Telegraph - Latest Comments in Once upon a time there was a subject called history . . .

Re: Once upon a time there was a subject called history . . .

Sue Griffiths — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 16:18:00 -0000

My daughter is in the history class taught by the husband and wife team at a school in the Isle of Man, mentioned in this article. Both my children have had the good fortune to be taught by Mr and Mrs Tucker, who are truly inspirational. As a result my daughter now wishes to study History at University. Mr and Mrs Tucker have brought history alive not only to my children, but to my husband and myself, as we listen to the animated re-counting of that day's history lesson. We are hugely grateful to them both.

Re: Once upon a time there was a subject called history . . .

Lady Muck — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 14:13:02 -0000

Geoffrey Warner

It's true that Hitler implied that Germany's destiny was forged in its history, but this glorification of a nation's past is nort restricted to totalitarian states.

Many would agree that Great Britain is fettered by its own national history and reverence for the past.

I instance the continued reference to anniversaries of both World Wars and even the structure, dress and procedures of our government.

Re: Once upon a time there was a subject called history . . .

Stevie — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 13:39:27 -0000

Dear Geoffrey,

Congratulations on a well tempered reply. We are not so far apart, you and I, believe it or not; I agree with most of what you have written. I can't speak for Lady Muck, but I have a keen interest in history and do not denigrate the value of a strong understanding of the past. However, my principal argument is that studying it at undergraduate level is a luxury at best and pointless at worst (if Broon can study it for four years as an undergraduate and still know nowt about it, what's the point?).

I agree with you (and mentioned this is my first post) that schools should continue to teach history, but universities should only teach undergraduate degrees to those who self fund or are on a scholarship. Anyone else with an interest should read the same books whilst being paid by the taxpayer to study something productive, or they should read those books whilst working for a living if they want to 'grow', as the argument goes.

It's not as if history students actually spend much time at university - if you add up their hours in class during a 3 year degree, they would likely come to less time than I spent at work in my first six months after university. It's all about reading books and I'd rather not pay them to do it!

As for Bliar and Broon, it would take a particularly special sort of person to make it to Prime Minister without have some idea of what happened when Britain, and then the Soviet Union, tried to occupy Afghanistan (especially with the highly priviliged education that both men received). History is a big subject, but all they had to do was watch the news whilst they were growing up and read a few papers to have some idea of how Ole Osama came to be. They effectively lived through that portion of history so they have no excuses. Bush was a retard and His Masters sinister, so they don't count towards any argument.

Finally, with regard to history being a big subject, even with Broon's typically tribal PhD title, to study history from the age of 16 to the age of 26 and have never read a book on the history of the middle east or afghanistan would mark one out as a freakishly blinkered sort of person who lacked intellectual flexibility, an interest in the world and an ability to see beyond one's own personal ambitions.

Hang on a minute.....

Re: Once upon a time there was a subject called history . . .

Geoffrey Warner — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 10:12:16 -0000

Stevie (08:51 AM) and Lady Muck (06:42 AM).

Thank you for your comments on my recent post.

In reply to Stevie, I would suggest, with respect, that it is you who have undermined your own argument when you write that 'Personalities decide actions in politics...Blair and Brown are both sociopaths'. I believe that the first sentence is much too simplistic, as there are structural elements in all societies which individuals find difficult to modify and to which they have to adapt. If your second claim is true (and as I am not a qualified psychologist, I cannot judge), then all bets are off, as you are talking about a mental condition which is not open to empathy or reason in the first place. As for Gordon Brown's historical expertise, his Ph.D. was on 'The Labour Party and Political Change in Scotland 1919-1929', the study of which is hardly the most reliable guide to understanding the situations in Iraq or Afghanistan at the beginning of the 21st century. History, like physics or chemistry, is a huge subject and an expert in one aspect of it is not necessarily an expert in all of it, as I am sure you would agree.

Lady Muck suggests I am being naive in believing that neither Bush nor Blair were aware of 'the previous problems of deploying military resources to Iraq' as their advisers could not possibly have been that ill-educated. In so doing, she betrays a touching faith in the mechanics of government. In the case of Blair we know from the Hutton and Butler enquiries, as well as from other sources, that much sound advice was either played down or ignored. As for Bush, we know that he was heavily dependent upon the likes of Cheney and Rumsfeld. If the right people aren't asked or, if asked, not listened to, their views are of no practical importance. I should very much like to know how many professional historians of Iraq or Afghanistan were called into the White House or No. 10 Downing Street when the wars against these countries were being planned. Few, if any, I suspect.

Finally, I note that neither of you addresses my earlier post in which I pointed out that totalitarian states pay a great deal of attention to the writing and teaching of history. Whatever else they were, Mussolini, Stalin and Hitler were masters in the exercise of power and they certainly did not believe that history should be treated as a mere 'hobby', but regarded their version of it as a key element in the maintenance of their respective regimes. An educational system which encourages the proper study of history can at least supply future generations with one potent weapon with which to counter attempts at mind control from whatever quarter.

Re: Once upon a time there was a subject called history . . .

Lady Muck — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 07:48:50 -0000

Message to those who oppose my view that teaching history is pointless

Igonikon Jack has weighed in on your side. I urge you to read his comment in full (just joking...its a small history book)

With friends like this....

