[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement:
Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor
of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users'
privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your
privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket
to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we
also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.
Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
[ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message ]
Date Posted: 11:13:17 03/03/06 Fri
Author: GarlicSoul
Subject: thanks for the new Nazi Youth
from the Denver Post:
------------------------------
An Overland High School teacher who criticized President Bush, capitalism and U.S. foreign policy during his geography class was placed on administrative leave Wednesday afternoon after a student who recorded the session went public with the tape.
In the 20-minute recording, made on an MP3 player, teacher Jay Bennish described capitalism as a system "at odds with human rights." He also said there were "eerie similarities" between what Bush said during his Jan. 28 State of the Union address and "things that Adolf Hitler used to say."
The United States was "probably the single most violent nation on planet Earth," Bennish also said on the tape.
-------------------------------
What do you do with a recording like this? Bring it to the intention of school officials or board members??
Of course not, you moron. You dutifully send it to a right-wing radio show.
Follow-up:
-----------------------------------
Near the end, he told students, "You have to figure this stuff out for yourselves. ... I'm not in any way implying that you should agree with me. ... What I'm trying to get you to do is think about these issues more in depth and not just to take things from the surface."
He also commended students who challenged him, saying, "I'm glad you asked all of your questions because they're all very good, legitimate questions."
---------------------------
That is obviously the disturbing part. How dare he tell those kids to think critically!
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_3564246
shawnte
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Replies:
[>
Re: thanks for the new Nazi Youth -- tg, 11:27:49 03/03/06 Fri [1]
There is John Lennon Live In NYC video. At that concert Yoko was reciting a speech and all these kids in the audience where screaming "yes" and agreeing with what she was saying when she finished she said it was written by Adolf Hitler in 1939 and the room went silent. So it doesn't surprise me how Bush influences people/youth into thinking he is right, it's an illusion. I think the teacher was fair in what he was discussing and ofcourse he gets punished for free speech.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Re: thanks for the new Nazi Youth -- 23, 12:20:17 03/03/06 Fri [1]
That's horrifying.
These fucking right wing nut jobs are getting too smart. They've learned how to control the media, and now they're moving on to education. They've realized how important it is to control all the pathways of information.
I can only assume the internet will be next.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Re: thanks for the new Nazi Youth -- chrys, 16:17:59 03/03/06 Fri [1]
education isn't a new area of gov't control. if i had a book w/me i'd put the quotes up here, but i lent it to my friend who was a teacher and who is writing a book about teaching. anyway there are some quotes from the first proprieters of formalized education in this country, and they are HORRIFYING! these guys made no bones about the fact that the purpose of public schooling was not about education, but to make children fit into societal molds the way their parents never could. there was a concerted effort to break up the more communal/tribal/local forms of education. there is also a quote how the point isn't to produce people (it probably says men, lol) of learning, of letters, artists, poets or great thinkers, but to produce workers. it sounded like cogs in a machine!
anyway this story is awful. especially b/c that teacher is soo right on, especially in encouraging the students to challenge him and find their own answers.
tg's thing sorta reminded me of this live tool thing where maynard's doing the whole "think for yourself, question authority" thing, and the audience is repeating it back, and then he says, "and don't blindly repeat what people say," lol, or something like that. thinking for oneself is really the point.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Re: thanks for the new Nazi Youth -- tg, 16:25:16 03/03/06 Fri [1]
chrys wrote:"education isn't a new area of gov't control"
~~~ she's right ya know, they have been censoring books in schools forever.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Re: thanks for the new Nazi Youth -- tg, 16:41:56 03/03/06 Fri [1]
added:
"there was a concerted effort to break up the more communal/tribal/local forms of education. there is also a quote how the point isn't to produce people (it probably says men, lol) of learning, of letters, artists, poets or great thinkers, but to produce workers. it sounded like cogs in a machine!"
That made me think of Pink Floyd "The Wall" with all those school kids marching into the meat grinder. Anyway, teachers should have some kind of freedom to what they want to talk about to their pupils.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Re: thanks for the new Nazi Youth -- lump, 16:55:22 03/03/06 Fri [1]
On the other hand, a high school teacher is not supposed to be teacher his or her views, but the FACTS. I'm not saying I believe this teacher should be punished at all but I'm not saying that kind of teaching belongs in high school either. That's what college is for. If that teacher hadn't have said what he did towards the end, it would have been completely wrong. This is the same thin line that journalism sits on. Fact/opinion. That can be a tricky line.
Let me switch roles for you in the same situation.
My boss's son was crying hysterically on the morning of elections (Kerry vs. Bush). This child was in elementary school. Anyhow, when asked why he was so upset he said "I don't want Kerry to win." And why, you ask - is this small child so upset that Kerry might win? "Because he's a baby killer." Now these are conservative Republican people, but my boss was shocked! "What do you mean, baby killer?" "My teacher said he thinks it's ok to kill babies." Which is apparantly an abortion issue, unless he's in 23's eating club. Anyhow, this teacher was teaching these kids about the election. Her opinion slips out and you've got problems like this. Absolutely wrong. But it's the same thing.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Re: thanks for the new Nazi Youth -- Robert, 19:04:38 03/03/06 Fri [1]
Hitler had some good ideas. Then, he had to go and fuck it all up with his Jew fetish. It's unfortunate. If someone could have reeled him in on that whole genocide thing, he would have changed the world.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Re: thanks for the new Nazi Youth -- tg, 21:09:28 03/03/06 Fri [1]
Yes i agree with you lump that teachers in high school are supposed to teach the ciriculum and other larger discussions are more for college or university. BUT I always liked the teachers in high school who stepped out of that box and spoke to us like we knew things. I liked discussions that took us away from the ordinary stuff we were supposed to learn. There is a difference in the maturity of kids who can deal with this stuff and who can't. I think someone overreacted once again. You know we should teach our kids to be a little more open to different situations.
p.s. chrys posted a reply in the Randy Jackson thread accidently.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Re: thanks for the new Nazi Youth -- chrys, 23:07:02 03/03/06 Fri [1]
i did? i was in here...how did that happen? lol.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Re: thanks for the new Nazi Youth -- amadaun, 18:56:38 03/04/06 Sat [1]
Lump, you said teachers should only teach facts, but what is a fact? Easy enough in science, but in history, what we consider facts, is just someones point of view that's been repeated often. History seen from another point of view can be recorded as totally different, but we accept the history we were taught as the 'truth'.
For example - Christopher Columbus discovered America. The people that were already living in America at the time would say that is a load of BS.
Indians were subdued so that settlers could move onto the land. Or from the Indians point of view, they were massacred, and imprisoned on reservations so that the white folks could take over their land.
I think the teacher who encouraged children to think for themselves and presented an alternative view of things should be commended. But obviously the education department's mission is to indoctrinate,and not to stimulate free thinking.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Re: thanks for the new Nazi Youth -- amadaun, 18:57:39 03/04/06 Sat [1]
Lump, you said teachers should only teach facts, but what is a fact? Easy enough in science, but in history, what we consider facts, is just someones point of view that's been repeated often. History seen from another point of view can be recorded as totally different, but we accept the history we were taught as the 'truth'.
For example - Christopher Columbus discovered America. The people that were already living in America at the time would say that is a load of BS.
Indians were subdued so that settlers could move onto the land. Or from the Indians point of view, they were massacred, and imprisoned on reservations so that the white folks could take over their land.
I think the teacher who encouraged children to think for themselves and presented an alternative view of things should be commended. But obviously the education department's mission is to indoctrinate,and not to stimulate free thinking.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Re: thanks for the new Nazi Youth -- amadaun, 18:58:58 03/04/06 Sat [1]
Lump, you said teachers should only teach facts, but what is a fact? Easy enough in science, but in history, what we consider facts, is just someones point of view that's been repeated often. History seen from another point of view can be recorded as totally different, but we accept the history we were taught as the 'truth'.
