Mike Tribe

I note that he did drop in to tell us all about the CIA/FBI/Int'l Jewish conspiracy to kill Jimi Hendricks and others...

This is true, but most of the extermination camps were in the east, far closer to Soviet airbases than to American and British bases in Southern England. Would it not be "even-handed" to mention that Stalin hardly seems to have been busting a nut to help out either? I think the more preoccupying feature of this "debate" is the attitude inherent in the "2000-a-day" argument. The implication of the argument is that if you can't trust the jewish-controlled media to tell the truth about the exact number of jews killed in one camp, then it throws doubt on the whole event of the Holocaust. Another thing that worries me is that some of the people making these arguments appear to have anti-semitic views -- like the suggestion that Canada is controlled by some sort of hidden jewish cabal -- while others seem to have less than totally credible academic credentials -- like the chap who claims on his website to be in touch with the spirit of John Lennon in the afterlife (you'll be pleased to hear that he's doing well in the Great Beyond and has recently divorced Yoko and remarried...) which can only bring into question the more respectable contributions on the forum...

Actually, I think you'll find that it was originally meant for rather wider themes than just debating the manner in which JFK met his end. I agree that, just recently, one could easily make the mistake, on visiting the site, of thinking that this was the forum's exclusive purpose, but... You're absolutely right in your other statements, however.

This comment illustrates the sort of thing I feared when this can of worms was opened. I think the statement is racist and most regretable.

It's never too late, Doug, especially for a young whippersnapper like you...

I'm a bit worried that we may be going down a trail we shouldn't. Clearly, the Holocaust is a major historical event and, as such, should be researched and even debated. I'm not sure I even agree with Andy that it is right to make Holocaust denial illegal. However, it already seems that some of the posts on this come from people with axes to grind, and I'd hate to see the forum overwhelmed by people intent on propagating their own rather peculiar versions of "history". Again, even at this early stage, some of the posts appear to be somewhat provocative... Again, I understand the views of the moderators regarding censorship, but I do think that if there is going to be a "holocaust debate" on here, it will have to be scrupulously monitored...

Holocaust denial is unpleasant and disreputable academically, and actually illegal in some countries. If, however, it isn't illegal in your own country, which, in the case of Mr Morissette, I assume to the the USA, then I would think it most unlikely that you would be arrested and extradited! Or is there yet another "conspiracy" involved here about which I know nothing? Like the Corsican, Greek, Italian, FBI, Cuban, CIA, Yale, etc conspiracies to kill Kennedy...

I'm not sure Juan Carlos would really disagree with you, Doug. Have you visited his website? It's well worth it -- http://www.historiasiglo20.org/ -- and one of the best things on it is the bit on the Spanish Civil War. Obviously, it's impossible to understand where Europe is today without understanding the conflicts which have divided us, but surely you would agree that we wouldn't be able to understand it either without an appreciation of the cultural ties which link us together. [i really do apologise for that awful, rambling sentence -- my only excuse is that I'm writing this at 6:09 in the morning...] Juan Carlos is simply suggesting, I think, that we've gone too far down the war/conflict road and need to look at the other side more carefully....

A quote from the article cited: Now I'm capable of discerning that the suggestion that the disaster in Asia was some sort of Zionist plot is a rather sick fantasy. But I'm still concerned that less experienced readers -- like my students -- might even believe some of this stuff unless we find ways to show them how to tell the difference... Or perhaps it's all true! Perhaps Or perhaps it was the tooth fairy...

From a recent "conspiracy" thread: Weird, or what?

John, that's all I was trying to suggest. Some of it's really strange, and some of our students simply haven't had the training to spot the difference between genuine research and the other stuff. A couple of years ago, one of my 9th Graders was researching Hitler and the Holocaust and came up with David Irving's website. He just didn't know enough to challenge what he read. All I'm saying is that we need to do a better job helping them develop the skills they need to make intelligent distinctions. I'm certainly not saying that these "conspiracies" shouldn't be investigated, just that 14-year-olds don't have the knowledge base or sophistication to judge the results...

I personally have little interest in the JFK assassination. I'm sure it's interesting to those who contribute to the various strings. However, I do find threads with titles which state that the originator intends to ignore contributions by someone else just a little eccentric, along with suggestions that no one has ever been to the moon, etc, etc. I nowhere suggested either that all people interested in researching the various aspects of JFK's life and death, or that J. Simkin is particular was weird, merely that if any of my rather unsophisticated 9th Grade students were to come across some of the less credible claims on the internet, they would be less well prepared than I would like to assess the trustworthiness of their source. Am I not right to be concerned, or do all of you believe everything written in each of the "conspiracy theory" threads is based upon solid and incontestable research? Couldn't some of it fairly be characterized as "weird"?

I agree... I think it's also something that needs looking at by teachers using the net. How many people looking at the link would take the trouble to click around, do some googling and find out exactly how strange some of the ideas supported by this group are? We're all encouraging our kids to get on the net to "find stuff" but I'm not sure we spend enough time teaching them how to sift the grain from the chaff. There's a lot of really weird people out there, as a casual glance at some of the "conspiracy theory" threads on this forum will show.