Re: Once upon a time there was a subject called history . . .

Stevie — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 04:51:51 -0000

Geoffrey says: 'In the meantime, however, I would refer her to my earlier post and simply add that anyone who knew much about the history of Iraq or Afghanistan would have been much less likely to have made the present pig's ear of our policy towards both countries.'

Gordon Brown has an MA and PhD in history! He was effectively joint prime minister for the last 12 years.

I would have thought that demolishes your argument completely, doesn't it?

Personalities decide outcomes in politics, not the knowledge of what has gone before. Blair and Brown are both sociopaths - one a crusading megalomaniac and one so flawed and angry that you wouldn't want him looking after your kids for an evening for fear that he beat them to death in a fit of rage.

They both knew everything they needed to know about Iraq and Afghanistan and chose to ignore it.

Re: Once upon a time there was a subject called history . . .

Igonikon Jack — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 02:42:24 -0000

This is an interesting article

by Dominic Sandbrook. It will

inspire Comment-Telegraph readers; especially younger

people of school age. Nothing

shapes one's understanding of the world than histiry. Media

studies without history is

utterly meaningless. In a world

were the media follow teeny-

weeny teeny-boppers going in and

out of rehabs for drug abuse;

thriving on their notoriety,

often, due to connections

through relations in the movie

industry, media or hollywood,

time was when many great men and

women were recognized long after

they have gone. They wrote books that were read by few,

because of limited publishing,

distridution and promotion

mechanisms. By the time it reached a "global" audience, the

author might have long been gone.

It was not like today's media

world where a good book can

get an author instant, global

recognition; and, perhaps, lots

of money, along with inherent

merchandizing rights. It takes

a combination of knowledge of

history and contemporary events to appreciatiate ideas through

media studies. Because, besides

limited publishing resources and

facilities, a book might enjoy

limited circulation, because of

the nature of the subject. It

might be a taboo then. If the

book embraced a subject depicted

as heresy--against religious

teaching--the author might be

summoned to ecclesiastical

authorities. Sometimes, the

author could go straight to jail; or worse, lose his or her life for what he or she wrote.

There was the case of a radical,

anti-clerical, protesting

English nationalist whose writings were discovered by religious authorities; where he was kind of advocating separation of Church and State, proclaiming that the Church had too much influence, even went as far as advocating the use of tithes as part of taxation to develop impoverished Britain then. At an episcopal council in the early 15th century somewhere in Europe, when portions of his works were read, Council was infuriated and wanted him dead.

When told Wycliffe had died, the

Council ordered that his bones

be exhumed and burned in

retaliation. But, he had been

summoned before to defend his

works before an eccliastical

panel. He died before he was

to appear before the panel

willingly, or most likley

handcuffed and bound like a

prisoner and shipped abroad to

a famous Church city in Europe,

where he faced almost certain

death.

Never mind this same author

initiated the first translation

of the English Bible, and was a

cleric, student and teacher at

Oxford University (1356-82), and

got his doctorate in theology in

1372. But, still, the Church

declared him a heretic--even

after his death. The inference

here is that his combustible

outburst of English nationalism

and criticisms of some Church

teachings--made him a wanted

author--dead or alive by the

Church. His name: John Wycliffe.

I have profiled him in some more

details in earlier commentaries.

But, here I want to be a little

more reserved. But, I brought

this example to show the

relevance of history to media

studies. Someone who reads media

studies--dealing with ubiquitous

celebrities and contemporaneous

events without knolwedge of history wouldn't know that some acts or written books that made them rich and famous could have sent them to jail or cost them their lives in the past.

History has enabled me to know

many subjects more in-depth,

because, I could, in many cases,

trace them to their origins.

This brings broader knowledge

and understanding of the issues.

There are still a lot I have to

learn, which is where constant

reading is the key to knowledge.

But, going back to Sandbrook's

article, I, like some students,

I almost regrettably dropped

history as an elective for my

high school dioploma exam. But,

my spiritual and organizational

education rekindled my interest

in history. Because, here,

regardless of what you learned in the Church, you will be taken through the alleys of

history to see atrocities. Here,

you see how people were killed

in vain on the orders of the

Church for teaching what was

today, the ultimate truth in

science that has revolutionized

civilization through secular,

technological applications. It

was the secular that created the

nemesis, because the powers were

not attributed to divine,

heavenly, superhuman agancy,

which was the prevailing

construct of most teachings:

Supernaturalism. This is where

history and science have a lot

in common: The truth--what

happen. But, science goes further with will happen, which

eventually will become part of

history. Here, there are no rooms for beliefs, fables,

assumptions, superstition or

supernaturalism.

Because of this inspiration,

history became an obession. But,

it started with when I left

organized religion. I was

obsessed in knowing what happened in at least, the last

5,000 years--not about floods wiping out the entire world, or someone splitting the oceans with the stick. What people are learning from some of my findings shared in my commentaries, is that there are

two different kinds of histories

here: One is taught in religious

orders, which in all probability

never happened, partially

happened; happened, but with gross exaggerations and cute

embellishments of idealistic

supernaturalism of sentimental,

scriptural writers. But,

history is what happened. No

distortions. No exaggerations.