For example - Christopher Columbus discovered America. The people that were already living in America at the time would say that is a load of BS.
Indians were subdued so that settlers could move onto the land. Or from the Indians point of view, they were massacred, and imprisoned on reservations so that the white folks could take over their land.
I think the teacher who encouraged children to think for themselves and presented an alternative view of things should be commended. But obviously the education department's mission is to indoctrinate,and not to stimulate free thinking.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Re: thanks for the new Nazi Youth -- 23, 00:32:04 03/05/06 Sun [1]
But capitalism DOES often run counter to human rights. It IS a fact, just not one that is found in high school social studies books.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Re: thanks for the new Nazi Youth -- lump, 08:55:57 03/06/06 Mon [1]
Perfect example. The line is slippery.
But I completely disagree with you. School should teach the kids the basics. Parents are supposed to do the rest.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Re: thanks for the new Nazi Youth -- 23, 09:06:23 03/06/06 Mon [1]
Human rights isn't a "basic?"
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Re: thanks for the new Nazi Youth -- lump, 10:28:26 03/06/06 Mon [1]
Not in history class, no.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Re: thanks for the new Nazi Youth -- 23, 11:14:42 03/06/06 Mon [1]
Really?
Then I wonder what context WWII is put in? The Civil Rights movement? The Revolutionary War? The Civil War? The Suffrage Movement? Worker's Rights?
Seems to me that the biggest moments history are a series of events that revolve around humans trying to get their rights or fighting against those who are taking them from them.
So, do you propose that students are just taught the dates and important names about these events, but are given no context as to why they happened?
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Re: thanks for the new Nazi Youth -- lump, 11:52:57 03/06/06 Mon [1]
You can give context that has no opinion in it, yes. Is it dry? Yes. But so should a foundation be. Elementary - High school is just a foundation.
They are taught already the basic reasoning for things. Civil war for instance. They are taught this was North vs. South and that slavery was an issue. They are not told though that the fight to free slaves was really just a voting/power issue that had very little to actually do with sympathy for the slaves. Because that part is subjective. You can take that and mold it all sorts of ways. You trust the teacher to make that judgement for you?
Human rights are different from things like Civil Rights. Civil rights they're taught. Human rights are a subject of it's own and has too many contradictions to be taught in Social Studies! How can you teach children that we fought something for basic HUMAN RIGHTS - and killed the opposing while doing it? We fought for the human rights of the Jews in WWII (among other reasons). Oh, but we killed lots of innocent Germans to do it. Human rights are subjective.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Re: thanks for the new Nazi Youth -- tg, 12:02:23 03/06/06 Mon [1]
A little OVEREACTING can go a long way. Which is what I think happened in this case. ;-)
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Re: thanks for the new Nazi Youth -- Robert, 12:12:41 03/06/06 Mon [1]
It is my opinion that the people who have never had to worry about their rights take them for granted. Human rights is an interesting issue. What rights do humans have that superceed the rights of all other life on Earth? What gives us those rights? The fact that we can defend them with our lives? The fact that we can kill for them if need be?
In that case, what of lion's rights, or the rights of a virus (which is btw...a living thing)? Human beings think way to highly of themselves in the grand scheme of things. Ultimately, that will be our undoing. No one will care about your human rights when the wheels come off, and we're all doing battle for whatever's left in this world. Be it a few pieces of land that aren't under water, radioactive, or stripped bare and no longer able to support life...or extreme overpopulation...population which a government, natural resources, and the tgeroies of society can no longer contain or sustain.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Re: thanks for the new Nazi Youth -- lump, 12:22:48 03/06/06 Mon [1]
I agree, Rob - but is that something we should add to our 9th grade history books? Or is that humanities class in college.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Re: thanks for the new Nazi Youth -- 23, 12:31:11 03/06/06 Mon [1]
I don't understand how you can say civil rights are different from human rights. And I don't understand how you are still trying to justify the position that we shouldn't talk to students in public schools about human rights.
So, what do you think we should tell students regarding the Civil War? WWII? The Revolutionary War and the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights? The Suffrage Movement?
Why is it so controversial to agree on a set of fundamental human rights and to support those in our schools? We have our students say the pledge of allegiance, which is filled with questionable, debatable statements, yet we have decided it is a value set that is important to pass on to our kids. So there is obviousy a precedent set here, the notion of supporting human rights (or values in general - schools teach sharing, kindness, etc.) in school curricula is far from a revolutionary idea.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Re: thanks for the new Nazi Youth -- lump, 13:34:52 03/06/06 Mon [1]
Jesus! Justifying myself? No! I have a different opinion than you guys do.
The civil rights are actually laws. We have them listed and they are taught that way. Study and remember this. Discuss and question later when you have an adult mind. There is no official list of human rights. The 10 commandments are a list - if you're Christian. Otherwise, human rights are rather vague. What I consider human rights may or not be what you consider human rights. And a teacher or book publishers views might be different yet. I know the teachers union has an opinion too. Basic human rights are taught in the home...by the family. That's how I think it should be until the child grows up and goes to college - where it can be discussed and explored maturely. I'm just saying it's a vague subject - too vague for children that age.
How can we say we have fought for human rights by killing people? We've fought for voting rights, sure. We've fought and killed for things like taxes! In WWII, we really did fight for human rights. But we killed innocent people doing it! That's such a full circle argument, so full of hypocracy - that I think it should only be discussed by older kids.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Re: thanks for the new Nazi Youth -- chrys, 14:00:30 03/06/06 Mon [1]
hmmm. still don't know why my other post isn't on this thread?!
i don't think you can ever just teach facts. there wouldn't be that much left to say. history is an ongoing grounds for arguments among historians, who are still trying to gather all the primary sources and backup information they can. so not only would it be dry, it would be barely anything. historians still disagree on the basic facts about columbus. was he from a rich family or a poor family? there is evidence suggesting both. students should know this, that history isn't a set in stone thing, it is something people argue about. and i don't even believe that true objectivity exists, or if it does, it is extremely rare.
and what good would it do a kid to learn that we fought the civil war from 1861-1865 if we don't know why? think about it, if that's ALL you know, we fought this war when, it means nothing at all. there is no reason to distinguish it from any other war. and why teach one subjective reason and not another? that is my problem with the argument above, i feel that SOME subjective things would be looked at as okay, just because they have always been taught, whether or not they are true or have any evidence backing them up. as i said in my earlier post, no one would blink an eye if that teacher had said democracy was the form of government that did the most good for the people. that is ENTIRELY subjective, and historically not very defendable.
i see that you're saying all opinion should be left out, but i wonder if we always realize that some of the things we pass on aren't just accepted opinions anyway, subjective in their own way. i don't think you can say, some reasoning for the civil war isn't subjective and some is, IF there is evidence to back up both.
also there is very much bias in the "facts" that are taught. it is FACT that columbus and some of his cronies committed genocide upon arrival in this "new world," but that fact is not taught. it would not put us in a good light. we are not taught the facts about the bombing of dresden for the same reason. so even if you boil it down to just facts, they are still skewed.
and we did kill innocent germans, that's fact, and kids should know that. it's not as simple as, oh yay we stopped the holocaust. they should know the reasons why we went into that war too, so they can weigh out those things themselves. if all you teach is oh yay we stopped the holocaust, THAT's biased, that's included cuz it makes us look good, while other facts that don't are exluded. that in itself is totally subjective, where a teacher's or administrator's or textbook writer's thoughts on what impression to make are presented. that kid is going to make decisions about going to war in the near future, often before college, so i say let them know it all, know why we have gone into different wars, and what the costs and effects have been, so they can make rounded decisions on if they sign up or not.
