UlrikeSchuhFricke

I think it is important to give human sufferings and human atrocities a "face". I know that while preparing for the Nurember trials some suggested to choose some examples and put the perpetrators on trial based on the fate of some families (Albert Speer always said that he pleaded guilty after he had learned about the fate of one Jewish family and had seen their photos) and not on the death and fate of 6 million. Once students realize that those who died and those who committed the crimes are human beings as you and me/ or they =the students, they can identify with the victims and they start losing the confidence that they never will act like those who killed and kill obviously without any feelings of pity, remorse and guilt. Besides the historic and international perspective Dan mentioned a phenomenon we have to face and deal with: the growing violence and aggression among young people, boys and young men and in growing numbers girls. They might leave our history and politics lesson deeply moved by what they have seen and determined that they will never turn into killing machines only to start a fight in the schoolyard over a triviality. How can we "bridge" this gap; how can we make them see that peace, tolerance begins in our/their ordinary lives, that all the genocides mentioned in the various postings and the everyday violence and aggression especially against kids and people who are different - whatever the differnece is - have similar roots: finding a scapegoat; being afraid of the unknown and foreigners and their cultures, minority complex - to name only a few. The economic, political and social situation in Germany with a high unemployment rate and more cuts into our welfare system to come exacerbate these emotions and xenophobia seems to be am easy outlet for frustration and anger.

Richard, I am prepared to start the discussion on religious symbols, dress etc. in schools and my two students are prepared to join the forum. Simply tell how to do it and what to do.

For me one problem is to decide what we teach, which facts we choose from the ever -growing general knowledge we and our culture have inherited, create and here nationalism comes into play. For History that often meant and I think still means concentrating on chosen aspects of a country's national history. The second point is that what we know is not the same as absolute truth. If we reduce teaching history to teaching bare facts and/or dates we pass on information but not knowledge. History is not simply the past but a told, narrated version of what has happened and this means history is always the result of interpretation and evaluation and history always mirrors the way people thought,acted and justified their actions in their own time - is is always subjective. Hence it is necessary to help students understand this and teach them to read between the lines, to deconstruct historic myths, to detect bias, to notice and consider our own values and how these influence our perception of history. As a result we have to help them to form their own opinion which means nothing:

Actually, I haven't finished thinking the project trough, yet. I would like to do this with my "little ones" = year 7. During the last term the classroom language was still German but now it will be English and I want to have groups of students who compare the description of different aspects of the Middle Ages in an English and in our German textbook: bias; drawings, primary sources; secondary sources, assignments, how difficult/easy is the text etc. But I do not yet know exactly how to organise it.

The question which means are justified or justifiable in a war against a not only totalitarian but also extremly barbaric system is indeed a complex moral issue. The rationale behind the bombing of German cities towards the end of WW II was to "bomb" a nation into a either fast surrender and thus saving thousand of lives on the different fronts or into resistance. As we know neither of these two aims were reached by the air raids. But did the leaders of the allies really know that the "weapon" they were using was useless and in some cases even led to the opposite: a growing hostility towards the allies or could they have known. If they had known, these attacks would have been simple acts of revenge and punishment. If these attacks were meant as punishment and revenge, then their legitimacy and justification would be questionable. If not, they would be nothing but another operation in a terrible war. I think we'd better not confuse things: on the one hand you have the victims of the Nazi system and on the other hand you have the German victims of the war. I am strongly against commemorating both groups in one memorial because not only the amount but their suffering as such is so very different.

