Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Churchill dropped from England's history syllabus (" pandering to a P.C. agenda")
ABC News (Australia), The Sun (U.K.) ^ | July 13, 2007

Posted on 07/12/2007 11:42:03 PM PDT by Stoat

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 121-136 next last
To: Names Ash Housewares

and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.

Of course, when he wrote this, Winston probably never even imagined the forces of political correctness, which threaten to neutralize every technological advantage the West has. We could use more of him today.

I hasten to say that Churchill was probably THE towering figure of the last century—and not just British. The only others who come close are the Roosevelts (Teddy & Franklin**) and Ronald Reagan. And, unfortunately for Teddy, he was never tested in the way that Winston was.

**I know lots of Freepers hate FDR, but he did successfully lead the nation through WWII. Eisenhower and Truman should also get honorable mention.


61 posted on 07/13/2007 4:54:24 AM PDT by rbg81 (DRAIN THE SWAMP!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Stoat

Unfortunately, what is happening in the UK is also happening in the US. Our Founding Fathers are more and more looked upon as nothing more than old, dead, white men who owned slaves.


62 posted on 07/13/2007 5:03:25 AM PDT by chessplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stoat
Schools Secretary Ed Balls defended the move, saying a slimmed-down curriculum was overdue and traditional elements in all subjects had been protected.

"When duty calls, you've got Balls!"

63 posted on 07/13/2007 5:08:09 AM PDT by Luke Skyfreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Winniesboy

No, no, no. It sounds better to say he was dropped from the curriculum. Sells more papers. And gets people riled up more.


64 posted on 07/13/2007 5:09:45 AM PDT by elc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Stoat

I’m shocked that Churchill and Hitler aren’t going to be taught, given that little dust-up known as the “London Blitz.”

In all seriousness, they’ve got to at least have one line about Churchill in their lessons... “If not for Winston Churchill, you’d be reading this in German, if at all.”

Mark


65 posted on 07/13/2007 5:13:31 AM PDT by MarkL (Listen, Strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LjubivojeRadosavljevic

It should be a component of...wait for it...Home Economics.


66 posted on 07/13/2007 5:20:47 AM PDT by Little Pig (Is it time for "Cowboys and Muslims" yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: singfreedom

If you send the US Marines in to land at Cleethorpes Beach, a lot of us won’t object.

I can already detect a sinister re-packaging of history, with some textbooks labelling Germany and Japan as victims in 1945, and Britain and America as committing numerous war crimes against humanity ; for example, telling modern schoolchildren that the atomic bomb at Nagasaki was dropped after Japan surrendered.

I am only glad my Grandad and his brothers are all dead now.
I wonder why they bothered fighting for this shite country.


67 posted on 07/13/2007 5:26:07 AM PDT by jabbermog (e)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: rbg81
Thread hijack

I just learned that FDR was triskaidekaphobic. Just an interesting tidbit for today if you're a trivia junky.
68 posted on 07/13/2007 5:36:24 AM PDT by elc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

Churchill is not only important to history for his contribution to the stand against the nazis. He was also a pivotal figure in welfare state reforms and highly relevant to discussions about the changing attitudes to imperialism which are an important aspect of 20th Century history


69 posted on 07/13/2007 5:38:42 AM PDT by marko83
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Stoat

bttt


70 posted on 07/13/2007 6:26:35 AM PDT by maine-iac7 ( "...but you can't fool all of the people all the time." LINCOLN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Winniesboy
A lot of misplaced froth here, it seems to me. The indignation expressed in most of the posts on this thread seems to have led people to overlook the following paragraph:

Good Golly - and it they take out Churchill et al from the history books - it wont be long before the teachers themselves wont know who he is =

Teachers know that they need to mention these pivotal figures. They don't need to be instructed by law to mention them in every history class. "Of course, good teachers will be teaching the history of Churchill as part of the history of Britain. The two are indivisible."

so much pap to calm the masses. And you fall for it???

That boat don't float.

Not to mention, how long do you think it would take before teachers were called on the carpet for 'teaching things NOT in the curriculum"

Swallow that BIG LIE to your peril -

71 posted on 07/13/2007 6:34:46 AM PDT by maine-iac7 ( "...but you can't fool all of the people all the time." LINCOLN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Winniesboy
He's saying that a competent teacher of history should be trusted to cover key figures like Churchill as a matter of course,

The key word there is "competent." With all due respect, I don't know if the UK's teacher cert standards are the same as ours, but there are a majority of high school teachers in ALL subjects here in the US that I wouldn't trust to teach kids to wipe their arses.