personally i have never thought of it as a parent's job to teach critical thinking. what about all the kids whose parents don't think critically? sure, teachers don't always either, but there could be things in the curriculum. and what about the parents that never learned things themselves b/c they grew up in the same educational system, and may never have been taught that there was any of these things? what about all the parents that never paid attention in history or cared about it and so forth? teachers are there b/c they are supposed to have the background and knowledge to pass along.
my problem is that i think kids are taught a mixture of facts and opinions specifically tailored to engender patriotism. instead, i think kids should learn all about history, the fact that it's not set in stone, the fact that that there are ALL sorts of opinions and speculations about why this or this happened as it did. i don't think they should have to swallow a teacher's opinions either, but they should learn how to think for themselves, how to research, how to evaluate evidence on things such as, is this a primary source? if not where do i find one? what was this source's bias? and how about this other person with their different opinion, what was their bias? who funded who?
a person can vote at 18, senior in high school usually. by then they should be able to think through issues, with of course their own bias based on their own life and town and upbringing and whatever else might influence them. but by then they need to understand the REAL ways of how the branches of government work (because it is fact that the checks and balances arent' the same as they were when it was begun), and what the real meanings are of the positions they will be voting for. also by the time a person is entering high school, they are starting to form their own opinions on things anyway. it is not a teacher or parent's job to do that for them, but to show them how to do it for themselves.
and if social studies is to include current events, which i completely believe it should, as if we don't connect the two, why teach history at all, you can't avoid the issue of human rights. that is something that comes up all the time in the news. and i think you are splitting hairs really to say its' different than civil rights. is it okay to teach about rosa parks refusing to sit in the back of the bus and not teach about hunger strikes in india for independence? (or hunger strikes in guantanamo bay for that matter). if you are going to talk about the UN, you are going to talk about human rights. if you talk about labor (which is a huge part of this country's history), you'll talk about human rights. and there is no reason that it shouldn't be looked at how our country's policies historically and currently, affect those worker and human rights around the world. otherwise a student doesn't learn context, doesn't learn global interactions, will think that a country exists in a vaccuum, and that will not produce an informed citizen ready to make important choices about who they will vote for, whether or not they will sign up to participate in a war, how they will think about the world around them. by high school they are ready for that, they are craving it, i just mean developmentally, and there are plenty of parents who don't have the background to give it to them, just like there are plenty parents who can't teach their kids trigonometry. that's why we pay teachers.
personally, my parents did a lot better on the trigonometry aspect of things.
my history classes in high school were awesome, with all different teachers. my fresh year was the only yr we did world history, but we had assignments like to split into five groups and each argue that our subject (either economics, politics, government, etc) was the main cause of the fall of rome. that way we got to think about things from all five of those perspectives and draw conclusions. there was no bias in that b/c it was divided up randomly. in US history, we simulated the real process of a bill becoming a law, like actually h ad to each write a bill about school policy and try to get it passed. we were assigned (from a hat) whether we were in the house or senate and what party we belonged to. there was a whole point system like if our bill was passed we got ten extra credit points, if it was a bill we cosigned it was five, if it was from our party, it was three, something like that. even had another history teacher come in and play president so we had the whole veto thing to work with. we also had an assignment once to get in groups, pick random people out of a hat from a certain era, and put on a short skit of those people interacting. i was cornelius vanderbilt, lol. during the 1996 election we had to each write a paper about who we would vote for if we could and why, and then did a whole section on where ideologies come from. our teacher brought in countless primary sources. instead of reading in our history books that FDR was sworn in in 1933, we read his speech. we read frederick douglass' views on slavery and women's rights. on a lot of issues and debates, we read things from lots of conflicting points of view, and had to present them randomly, like not based on what we thought, but to do a good job finding the reasoning for either way. i think b/c of that i got a pretty good foundation, and definitely took it in my own direction, as i'm sure the other kids in that class did as well, probably not the same as mine. i never took history in college, and my parents definitely couldn't have supplemented that stuff if it hadn't been taught in school, and in an interactive way w/other kids. so when i graduated, i was ready to vote, to think about issues, to say okay where is this side coming from, and i also remember a lot more about history than a lot of people my age, b/c i had context, i might know someone who played that person in a skit, or remember when we read their speech, or when someone in class condemned or applauded a certain move. i can have meaningful discussions about people and times in history, b/c i remember, and i remember b/c they had meaning, they weren't random names and dates and places, they were people, events, totally complex with passion to their stories whether i agreed or not, they were part of this huge drama of human existence.
that's all for now, lol.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Re: thanks for the new Nazi Youth -- light, 14:24:58 03/06/06 Mon [1]
I think it is unfair and inappropriate for a High School teacher to make statements like "capitalism as a system " [is] at odds with human rights." or "The United States was "probably the single most violent nation on planet Earth". Though it helps that at the end of his speech he says "You have to figure this stuff out for yourselves. ..." it's still using his position in the classroom as the voice of authority to promote his individual viewpoint. Although allowing students to question his pronouncements might seem to give a balance to them, the playing field isn't level. When using examples in his speech that students likely have barely heard about (unless their HS history curriculum is a lot more advanced than mine was), let alone have in-depth knowledge of-- such as American involvement in Colombia's civil war to U.S. attacks on Cuba during the 1960s, he is setting up an atmosphere of 'debate' that is already defeating to those who would question his argument.
Tangent:
I hated 'social studies' classes when I was a kid cause a lot of it really just seemed like remembering names and dates, a skill which eludes me to this day. Also, when I've looked back on those classes, I saw most of the history we learned was in terms of battles, which might have stimulated some kid's minds, but drew zero interest in mine. By high school there were a lot more 'controversial' classes (I had lots of commie teachers), but by then I was so tuned-out or under-educated in the basics it pretty much flew over my head. I probably wasn't the only one. Each of those kind of classes had a few highly enthusiastic students, all in agreement with the teacher (this being NYC?), and the rest of us were all pretty quiet throughout the term.
I believe that to participate in higher learning exercises, students need to have a solid foundation of knowledge to draw from before truly coming to their own conclusions. I believe that facts can be taught in a way that is reasonably unbiased, and at the same time not 'dry'. Maybe teaching history as studies about how men and Women lived in various cultures and times, and approaching their concerns, would be more interesting to more young people. It's the underlying stories of the populations that make sense of the battles and changes in power-- those aspects history lessons traditionally like to stress anyway.
"Why is it so controversial to agree on a set of fundamental human rights and to support those in our schools? "
Like the right to life? ;)
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Re: thanks for the new Nazi Youth -- 23, 15:23:21 03/06/06 Mon [1]
"Like the right to life? ;)"
Well, that's obviously one that could not be agreed on.
I'm thinking Bill of Rights kinds of stuff. There is a list of basic human rights that could be agreed upon by the majority of people. I'm sure of it. Sure, there are going to be people on the far ends of the spectrum who wouldn't agree with some of the tenants, but there are people on the far ends of the spectrum who think aliens built the pyramids or the earth is 5000 years old. Just because there are those who disagree, doesn't mean it's something that can't be taught in schools.
lump -
"Jesus! Justifying myself? No! I have a different opinion than you guys do."
And is that the end of the story? From my perspective, we're having a debate. I try to base my opinions regarding these sorts of things on justifiable positions. If you simply feel something should be a certain way, do you honestly consider that reason enough for it to become policy? I don't. I don't expect our public schools to do things just because I want them to. I expect them to do the things that make the most sense, that can be best backed up by facts and evidence that support the reasons why. So I'm not quite so sure why I ruffled your feathers so much by expecting you to justify your opinion.