The bombing of Dresden can be seen as a war crime but the same goes for the bombing of Coventry. Concerning historic truth and historic books a similar trend can be found in Germany: for my generation the bombing of the German cities was seen as a result and effect of the German actions (see above: Rotterdam, Coventry and many others). A couple of months ago a book was published which highlights the aftermath of the bombing of Dresden, the suffering and dying and depicts the Germans as victims of allied "terror". I do not want to downplay the loss of lives, the misery and suffering inflicted by the air raids and ensuing firestorms but I have second thoughts when the publication of this book coincides with a speech of a CDU MP on October 3rd about the influence of Jews on the Bolshevik movement and their involvement in the Russian Revolution (October). This speech aimed at turning history upside down blaming the Jews for the atrocities of the Russian Revolution and furthermore for the purges and in doing so it aimed at whitewashing the Germans. Despite different interpretations of historic events the right wing revisionist historians seem to be back exculpating their own nations (ties in niecly with the topic: nationalism and history)

The problem is that it is not very simple but extremely difficult and the American involvement indeed is based on very complex domestic structures. To counter your arguments we could go back to the time of the British mandate and compare riots and death rates of both sides then and there, but I think if we look at the conflict today and if a solution is what we are looking for, then - I am afraid- we will have to leave history behind, we will have to stop the "body count" and try to see how both sides can break through the vicious circle of attack/suicide bombs and retaliation. South Africa really is a very good role model especially the Truth and Reconciliation Commissions. The only solution, which was suggested and highlighted in different plans, is the creation of a viable Palestinian state. Even if we abhor the idea and if it is against our understanding of a democractic and multi-cultural society both systems will - at least for some time - be no multi-ethnical systems.

As I cannot prove you wrong I suppose you are right, but what do you want to prove by this statement? What do you conclude?

I think no one really supports the suicide bombers and we all agree that this cannot be the way to put an end to the war going on in the Middle East. What Derek wanted to explain by his comparison is how desperate people must be when they see no other way but kill themselves and murder innocents. I, too, think there is a difference between what the Russians did against the invading German army and what the suicide bombers in Israel do, but obviously a growing number of young Palestinians believes that the only way to realize their political aims is attract public interest by committing atrocious murders. Furthermore I think that those who are prepared to die for their cause and take large numbers of innocents with them can no longer be reached by words and rational arguments. The only way to put an end to this terror is to analyse the reasons why young people are willing to sacrifice their lives. That they have been indoctrinated and believe that their deaths will lead them straight into paradise is not a sufficient explanation. The situation in the refugee camps and in the occupied territories ( see also the quotaion from Benny Morris book in one of my previous postings), the experience of being completely dependent on Israel, which can e.g. lock out the Palestinian workforce (which has happened rather often), of being harassed by the Israeli army, of schools and universities being closed and now the building of a wall on Palestinian territory which will cut off whole villages from their fields and water supply, families from the relations and children from their schools all increase frustration and desperation of many Palestinians. The PA is seen is incompetent and unable to improve the daily lives and the living conditions in the Gaza strip and on the Westbank, whereas Hamas has built up a strong net of charities and using this also able to recruit suicide bombers. Oslo nourished high expectations on both sides and many of those were not realized. So for many the peace process has not brought any real change, has not made life better, but neither have the terrorist attacks or the murder of presumed leaders or members of Hamas. For me these are the reasons why Palestinians resort to these suicide attacks and the Israeli peace movement has become a minority in their own land. This is also a reason why John S. for example referred to South Africa where political leaders (one a former terrorist) dared something completely new, something without any historic precedent. But if South Africa really can serve as a role model depends on how it can solve its manifold social problems.

There is an interesting article in today's Observer about the results of some research done. The gist of the research results and the article is that homework does more harm than good and that it would be better to get things done in school under the supervision and help of teachers.

Dalibor, you explained corectly that the newly founded UNO followed a plan of two states: Israel and Palestine, which was refused by both sides. The first war began and ended with the foundation of the state Israel. Millions of Arabs - today calling themselves Palestinians - left Israel; historians disagree if they left voluntarily, were encouraged by Arabic leaders to leave or were forced to leave by the Israeli armed forces. They mainly lived in refugee camps and you rightly say the territory they today claim as their homeland was then occupied by Jordan and Egypt. You know that more wars followed and since 1967 Israel has occupied the Gaza Strip and the Westbank despite many resolutions of the General Assembly of the UNO. In the beginning the Palestinian refugees and the ones living in the neighbouring Arab countries and the PLO refused to accept the right of the state Israel to exist. It took the Palestinians and their newly founded organisations a long time to accept that Israel had a right to exist and that it would not be tolerated by the world to eliminate Israel again or to turn it into a part/county of a predominantly Palestinian State. Today the PLO and the PA have signed different treaties accepting the territorial souvereignty of Israel. What Herzl and the Zionist movement demanded, namely to have a national home (=nationstate) for the Jews on their old ancestoral land, the Palestinians demand today: a nationstate of their own on the Westbank and in the Gaza strip. They not only want autonomy but souvereignty.

That was before 1967, when this territory was occupied by Israel. And they did not demand it from their Arab neighbours because they still beleived that they had the right to own and govern all of Palestine, which they had inhabited - though not goverened- for more then 1000 years.

Good and/or very good marks in the A-level exams in English correspond with either B1,B2 and C1 standards of the CEF. I also did the DIALANG text and if I can remember correctly I achieved B1 in it. I personally think that the CEF as a awhole and the DIALANG test are not very wll known among my colleagues even though the new A-level standards are based on the CEF. The teachers will have to read and reflect the CEF when centralised exams after year ten - those will be comparable to the GCSE- will be introduced this year. The standards for these exams - and every Grammar School student will have to do English - once again will refer to the CEF standards; they understandably will be below C and B. In a couple of years the language portfolio will become obligatory as well.

Dalibor, Euope and the Euopean Union are another example that historic ties can and maybe must be broken to begin a new and at least in Europe peaceful chapter of history: if French and Belgian had not broken the circle of a long-lasting and deeply entrenched hostility and enmity between especially France and Germany there would be no united Europe and maybe no 50 years without war. It takes courage and courageous people but it is possible. Benny Morris, Professor of History at Ben-Gurion University, Beersheba, Israel in his book "Righteous Victims - A history of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881-2001" explaining the causes of the Al-Aqsa(second) Intifada (pages 660-664): In the Gaza strip a small minority of Jewish settlers holds and works 42% of the fertile land and water resources.

You are right, neither the historic dimension of this conflict must not forgotten nor its European origin. But both sides have their history and their perception of history and their historic claims. When it comes to solving a conflict with long and deep historical roots it sometimes is necessary to do something which pushes history aside. The example South Africa has been mentioned in the different postings and the peaceful transition from the apartheid system to a real democracy was possible because de Klerk and Mandelo did something which broke the circle and spell of history. Maybe something like this is necessary in the Near East, too. I think for example that Rabin left his personal and his country's history behind when he negotiated with Arafat.

Germany is a federal system and everything related to education, even exams, are managed and regulated by the Laender. After what in Germany is called "PISA Shock" the German Laender have decided that some centralism might not be bad and they have agreed on nationwide standards for schools and exams. So we now have nationwide standards for our A-level exams in English which are based on the European Framework for Languages. The most important innovation is the introduction of scales and descriptors for language proficiency which some of my colleagues believe to be too difficult, not precise enough to apply to our exams. I myself have made good experiences with the scales and descriptors because the students do not only know what they are bad at but also what they are already good at and encourages them than the old system of marking exams. Some Laender have already introduced the language portfolio, Lower Saxon hasn't yet, but I know of some schools and colleagues who are experimenting with it. Depending on the classes I will be teaching next schoolyear I will introduce the portfolio.

I agree with John; besides Austen never accepted the historical rights of the Arabs in the Middle East. In his postings he/she quite often repeated rather imperialist and today we even would call them racist views about the Arabs. Looking at the historical roots of the conflict also measn going back to the primary resources and the first publications for example of the Zionist movement in the 19th century which mirror the imperialist attitude towards the Arabic people. One justification you find in these documents is that the Jews see themselves as representatives of (superior) western culture which they intend to bring to the Near East. If the aim is to bring peace to this region then both people have to meet as equals and have to be accepted as equals. Dalibor is right when he has we cannot really understand what it must be like to live in permanent fear and in a state of nearly permanent war; but both sides share these feelings and experiences. The Palestinians today want what the European Jews wanted at the end of the 19th century. Furthermore I think the conflict cannot be solved without tackling the economic and social problems the Palestinians are facing, which nourish their anger and hate against Israel.

The best way is practising them in school and in all our lessons.

True, but it must be guaranteed that the schools are based upon and abide the principles of the democratic constitutions e.g. the German Basic Law. People and intelligence sources fear and point out that the Koran schools are used to teach fundamentalist principles and rally members to jihad. The main question is which factors make or encourage people to support radical organisations (this brings us in a way back to the Holocaust because the main question is how and why did a whole nation actively or passively support this system). I think one aspect is the feeling of being inferior - individually and nationally: Germany and the Treaty of Versailles.

Do you know if they themseleves have had any negative experiences like being harassed or dicriminated against? What about their parents. In Germany we are worried baout private Muslim schools; these are not real schools but schools the students go to in the afternoon and which look more like clubs than proper schools although the young people are educated in the Koran. As these are private venues the government does not have thr right to control what or how the Koran is taught. The main problem in Germany still is the confrontation with far-right wing, neo-fascist/Nazi attitudes among young people. Those who are part of this scene/subculture behave in nearly the same way as your students. One effective means to get them back to rational thinking seem to be role plays and simulations in which those with these radical ideas have to play the role of victims or potential victims.

Dan, I am not quite sure if this is a new thread. Talking about the Holocaust and the genocides which followed and asking how things like these could happen leads to confronting the prjeudices and cliches we all have about different people and we should try to create a climate in class where even those with radical and "unpleasant" views can express them openly and without any fear of being "punished" for them. Only when we know how and what our students really feel will we find ways to reach them with the topic "Holocaust" and to address their own radical views and what is behind them. Unfortunately the far-right wing movements are popular among young (mainly male) people, who feel threatened by people being different, who are afraid of losing their job or not finding a job, who in a fairly open, democratic and permissive society are looking for strict rules and hierarchies which they perceive as guarantees of a special, superior status and personal security.

German schools do not yet have inspections so we have not yet been Ofsteded. I think I follow the same principle as Marco that I onle set homework when it is appropriate. Teaching English as a foreign language of course means that the students have to learn words and do grammar and/or writing exercises at home. It is different with History and Politics where the bulk of work is done in my lessons. Before exams the students are given revision tasks to prepare them for the exams. This does not necessarily mean making them answer or work on many questions. The exams themselves (in History and Politics) are often based on primary or secondary sources which the students have to anlayse and interpret showing their ability e.g. to explain cause and effect, long-term reasons of conflicts etc. Revision then means going through the topics and material of the previous lessons again and rereading notes taken during the lessons.

An interesting topic for me as my school has been looking for an exchange partner within Britain for the last 3 years - so far without success. One explanation we were given when schools answered our mails was that going on a field trip to Germany was easier to organize. Another reason was that British parents preferred their children staying in youth hostels together with their teachers to going to a German host family and vice versa host a German student. The problem how to finance and/or support exchanges financially was never mentioned as a reason.

Andy, good idea. Thank you

I suppose the section is not closed. Maybe we could now turn back to the beginning of the debate: how can the more than 50 years war going on in the Middle East be solved guaranteeing its right to exist, to be recognized as a souvereign state with accepted borders and guaranteeing the Palestinians a state of their own which can sustain itself and its people. At the moment the signs seem to indicate a change of the Israeli attitude: the "deal" with the Hisbollah and now Sharon telling some settlers in the Gaza strip that their settlements will be torn down. The question for me is how serious is this change of attitude, will it survive the next suicide attack.