December Marks the 60th Anniversary of Autobiography of a Yogi

Thanks Jedi. From what I know, which isn't much, about the way history is taught in the USA, it seems that it is all very centered on a kind of triumphalist version, centered on America. It's not much better over here these days until you get to university level.
If you have any other queries regarding British or European history etc, I'd be glad to help if I can.

 

Speak for yourself. hehehee...j/k...but then again my major is very history based...but I do know a lot of kids (particularly my sister) who haven't a clue about history... for example...she though Herbert Hoover invented the vacuum and that George Harrison was a president

 

It is. An interesting book that my AP History teacher let us read was called Lies My Teachers Told Me and it was about how high school US History text books stretch the truth beyond belief...it was a very good book...

 

Are you saying stretch, as in the present, or does this book go back some?

I have to laugh and am also appalled when I remember middle and high school, Southern USA, circa mid 1960's, and what we were fed in history and, to a lesser extent, English...even more appalled when I think that it may not have changed much.

Then, to top that off we got taught about evolution in science and Adam and Eve in church...I guess lots of people opted for the church version, from the way things are here now.

But, with the current thread on the history of beef-eating and Hinduism in mind, an objective and material-reality based point:

How much truth in education is proper, or what is the best age to introduce the young to the real truth? Seeing that the world is not John Lennon's Imagine-ed paradise, it is obviously in the best interest of individual nations to have citizens grow up with at least a modicum of faith in historical and governmental integrity, even if this faith will be destroyed or drastically modified somewhere along the line, as a matter of due course.

If education feeds children a steady and unembellished diet of the historic injustices and atrocities perpetrated by their own leadership, do we get a generation that reaches near-adulthood believing that it is desirable for those who would promote change to violently attack the home nation that has nurtured them, to consider those who fly airliners into buildings as courageous and righteous men?

 

I think at a certain age, children should be taught about negative stuff from history where it is relevant, and as a part of an overall positive and integrated approach to education.
For example, we were taught about social injustice in the 19thc. under the industrial revolution, but also about the struggle for social progress. But I was lucky, in that I went to a grammar school back in the 60's-70's, and we got a well rounded education in many ways, which today could not be had in the UK at other than a fee paying private school.
(since then I've studied some history at degree level - although i never got to complete the course. But history in gen. has always been an interest of mine)
.
With things like the halocaust, I certainly don't think young children should be subject to such images. But after age 13 or so, I think it's in a child's own interests to have a sense of reality about the world and its problems instilled in them.
The danger in the particular case of halocaust deniers is that they fuel the extreme right, and try to whitewash the Nazis. As it passes from living memeory, it becomes even more dangerous if such people's views are given credence.

I think it's ok to tell kids about negative stuff from history, as long as you can then say 'but look, that's all changed now'. If a state system has a problem with that, it's very likely because they're still up to no good, or maybe they are in denial of their own history.

The way history is taught, even at its worst in the west is nothing like the stuff radical Muslim schools in places like Pakistan are feeding into the impressionable. And it's all mixed in with twisted ideas about religion as well.
Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, support for terrorist outrages borders on a form of psychopathy - one can't support such things unless one is full of quite extreme hate. I think it takes more than just history to create that in people.

 

How do you know that terrorists and/or their supporters do things out of hate?

 

I have seen it in their faces, for example during the demos following the London tube bombs and the Muhamud cartoons in the Danish paper.
But in my view, it is only extreme hate or else insanity which could motivate a person to blow themselves and many others to pieces on an underground train.

 

Look like college football fans to me.

Have you ever blown yourself up or been blown up by someone else? It might be cool. Don't knock it 'til you try it.

 

The book is from 1996...my high school still uses two of the books that were examined:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0684818868/sr=8-1/qid=1151201620/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-4668111-1724042?ie=UTF8

 

Lucky you SVG , seriously I mean it you are very lucky, and i will tell you a tidbit from my history lesson (global History 2) to prove it.

Mrs. Sacher mentions to 15 yr olds: 'Most of the education in India is in english can you tell me why?'
Class: Because most books are in english?
Mrs. Sacher: yes thats true, but why else.
Then there is a silence in the classroom...
Jedi: Well, i studied in India, and its because they were part of the British Raj, therefore, it was standardized that way under the raj, so they kept it.
Mrs Sacher: Yes thats true, but why is it beneficial today?
Jedi: I dont know..
Mrs Sacher: What can they do if they know english , what did you do?
Jedi: uuhh...
Mrs Sacher: they can all make their trip to USA.
Jedi: What?!
Mrs. Sacher: Yes, you should ask your parents why they came here. Its for money, everyone wants to come to USA, they want to make money , so they learn english.
Jedi: no thats not true, you can't just twist the truth like that... thats not why most schools teach in english medium...
Mrs Sacher: But it is true today.
Mark adds: just shut up (Jedi) , its just a stupid class.

Anyway... I used to argue with my teacher that not everything was about good old America... and the kids didn't care whatever the teacher told them, thats what they knew about the country, India- yes they are all waiting to jump on the ship to America, Pakistan?- yes they are nothing but terrorists, China?- don't even go there, they are losers, stop buying their goods. Britain?- ha gotta hand it to them though such a puny little island , still they lost to us in the war of 1812...(which was really a tie).
Yea maybe i exaggerated a little here... but man I hate her.
There was another teacher of mine in 8th grade and its the same thing.