We're all friends here, right? I assume as much. I assume we're all coming from the good place when we have discussions like this. It doesn't upset me in the slightest that your opinion varies from mine. I was just hoping that you would have some reasoning that could back it up.
Lastly, I think you underestimate the mental maturity of a high school student. I think they rise to the level that is expected of them. It was only a few centuries ago that 16 and 17 year olds regularly got married or fought in wars or made major life decisions that 25 year olds have trouble making today. I think that we can increase the ability of our young people to think critically if we give them the practice to do so in our schools. I think it's in the best interest of the human race to do so. It's in their own best interests, that's for sure.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
**** -- amadaun, 18:21:11 03/06/06 Mon [1]
"my problem is that i think kids are taught a mixture of facts and opinions specifically tailored to engender patriotism"
You're on to it Chrys.
I also agree with Nathan, when he said that the intelligence of kids is often underestimated. And not only 16 and 17 year olds, but right down to kids 8 and up.
I think alot of people shy away from discussing sensitive topics with their kids, not just because they don't think they will understand, but because they don't really know how to deal with those things themselves.
And kids DO understand way more than adults give them credit for.
I think not only should they discuss controversial subjects, but they should also read about them, and see movies relating to them as well.
I rented a copy of Schindler's List last year, for the kids to check out. Also we saw Hotel Rwanda, which is amazing, [if you haven't seen it, you've missed out on something special.]
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Re: thanks for the new Nazi Youth -- Robert, 18:35:42 03/06/06 Mon [1]
I think that the sooner a kid learns how fucked up the world is, the better shot they have of making it. Civil rights are important. Human rights are important, but ultimately, they will not matter. When the shit hits the fan, so will your rights, and you better be ready for when that day comes...because it will come...it always does.
No one is interested in teaching reality.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Re: thanks for the new Nazi Youth -- chrys, 18:42:19 03/06/06 Mon [1]
i am totally fine w/people thinking that this history teacher's statements aren't okay, as long as the same would be true if he said the reverse, as long as he'd get in just as much trouble for saying that the US is the greatest country in the world. that would never happen though. that gets siad in history classes and elementary school social studies all the time, and is just as arbitrary a statement, if not moreso.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Re: thanks for the new Nazi Youth -- light, 20:51:39 03/06/06 Mon [1]
Well yeah, Chrys. But I suppose US history classes in elementary schools are like CC/AS forums... as long as people are saying they're as great as can be, everything is fine ;)
Honestly, I have a hard time imagining there are many HS history classes where professors go on long rants about the US being the greatest country in the world. If that was happening, I think some people in most communities, if they were alerted to it, would have a problem with that too. It's not teaching, it's preaching. In any case, I don't think anyone here is saying that they believe that Bennish should have gotten in trouble for this.
Amadaun and Twan, my position has nothing to do with the mental maturity or intelligence of HS-age people. It has to do with having a solid base of knowedge about situations before having to draw or listen to conclusions about them by the person who is in charge of presenting that knowledge.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Re: thanks for the new Nazi Youth -- light, 21:08:05 03/06/06 Mon [1]
BTW I finally noticed that it was a geography class, not history, that this hoopla is about. Does that make a difference? probably not.
I'm very glad I didn't have to count on geography classes to develop my critical reasoning. Actually I don't think I ever even took a geography class. Maybe if I did I might have learned to distinguish the 'I' states.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Re: thanks for the new Nazi Youth -- 23, 11:16:59 03/07/06 Tue [1]
"Amadaun and Twan, my position has nothing to do with the mental maturity or intelligence of HS-age people. It has to do with having a solid base of knowedge about situations before having to draw or listen to conclusions about them by the person who is in charge of presenting that knowledge."
I can see what you're saying, but I still don't know how you address most of the major occurrences in world history without talking about human rights. Hell, I guess the teacher could talk about human rights without saying that they're a good thing, but that's just kind of silly, isn't it?
Wouldn't any good discussion of capitalism in the modern world have to include the negatives? If you're teaching about feudal England in the 1200s, it's beyond silly to discuss it without discussing the pros and cons for those living under such a system. Kings and Lords and whatnot had it made, everyone else was pretty much screwed. Any meaningful discussion of any sort regarding any kind of world events MUST address how those events affect human beings, right? Otherwise, what's the point?
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Re: thanks for the new Nazi Youth -- stillreign, 11:22:20 03/07/06 Tue [1]
Gonna have to try and add up my 2¢ and try and come back. Let's see if that actually works or not.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Re: thanks for the new Nazi Youth -- light, 11:53:48 03/07/06 Tue [1]
Twan, I'll think about what you're say more, before I answer.
In the meantime, here's a transcript of the teachers lesson. I found it on a right-wing blog, but I'm sure it's posted in many places by now. The audio is available too.
Agree with him or not, I don't see this as an appropriate style of teaching for a 10th grade class. The students are not his peers or his family. They can get their editorials from elsewhhere... like from rockstars ;)
******************
Bennish: [tape begins with class already underway. Bennish completing an unintelligble statement about Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez.] Why do we have troops in Colombia fighting in their civil war for over 30 years. Most Americans don't even know this. For over 30 years, America has had soldiers fighting in Colombia in a civil war. Why are we fumigating coca crops in Bolivia and Peru if we're not trying to control other parts of the world. Who buys cocaine? Not Bolivians. Not Peruvians. Americans! Ok. Why are we destroying the farmers' lives when we're the ones that consume that good.
Can you imagine? What is the world's number one single cause of death by a drug? What drug is responsible for the most deaths in the world? Cigarettes! Who is the world's largest producer of cigarettes and tobacco? The United States!
What part of our country grows all our tobacco? Anyone know what states in particular? Mostly what's called North Carolina. Alright. That's where all the cigarette capitals are. That's where a lot of them are located from. Now if we have the right to fly to Bolivia or Peru and drop chemical weapons on top of farmers' fields because we're afraid they might be growing coca and that could be turned into cocaine and sold to us, well then don't the Peruvians and the Iranians and the Chinese have the right to invade America and drop chemical weapons over North Carolina to destroy the tobacco plants that are killing millions and millions of people in their countries every year and causing them billions of dollars in health care costs?
Make sure you get these definitions down.
Capitalism: If you don't understand the economic system of capitalism, you don't understand the world in which we live. Ok. Economic system in which all or most of the means of production, etc., are owned privately and operated in a somewhat competitive environment for the purpose of producing PROFIT! Of course, you can shorten these definitions down. Make sure you get the gist of it. Do you see how when, you know, when you're looking at this definition, where does it say anything about capitalism is an economic system that will provide everyone in the world with the basic needs that they need? Is that a part of this system? Do you see how this economic system is at odds with humanity? At odds with caring and compassion? It's at odds with human rights.
Anytime you have a system that is designed to procure profit, when profit is the bottom motive -- money -- that means money is going to become more important potentially than what? Safety, human lives, etc.
Why did we invade Iraq?! How do we know that the invasion of Iraq for weapons of mass destruction-- even if weapons had been found, how would you have known, how could you prove--that that was not a real reason for us to go there.
There are dozens upon dozens of countries that have weapons of mass destruction. Iraq is one of dozens. There are plenty of countries that are controlled by dictators, where people have no freedom, where they have weapons of mass destruction and they could be potentially threatening to America. We're not invading any of those countries!
0345.
[Pause.]
I'll give you guys another minute or two to get some of these [definitions] down. I agree with Joey. Try to condense these a little bit. I took these straight out of the dictionary.
Anyone in here watch any of Mr. Bush's [State of the Union] speech last night? I'm gonna talk a little about some of things he had to say.
