Showing posts with label history. Show all posts
Showing posts with label history. Show all posts

Tuesday, June 14, 2011

Education: Reading, Writing, Arithmetic, History?

So let's get this straight -

they don't know history, and cannot write or understand English, but they do know Spanish and math.  And I bet they don't judge anything, because that would be ... wrong.






Less Than 25% of Students Proficient in US History


12% of seniors scored at a level showing solid academic performance


By the Associated Press
June 14, 2011

(AP) – A new national assessment finds that less than a quarter of students are proficient in US history. The 2010 National Assessment of Educational Progress tested students on topics such as the American Revolution, Civil War, and the contemporary US. Just 20% of fourth-grade students, 17% of eighth-graders, and an especially depressing 12% of high school seniors scored at a level showing solid academic performance. Much larger percentages of students had a basic knowledge of US history or below.

Education leaders say they're worried the scores are indicative of a narrowing of the curriculum.








 
 
 
 
 
indians

Tuesday, December 8, 2009

Dem Democrats, da is jus plain silla sumtimes - Harry Reid and his Historical Revisionism

Harry Reid's History Lesson




Harry Reid compares the fight for health-care reform to the emancipation and women's suffrage movements.

 By JOHN FUND
Opinion Journal
December 8, 2009


Majority Leader Harry Reid tarred opponents of his health care bill yesterday as the equivalent of those who opposed equal rights for women and civil rights for blacks.

In a remarkable statement on the Senate floor, Mr. Reid lambasted Republicans for wanting to "slow down" on health care. "You think you've heard these same excuses before? You're right," he said. "In this country there were those who dug in their heels and said, 'Slow down, it's too early. Let's wait. Things aren't bad enough' -- about slavery. When women wanted to vote, [they said] 'Slow down, there will be a better day to do that -- the day isn't quite right. . . .'"

He wrapped up his remarks as follows: "When this body was on the verge of guaranteeing equal civil rights to everyone regardless of the color of their skin, some senators resorted to the same filibuster threats that we hear today."

Senator Reid's comments were quickly condemned. "Hyperbole. It is over the top. It reminds me of earlier people talking about Nazis," said Juan Williams of NPR and Fox News, author of "Eyes on the Prize," a definitive history of the civil rights movement.

Historians also faulted Mr. Reid's curious reference to the Senate civil rights debates of the 1960s. After all, it was Southern Democrats who mounted an 83-day filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Bill. The final vote to cut off debate saw 29 Senators in opposition, 80% of them Democrats. Among those voting to block the civil rights bill was West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd, who personally filibustered the bill for 14 hours. The next year he also opposed the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Mr. Byrd still sits in the Senate, and indeed preceded Mr. Reid as his party's majority leader until he stepped down from that role in 1989.

The final reason Mr. Reid's comments were so inapt and offensive is that the battles for women's suffrage and civil rights he referred to were about expanding freedom. That's not what the 2,074-page health care bill being debated in the Senate today does, with its 118 new regulatory boards and commissions. Mr. Reid may reach his needed 60 votes to pass his bill this month, but he is pursuing it using the most tawdry and deplorable of tactics.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
liars

Thursday, July 30, 2009

Obama Rewriting History

Obama Rewrites the Cold War

The President has a duty to stand up to the lies of our enemies.

July 13, 2009
By LIZ CHENEY





There are two different versions of the story of the end of the Cold War: the Russian version, and the truth. President Barack Obama endorsed the Russian version in Moscow last week.


Speaking to a group of students, our president explained it this way: "The American and Soviet armies were still massed in Europe, trained and ready to fight. The ideological trenches of the last century were roughly in place. Competition in everything from astrophysics to athletics was treated as a zero-sum game. If one person won, then the other person had to lose. And then within a few short years, the world as it was ceased to be. Make no mistake: This change did not come from any one nation. The Cold War reached a conclusion because of the actions of many nations over many years, and because the people of Russia and Eastern Europe stood up and decided that its end would be peaceful."


The truth, of course, is that the Soviets ran a brutal, authoritarian regime. The KGB killed their opponents or dragged them off to the Gulag. There was no free press, no freedom of speech, no freedom of worship, no freedom of any kind. The basis of the Cold War was not "competition in astrophysics and athletics." It was a global battle between tyranny and freedom. The Soviet "sphere of influence" was delineated by walls and barbed wire and tanks and secret police to prevent people from escaping. America was an unmatched force for good in the world during the Cold War. The Soviets were not. The Cold War ended not because the Soviets decided it should but because they were no match for the forces of freedom and the commitment of free nations to defend liberty and defeat Communism.