No embellisments. No beliefs.

No faith. But, there are some

parallelisms. Here, religion and

history intersect, whereupon

religious figures taught in

congregations and ecclesiastical

institutions are the same taught

in history. But, religion would

likely make them look like

immortal saints. On the other

hand, if there were sins,

aberrations and trangressions,

history will not ignore them.

On the other hand, historical

revisionism is a problem and

challenge of our time. This is

where ideological despotism or

institutional, governmental and

revolutionary authoritarianism

will shape, revise or distort historical events and impose them on brain-washed students through indoctrination. This

happens in state-controlled

communist countries like China and North Korea. Here most

historical trends are derived

from achievements (not atrocities of national leaders).

Anybody who opposed or criticized them--even justly--is

branded a counter-revolutionary.

History has shaped my knowledge a lot. I'll give credit to Will and Ariel Durant's the Story of

Civilization in my home library.

There are 11 near-encyclopedic

volumes, and I have read lot of

them. For Dr. Durant, he's one

of the world most distinguished

historians. History shaped my

knowledge and non-sectarian

intellectualism. It didn't lead

to atheism, because of a personal, mystical experience

that pulled me out from mundane

extravagance and put me on the

spiritual quest for knowledge.

Most great world leaders like

Winston Churchill are, also,

great historians. Sometimes, it's not history as they learned

in schools, but history they,

also learned through avid reading. And, to know more about

the implications of ignorance

of history, just remember what

George Santayana said: "People

who forget their past are

condemned to repeated it."

Igonikon Jack, USA

Re: Once upon a time there was a subject called history . . .

Lady Muck — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 02:42:24 -0000

Geoffrey Warner 10.35

Are you seriously suggesting that Bush & Blairs lack of history learning meant that they were unaware of the previous problems of deploying military resources to Iraq & Afghanistan ?

Even the DT readers would not think they or their advisors were that ill-educated.

On the other hand.....

Angus 08.56

Your comments about the value of knowledge of history being 'that we can learn from our past' may be valid. Unfortunately, history shows that we have learnt nothing from history !

Congratulations on your degree and A Levels - the country needs bright boys like you to pay my pension.

Re: Once upon a time there was a subject called history . . .

Ed — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 19:00:51 -0000

Thank you very much for respecting my opinion enough to publish my earlier post.

I want to add a PS - more interesting information about important trade partner Libya is found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

Main article: Human rights in Libya

According to the U.S. Department of State�s annual human rights report for 2007, Libya�s authoritarian regime continued to have a poor record in the area of human rights.[51] Some of the numerous and serious abuses on the part of the government include poor prison conditions, arbitrary arrest and prisoners held incommunicado, and political prisoners held for many years without charge or trial. The judiciary is controlled by the government, and there is no right to a fair public trial. Libyans do not have the right to change their government. Freedom of speech, press, assembly, association, and religion are restricted. Independent human rights organizations are prohibited. Ethnic and tribal minorities suffer discrimination, and the state continues to restrict the labor rights of foreign jobs.

In 2005, the Freedom House rated political rights in Libya as "7" (1 representing the most free and 7 the least free rating), civil liberties as "7" and gave it the freedom rating of "Not Free".[52]

Religion

[91] By far the predominant religion in Libya is Islam with 97% of the population associating with the faith.[92] The vast majority of Libyan Muslims adhere to Sunni Islam, which provides both a spiritual guide for individuals and a keystone for government policy, but a minority (between 5 and 10%) adhere to Ibadism (a branch of Kharijism), above all in the Jebel Nefusa and the town of Zuwarah, west of Tripoli.

. . . unorthodox views on the hadith, sharia, and the Islamic era [which] aroused a good deal of unease. They seemed to originate from Qadhafi's conviction that he possessed the transcendent ability to interpret the Quran and to adapt its message to modern life. Equally, they reinforced the view that he was a reformer but not a literalist in matters of the Quran and Islamic tradition. On a practical level, however, several observers agreed that Qadhafi was less motivated by religious convictions than by political calculations. By espousing these views and by criticizing the ulama, he was using religion to undermine a segment of the middle class that was notably vocal in opposing his economic policies in the late 1970s. But Qadhafi clearly considered himself an authority on the Quran and Islam and was not afraid to challenge traditional religious authority. He also was not prepared to tolerate dissent.

The revolutionary government gave repeated evidence of its desire to establish Libya as a leader of the Islamic world. Moreover, Qadhafi's efforts to create an Arab nation through political union with other Arab states were also based on a desire to create a great Islamic nation.