0452
...One of things that I'll bring up now, since some of you are still writing, is, you know, Condoleezza Rice said this the other day and George Bush reiterated it last night. And the implication was that the solution to the violence in the Middle East is democratization. And the implication through his language was that democracies don't go to war. Democracies aren't violent. Democracies won't want weapons of mass destruction. This is called blind, naive faith in democracy!
0530.
Who is probably the single most violent nation on planet Earth?!
Unidentified brainwashed student interjects: We are.
The United States of America! And we're a democracy. Quote-unquote.
Who has the most weapons of mass destruction in the world? The United States.
Who's continuing to develop new weapons of mass destruction as we speak?!
The United States.
So, why does Mr. Bush think that other countries that are democracies won't wanna be like us? Why does he think they'll just wanna be at peace with each other?! What makes him think that when the Palestinians get their own state that they won't wanna preemptively invade Israel to eliminate a potential threat to their security just like we supposedly did in Iraq?! Do you see the dangerous precedent that we have set by illegally invading another country and violating their sovereignty in the name of protecting us against a potential future--sorry--attack? [Unintelligible.]
0625.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Re: thanks for the new Nazi Youth -- light, 11:55:50 03/07/06 Tue [1]
(contd.)
Why doesn't Mexico invade Guatemala? Maybe they're scared of being attacked. Ok. Why doesn't North Korea invade South Korea?! They might be afraid of being attacked. Or maybe Iran and North Korea and Saudi Arabia and what else did he add to the list last night - and Zimbabwe - maybe they're all gonna team up and try and invade us because they're afraid we might invade them. I mean, where does this cycle of violence end? You know?
This whole "do as I say, not as I do" thing. That doesn't work. What was so important about President Bush's speech last night--and it doesn't matter if it was President Clinton still it would just as important) is that it's not just a speech to America. But who? The whole world! It's very obvious that if you listen to his language, if you listen to his body language, and if you paid attention to what he was saying, he wasn't always just talking to us. He was talking to the whole planet. Addressing the whole planet!
He started off his speech talking about how America should be the country that dominates the world. That we have been blessed essentially by God to have the most civilized, most advanced, best system and that it is our duty as Americans to use the military to go out into the world and make the whole world like us.
0759.
Sounds a lot like the things that Adolf Hitler use to say.
We're the only ones who are right. Everyone else is backwards. And it's our job to conquer the world and make sure they live just like we want them to.
Now, I'm not saying that Bush and Hitler are exactly the same. Obviously, they are not. Ok. But there are some eerie similarities to the tones that they use. Very, very "ethnocentric." We're right. You're all wrong.
I just keep waiting. You know, at some point I think America and Mexico might go to war again. You know. Anytime Mexico plays the USA in a soccer match. What can be heard chanting all game long?
0841
Do all Mexicans dislike the United States? No. Do all Americans dislike Mexico? No. But there's a lot of resentment--not just in Mexico, but across the whole world--towards America right now.
We told--Condoleezza Rice said--that now that Hamas got elected to lead the Palestianians that they have to renounce their desire to eliminate Israel. And then Condoleezza Rice also went on to say that you can't be for peace and support armed struggle at the same time. You can't do that. Either you're for peace or war. But you can't be for both.
What is the problem with her saying this? That's the same thing we say. That is exactly the same thing this current administration says. We're gonna make the world safe by invading and killing and making war. So, if we can be for peace and for war, well, why can't the Palestinians be for peace and for war?!
0950.
*Student Sean Allen, who is taping Bennish's rant, speaks up:*
Allen: Isn't there a difference of, of, having Hamas being like, we wanna attack Israelis because they're Israelis, and having us say we want to attack people who are known terrorists? Isn't there a difference between saying we're going to attack innocents and we're going to attack people who are not innocent?
1007
Bennish: I think that's a good point. But you have to remember who's doing the defining of a terrorist. And what is a terrorist?
Allen: Well, when people attack us on our own soil and are actually attempting to take American lives and want to take American lives, whereas, Israelies in this situation, aren't saying we want to blow up Palestine...
Bennish: How did Israel and the modern Israeli state even come into existence in the first place?
Allen: We gave it to them.
Bennish: Sort of. Why? After the Israel-Zionist movement conducted what? Terrorist acts. They assassinated the British prime minster in Palestine. They blew up buildings. They stole military equipment. Assassinated hundreds of people. Car bombings, you name it. That's how the modern state of Israel was made. Was through violence and terrorism. Eventually we did allow them to have the land. Why? Not because we really care, but because we wanted a strategic ally. We saw a way to us to get a hook into the Middle East.
If we create a modern nation of Israel, then, and we make them dependent on us for military aid and financial aid, then we can control a part of the Middle East. We will have a country in the Middle East that will be indebted to us.
Allen: But is it ok to say it's just to attack Israel? If it's ok to attack known terrorists, it's ok to attack Israel?
Bennish: If you were Palestinians, who are the real terrorists? The Israelis, who fire missiles that they purchased from the United States government into Palestinian neighborhoods and refugees and maybe kill a terrorist, but also kill innocent women and children. And when you shoot a missile into Pakistan to quote-unquote kill a known terrorist, and we just killed 75 people that have nothing to do with al Qaeda, as far as they're concerned, we're the terrorists. We've attacked them on their soil with the intention of killing their innocent people.
1215
Allen: But we did not have the intention of killing innocent people. We had the intention of killing an al Qaeda terrorist.
Bennish: Do you know that?
Allen: So, you're saying the United States has intentions to kill innocent people?
Bennish: I don't know the answer to that question.
Allen: But what gain do we get from killing innocent people in the Middle East? What gain does that pose to us?
Bennish: Let me ask you this. During the 1980s, Iran and Iraq were involved in an 8-year-long war. The United States sold missiles, tanks, guns, planes, to which side?
Unidentified student: Iraq?
Bennish: Both. The answer is both. Why would we send armaments to two sides that are fighting each other. That seems to be self-defeating. Don't we want one side to win? Not always! Sometimes you just want there to be conflict!
The British -- this is one of the grand strategies of the British imperial system--was to play local animosities off each other. To prevent them is to divide and conquer.
Do we really want the Middle East to unite as one cohesive political and cultural body?
No! Because then they could what? Threaten our supremacy.
We want to keep the world divided. Do we really want to kill innocent people? I don't know. I don't know the answer to that.
I know there are some Americans who do. People who work in the CIA. People who have to think like that. Those kind of dirty minds, dirty tricks. That's how the intelligence world works. Sometimes you do want to kill people just for the sake of killing them. Right?
Listen, between the years 1960 and 1962, the United States through the CIA conducted over 7,000 terrorist sabotage attacks against the small island nation of Cuba. Over 7,000 terrorist attacks were waged against just one little country called Cuba in a two year period, intentionally, let me rephrase that, intentionally blowing up medical supplies, intentionally burning down crops that feed their country, thereby creating starvation, right? Intentionally trying to make that system collapse. And we're willing to expend however many thousands of people died because we just want to get rid of Castro. And the sad reality is that there are some policy planners who are willing to let people die in order to achieve their objectives.
1506
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Re: thanks for the new Nazi Youth -- light, 11:59:28 03/07/06 Tue [1]
(contd.)
Now, do I think President Bush says 'I'd like to go kill some innocent Palestianians?' I don't think he thinks like that. But I also know that he's not the only one making decisions. I also know that after September 11, President Bush got on TV and he said, 'You will feel our wrath. You will feel the full force of the United States military. There will be paybacks.' He said it again last night. He said, 'We've killed a lot of top-ranking al Qaeda members. And for those who aren't killed yet, you're day will come!' Right? That kind of language to me is very obvious.
