Mike Tribe

Did you come? How did it go? Regards Mike

He pays some tax, doesn't he? In which case, he's "qualified" to speak about it... More to the point would be why his comments should be so widely reported, why he should have such privileged access to ministers, etc, etc...

Likewise.

We do a musical every spring. Our music teacher is really quite good at it. Why don't you email her at lizatredway@amerschmad.org. Tell her I gave you her address.

I know quoting arch-imperialist-racist-bogeyman Churchill clearly puts me in the reactionary, older generation camp, but I do think there's a lot to be said for his position. Yes, in bourgeois democracy an inordinate amount of power is concentrated in the hands of a few oligarchs. Yes, there is little real choice between Blairite New Labour and the Conservatives and even less between New Labour and the Liberal Democrats. Yes, the elected representatives are distant and largely unaccountable. Yes, public frustration with their lack of control over the system leads to ever-greater levels of apathy and abstention. And yes, it's all a lot worse in the USA! So, what's the alternative? I think we can discount Athenian direct democracy. Modern society is just too interconnected and complicated for the ordinary citizens to exercise direct control. So, if we reject repesentative democracy -- for all the reasons I listed above -- then with what should we replace it? I suppose we could move towards some sort of system based on frequent plebiscites or referendums. Unfortunately, we'd then be out of Europe, have swingeing restrictions on immigration, have brought back hanging, etc, etc. I don't think I'd prefer to live in a society based on those sorts of values. Another alternative would be to put all our trust in the wisdom and strength of will of a single leader. Perhaps we could even be allowed to elect him/her (once). However, the Germans and Italians tried this and it didn't work too well for them. So what, exactly, are the critics of western-style democracy proposing to replace it with?

I've always had a bit of a problem with this no homework thing... I teach IB history. In order to do well in the examination, students are supposed to display a knowledge of historiography. How are they supposed to obtain this unless they read? Am I supposed to read the stuff to them in class? Or should I sit and watch them read? I suppose I would then the "facilitating" their learning rather than teaching! No, I really don't think it's unreasonable to expect students to do a reasonable amount of reading at home, and possibly some writing assignments to test their comprehension of what they have read. Again, success in the examination depends on essay-writing skills. I don't think it's an efficient use of class time for students to spend an hour writing a practice essay. That's better one at home as well. The reason homework has received a bad press in the past few years is more connected with the assignment of inappropriate work to be done at home...

The Spanish version of the NC, the Programa Oficial, mandates the study of Spanish history and geography in year 12. This is mostly 19th & 20th Century history. In year 13, it's Contemporary World History -- but that's mostly European history... The Spanish have a bit of a problem with race issues: the Reconquista, the reconquest of Spain by Christian forces, and the conquest of the Americas are still seen as marking high points in Spanish history. Columbus, Cortes, Pizzaro, El Cid, Ferdinand and Isabel are national heroes which makes any close examination of what they actually did a bit difficult. Spain is only now coming to terms with multiculturalism. 20 years ago, it was very unusual to see a black or brown face on the streets of Madrid. Immigration from North and sub-Saharan Africa has given rise to a lot of soul searching and to some disturbing signs of racism...

Oh, I **do** hate that! As well as teaching history, I'm also an under-13 soccer coach here. Yes, it's true that none of the players on my team is ever going to play for Arsenal (or even Real Madrid!), BUT (1) Even though they're "mediocre" their enjoying healthy activity which doesn't involve them sitting for hours in front of a TV screen soaking up God-knows-what. At weekends, I sometimes watch the local "seniors" league games at the local sports center. I hope some of my under-13s are still playing when they're 50! (2) As well as learning (or even **failing** to learn) how to play football, my kids are also learning more important lessons, like sportsmanship, team spirit, how to win gracefully, or (in the case of my team) how to accept defeat without seeing it as a reflection on their personal worth. And surely that's why we're history teachers as well -- because we honestly believe that a study of the past can enlighten our perspective as we look to the future. All disciplines contribute **something** to the creation of a rounded human being. That's why I agree with the ex-IB student who wrote about the breadth of the program. Certainly, I don't find that my IB students have sacrificed **anything** in depth compared with the A level students my wife teaches, and yet her students have never studied the French Revolution, or the Industrial Revolution, or the unification of Italy, etc, etc. They **do** know a great deal about Nazi Germany, Mao's China, and Stalinist Russia, but not much more than my IB students do... My daughter has just transferred from my school -- an American international school -- to my wife's school -- an overseas British school teaching the NC to GCSE and A-level. Instead of studying seven subjects at 11th Grade as she did at my school, she's now down to three at A or AS level. She finds she has a lot more free time to spend on research, violin practice, soccer practice, etc, but I can't help feeling she's lost something...