This information led me to Google another search of Libyan Muslim Sunni Islam. http://en.wikipedia.org/wik... states:

Islam Sovereign states \

Algeria � Angola � Benin � Botswana � Burkina Faso � Burundi � Cameroon � Cape Verde � Central African Republic � Chad � Comoros � Democratic Republic of the Congo � Republic of the Congo � C�te d'Ivoire (Ivory Coast) � Djibouti � Egypt1 � Equatorial Guinea � Eritrea � Ethiopia � Gabon � The Gambia � Ghana � Guinea � Guinea-Bissau � Kenya � Lesotho � Liberia � Libya � Madagascar � Malawi � Mali � Mauritania � Mauritius � Morocco � Mozambique � Namibia � Niger � Nigeria � Rwanda � S�o Tom� and Pr�ncipe � Senegal � Seychelles � Sierra Leone � Somalia � South Africa � Sudan � Swaziland � Tanzania � Togo � Tunisia � Uganda � Zambia � Zimbabwe

Dependencies, autonomies, other territories \

Canary Islands / Ceuta / Melilla (Spain) � Madeira (Portugal) � Mayotte / R�union (France) � Puntland � St. Helena (UK) � Socotra (Yemen) � Somaliland � Southern Sudan � Western Sahara � Zanzibar (Tanzania)

The above-noted wikipedia site states:

It is said above that Qadhafi has a personal conviction that he possesses the transcendent ability to interpret the Quran and to adapt its message to modern life.

That would make him the awaited saviour of the world. Would it be possible Kadaffi might expect acceptance of this philosophy from the many Islam Sovereign states, dependencies, autonomies, and other territories that embrace the Islam faith? What if, again (as stated above), he is not prepared to tolerate dissent on this topic, either?

It may be well of consider Kadaffi a man with a greater measure of political aspiration over a larger segment of the world than general society has previously recognized!

Re: Once upon a time there was a subject called history . . .

HYUFD — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 18:43:48 -0000

This article is rather exaggerated. History remains one of the most popular A Levels with more pupils studying it than Geography, French, Business Studies, Chemistry and Physics. Surely the decline in many of these subjects should be of more concern? I would though require all pupils to study History or Geography until 16, alongside Maths, English, Science and a Language and ICT, Sport and the Arts.

Re: Once upon a time there was a subject called history . . .

Pavo Absolutus — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 18:37:23 -0000

Without the truthful and honest teaching of our British past, and by this I do not mean some sanitised politically correct version created by the social engineers of our times, we will lose our sense of identity as people and as a nation.

This is of course precisely why the EU commissars have placed such importance on the rewriting of the last century, to exclude mention of genocides and the insane wickedness of some in high places, to be replaced by a more nondescript 'evolutionary' European Civil War concept airbrushing out the fact that the whole of the Continent was NOT under a single communal benign government before hostilites broke out, and to which they allude we are only now beginning to return to !

Apparently the Kaiser had nothing to do with earlier disagreements even, and the truth of this is claimed in the family history of the various royal families !

When it comes to History, let us beware the spin-doctors, the Goebbels and the Mandelsons, the Kinnocks and the Alastair Campbells to name but mainly "British" ones, in case Frau Merkel gets 'the hump' at me naming the bosch !

History is supposed to reflect a balanced view of the truthful rendering of past events - not some Disneyland Fairytale version to be used as a tool for further social engineering by unscrupulous government.

Proper History teaches us all lessons, and this is the principle reason for it being sidelined by autocratic governments - the warning signs are clearly written for all to see !

"O miseras hominum mentes, o pectora caeca !"

( Oh wretched minds of men, oh their blind hearts ! )

Re: Once upon a time there was a subject called history . . .

Geoffrey Warner — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 18:35:05 -0000

I see that Lady Muck has returned to the charge (06:43 PM) with her assertion that the study of history is a waste of time compared with that of maths and the sciences, the only subjects which, according to her, 'will ultimately benefit the country.' I suppose it depends to some extent upon what you mean by 'ultimately'. After all, as Keynes once said, 'in the long run we are all dead'.

In the meantime, however, I would refer her to my earlier post and simply add that anyone who knew much about the history of Iraq or Afghanistan would have been much less likely to have made the present pig's ear of our policy towards both countries.

Re: Once upon a time there was a subject called history . . .

Ed — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 17:54:26 -0000

Thanks, Rob!

I wanted to add a footnote. I have realized that I know nothing at all about the history of an important trading partner of Britain, so I Googled Libya and explored the first 2 links presented.

The first link was:

Libya - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

Revolution of Muammar Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi

On September 1, 1969, a small group of military officers led by then 27-year-old army officer Muammar Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi staged a coup d��tat against King Idris.[9] At the time, Idris was in Turkey for medical treatment. His nephew, Crown Prince Sayyid Hasan ar-Rida al-Mahdi as-Sanussi, became King. It was clear that the revolutionary officers who had announced the deposition of King Idris did not want to appoint him over the instruments of state as King. Sayyid quickly found that he had substantially less power as the new King than he had earlier had as a mere Prince. Before the end of September 1, Sayyid Hasan ar-Rida had been formally deposed by the revolutionary army officers and put under house arrest. Meanwhile, revolutionary officers abolished the monarchy, and proclaimed the new Libyan Arab Republic. Gaddafi was, and is to this day, referred to as the "Brother Leader and Guide of the Revolution" in government statements and the official press.

Politics

Libya is a dictatorship run by Colonel Mu'ammar Al-Qadhafi. [1]

In theory, there are two branches of government in Libya. The "revolutionary sector" comprises Revolutionary Leader Gaddafi, the Revolutionary Committees and the remaining members of the 12-person Revolutionary Command Council, which was established in 1969.[21] The historical revolutionary leadership is not elected and cannot be voted out of office; they are in power by virtue of their involvement in the revolution.