1547
And when you go trying to kill one particular type of person, you know that you're gonna kill other people, too. And let me ask you this...
Allen: Later in that, he stated that he's [Osama bin Laden] trying to kill innocents...
Bennish: I understand that, but hold on, you have to understand something, that when al Qaeda attacked America on September 11, in their view, they're not attacking innocent people. Ok. The CIA has an office at the World Trade Center. The Pentagon is a military target. The White House was a military target. Congress is a military target. The World Trade Center is the economic center of our entire economy.
1625
The FBI, who tracks down terrorists and so on and so forth around the world, has offices in the World Trade Center. Some of the companies that work in the World Trade Center are these huge multinational corporations that are directly involved in the military-industrial complex in supporting corrupt dictatorships in the Middle East.
And so in the minds of al Qaeda, they're not attacking innocent people. They're attacking legitimate targets. People who have blood on their hands as far as they're concerned!
We portray them as innocent because they're our friends and neighbors, family, loved ones. One of my best friends from high school, elementary school, and birth, lives in lower Manhattan. You know, he was right there, he was four blocks away from it. So, anytime it comes close to home, you begin to see things differently.
1711
In no way am I implying, I don't know, you got to figure this stuff out for yourself, but I want you to think about these things--you know, think about this right here. [Apparently pointing to American flag.] Here's the real homeland security. Fighting terrorism since 1492! Ok. I mean, to many Native Americans, that flag is no different than the Nazi flag or the Confederate flag. It represents the people that came and stole their land, lied, brought disease, rape, pillage, destruction, etc. So it all depends upon varying people's perspectives
varying. And of course, we're going to see ourselves as being in the right , at least the majority of us, because that's us.
Allen: But we were the ones that were attacked first. On September 11, 2001,
we were the ones that were attacked. We were not attacking anybody until that point. Then we said ok, we're going into Afghanistan. Then we said ok, the Iraqi government has ties with al Qaeda. We're going to go into Iraq. We were the ones that were attacked.
Bennish: In actuality, if you remember back to my first day, the Sept. 11 attacks were, according to bin Laden, a direct response to our 1) support of the nation of Israel, which they consider to be a terrorist regime that does not have the right to control the land that the Palestinians lived on for over 1,500 years, and they also did it because of what George Clinton did--Bill Clinton, not George Clinton, they had a little documentary on him on PBS last night I was watching--Bill Clinton, when he launched the missile attacks into Afghanistan and Sudan and killed thousands of innocent Africans and Afghanistan people - Afghanis - that had nothing to do with al Qaeda or anything. In fact, in sudan, he blew up the country's largest pharmaceutical plant, which was producing medicines, alright, um, you know, that's as far as, in their eyes, that was retaliation for those attacks.
And so this whole idea of who attacked who first, how far back in time do you wanna go!? This is the whole thing with the Arab-Israeli conflict. Well, who was there first? Well, if you believe the Bible, you say, well, God gave the land of Canaan to the Israelites. But who was in that land when they got there? The Canaanites, who some archeologists would argue are the ancient descendants of the Palestinians. You know.
Other archeologists say the Hebrews didn't really come from Egypt. They were actually a group of Canaanites who decided they didn't like the other Canaanites and developed this story afterward to justify how they killed all their neighbors
and took over the land.
2002
Alright, and so this becomes very, very muddled. And I'm not in any way implying that you should agree with me. I don't even know if I'm necessarily taking a position. But what I'm trying to get you to do is to think, right, about these issues more in-depth, you know, and not just take things from the surface. And I'm glad you asked all your questions, because they're very good, legitimate questions. And hopefully that allows other people to begin to think about some of those things, too.
END
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Re: thanks for the new Nazi Youth -- 23, 13:12:42 03/07/06 Tue [1]
I would have loved to have a HS history teacher like that. My teachers' knowledge usually began and ended at the covers the Teacher's Edition.
I don't really see anything that he said that couldn't be directly supported by historical fact.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Re: thanks for the new Nazi Youth -- lump, 13:37:27 03/07/06 Tue [1]
Except it wasn't a history class, it was geography.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Re: thanks for the new Nazi Youth -- 23, 13:50:31 03/07/06 Tue [1]
Is that really what this is about?
You would be OK with it if it was in History class? You REALLY don't like teachers to be able to explore tangents?
And if you want to get technical, geography deals with nations, their make-up and their borders. He covered quite a bit of that, as well.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Re: thanks for the new Nazi Youth -- lump, 14:45:17 03/07/06 Tue [1]
I think it would be more appropriate in history class, maybe senior comp and/or speech and debate, yes.
But POLITICAL opinion needs to stay out of most classrooms. Perhaps that's the word I'm missing to make you understand my standing in this. POLITICS. That's my responsibility.
And let's look at it like this: I'm a liberal business owner. My son shadows one of my conservative engineers for a day (for school). That engineer spends half the day discussing his conservative views and watching Fox news - trying to win my also liberal son over. Not only was he not teaching my son what an engineers day is like (like geography above - which there is very little of) - he spent half the day doing something that I was not paying him to do. Public school teachers are my employees - my taxes pay their salary. I see it as the same thing.
And if you switch it around and make the engineer also liberal - if he spent half the day discussing these views with my son instead of working - wouldn't I still be as upset?
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Re: thanks for the new Nazi Youth -- 23, 15:38:25 03/07/06 Tue [1]
My opinion? It's all education. None of that was time wasted, especially in this specific circumstance with this specific teacher. He obviously has a breadth of knowledge regarding US policies that most students will never have this kind of direct access to again. I'd be very pleased if my kids wasted a class period or two learning from someone like that.
I guess it could be argued that he is pushing a political agenda, but it could also be argued that he's merely presenting facts that the students haven't had the opportunity to hear before. Should he not say true things just because they're potentially controversial to some of the students and/or their parents?
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Re: thanks for the new Nazi Youth -- tg, 16:16:08 03/07/06 Tue [1]
I think we should give teachers a little more credit, there job is like any, if it's always the same old same old then it becomes mundane and boring. Step out of the box, I always liked teachers in High School who did that, it builds a relationship with them and you see them as human and at the sametime they are seeing the student as an equal. They still maintain their authority and respect. We need to trust them.
It's like if you don't want your children to have outside influences, then home school them.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Re: thanks for the new Nazi Youth -- tg, 16:41:59 03/07/06 Tue [1]
You know what, we're having this argument about this guy teaching inappropriate material in his classroom!! That's bullshit I just had time to read the transcript and the only reason he was punished was because someone saw him as UNPATRIOTIC!! That's fucking bullshit, half of the things he was saying was TRUE and not FALSE, so his interpretation of history or whatever wasn't in the textbooks, but it wasn't wrong either. It may have been out of context.
Anyway, I still think we should trust our teachers with our children and we should give them freedom to discuss things that are not the cirriculum. (for their appropriate age groups)
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Re: thanks for the new Nazi Youth -- Amadaun, 17:27:58 03/07/06 Tue [1]
********Give the teacher a fricken medal!!!******
That transcript was totally awesome, and I hope that the kids in his class went home and thought about what he was saying and discussed it with their parents too.
Lump, in order to reach a decision about who you are going to support [conservative or liberal] don't you think your son should have both sides of the story presented to him? Otherwise how can he make an informed decision, if you won't let him hear what the other side has to say?
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Robert....... -- amadaun, 17:45:08 03/07/06 Tue [1]
"I think that the sooner a kid learns how fucked up the world is, the better shot they have of making it. Civil rights are important. Human rights are important, but ultimately, they will not matter. When the shit hits the fan, so will your rights, and you better be ready for when that day comes...because it will come...it always does.
No one is interested in teaching reality."
What is reality Robert? People have been debating this for eons.
The reality you create for yourself, influences how you react to other people, and how you live your life.
If you go around thinking 'the world is a fucked up place'- then the way you act must reflect this. Your behaviour because of this view, then effects how other people relate to you in turn. You can create a fucked up world for yourself. Or, you can choose differently.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Re: thanks for the new Nazi Youth -- GarlicSoul, 02:43:01 03/08/06 Wed [1]
As for being upset about whether or not it should be categorized as Geography/ History, I do not care. I dont think that any school subjects have clear lines of separation. You cant understand geography, without some sort of historical (and even polital) context. Why is there a North and a South Korea? For the record, I learned more about Poetry in my French classes, than all of my years of English, or creative writing. Bonus. Thankfully, my teacher would allow our class to follow/explore tangents.
As for the whole "that's what college is for" theorem: I am also fortunate that my teachers didnt have that philosophy. I'm glad I didnt have to forfeit all challenging classroom discussions, just because I would never end up in college.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Re: thanks for the new Nazi Youth -- GarlicSoul, 03:11:05 03/08/06 Wed [1]
"Dont forget where you came from...remember who you are and if and when you have kids, pass that on to your kids and here's how to do it:
Everytime something unpleasant comes on the news and your kid's watching it, don't change the channel. Talk to them about it. Talk intelligently about it, explain it to them. Share the knowledge. I mean, my parents were very open- I knew what race riots were, I knew what the vietnam war was, I knew what all kinds of shit was, when I was real small. I dug it. I've always been a newshound, but people I know now, I'm 41 now. A lot of people I know, people my age have no tangible memory of the vietnam war, or even Watergate. And I think that's because their Eisenhower-brainwashed parents decided to put the blinders on, whenever the biafra war, or the vietnam war, or anything that they didnt want them to see, came on TV, they changed the channel. Dont make your kids stupid."
----Jello Biafra
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Re: thanks for the new Nazi Youth -- tg, 08:45:04 03/08/06 Wed [1]
I was wondering why this was recorded, was the teacher always doing this stuff at every class? I guess this was a setup.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Re: thanks for the new Nazi Youth -- carson1, 13:08:46 03/08/06 Wed [1]
I hope that my son has a teacher like this. If we don't teach our children about the atrocities of our past and present, how will they ever learn not repeat those mistakes. They don't! I would hope that my child will feel free to assert his opinion in the classroom. Speaking his opinion but also hearing other's opinions is the best learning experience. Fuckin' freaky Republicans!
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Re: thanks for the new Nazi Youth -- light, 14:09:04 03/08/06 Wed [1]
You left-wing liberal wacko nutjobs!!
Idiots!!
(someone had to represent JCP)
Myself, I stand by what I said before. I feel that young people need to acquire at least a basic knowledge of places and situations before being able to digest, put into balance and argue specific positions, especially ones that require long-term dedicated study, like the ones set before them. In 10th grade, when they are apparently first learning definitions of terms like Capitalism, they are in no position to even-handedly debate issues with a teacher who, in this tape at least, seems firmly set in his beliefs and in promoting his own point of view.
Almost any biased point of view can be backed up with facts that support it. I don't see the lesson quoted above as a discussion, but more like a political rant. I don't see any attempt here to truly introduce balance. As an adult I don't like to be ranted at, whether the bias is gnn-oriented, or a right-wing equivalent or whatever. I can't imagine I would have enjoyed it more as a 14 year-old held captive in a classroom. (I did attend protest rallies where I could listen, or not, to similar speeches though, back at that age. There are many outlets and sources currently where young people can freely learn about and discuss these things in accordance to their level of knowedge and interest, without being graded on their input and attendence).
With that said, I think this situation has been blown up to ridiculous proportions. I've read some right-wing on-line publications in regards to this and they are scary! Sometimes I forget how narrow-minded and hate-filled, not to mention obsessionally active and organized, a lot of US citizens really are.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Re: thanks for the new Nazi Youth -- 23, 14:20:29 03/08/06 Wed [1]
Wasn't he just, as you put it, giving them "a basic knowledge of places and situations?"
They just happened to be situations that aren't covered in most text books. They are verifiable facts, though, even though they don't flatter our government.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Re: thanks for the new Nazi Youth -- light, 14:27:28 03/08/06 Wed [1]
No, I don't think he was.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Re: thanks for the new Nazi Youth -- tg, 14:29:07 03/08/06 Wed [1]
I thought he was making comparisons.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Re: thanks for the new Nazi Youth -- amadaun, 17:26:00 03/08/06 Wed [1]
'They are verifiable facts, though, even though they don't flatter our government.'
The truth hurts.
I don't think many people want to confront the reality of modern America. And obviously, don't want their kids to know about it either.
Much safer to keep the status quo, and believe that America is doing good in the world.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Re: thanks for the new Nazi Youth -- chrys, 19:39:16 03/08/06 Wed [1]
i guess i don't understand why a 10th grader would be learning the basic names and places? maybe my school systems were all different (i went to elementary school outside buffalo, and middle and HS in new jersey), but we learned all the basic stuff before HS. history facts were drilled into our heads from early on, along with my country tis of thee and other little songs like that. in fourth grade we had to learn state history and do reports (small ones) and make longhouses in art class and learn about the iroquios (whatever way i spell it, it doesn't look right). in fifth and sixth we did more in depth US history, i can still see the cover of the history book, with buffalo grazing on the plains. i think it was called american adventures. in seventh and eighth we did world cultures, had to learn about the customs and religions and whatnot of all different regions of the world.
like i said earlier, ninth was world history, and the last three yrs of HS were more in depth US history. by that time, we already had the very basics like columbus and the major wars from elementary school on. we also had current events all throughout this. in elementary school, it was weekly reader. in middle school, junior scholastic. in HS, we had to read the papers and read newsweek. so there was always a current events side of things. by soph year when we went into world history much more in depth, we had the basics, we weren't learning just names and places anymore. there was some reinforcing sure, and more detail, but it was mostly really digging in depth, getting into those primary sources, having debates.
also, in those three years of HS history, we had to have one semester of govt, and one semester of economics. you cannot get into these subjects without talking about politics. again no one had to push a political agenda, but oftentimes we did look at different viewpoints, and sometimes teachers did say really provocative things (on any side of a coin) in order to shake us up and get us thinking. one of our assignments was to read this book of all different economic philosophers and then write a paper about two of them. there is no way to separate economic theory from politics and political opinion. also if you go back and you read speeches and you study the suffrage mvement, or you discuss whether pearl harbor was possibly planned (which we discussed in eleventh grade), or talk about possibly rigged elections (in the past), you're going to touch on politics. if you discuss current events at all, you're going to discuss politics.
and no i don't think a HS teacher would run around waving a flag and saying yay USA, (though i'm sure it happens), but i think the set of facts that they teach are specifically tailored to make the US look like a hero. you don't have to read a HS US history textbook very far to get that impression. so i think it's subtle, but i think most teachers, unless they consciously try to teach outside of hte textbook and bring in other things, make up exercises that will talk about issues from a different perspective, you get a teacher who basically teaches that the US is right, that our wars are right, that there aren't any dead innocent germans, that we've never committed genocide, that we are morally superior to every other country. it's just more insidious and expected, more status quo.
and i still think you can't just leave politics to a parent. for one thing, by the time a kid is thirteen or fourteen, they're going to be wanting to be thinking of things differently than their parents. their parents are lame no matter what they do or think, when a kid is that age, traditionally and the child is starting to really think on their own and develop their own ideologies. also i think part of the point of discussing these things in the classroom is to discuss it with their peers. parents of any kid have their own biases, as do teachers, and the purpose of discussing things in class, is to get ideas outside of just one set passed down again and again. like i pointed out earlier, these "kids" are going to vote by the time they graduate, and they should be informed.