It is irresponsible for an American president to go to Moscow and tell a room full of young Russians less than the truth about how the Cold War ended. One wonders whether this was just an attempt to push "reset" -- or maybe to curry favor. Perhaps, most concerning of all, Mr. Obama believes what he said.


Mr. Obama's method for pushing reset around the world is becoming clearer with each foreign trip. He proclaims moral equivalence between the U.S. and our adversaries, he readily accepts a false historical narrative, and he refuses to stand up against anti-American lies.


The approach was evident in his speech in Moscow and in his speech in Cairo last month. In Cairo, he asserted there was some sort of equivalence between American support for the 1953 coup in Iran and the evil that the Iranian mullahs have done in the world since 1979. On an earlier trip to Mexico City, the president listened to an extended anti-American screed by Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega and then let the lies stand by responding only with, "I'm grateful that President Ortega did not blame me for the things that occurred when I was 3 months old."


Asked at a NATO meeting in France in April whether he believed in American exceptionalism, the president said, "I believe in American Exceptionalism just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism." In other words, not so much.


The Obama administration does seem to believe in another kind of exceptionalism -- Obama exceptionalism. "We have the best brand on Earth: the Obama brand," one Obama handler has said. What they don't seem to realize is that once you're president, your brand is America, and the American people expect you to defend us against lies, not embrace or ignore them. We also expect you to know your history.


Mr. Obama has become fond of saying, as he did in Russia again last week, that American nuclear disarmament will encourage the North Koreans and the Iranians to give up their nuclear ambitions. Does he really believe that the North Koreans and the Iranians are simply waiting for America to cut funds for missile defense and reduce our strategic nuclear stockpile before they halt their weapons programs?


The White House ought to take a lesson from President Harry Truman. In April, 1950, Truman signed National Security Council report 68 (NSC-68). One of the foundational documents of America's Cold War strategy, NSC-68 explains the danger of disarming America in the hope of appeasing our enemies. "No people in history," it reads, "have preserved their freedom who thought that by not being strong enough to protect themselves they might prove inoffensive to their enemies."


Perhaps Mr. Obama thinks he is making America inoffensive to our enemies. In reality, he is emboldening them and weakening us. America can be disarmed literally -- by cutting our weapons systems and our defensive capabilities -- as Mr. Obama has agreed to do. We can also be disarmed morally by a president who spreads false narratives about our history or who accepts, even if by his silence, our enemies' lies about us.


Ms. Cheney served as deputy assistant secretary of state and principal deputy assistant secretary of state for near eastern affairs from 2002-2004 and 2005-2006.




Corrections & Amplifications:


Liz Cheney was deputy assistant secretary of state under George W. Bush. A previous version of this op-ed by Ms. Cheney misstated her title.




Cold War

Friday, June 12, 2009

Obama: D-Day veterans changed course of century

I read this while I was sitting on the beach at the north sea, and while no one left from those shores for Normandy, it's close enough.


I could have posted it at the time, but this requires a great deal more thought and explication than a few simple sentences.



Obama: D-Day veterans changed course of century



By JENNIFER LOVEN, AP White House Correspondent
June 6, 2009



OMAHA BEACH, France – President Barack Obama honored the valiant dead and the "sheer improbability" of their D-Day victory, commemorating Saturday's 65th anniversary of the decisive invasion even as he remakes two wars and tries to thwart potential nuclear threats in Iran and North Korea.



The young U.S. commander in chief, speaking at the American cemetery after the leaders of France, Canada and Britain, held up the sacrifices of D-Day veterans and their "unimaginable hell" as a lesson for modern times.



"Friends and veterans, what we cannot forget — what we must not forget — is that D-Day was a time and a place where the bravery and selflessness of a few was able to change the course of an entire century," he said.



"At an hour of maximum danger, amid the bleakest of circumstances, men who thought themselves ordinary found it within themselves to do the extraordinary."





[To read the entire article, click on the title link.]



For Obama, and for liberals, World War II, the Second World War, the war that would and could never happen because war was banned, navies were scraped, and the human and financial cost of the Great War was beyond human imagination - was selfless, changed the course of an entire century, and was a war that fought off great evil. I do not dispute any of those characterizations, but I question Obama - why do you say these words? What do they mean to you?



They are easy words to say, can mean virtually anything you want them to, or mean nothing. So I ask Mr. Obama, what do they mean to you and why do you believe they were selfless and fought off great evil?



Let's do some history Mr. Obama, you have claimed on several occasions that you are a student of history, so let's begin.



1931 - World response / European response / US response to Japan going into China and carving out a puppet state called Manchuko?