72 posted on 07/13/2007 7:02:07 AM PDT by Malacoda (A day without a pi$$ed-off muslim is like a day without sunshine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Malacoda

That may well be so: but there remains rather a large difference between a government instructing you to do something, a government instructing you not to do that thing, and a government leaving you free to do or not do that thing as you see fit. I’d need a lot of persuading that the third of these options is not to preferred, in this as in most other circumstances.


73 posted on 07/13/2007 7:18:03 AM PDT by Winniesboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Winniesboy
“Incrementalism” is all about one step at a time. That is how they do it, that is how they achieve their ends.

Radical change, of the sort you are claiming people here are shrieking about, very, very seldom happens in one fell swoop.

“Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty; power is ever stealing from the many to the few.”

This is how that happens.

CA....

74 posted on 07/13/2007 9:41:55 AM PDT by Chances Are (Whew! It seems I've once again found that silly grin!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: alarm rider; All
I am a great admirer of Mr. Churchill and a student of WWII military history. I would very much like to write Mr. Soames. What is the proper way to address him in the e-mail? Sir? Mr.?

Thank you so much for this essential and highly relevant question.  I telephoned the House of Commons Switchboard, and the extremely polite, helpful and friendly lady who answered told me that for Nicholas Soames it is appropriate to address him as "Mr. Soames" within the greeting and body of the letter, such as "Dear Mr. Soames", and when addressing the letter to it's destination it is appropriate to put "The Rt. Hon. Nicholas Soames" on the address area of the envelope (or if you are adding an address in the email)..

It was nice that your question provided an 'excuse' for me to research it a bit, because I found a page online which outlines the appropriate ways of addressing Lords, but I didn't find any similar page for MP's.

UK Parliament - How do you address a Lord

Thanks,
AR

You're quite welcome and I enjoyed the opportunity to learn something new as well  :-)

I'm delighted that you're interested in writing Mr. Soames and I'm sure that he will be quite pleased to learn of your own as well as America's high regard for his grandfather Sir Winston Churchill.

75 posted on 07/13/2007 10:43:13 AM PDT by Stoat (Rice / Coulter 2008: Smart Ladies for a Strong America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: maine-iac7

“Good Golly - and it they take out Churchill et al from the history books - it wont be long before the teachers themselves wont know who he is =”

Who is ‘taking Churchill out of the history books’?

“Not to mention, how long do you think it would take before teachers were called on the carpet for ‘teaching things NOT in the curriculum””

No, that’s exactly what they are supposed to do. Personally I was always opposed to a prescriptive national curriculum. What’s the point of having history teachers if they can’t work out for themselves what they need to teach?

Incidently, do you have such a thing as a national curriculum in the US? Or is it down to individual districts/schools/teachers to make sure the relevant lessons are taught? If it’s the latter, don’t you think it’s a tad hypocritcal all the posters in this thread slamming the UK for moving in the same direction?


76 posted on 07/13/2007 11:16:57 AM PDT by JHT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: onedoug

ping


77 posted on 07/13/2007 11:35:48 AM PDT by windcliff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Winniesboy
a paragraph from article on the following link:

http://www.thisisrumorcontrol.org/node/2277

"A report in the Guardian [English newspaper] suggests that despite the revisions, some teachers will offer students their own take on recent events with one young woman who is studying to be a teacher saying: "I will teach my students what I see: that Americans are the terrorists. Bush entered Iraq to take oil, not to free Iraq. They just want money and oil from Iraq. This is what I know and this is definitely what I will teach."

The writer correctly identifies Plato as the one who argued that "those who tell the stories rule society"

The article is titled: "Those Who do not Know History are Doomed to Repeat It."

We've all heard that one. It is an absolute. I don't see that the writer gave credit to the author of the phrase, but i believe it was George Santayana in his book: "Life of Reason, Reason in Common Sense" (Scribner's, 1905)

These truisms are modern day parables.

the Parables, catchy little phrases that kids could memorize and would recall from time to time throughout life, were/are valuable lessons - truths well remembered and followed.

You wont hear them today -

78 posted on 07/13/2007 12:12:36 PM PDT by maine-iac7 ( "...but you can't fool all of the people all the time." LINCOLN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: windcliff

‘Another pint, mate, so to pee me history away.


79 posted on 07/13/2007 2:00:11 PM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: maine-iac7
How can you teach about WW11 and not include Churchill???

Well, probably because world war eleven is an event of the distant future.

80 posted on 07/13/2007 2:01:59 PM PDT by Petronski (imwithfred.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 121-136 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson