Schools are dropping the Holocaust from history lessons to avoid offending Muslim pupils, a Governmentbacked study has revealed.
It found some teachers are reluctant to cover the atrocity for fear of upsetting students whose beliefs include Holocaust denial.
There is also resistance to tackling the 11th century Crusades - where Christians fought Muslim armies for control of Jerusalem - because lessons often contradict what is taught in local mosques.
The findings have prompted claims that some schools are using history 'as a vehicle for promoting political correctness'.
I'm happy for anyone to come to the UK if they're willing to make a valid and positive contribution.
However, for any group to start dictating how our education system is run, or to complain about any aspect of our nation (unless done via democratic means) shows a lack of respect for a nation that has taken them in.
Can you imagine if we went to Israel and complained about the Jews, Iran and complained about the Muslims, or on a less religious scale if we went to France and complained about the French or USA and complained that it was full of Americans. People have a choice in the UK. They don't have to stay though.
One thing I am a firm believer in is that the truth must be taught to children in the most unbiased way. It is up to the children then to decide whether they accept it or not.
Beleive me, after spending this year learning 8th century Carolingian historical sources and their value it's pretty obvious what is bull and what isn't.
This whole article is just a media manipulation to appeal to their own demographic. ie COUNCIL BANS CHRISTMAS COUNCIL BANS EASTER IMMIGRANTS KILLED DIANA
> I got involved in my uni debating society for a while. I met
> some pretty vile people, essentially training in winning
> arguments without actually being right, and learning ways to
> undermine other peoples' reasoning without actually addressing
> the points they made. Vile people. Many of them were interested
> in a career in politics. I'm sure they'll do supurbly.
Yeah I went to mine for a bit. Really nice people though, but I just could not get along with the whole 'I'm right you're wrong when in fact, I'm bullshitting'. I appreciate the art of dialectics and I enjoy playing Devil's Advocate, and i think it's important to to so. But the whole point was to win, not to find the truth.
I don't know much about their arguments, but I'd imagine some of them have put together proper arguments to support their viewpoints - but nobody's going to pay them the slightest bit of notice, because to do so would be to give vile racist scumbags more attention than they deserve. They're in Gandhi stage 1 or 2 - either being ignored or mocked.
Free thinking sometimes has to mean going against established and accepted viewpoints - hell, that's the whole point I was making.
Is that really possible within accepted academics? I'm not sure it is.
However, if you infer 'academic' endeavours to mean seeking evidence and following it to find the truth, that has to be essential in finding a valid viewpoint, rather than a hollow 'possibility'.
Unfortunately a lot of people are rather good at sophistry and fudging evidence to fit whatever their whim decides they'd like to be the right answer.
I got involved in my uni debating society for a while. I met some pretty vile people, essentially training in winning arguments without actually being right, and learning ways to undermine other peoples' reasoning without actually addressing the points they made. Vile people. Many of them were interested in a career in politics. I'm sure they'll do supurbly.