1920s-1934 - World response / European response / US response to Italian incursions into Albania and Ethiopia?



1936 - German seizure of the Rhineland?



1936-1938: US attitude toward the events in Europe? Did we see them as EVIL, as requiring US involvement, did we see them as anything but a European 'problem'? In fact Mr. Obama, given your study of history, you will know that a very small percentage of Americans actually wanted us to help ONLY Germany while a sizable percentage wanted us to help BOTH sides and the largest percentage - help NEITHER.



So Mr. Obama, at what point did the events in Europe become about fighting off evil or freeing a continent, or require selfless actions by the participants? At what point Mr. Obama? When the ships wanted to bring Jewish refugees to the US and were turned away? Was that the great moment. When a very sizable minority even in January 1942, did not want us involved in Germany. Sure some said we had an issue with the Japanese, but Hitler was not a threat. More so, there was a sizable percentage, albeit a minority, who argued we instigated the bombing at Pearl Harbor - we were responsible for forcing the Japanese to attack us.



Mr. Obama, at what point did all of these events inform you that we were fighting a selfless war, one in which several hundred thousand American servicemen would die to 'change the course of history'. I am still puzzled - what history was it that was changed? Surely in 1936, no one could know the monstrosity that threatened the world - quite the opposite, the majority of Americans wanted NOTHING to do with events in Europe, we SAW NO THREAT. In 1938, WE SAW NO THREAT. In 1939, WE STILL SAW VERY LITTLE THREAT. In 1940, we saw very little threat. In 1942, we still saw little threat from Germany to the US or its interests, and Americans voted with that in mind - Americans would NOT die on foreign shores, in foreign wars.

So when Mr. Obama, as a student of history, did the magnitude of the events in Europe require the sacrifice of over four hundred thousand Americans?

The Answer (in case you were stumped): AFTER.

Of course, had we known sooner, all Americans would have certainly wanted to act. Had we known, for example, that the Germans were exterminating human beings in their death camps, we surely would have acted. Except we did know, and the US government did not act. I assume this meant it was not worth our being involved or certainly a Democratic president leading a democratic Congress would have taken action.

What if we had done nothing Mr. Obama? Russia believes it was about to win the war single-handed. if their history is told accurately, we would not have needed to lose nearly half a million men. The French teach an entirely different history - they were doing very well defeating the Germans in France. The British are taught that it was the Europeans who were defeating the Germans, and the US only got involved to save us from a worsening depression - clearly if this is the case, we did not embark on any act that would be selfless nor historic, nor would it 'put away many evil things' as FDR told the American people. If those countries have told an accurate truth to their people and to history, if their cultures are as they believe - the victors, then we did not need to become entangled in a war that was not of our making, and not our responsibility.

So why Mr. Obama do you say that the "bravery and selflessness of a few was able to change the course of an entire century."? In fact, you are not even clear about who it was that changed history. It could very well have been the French, as far as your statements are concerned, and please don't tell me you were misquoted or failed to explain it well - you are the most rehearsed president of all 44.

I again ask - at what point Mr. Obama, did the Second World War become so noble, moral, righteous?

And again the answer (in case you were stumped): AFTER

In 2005, a German historian (Rainer Karisch) claimed that Nazi scientists successfully tested a tactical nuclear weapon near Thuringia on the Baltic Sea, in the last months of the war.

Mr. Obama, what if Hitler redirected his energy and was able to produce two of these weapons and used one on the Soviets and another on France. Would things, could things have turned out differently? Although some experts deny these claims, it is beyond question that Hitler was working on a program. What if, Mr. Obama, we had not entered the war in 1942, what if we waited until 1943, giving Hitler another year - another year to use all his forces against Russia (perhaps bringing about the collapse of Moscow and Stalingrad. Another year to consolidate his hold over Europe, another year to root out the remaining Jews in Europe and kill them all, another year to develop four atomic weapons - one to test, one to detonate in Russia, France, and one in reserve - and then what if Hitler gave an ultimatum to the US and Britain.

What then Mr. Obama?






















Germany

Sunday, May 17, 2009

History: To Study or Not.



From The Times
May 15, 2009


Is history so horrible?

With the numbers of boys taking history exams falling, bold plans are being made to make it more exciting

School Gate: Why kids should be learning about kings and queens
Was Henry VIII our most important monarch?

The year is 1066 and after hours of bloody battle in a field outside Hastings, King Harold gets an arrow in his eye. A thousand years later, give or take, and a 14-year-old boy at Filsham Valley School, Hastings, watching the action unfold on a large screen, grimaces: “Ow! That’s got to hurt. Where were his safety goggles?” The jokes turn to expressions of disgust as Harold is disembowelled and beheaded by the Normans. There is silence as girls the same age as those in the room are tied to a tree so that Norman soldiers can rape them.