i would have loved a teacher like that. i would have loved any teachers that made me think, especially about things that shape our world everyday. after a lecture like that, i would have been interested to know about columbia and hugo chavez, etc. and again, i don't think the kids are clueless. those mags, junior scholastic and etc, would always have us look at iraq, yugoslavia, the middle east. also if the student has watched tv and heard about pat robertson... plus what about when you get to economics? or discuss the fifties and the communist scare situation? you have to talk about capitalism as a system and what its effects are.
if politics had been left to my parents, i would've been completely in the dark. there were four things we weren't allowed to talk about in my house: religion (in any form), sex, drugs and death. that last one meant we couldnt' talk about the OJ trial or the gulf war. or anything else significant. my mom just hates it, it's too unpleasant. and that also cancels out any meaningful discussion of the conflict in the middle east, women's reproductive rights, the war in iraq. and we ca't think anything bad about the patriot act b/c of my dad's job (that was the first real political fight my mom and i ever had, and she didn't even want to discuss that, she cut it off). and again there are so many parents who are apathetic, or completely fanatical about whatever political view, or simply uninformed. you can encounter that in school too, but you're sorta paying that teacher to have some sort of background, or to at least assign you pages in the textbook and articles in junior scholastic.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Re: thanks for the new Nazi Youth -- light, 00:42:37 03/09/06 Thu [1]
Chrys, I had close to the opposite experience as you. My family was open to discussions on the topics you mentioned, but my schools didn't offer nearly as thorough an education in history/social studies as yours did.
Or maybe I just wasn't paying attention ;)
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Re: thanks for the new Nazi Youth -- lump, 08:29:24 03/09/06 Thu [1]
So the majority of you think that as a parent, we can't show our own children both sides of the argument and make sure they know the facts and opinions from both sides of fence? Because that's what I do - that's what my job is and that's why I disagree with someone subjecting my child to a one sided rant before he is old enough to make his own decision. Especially when it doesn't apply to the class.
I think alot of you are making excuses for the guy because you agree and understand the fustration.
As you all remember (and mostly disagreed with me) - I voted independently during the last election. My son's class had a moch election - and he voted for Bush because he didn't think it was a good idea to change presidents in the middle of a war if we didn't have to. That was his own reasoning. I did sit down and spill out a few anti-Bush things to him - like that we may not even be in a war if it weren't for President Bush's decisions, etc. etc. But I told him I was proud of him for putting his own thought into a decision and going against the grain for something he believed in. Of course in his class, Kerry won. And by the way - there was no discussion on what each candidate stood for in class - I think the teachers only wanted to show them what it feels like to vote.
Maybe you all think I'm wrong - and that I'm raising a mini-me for not putting the "Root root root for the home team" attitude into my son. But that is a great example of what I think we should do as parents - not a responsibility we should toss to teachers. Unfortunately, perhaps most people can't see both sides of an argument.
And that kid was on Fox News saying that the teacher talked about this kind of stuff everyday. He didn't feel it was relevent either, so he recorded it. I don't know who he was going to play it for - his parents or a principal or what. But he had a right to do that, too. Even if it's such an overblown story.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Re: thanks for the new Nazi Youth -- 23, 08:56:44 03/09/06 Thu [1]
"So the majority of you think that as a parent, we can't show our own children both sides of the argument and make sure they know the facts and opinions from both sides of fence? Because that's what I do - that's what my job is and that's why I disagree with someone subjecting my child to a one sided rant before he is old enough to make his own decision. Especially when it doesn't apply to the class."
I never said that parents can't do this. I just don't see the problem with teachers presenting these kinds of ideas also. I think it's healthy for kids to hear opposing viewpoints from various sources. Hell, they hear it from the media, why can't they hear it from actual people in their lives?
And secondly, you have to remember that these "kids" are 15 and 16 years old, they are old enough to start seriously thinking about ideas like this and to start hearing challenging viewpoints. As someone said above, they will be making decisions about whether or not to join the military in just a couple of years - if they're old enough to start thinking about THAT, they sure as hell are old enough to hear new political perspectives outside of their home. Do you honestly think Nate is still going to listen to your opinions regarding matters like these when he's 15? My parents were the last people I went to for anything by that age.
And you're right, the kid had every right in the world to record his teacher and play it for whomever he chose. I just think it was wrong to suspend the teacher because some people didn't agree with his politics or didn't like what he had to say. I still stand by my point that he was merely presenting FACTS, which is what his job is (not to just present facts that people are comfortable hearing). In fact, one could make a good case that the majority of HS history teachers are negligent because they fail to challenge their students and fail to present a more accurate picture of US history.
When it comes down to it, what harm has been done to these students? I can't see any. I can only see benefits, from both sides of the equation. If the kid was interested in what the teacher had to say, it opened up whole new avenues of information for that child to pursue. If the kid didn't like what the teacher had to say, it gave them an opportunity to further hone their own opinions to refute this kind of perspective in the future.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Re: thanks for the new Nazi Youth -- lump, 09:08:11 03/09/06 Thu [1]
Well, I don't think he should have been suspended either. The worst that should have happened was that they should have looked over his lesson plan to make sure the kids were being taught geography and maybe reprimanded him.
And no - at 15 he won't listen to me about much at all. I've laid my foundation - and at that age, I just have to watch all the earthquakes and hope I'm a good enough engineer to have him still standing in the end. Which is all the more reason I wouldn't want a teacher causing a freakin' earthquake. There's enough going on at that age.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Re: thanks for the new Nazi Youth -- GarlicSoul, 11:23:17 03/09/06 Thu [1]
About waiting until some distant age, where kids suddenly know all of these background facts, so they can cross-reference them against what their teacher is arguing: that age doesnt necessarily EVER arrive. I will lay my money on the line and say that most adults wouldnt qualify, by those standards....but that doesnt excuse them from the daily decisions they make, which are supposed to be based on these precepts. Certain relatives of mine, thought that Al-Qaeda was some country in the middle east, but that didnt disqualify them from voting in the last election.
Anyway, as Twan said, 15 and 16 year olds arent much more or less susceptible to propaganda, than 35 and 36 year olds. People feel so sorry that this fragile kid had to endure such scholastic brain-washing, but it obviously didnt sway him. I think that is more of an argument that kids with involved parents (even if they are right-wingers) arent likely to have their homegrown philosophies overridden, by the ideology of some rogue teacher.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Re: thanks for the new Nazi Youth -- carson1, 17:24:54 03/09/06 Thu [1]
See, that's my whole problem with the public school systems in most states these days. They don't encourage individual thinking or debate. They teach to a test. A test that the Bush administration thinks is a great idea. It's all about the kids passing these standardized tests, so that they receive the max amount of federal aid. It's ridiculous! So, teachers are not encouraged to incite dicussion debate or critical thinking because that's not going to grant them any money. And on that note, too many parents are soley relying on the educational system to teach their children. They don't participate in any learning at home. Hell, most kids are lucky to get help with their homework. That's why even our local freakin' news network in Philly has a homework help line. Parents can't be bothered!
I still think it's ridiculous that he was suspended. It wasn't like he said, "Hey, I don't like Bush, so I encourage everyone of you to grab your torch and pitchfork, and let's go a lynchin'!" Sheesh.....
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Re: thanks for the new Nazi Youth -- taurus, 17:34:40 03/09/06 Thu [1]
Carson wrote:
I still think it's ridiculous that he was suspended. It wasn't like he said, "Hey, I don't like Bush, so I encourage everyone of you to grab your torch and pitchfork, and let's go a lynchin'!" Sheesh.....
~~~Can we do that anyway? LOL
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