The General People's Committee building in Benghazi.

(This is how to ensure control): Every four years, the membership of the Local People's Congresses elects their own leaders and the secretaries for the People's Committees, sometimes after many debates and a critical vote. The leadership of the Local People's Congress represents the local congress at the People's Congress of the next level. The members of the National General People's Congress elect the members of the National General People's Committee (the Cabinet) at their annual meeting.

The government controls both state-run and semi-autonomous media. In cases involving a violation of "certain taboos", the private press, like The Tripoli Post, has been censored,[22] although articles that are critical of policies have been requested and intentionally published by the revolutionary leadership itself as a means of initiating reforms.

Political parties were banned by the 1972 Prohibition of Party Politics Act Number 71.[23] According to the Association Act of 1971, the establishment of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) is allowed. However, because they are required to conform to the goals of the revolution, their numbers are small in comparison with those in neighbouring countries. Trade unions do not exist,[24] but numerous professional associations are integrated into the state structure as a third pillar, along with the People's Congresses and Committees. These associations do not have the right to strike. Professional associations send delegates to the General People's Congress, where they have a representative mandate.

The second link was:

CIA - The World Factbook � Libya (under the link Transnational Issues):

Disputes - international

Libya has claimed more than 32,000 sq km in southeastern Algeria and about 25,000 sq km in the Tommo region of Niger in a currently dormant dispute; various Chadian rebels from the Aozou region reside in southern Libya

Trafficking in persons

current situation: Libya is a transit and destination country for men and women from sub-Saharan Africa and Asia trafficked for the purposes of forced labor and commercial sexual exploitation

tier rating: Tier 2 Watch List - Libya is on the Tier 2 Watch List for its failure to provide evidence of increasing efforts to address trafficking in persons in 2007 when compared to 2006, particularly in the area of investigating and prosecuting trafficking offenses; Libya did not publicly release any data on investigations or punishment of any trafficking offenses (2008)

This historical information makes me feel very uncomfortable about some things that MAY be occurring. As I am unsure of British military law in this regard, so I am unsure if this is actually happening. I recall history tells of a fateful Trojan Horse, so I am asking.

The families of monarchs throughout the world do visit Great Britain, as do heads of state from a variety of countries. Ordinarily, special arrangements for arrivals and departures have to be made for these groups to assure their safety. The many necessary airplanes required to transport accompanying groups may or may not be accommodated by (and so land at) local military bases. Does this occur? Are visiting dignitaries provided with secure, private airports or do they land at British military bases?

It is my strong opinion that routinely becoming accustomed to visiting heads of state landing on military base air strips, possibly with legions of trained military personnel to protect them, is foolhardy. Not only are military base layouts (and assorted base goings-on) supposed to be secret, but the landing planes may be armed with nuclear power. If any great number of planes stuffed with armed military personnel and nuclear bombs landed at military bases at one time, it would be over for Britain.

Now, it is not my intention to send readers panicking and shrieking into the streets with this warning. There is ample room to reassure citizens that such an event probably will never occur. For example, citizens can be reassured that the new BP oil trading partner will not get involved in such behaviour because Gaddafi promised to disarm his country�s nuclear program. No one has any reason at all to doubt his word and that is not what I am saying. He probably has discontinued the expensive research it takes to create nuclear power, as he said. However, missing from the statement made by Gaddafi is reassurance that Libya will not purchase nuclear power from a rogue, uncontrolled country, and Britain possesses no other credible assurances from other countries would not attempt a stunt like that, either.

So, out of an abundance of caution, I am suggesting that in future no monarch and no head of state from any country be allowed to come and go by using British military base landing strips. Ever. Is the government too broke to arrange for the military to just go pick em up?

Re: Once upon a time there was a subject called history . . .

Lorna Doom — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 17:54:25 -0000

Nevan Hutchinson:How will the next generation appreciate the freedoms and equality enjoyed today if they have no appreciation of how they got them?

How will understand the impact of the Slave Trade, and the continuing legacy of the British Empire in the world, or how genocide and indiscriminate warfare came about in World War 2?

Because under the soon-to-be-ratified EU Lisbon Treaty, we won't have any freedom of speech. Check it out.

Re: Once upon a time there was a subject called history . . .

Carol — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 17:54:25 -0000

Dr X - you need to have the PGCE so that they can brainwash you into becoming a Social Engineer in order to teach the PC curriculum.

Re: Once upon a time there was a subject called history . . .

Sam — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 17:32:12 -0000

My 7 year old daughter has read 'Island Story' and we discussed it together. She loves it and has since come across other history references where she now feels confident enough to recognise the characters and events, reinforcing them in her mind.

She can even recite the Kings and Queens from William the Conqueror onwards in this light-hearted poem:

'Willie, Willie, Harry Steve

Harry, Dick, John, Harry Three.

Edward One, Two, Three, Dick Two,

Henry Four, Five, Six then who?

Edward Four, Five, Dick the Bad,

Harrys Twain and Ned the Lad.

Mary, Bessie, James you ken,

Charlie, Charlie, James Again.