We don’t see any rapes and much of the violence is artfully done, but it is still gory stuff. It also has the 24 pupils gripped and then fizzing for the rest of the afternoon. The action-packed docudrama is followed by a lively discussion and then a session playing a war-fighting video, complete with Anglo-Saxon swearwords.

Lucy Jupe, 13, enjoyed the film but says “it was quite aggressive”. The rape scene “made me think how it would have been if I had been in that time”.

Her teacher, Hazel Lawrence, thinks that because the violence against the girls was implied rather than overt, it was suitable for a school audience and provided a useful lesson in one of the eternal weapons of warfare. Lawrence is pleased with the response from the class as, in the eight years since she started teaching, she has noticed a drop in the number of boys taking history at GCSE. Back when she qualified, boys dominated, representing more than three quarters of classes. Now there is a 50-50 split.

It is too early to spot any long-term trends in data, but last year the number of boys and girls taking history at GCSE dropped. Boys were down by 1,000 more than girls. Justin Hardy, one of the makers of the film that the Hastings pupils have just watched, (1066: The Battle for Middle Earth, to be shown on Channel 4 next week) hopes that he has found a way of hooking them in and serving them history that they can relate to. “I wanted to make something that appeals to the early teenager in all of us. Most of us come across 1066 at the age of 12 or 13. That’s when we become aware of where the English history of kings and queens began.”

Not that you see much of the kings and queens in this film. The story is told from the view of the ordinary folk on the periphery of history as recorded in the annals, but the front line when it gets really miserable. As Charlie Bourne, 14, put it: “They acted it out. It’s not just the man talking. History programmes tend to bore me.”

The pupils also enjoy spotting references to The Lord of the Rings. While Tolkien’s imagination may have created an entire world of Middle-earth, the film points out that in Anglo-Saxon it meant “land between heaven and hell, where men walk”. None of the pupils knows that Tolkien was a leading expert on Anglo-Saxon literature.

The Saxon characters in the film think that they see elves in the words. Then they come face to face with Orcs. Orc meant foreigner or demon; in this case the feared Normans. The battle scenes were consciously modelled on those in The Lord of the Rings films, with a similar level of violence. The narration is by Bilbo Baggins himself, the actor Ian Holm.

The kids like seeing the story of this seminal event from the point of view of characters they embrace as their own. “History just concentrates on the main people. It’s nice to see what it looks like for the people lower down in the world. Ordinary people don’t get enough mentions,” says Jamie Ellis, 14. “In 100 years time, when people look back they are not going to see us. They are going to see the generals and presidents and prime ministers.” Given the confessional generation he inhabits, that may not be true, but I take his point.

The film opens with a Saxon wedding of two 14-year-olds. The pupils find this amusing, rather more so than the prospect of being sent off to battle at the same age. In their lunch-stained polo shirts, the children hunched in their seats in the school cinema do not look like they would have lasted long up against a Viking berserker. “It’s funny to think that we are not allowed to vote or drink or do other things but back in those days we would have been called up to fight,” says Ellis. “It’s sad. They had less of a childhood.”

Lawrence says that when there is a hands-on element on offer the boys grab it. Unsurprisingly, she had a big take-up from boys when she took a party to the First World War battlefields in France. “When they got the chance to go in the trenches and feel what it was like and physically be there, we got a lot of boys.” Many of the boys signed up for this session, which involved staying after school, because of the chance to play a video game that Channel 4 has produced to go with the film.

This involves replaying the Battle of Hastings, but requires tactical thinking rather than slash-and-burn dexterity. The kids all loved it, especially the boys and especially the insults — “You stinking turd!”, “You oozing puss-head”.

Lawrence says: “They like a lot of interactive stuff where they can use websites and primary sources. That engages them. I think history is behind some other subjects in terms of IT.”

Flora Wilson, the education manager of the Historical Association, believes that there is plenty of source material out there but it needs teachers to work hard to find it. As the head of history at a London secondary school, she uses YouTube clips when teaching modern history, and says that there are plenty of good websites and DVDs.

The association’s concern is that pupils are not being given enough history early on. At Key Stage 3, when students are aged 11-14, some are getting only an hour a week. “We are concerned about the squeeze lower down the school. Schools are making a decision about the broader curriculum that is not always favourable to history.”

There is a worry even earlier too, she says. The basic entitlement on PGCE teacher training courses for primary school teachers is for just half an hour’s humanities training.