To get back to the subject of BNP teachers. Perhaps the comparison with revolutionary socialists doesn't hold enough water to convince everyone. What about revolutionary Islamic teachers? Should membership of the Regents Park Mosque be grounds for dismissal? Derek says we have to protect children from exposure to racists. Where does this stop? Do we have to protect Jewish children from devout Moslem teachers? Or Moslem children from Jews who might or might not be Zionists? There is a law against incitement to racial hatred. If a teacher breaks that law and is convicted after due process, then he should be dismissed. Otherwise, he has a right to expect his views to be tolerated. That's what living in a liberal society is all about. I disagree with everything you say but will defend to the death your right to say it...

I'm an interloper from a history department! And I think it's the same all through education. They key words seem to be "fun" and "relevant". We shouldn't teach Shakespeare because it's not "relevant" to the situation of students living in deprived inner city areas -- let's do Zephania instead. Anyway, the kids find Shakespear difficult and sometimes, they "fail" which might do all sorts of damage to their self-esteem. In history, it seems that students can go through their entire educational experience without studying anything except some very limited topics in English history and Nazi Germany... As someone said in an earlier post, we have to take on the responsibility of explaining to students that some of the things they hve to do in life just aren't going to be fun -- why do you think I'm writing posts on Education Forums instead of marking? -- but still have to be done. That's because we're adults and they aren't. We don't want to be bringing up a generation of people who think they should only have to have "fun"...

I agree as well. The JFK conspiracy stuff MAY the absorbingly interesting to some, but it does seem to be rather ubiquitous... I also get the excellent updates from the Spartacus KeepAhead... It used to have five or six really useful entries every week... Recently, it's tended to become more and more focused on the JFK assassination, something I don't teach, and, even if I did, would be unlikely to spend more than a couple of lessons on... OK, it IS research, and therefore educational, but surely it's not the ONLY area in which educational research is taking place...

At my school here in Spain, we have even longer holidays! From the last week of June until the first week of September -- and we're also quite close to all that sun and sand. But we still get parents who think it's OK to take their kids out for an extra week here and there... I had one student due to take the IB exam this May whose parents took her out of school for an extra 10 days after the Easter break so she could go visit the college she'd be going to in the United States. She only came to six of my classes between Easter and taking the exam-- but if she bombs in the IB who'll get the blame? The parents? I don't think so... In an international school, some of this is inevitable -- family reunions every now and then, etc -- but the fact that the school is fee-paying (even if most of the parents don't actually pay the fees themselves but have their government or company pick up the tab) make most parents feel that they have a "right" to take their kids out. And the school's policy is that teachers MUST set and mark work for kids with an "excused absence"

My name's Mike Tribe. I have taught at the American School of Madrid for the last 23 years, first in the elementary school and, for the past five years, in the high school history department. Before moving to Spain, I taught history at Iranzamin International School and geography and economics at Parthian School, both in Tehran, Iran. I was in Iran before, during and after the Islamic Revolution. Whilst in Iran, I met and married my wife, Sheelagh. We have one daughter and are happily settled in Madrid. I am a member of the USO trade union and am a union rep at my school.

I think the problem I have with the comparison between the Holocaust and the harsh treatment meeted out by the Israelis to the Palestinians, or the Americans to the Iraquis is partly one of language. It's become all-too-common over the past 20 years to hurl around terms like "genocide" and "holocaust" to cover any actionin which anyone dies at the hands of any state the hurler finds politically objectionable. The attacks on Fallujah may be unjustified, they may even be "war crimes", but they clearly do not in any way represent an attempt to eradicate the Iraquis as a people, and that's what "genocide" means. Similarly, I think one would be hard put to find any evidence to show that there is an attempt by the Israeli government to wipe out the entire Palestinian population. These examples stand in stark contrast to such events as the Turkish attack on the Armenians, the Nazi attack on the Jews (and Gypsies), or the Hutu attack on the Tutsis. As someone observed earlier in this thread, it's very easy to brand those whose views differ from our own as "anti-semitic", or "racist", or "fascist", or "white-supremacist" and it's very unfortunate that thi seems to be a growing trend in political discourse these days. I think we do our students a disservice if we use terms which really do have a specific meaning in an overly loose way. I understand that the aim is to point out similarities in tactics and, perhaps motivations, but I also think that many of our students don't grasp the subtlty of what being suggested and more and more young people have simply accepted that what the Israelis, for example, are doing in Palestine, is EXACTLY THE SAME as what happened to the Jews during the war, and it clearly ISN'T... Another problem I think I see in some aspects of this thread is a tendency to apply Western standards and attitudes of thought to different cultural contexts. There's a chilling interview in "The Nazis: a Warning from History" when a highly educated, cultured and prosperous looking German businessman was asked by the interviewer how he could have gone along with the anti-Jewish laws passed in the 1930s. He said that one had to understand that the Jews in the 1930s were being really pushy and something had to be done about them -- all the lawyers were jewish, all the theater producers... It requires great imagination and great discipline to be able to put oneself into such a mind set, and it's natural to look for other more reasonable explanations which fit better with our own basic beliefs... Thus, like it or not, Islamic Jihad, Hizbollah, Hamas and the like really ARE committed to the total destruction of the state of Israel. Maybe it's Israeli oppression which is winning them greater support, but that doesn't change the FACT that that's what they're committed to. It certainly CAN'T be described as a "battle that has already been won"... Sorry to go on so...