And mine is that it is not her beliefs, or, indeed, her membership of an organization which should "make her a poor choice", but her actions... I had a similar argument on the TES forum some time ago about whether BNP members should be allowed to teach. I think they should, as long as they do nothing racist... Once we start disqualifying people from jobs because we don't like their views, we're on a very slippery slope. It's OK when we make these decisions, because we're wise and tolerant. But would we feel as comfortable if it were Michael Howard and his ilk deciding?

And your point is? Why shouldn't either of them belong to any group they wish? If I were to receive "spiritual support" from the Dalai Lama, or even from Ken Livingstone, would this somehow disqualify me from something? There's been a long thread on the TES forum about this, and some very intolerant things have been said to the effect that no member of OD should have any role in public life because it was "secret" and "right wing". I suppose my position is that what people do or believe in their private lives is just that -- private. As long as no one can demonstrate that membership of OD in some way affects the way she does her job, so what? With regard to the wider issue of religious education, I think it would be a shame to abandon it altogether. I don't think children should be subjected to any sort of attempt to prosletyze in school, but, on the other hand, there is a religious element to our history and culture which it is difficult fully to appreciate without any background knowledge about the religion itself. I teach in an American school, and, as you know, there is a constitutional bar on any sort of religion in school. This has been taken to such extremes in recent years that publishers and educational administrators seem almost to have purged any mention of religion from social studies programs. I think it's more difficult for my students to appreciate Renaissance art, for example, if they know nothing about the bible stories so often depicted in them.... By all means, lets get rid of narrow sectarianism in education, but, at the same time, let's not eradicate teaching about religion... Its a question of "cultural literacy"...

But Andy, isn't that exactly what you yourself proposed when you said on another thread that as educators we had a duty to inculcate tolerance of alternative sexual life choices? I think we sometimes have a tendency to make a distinction between those values of which we disapprove -- which shouldn't be transmitted -- and those of which we approve -- which should be! I have no problem with making such distinctions, but I don't think you can "have it both ways"!

But, to return to the original issue raised by John, does that mean we should be emphasizing the sexual preferences of historical figures? If those figures themselves saw their sexuality as relevant -- like, for example, Oscar Wilde -- or if their sex lives seems to have had a significant influence on their public activities -- like Edward II and his succession of lovers -- then I can see that, as historians, we should address the issue, but if not... I'm not sure I'm happy about bending the subject just to serve a laudible political, social or eduational aim. If I were teaching a lesson on tolerance, on individual rights, or on discrimination, it might be relevant to mention that there have been historical figures who have become "cultural icons" whose sexuality would have been considered scandalous in their own time. I might even suggest some of them as role models. On the other hand, if I were teaching a class on changes on health provision and the raising of the prestige and social acceptability of nursing as a suitable profession for middle class women, I don't think it would be relevant to talk about Florence Nightingale's sexual orientation...

Absolutely not! I'm even surprised Sir Alex Ferguson understands himself... I also have some trouble with really extreme Geordie...

Strangely enough, I'd been thinking about this just recently, having read something about it... What brought it especially to mind was the recent resignation of a newly-hired history teacher here. He arrived in September and left in November. Now this sometimes happens in international schools -- living abroad sounds like a great adventure, but once you arrive and realize that everyone won't understand you if you just speak English clearly and loudly, the whole thing loses its lustre for some. However, the reason he gave for leaving was amazing -- he told all his friends that he couldn't work at our school any more because of the disproportionate number of homosexuals (not the word he used) on the staff... As you can imagine, his leaving was not greatly lamented by the rest of us, even though we do have to cover his classes for the rest of the year... But it did make me think. You see, I'd never really thought about the sexual inclination of my colleagues. I hadn't put them into little boxes labeled "gay", "straight" or "lesbian". I just thought of them as more or less trustworthy, more or less hardworking, more or less tolerant, better or worse teachers. Why should I care how my colleagues arrange their personal lives? I'm only really affected by their professional activities. I wonder if this could be extended to cover "historical figures". Should I be concerned about George Washington's sexual inclinations unless they can be shown to have relevance to his "public" activities? I can see that Jefferson's reported activities with the female black slaves on his plantation might have some historical relevance, but would Florence Nightingale's pastimes after she extinguished her lamp have any significance at all? I don't know the answer. Just some musings brought on by the co-incidence of John's post with my thoughts about the departure of my nasty red-neck colleague...

Which is, to be a bit flippant, why most of the Finns I've met have been excellent linguists: their own language is horrendously complex, and incomprehensible to anyone but themselves, so they have to begin learning other languages virtually from the cradle! I knew a five-year-old who could converse comfortably in English, French, Spanish and, I assume, Finnish...