 

Oh yea one other time... when she was signing me up for AP US government and Politics... the idea was that I should enjoy reading alot of books and articles...
Then my accent wasn't really American at that time... and i had trouble understanding the accent if you said something too fast...)
One teacher:So Jedi, do you have experience reading novels (something to that effect)
Jedi: Sorry, I didn't understand..
Mrs Sacher: Did you ever read Ramayana?
Jedi: Um.. yea so...
Mrs Sacher: Thats what she was asking you..
Jedi: Okay...
Anyway,
Heh, atleast she retired that year , so atleast she couldn't poison anyone

 

That's really sad to hear...but between having that really amazing teacher that gave us the book... we had this one woman who didn't teach at all...but my school unfortunetely makes you take 2 classes (AP is optional and only AP US History is offered) in US History and only offers one in World history...and then changed the format after I had it so taht they start in the Renaissance and teach to modern times instead of Paleolithic to Antiquity to Age of Exploration (which I had)... it really stinks in that format because there are kids who are walking around who have no clue about the ancient past just because the teachers wanted to only teach a history where the US was involved

But I must say that I never had the problems you had Jedi...I was very fortunate to have a very amazing history teacher who was fed up with teachers like yours (and he was even a retired marine, concervative) and taught objective history, and had discussions with us, and made us really think about both the past and how it relates to whats happening today.

 

Try telling that to the victims who had their legs blown off, or children left without a mother.

 

That would be pretty mean. Perhaps it is better to ask the 'victims' what they have learned from their experiences (years or lifetimes after the experience). Did they benefit from their experience in a spiritual and/or tangible way?

I saw this really cool guy on the tonight show in the past year, missing 2 legs from some sort of an accident. He started up wheelchair hockey or something, I think there was a movie about what he did, what he went through. He learned some things about himself and his spirit because he lost his legs at an early age (college age). He was a very sports oriented person (I think he had a sports scholarship to some school) before the accident. I think he said that the accident actually benefited him in some ways. Anyway, the guy is now a positive role model for other people who have been through similar things. He's one of those people with great charisma... just something about him.

 

People survvive and adapt. But given the choice I'm sure he'd rather have his legs back.
But so what? That doesn't in any way exonerate terrorist bombers, or change the fact that it is hate and fanaticism which drives them.
And the actual effects are not only on the direct victims, but on the whole of society.

 

Someone wouldn't give up experiences that benefit them once they understand them. Perhaps he would accept new legs, but I don't think he would erase his whole life after the accident, everything he learned about himself and life, etc. just so he could live a life with legs. He seemed to be wise.

The same thing drives you Bill. You fanatically hate "terrorist activities" without critically analysing the benefits of these activities to society and life as a whole. Without a public example of the effects of bad behavior, members of modern societies do not learn to avoid these behaviors. I know I would have blown up a mansion or 2 as a youth if I had not already read, heard, and learned about the effects of harming people through watching the news, movies, etc.

Exactly.

 

The reality is he can never get his legs back.

That is a completely disingeneous argument. It would justify anything.

I'm interested that you imagine I hate terrorists. It's not so. I think they're ultimately sick people who have been manipulated by people even more sick.
In my view "they know not what they do".

If there were some way they could be re-humanized and brought to change their views, then that would be great, but in reality is isn't very likely.
My concern is for the protection of people in general. If by shootong a terrorist, an attack can be prevented, then that's fair enough in my view. It's a dirty game in a dirty world.
Eventually, when we have a total globalized police state, and we're on the way to that post 9/11, the effects on society in general might become more evident.
In the UK it is already becoming more evident in the form of increased racism and support for far right groups - who hate just about everyone.

 

No it isn't. What fantasy land do you live in?

It does, doesn't it? I wouldn't rape, murder, pillage, etc. at this stage in my life because I am not interested in the short term consequences of these actions. This isn't to say that a far more intelligent being than I, that can foresee the eventual benefits of these actions, would not cause them to occur (through encouragement, or whatever means necessary) despite the short term "negative" consequences.

I didn't say that you hate terrorists. I said 'You fanatically hate "terrorist activities" .....' There is a difference. Ultimately, you feel a deep aversion or disgust towards "terrorist activities".
hate: 2 : to have a strong aversion to : find very distasteful <hated to have to meet strangers> <hate hypocrisy>

Mine isn't. I'm more concerned about me. Without me, other people are useless.

Hopefully.

Lol. I have a friend named Dave (who is in Germany right now), silly dude. Always said "I'm not a racist, I hate everybody." Dude has a sharp wit.... always could make me laugh.

 

You are saying that after loosing both legs a person can get them back?

Some ego trip.

 

You said "The reality is he can never get his legs back." I disagreed with your statement, specifically the never part, partially the part where you define the "reality" of the situation. I feel your position is untenable. Does your knowledge encompass all events in reality? Do you know the future? Do you know of the afterlife?

It's called a joke, sorry I tripped your ego.