Recent changes to the history curriculum mean that students at GCSE and A Level now study fewer periods in more detail. The association welcomes this. “It is less pres-criptive. Teachers get the opportunity to really go into depth on subjects that interest them and the kids,” Wilson says. She adds that media concerns about studying only the Nazis and the Tudors are overstated. In reality the examining boards offer a wide range of subjects.

Nevertheless, the take-up of some courses is very low. It is understood that more than 8,000 students sat a paper on Hitler and the Nazis last year set by one examining board. The same board’s paper on the making of the British Empire had just 12 takers.

The Historical Association is also keen on the need for students to gain an overview of history, a theme that has been picked up by both political parties. Gordon Brown has spoken of the need to understand our British roots. Michael Gove, the Shadow Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, is more specific. He wants to see a greater emphasis on chronology. “A broad overview has always been there as part of good practice. Good teachers do it,” says Wilson. “That’s how we hook kids, through the story.”

The kids in this class have a rather shaky grasp of the great sweep of history. They recently studied the Black Death but few of them know that it came after 1066. There are references to historical events of the last millennium taking place “thousands of years ago”. OK, they are only 13 and 14, but it felt a bit like being back in the pages of William The Bold.

There is one depressing aspect of the day in Hastings. It emerges that this is not the first school to have been approached by the TV production company with an offer to screen their film. They tried several in the area but were rebuffed with excuses that they were too busy with the national curriculum. In other words, because the kids weren’t specifically studying the Norman Conquest, the teaching staff lacked either the enthusiasm for their subject, the energy or the imagination to expose the children to something new and different. They didn’t have time to invite in a team who had made a film about one of the most important events in our history, that took place on their doorstep. It might not have helped the kids to obtain a better grade at GCSE but it might just have left them buzzing, as it did the pupils at Filsham Valley.

I loved history and went on to study it at university. I had some rather good teachers, some not so good. It was not the lessons that really fired me up but the extra curricular stuff; the archaeology workshops at the Museum of London, the primary school day trip to the Weald and Downland Open Air Museum, the visit to the Tower of London. I once attended a fantastic day at the LSE on the Doomsday Book because my A-Level history teacher pointed it out to me. I became hooked on the Normans and she abandoned the curriculum one afternoon and made me give a talk on one of the most important books in our history. The period that we were to be examined on started 400 years later, but for an hour we lifted our heads up from that narrow period of history and gained a bit of context. More than two decades later it all started filtering back as I watched the film in Hastings.

When I mention this to Terry Deary, the author of the hugely successful Horrible Histories books, it is grist to his mill. “They couldn’t find schools that would do this!” he says incredulously. Deary calls himself an “alternative education advocate”. A couple of the boys in the Hastings class say his books sucked them into history. Another thinks they are “silly”.

Deary wants kids to be drawn to the subject by his books, but he doesn’t want his books in schools. “I detest schools and I want to see them closed down and the children set free. It’s not an education system, it’s a schooling system.” The gist of his argument is that future Wayne Rooneys should not have to sit in classes and be tested on what happened in 1066. Not all students need to study history. Children shouldn’t be sitting in classrooms of 30 learning the same stuff at the same time.

He is not happy when he hears that teachers use his book, in however limited a way. “I’m appalled, because my books are alternative. If they are fed the alternative within the Establishment, where are they going to turn for the alternative?”

He probably shouldn’t worry too much. The focus on violence and bowel movements in his books is unlikely to see them at the heart of history classes soon. But perhaps more teachers should share some of his enthusiasm for alternative sources of learning: “I want to see more media being used: TV and computer games and theatre shows.”

He has been working on a satellite navigation programme in association with the BBC which will point out places of interest from Norman history on the journey from London to Manchester. “It’s about how to entertain kids on a journey while informing them at the same time. The Normans is a huge period that is ignored, but it is one of the most significant parts for today’s life. They destroyed a Saxon culture. That’s important to learn about; 950 years after the conquest we are still burdened by their feudalism.”

For all his railing against teachers – there are not many good teachers because they are not allowed to teach — he and the historical establishment are probably more in agreement than he thinks. History starts with cracking good stories, which we then pick away at. However much we pick, they are still there. Dates are important. And they don’t get much more important than 1066. “But it’s not just about saying 1066 is important,” says Flora Wilson. “It’s about saying why it is important.”

She will like the film then. The memory of Hastings, says Ian Holm as the narrator towards the end of the first part of the drama, “to this day is hard to bear”. The second part concludes by telling us that today more than one fifth of the country is still owned by descendants of William the Conqueror and his nobles.








history

Make Mine Freedom - 1948


American Form of Government

Who's on First? Certainly isn't the Euro.