I agree with both Davids. I'd never studied Spanish in my life and have still had no formal lessons, and yet I was reading newspaper stories in El Pais within a couple of weeks arriving here. With a bit of concentration and some French, anyone can figure it out... On the other hand, I defy either David to "guesstimate" what a 70-year-old retired Andaluz fisherman I was chatting to on the beach a couple of months ago. I've been here 25 years and I think I grasped one word in ten! A reservation about the Davids' theory is that I think you have to be able to read the script. When I was living in Tehran, until I learned how to read the script, I made very slow progress. I think it's to do with the re-inforcement you get from things like billboards on the street and things like that...

What I'd really like, in the best of all possible worlds, would be for someone to wave a magic wand so that I suddenly became computer-literate and able to produce web pages like JDC or Doug... Since that isn't going to happen, how about some step-by-step idiot's guides to things like making a short film, spiffing up Power Point presentations? Or, even better, some sort of template with simple instructions which would allow incompetents like me to make their own webpage... As someone said on one of these threads, if technology is "hard" then harassed teachers rushing to meet the demands of the next committee meeting, or the next set of reports, or the next, etc, etc aren't going to use it. This is even more true if someone takes the plunge, tries it out, and it "doesn't work" because the instructions simply weren't basic enough...

This year, I've tried really hard to be more adventurous! I've done two IT-related projects with my 11th Grade class so far this year: As soon as I visited Richard's website a couple of years ago, I was enthused! Last year, for the first time, I tried out a Paris Peace Conference simulation, and I developed the idea further this year. Next year, I'd like to go even further and try to make the project collaborative with other schools... The project used IT in the production of a video report on the actual conference, whichcame out quite well, and, of course, in the research teams had to use to investigate "their" nation's position at the Conference. Problems: 1. Getting sufficient access to computers either for the research or for the film editing. 2. The usual group work dynamics problems. I also had the students research and produce Power Point presentations on technological advances and how these changed the nature of war during World War I. Some of the results were excellent. Problems: 1. I don't know enough about Power Point!!! This meant that the students who knew what to do either because they'd previously attended schools where IT was taken more seriously, or because they were self-taught were able to produce much better work than the rest... 2. Once again, access.... With the 9th Grade group, I tried to emulate Richard's success with his French Revolution videos... with VERY mixed results! Some of the groups produced quite imaginative projects, making full use of the medium. Others were less successful, but they all managed to rpoduce something worthwhile, and they were certainly all motivated to do some serious research. Problems: 1. I had no idea that it was impossible to use PAL cameras with the editing software we use! Apparently, since we're an American school, even though we're in Europe, some bright spark decided we should use NTSC... This meant that groups which decided to overcome the hardware shortage by bringing dad's camera from home couldn't load their film on to the computer... A silly problem, but it had a VERY time-consuming solution and had the entire tech dept (2 people) stumped for an entire day... 2. I should have been much stricter about planning story boards and producing detailed shooting scripts. Some of the groups started filming before they were properly prepared which meant they took much longer than planned, causing a bottleneck in access to scarce hardware... I think all three projects show the importance of planning. The problems that arose did so fundamentally because I hadn't planned carefully enough, and because I often wasn't as familiar with the software as the students. I was learning as I went along which I found most unsettling -- and so did some of the kids. (Is this the sort of thing you had in mind, John?)

Just logged on this morning. It's only 7:30 a.m. (GMT) and there are 14 new posts -- 13 of them JFK Conspiracy-related...

I no longer know much about English primary schools, having fled the country 30 years ago, but from what I hear, more and more of the "marginal" subjects are being weeded out -- less history, less music, less art, less PE -- in order to make room for literacy and numeracy. This is, in many ways, a swing of the pendulum away from some of the ideas which became popular in the 1970s and 80s and led to a decline in the attention given to the acquisition of basic skills. Thus, for example, the memorization of times tables was "banned" because this was parrot-like rote learning and didn't help students understand the mathematical meaning of the operations they were carrying our. A whole generation of teachers collected shoeboxes full of bottle caps so students could "see" what 6 x 7 "meant". And a generation of students left primary school not being able to work out how much 7 chocolate bars should cost if each had a price of 6p. A similar thing happened with reading. Children didn't need to be taught to read. If you just exposed them to enough "real" books, they would somehow develop the skills required through some sort of osmosis -- Goodman referred to phonics as the educational "f-word"... The end result was that more and more students were leaving school theoretically well-qualified, but actually unable to meet the demands either of higher education or of the world of work. So we had the imposition of the National Curriculum by the Thatcherites, and it's strengthening by the Blairites. But has it really made the difference it was supposed to? Certainly more time is spent on skills acquisition in schools, but I'm not sure there's much evidence that it's been fruitful, and it's certainly true that the breadth of the curriculum has been impoverished. Where would I start if I were suddenly to be appointed minister of education? I think I'd begin by insisting that all lecturers on education courses at university be required to spend one year in five actually teaching in a classroom. The same rule should also apply to anyone empowered to take any decisions likely to impinge on classroom practice. This might bring a much-needed air of practicality to the training they impart. Then I'd declare a moratorium on all "educational initiatives" for five years. I'd drop league tables which only encourage schools to eat further and further into "periferal" subject areas. I'd make a measure of staff morale a major item in the evaluation (and pay!) of school SMTs. That would do for a start!