William and Mary, Anne of Gloria,

Georges (4), Will Four, Victoria.

Edward Seven, Georgie Five.

Edward, George and Liz (alive).

Yet her teachers at school seem to show her no encouragement whatsoever. It is disheartening.

Re: Once upon a time there was a subject called history . . .

Angus — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 16:56:56 -0000

Lady Muck: 'The important subjects are Chemistry, Physics, Maths etc

It is knowledge of these subjects which will ultimately benefit our country.'

Pity you didn't get A level Maths and Physics - I did as well as History. A study of history will tell you how our engineers and scientists, once the envy of the world, were let down time and again by successive governments. If we can learn from the past we can shape our future. Incidentally I work - at a senior level - in the science and technology arena but my original degree is in history. As our American friends say..go figure.

Re: Once upon a time there was a subject called history . . .

Nick R — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 16:46:10 -0000

Jimmy R 6-32pm. There's an interesting analysis of the Lubeck raid on Wikipedia that is probably worth looking at for an overview- especially the massive use of incendiary bombs and the rationale to the raid. My original point was that Hitler was not seeking to destroy British culture as suggested in this article, he was seeking revenge which he took. There was an article in the British press in the war that declared "Weston hardly knows there's a war on" which led to a savage Luftwaffe attack on Weston super Mare which reminds us of the Nazi mindset. I thought I had made the point that the Germans were happy to use bombing- especially dive bombing as a terror device. They did, however, become transfixed with dive bombing and failed to build 4 engined bomber fleets like the Allies so that as the war became a Total War, the destruction that they received was of a much greater magnitude-( I am sure they would have done the same to us with such aircraft). Someone earlier suggested that this destruction, somehow, suggested that I was sorry that the Germans had lost the war. Sometimes, it is best not to comment when such protozoan reactions start to become the norm, but hey, this is the internet and everyone has a voice.

Re: Once upon a time there was a subject called history . . .

Nevan Hutchinson — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 16:03:52 -0000

I'm glad that the frightening widespread ignorance, and disinterest in history has been noticed by others at last.

It's despairing that seemingly the majority of young people, and the public in general are entirely ignorant on what happened in the First and Second World Wars - the most devastating conflicts in human history, or who Adolf Hitler and Winston Churchill are. Perhaps most worryingly, some have never heard of the Holocaust, or what happened to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Any knowledge of British history is small to non existent - 1066, William the Conqueror, the Magna Carta, Henry VIII, the Reformation, the Slave Trade, the Suffragette Movement, that Britain once had an Empire and its consequences on the world today would all be meaningless.

That trained professionals would actively advocate a policy of particularly not teaching the most important aspects of modern British and world history that have shaped the country that exists today is deplorable.

How will the next generation appreciate the freedoms and equality enjoyed today if they have no appreciation of how they got them?

How will understand the impact of the Slave Trade, and the continuing legacy of the British Empire in the world, or how genocide and indiscriminate warfare came about in World War 2?

Re: Once upon a time there was a subject called history . . .

Lady Muck — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 14:43:12 -0000

J O 01.29

Yes I studied Latin and History up to A Level (and have O level Physics and Maths...the boring subjects). I consider that I have a good knowledge of history, but I don't want to personalise this debate.

In my mind, the study of History or even Literature is no more than a hobby and their study and degrees in these subjects should not be subsidised by the state (ie you and me).

The important subjects are Chemistry, Physics, Maths etc as pointed out by Stevie 01.24.

It is knowledge of these subjects which will ultimately benefit our country.

Re: Once upon a time there was a subject called history . . .

Noble Lord — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 14:43:11 -0000

FOR WHAT IT�S WORTH:

@All down Hill now

on September 15, 2009

at 02:20 PM

I agree and didn�t mean to offend, but I do become concerned when we pay homage to the brave young of yesterday, who died for a pack of lies and a Jewish war, then we sit idly by and allow their deaths to become a waste, by virtue of allowing someone else with a vested interest, to air brush the past, hand down a NARRATIVE!

Freedom isn�t free, it must be fought for, nurtured, appreciate with a zeal, defended to the death and handed down, with a caveat, do NOT allow any tribe to ask you to self censor your research into what was, do NOT allow any tribe to tell you the history of your forefathers, do NOT allow any tribe to tell you that they agree with freedom of speech, but!, Do not allow any tribe to tell you to abide by their customs, if you cannot see a land where they had a civilisation to which you can say the same, Do NOT allow any tribe to cry and whimper at the mere suggestion of their guilt, thus you disband your right to seek truth and justice.

Today, we have conceded much to a tribe, that seeks over all control and a world Feudal system our progeny will never forgive us for ensuring they be enslaved to.

One thing worse than having no history taught, is having a bogus history taught and the truth buried for ever. Alas the Lord works in mysterious ways and those who would attempt to hide the truth, are now worried, because the Internet hides none of it.

The Zionists caused WWII, the British people ignored those MP�s that knew of this plot and brave MP�s like Archibald Mauld Ramsey were silenced, by being imprisoned for the duration of the Jewish war.

Hitler did not want war with England, ever wondered why his second in command flew to the UK to explain what occurred in Poland and who was behind it, but he too was locked up for over 50 years in Spandau, because he was always going to expose the Jewish crime!