I think the problem I have with the comparison between the Holocaust and the harsh treatment meeted out by the Israelis to the Palestinians, or the Americans to the Iraquis is partly one of language. It's become all-too-common over the past 20 years to hurl around terms like "genocide" and "holocaust" to cover any actionin which anyone dies at the hands of any state the hurler finds politically objectionable. The attacks on Fallujah may be unjustified, they may even be "war crimes", but they clearly do not in any way represent an attempt to eradicate the Iraquis as a people, and that's what "genocide" means. Similarly, I think one would be hard put to find any evidence to show that there is an attempt by the Israeli government to wipe out the entire Palestinian population. These examples stand in stark contrast to such events as the Turkish attack on the Armenians, the Nazi attack on the Jews (and Gypsies), or the Hutu attack on the Tutsis. As someone observed earlier in this thread, it's very easy to brand those whose views differ from our own as "anti-semitic", or "racist", or "fascist", or "white-supremacist" and it's very unfortunate that thi seems to be a growing trend in political discourse these days. I think we do our students a disservice if we use terms which really do have a specific meaning in an overly loose way. I understand that the aim is to point out similarities in tactics and, perhaps motivations, but I also think that many of our students don't grasp the subtlty of what being suggested and more and more young people have simply accepted that what the Israelis, for example, are doing in Palestine, is EXACTLY THE SAME as what happened to the Jews during the war, and it clearly ISN'T... Another problem I think I see in some aspects of this thread is a tendency to apply Western standards and attitudes of thought to different cultural contexts. There's a chilling interview in "The Nazis: a Warning from History" when a highly educated, cultured and prosperous looking German businessman was asked by the interviewer how he could have gone along with the anti-Jewish laws passed in the 1930s. He said that one had to understand that the Jews in the 1930s were being really pushy and something had to be done about them -- all the lawyers were jewish, all the theater producers... It requires great imagination and great discipline to be able to put oneself into such a mind set, and it's natural to look for other more reasonable explanations which fit better with our own basic beliefs... Thus, like it or not, Islamic Jihad, Hizbollah, Hamas and the like really ARE committed to the total destruction of the state of Israel. Maybe it's Israeli oppression which is winning them greater support, but that doesn't change the FACT that that's what they're committed to. It certainly CAN'T be described as a "battle that has already been won"... Sorry to go on so...

Chinchon is a small town about 30-45 minutes from Madrid. Old houses, famous circular "square", very picturesque. Avila is a bit further, but if you're going to Segovia and the Valle de los Caidos already, it's in the same direction. It's a lovely old medieval walled city. I'd also back up Juan Carlos' recommendation about Toledo: city of 3 cultures: catherdral, mosque, synagogues. Visit the mosque and el Greco's house. You can hire an English-speaking guide by calling the local tourist office. One favorite of mine in Madrid is the Sorolla Museum on Avda General Martinez Campos. Sorolla was the Spanish Impressionist and the museum is small and highly accessible. The usual tourist circuit includes a visit to Plaza Mayor, but they don't usually tell you that the equestrial statue stands on the spot where the autos de fe were held!

For years, I used a video from Thames Television on Stalin. It was in three parts, each about an hour long and was, I think, excellent. It has now disappeared from the Department supply cupboard. I've tried quite hard to replace it but failed. Anyone suggest a source of supply? Anyone suggest an alternative? Anyone got a copy of it?