizens as a token of respect and intrest in their language and culture...

---

Out of respect we should let it rest.

Aargh, don't even get me started. The artificial 'revival' of such local cultures is done purely for the benefit of shopkeepers, hotel owners and civil servants who want to rake in European subsidies. It results in fake historiography, fake statues (remember that Braveheart statue resembling Mel Gibson?) for mostly fake local heroes, fake celebrations on fake holidays and a huge waste of hard cash on fake projects with fake public benefits.
:furious3:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Andres, while there's nothing wrong with a people learning their own language, particually when songs and ancient epics are written in it, to ask everyone else in the country to learn it as well "as a token of respect" is more than likely what gets Adrian's back up.

Were I to do that I would need to learn Welsh, Cornish, Irish Gaelic and Scotish Gaelic, bear in mind that aside from the last two none of those have a great deal in common and none are closely related to my Germanic English.

While I'm at it I should probably try to learn Northern English, which, I swear, is closer to Norse or Danish than anything else, I suppose I could also learn Swedish, as my family comes from there.....

The idea is as unworkable as selective history. Yes, all history is subjective, rather than objective because history is a narrative of events and once you create the narrative you are arranging things and filling in gaps with your own opinions.

That said, histories which are skewed because of religion are truly pathetic. If you need to alter reality to justify your beliefs you can't justify your beliefs.

There was a girl at my school who refused to attend RE because she was a Jehovah's Witness. She dropped out of school at 14 because the GCSE was compolsory.

---

*sigh*

Maybe it is because I looked at Adrian's post from a Belgian perspective or because his (pre-edited) post was a bit debased (denigrerend?) towards his Fries co-citizens.

Sorry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndresTheCunning

*sigh*

Maybe it is because I looked at Adrian's post from a Belgian perspective or because his post was a bit debased (denigrerend?) towards his Fries co-citizens.

Sorry.

---

I'm bowing out of this subject because it makes me very unreasonable within a very short time span. The mere mention of cultural identity in connection with some mudspattered village in the middle of nowhere makes me foam at the mouth. Morris dancing, arts and crafts, blegh !!

Okay, okay, I'm out. Like I said, I am to blame, I am totally unreasonable about this. I apologise. I'm gone. :bow:



Where are my sedatives? :furious3:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

Where are my sedatives? :furious3:

---

Here you are: :nurse:

Oh and you're right, who would be intrested in Fries if you have Dutch culture:

https://img399.imageshack.us/img399/...vincentlu5.jpg

:grin:

*explodes*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

[rant mode]It's the same with Frisian and related mumbling in The Neds. Identity. Roots. Cultural heritage. Local pride. And I am paying for this. I pay taxes so that my fellow-citizens can learn dumbspeak which is incomprehensible to me, the rest of the nation and the entire civilised world.[/rant mode]

If I were British, I would tell the Welsh in the nicest possible way that they can all go llynwannfrthwythgogh themselves. ~;)

---

Do you even know any Frisians personally? :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenring

Do you even know any Frisians personally? :inquisitive:

---

Yes. My entire family, to be precise.

Dat is dy wol troch it sin gien, wat? * :mellow:


* = 'That probably didn't occur to you, right?'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenring

Do you even know any Frisians personally?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

Yes. My entire family, to be precise.

---

You see, this is what you get for using those quaint, outdated minority languages - confusion.

In the only language that matters, English, Frisians are black and white cows.

:wink:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I could get started on the Irish plan to make all Irishmen speak Gaelic - which pretty much everyone forgets after school, except for Tribeman's neck of the woods. But I won't. :wall:

Wor I gam from wee av'tut speek Yorkshur. :shame:

Anyroad we speak proper English! It sez so 'ere...

http://news.uk.msn.com/Northerners_s...e_English.aspx

Edit:for linkypoos