Imagine, Rudolf Hess played NO PART in WWII, yet he was sentenced to life, for seeking to make peace with Britain, alas even then, the Jews controlled and they demanded their �Blood price�!

Furthermore, it was that half Jew Chruchill that bombed civilian targets in Germany and commenced a war of terror.

Some may scoff and laugh, but the truth must be revealed not hidden and if Operation paper Clip can have all manner of scientist traded between the Coalition of the Talmudists, one has to ask question as to why Rudolf Hess was the exception and had to be kept quiet.

A lesson we humans must learn, is not to go along with evil, less we pay the price at an appointed time and place we are not expecting. Many will cite the Berlin conference and a disregard for another�s truth, justice and right to life.

I say again, do NOT allow the tribe to tell you of your history, in other words, CAN WE STOP LISTENING TO HOLLYWOOD AND ITS POISON and pick up an interesting book.

This is a good start:

http://www.vho.org/GB/Books...

It is my view, that good people should not be threatened by deeds they did not commit and do not condone. Those who are covering up and profiting from a lie, need only do what you always do and let us know you are still at it.

Re: Once upon a time there was a subject called history . . .

Ed — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 14:34:42 -0000

I apologize if the following explanation seems lengthy, but I hope the Telegraph can accommodate so many words because important history relevant to everyone is being made in the UK today.

In your current blog, This vetting monster will harm children, Bgeldof stated:

These state Checks are secret, British parents are being sent to jail if they consult family lawyers, kids are being taken without a jury.

Such legal powers are given to county court judges by our MP's, and one such case was so unjust even the court staff at HMCS had to let it go through to the Court of Appeal, because, they too now know unless this mass state funded child abduction scam stops, everyone with children will fear and are living fear of some state funded child worker taking away their kids.

I BELIEVE YOU. HOW SCARRY! (how many people turn into drug addicts from the emotional pain?) PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING IMPORTANT INFORMATION:

Bgeldof, in October, THE COURT OF APPEAL YOU SAID ONE SUCH CASE TURNED TO FOR A FAIR RULING WILL NOT BE ABLE TO HELP ANYMORE because a new Supreme Court with more power has been appointed by the Labour government. They will be able to overrule any lower court decision, including the existing Court of Appeal.

I would like to explain why these appointments are so meaningful to the country.

Reference: http://uk.news.yahoo.com/11...

All citizens should pay keen attention to the unveiling of the country�s new Supreme Court, as arranged by Tony Blair. His new court, which sits for the first time in October, is being established as part of a series of constitutional reforms announced by Tony in 2003. The judges appointed by Tony Blairs government will pronounce new laws and amend existing laws.

It is reported at Yahoo UK and Ireland that Lord Neuberger (a former law lord) declined to move to the Supreme Court and questioned the need for any of the changes to take place. "The danger is you muck around with a constitution at your peril, because you don't know what the consequences of any change will be," he said.

It is also reported at that site that Lord Turnbull, who was cabinet secretary in 2003 when Blair announced the new court, said the idea had not been "thought up on the back of a fag packet". He added that the removal of Tony Blairs close confidant Lord Irvine of Lairg as lord chancellor was pivotal in creating the new court. "The prime minister was clear that this was something he wanted to do and he also knew that it would be very difficult to achieve with Lord Irvine in place, because he was not enthusiastic about it," Lord Turnbull said (so Tony fired Lord Irvine to get his way).

Is that why video of admirers congratulating Mr. Blair surfaced 2 days ago?

**Bgeldof (and others): the newly established Supreme Court judges have the full power of the highest appeals court in Britain, which means:

1. Starting in October, Court of Appeal rulings can be appealed by prosecutors hired by the government to the new Supreme Court. The new Supreme Court will be the highest court in the land.

2. As all appeals court judges are, the new Supreme Court judges hired by Labour are free to select which cases they will hear or not. Any judgment they issue becomes law, without appeal.

3. All that is required to get a case to the Supreme Court is for a prosecutor to file appeals of lower court decisions. Government pays lawyers with taxpayer money to do that job. If a citizen is required to attend various courts because of government prosecutor appeals (until the matter reaches its last hearing at the new Supreme Court), you pay for your own lawyer, missed work, travel and court fees.

4. By appointing like-minded individuals whose decisions can be expected to support theirs, Labour will establish enormous power for themselves, regardless of who is elected in future.

5. No wonder Tony was being congratulated publicly! Talk about a real live coup!

6. The new Supreme Court judges have ultimate power. These judges identify the behaviours deserving of criminal conviction, and how much punishment is warranted. In some countries, punishment can be physically cruel and harsh, while other countries explore kinder behaviour modification techniques. The new Supreme Court judges have the power and authority to lengthen or shorten jail sentences, as they choose, without restraint or accountability to the people.

7. The new Supreme Court judges will interpret human rights and constitutional matters.

8. Supreme Court rulings (should) reflect and interpret the society in which they live. For example, emotional remarks made in blogs could be defined by government as damaging to the country because those statements deteriorate citizen confidence in the government system generally. The turmoil could even cause government to arrange for police to lay charges for something (such as inciting unrest). An accused could be found totally innocent in a local lower court for the reason that one is (or should be) able, in a free society, to express discontent with one government party (without violence) in order to help replace them with a preferred political party. That is openly done and no matter for prosecution. Prosecutors paid by government can repeatedly appeal any decision made by lower court judges and juries, until the decision reaches the new Supreme Court. The new highest court will proclaim binding moral judgments on behalf of everyone in British society now (for real). If the highest court in Britain were to decide that strongly worded blog criticisms of the elected representatives were threatening to the country�s political stability generally, bloggers could be found guilty of trying to undermine the entire governmental system with their comments. That is called treason. Iran has this kind of political structure right now. Their harsh punishment nets discouragement of inappropriate and unwanted citizen behaviours (such as posting critical criticisms that are not anonymous).

How will parents appeal apprehension of their children without merit?

According to a Telegraph competitor, BBC, yesterday at (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/..., (this is quoted): new health bodies are going to be established to appoint named individuals at executive director and non-officer levels who will focus on the problem of violence within their own organizations.

That means, in support of existing medical policies, that one new body of people is about to be hired and paid to then turn around and appoint a second group of medical workers at director and non-director levels.

There are already many foreign workers in the country. Will the foreign hospital workers imported to address chronic shortages caused by lack of quality medical education in Britain be awarded the hundreds of higher paying, decision making jobs, instead of the Brits who cannot get the quality training they need to work competently in the hospital system? In October, citizens of Britain will end up having to complain about NHS workers (many of whom will be foreign) to the new Supreme Court. Right now, the government does not encourage raising concerns in order to remedy problems by setting up an independent body to look into problems. Right now, people are being threatened with loss of NHS benefits if they complain.

Try to imagine appealing a decision about a NHS injury to the new Supreme Court, remembering that all judges have been appointed and are paid by the same government you are trying to complain about. As well, already established is the publicized government belief that the medical system they established is good and will be improved by spending more money to import more foreign workers for the Care Pathway (to address shortages) and by appointing more medical board and council members to control violence.

If the new Supreme Court team of judges decides that all injuries caused by NHS workers in the performance of duty should be considered accidental, should be expected in the routine operation of a hospital, and so compensation should not be paid to victims, then there is no appeal from that decision. That one decision would be imposed on everyone. No one would be able to claim compensation for damages from negligence, omission or blunder anymore. Mistakes within the medical system would then become permanently entrenched and user complaints effectively silenced.

The new Blair Brown Supreme Court appointments have international significance, too. These appointments could affect any of the many Commonwealth countries that have adopted British common law.

Why was one set of elected representatives allowed to appoint judges to positions which will definitely change an established constitution, without referendum votes from the people they supposedly represent? The answer is probably history. Recent school history lessons have not taught students to analyze political good, nor bad, change. Struggling workers and job seekers are distracted with pressing daily life needs, so change to them is confusing. School did not teach political wisdom. No one knew to object in 2003.

How and why has Labour been given the power to create a new Constitution with their new Supreme Court judge appointments. Who gave them the power to appoint the highest appeals court for the entire country, possibly the Commonwealth, too?

And what if citizens disagree with the decisions made by the new Supreme Court? Tough.

The problem is that, over the last 6 years, the Labour government has been expecting and preparing for these judges to influence and change British law and constitution. That is the job description of the new judge positions, which start in October. The judges appear to be planning on making law for Great Britain indefinitely. It is like Labour has become a huge underwater iceberg, when once they seemed just inept buffoons floating on the surface.

Are there any learned citizens left who have studied history enough to understand the downfall of governments, monarchies, dictatorships, revolutions and countries?

Remarkable history is being made right now.

Re: Once upon a time there was a subject called history . . .

Jimmy R — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 14:32:48 -0000

�The Germans were so incensed over the destruction of this beautiful, historic city, which had little or no military significance� Englishman in Exile, 08:53 am.

Similarly, "This was not a military target at all" Nick R, 11:38 am.

You both omit to mention the small detail that Lubeck was a port which also had U-boat building facilities. Not that U-boats were of any military significance, of course.

September 1939 - Air raids, beginning before day-break, were made on dozens of Polish towns. The raids are described by the German authorities as "attacks on aerodromes". That was before anybody had dropped so much as a lighted match, never mind bombs, on Germany.

I would also suggest that you check the details of the German area bombing and threats of further bombings made against both Holland and Belgium in May 1940 before you portray Germany as the poor little victim of nasty British aggression with respect to bombing towns and cities. Rotterdam was bombed into oblivion with the warning from the Germans that they would continue destroying further towns and cities until the tiny country of Holland surrendered to them.

It might also help to remember that Belgium had declared itself to be a Neutral Country which had no intention of involving itself with either side, a minor detail Hitler decided to totally ignore before sending in his troops and bombers to destroy them.

The Germans had, right from the start of WW2, made clear that they were more than willing to make use of bombing as a terror weapon against civilian targets to force Countries into surrender. To pretend that such activities by the Germans was simply as a reaction to attacks made against them is typical of the manner in which history is now being manipulated to justify certain modern political ideologies.

Re: Once upon a time there was a subject called history . . .

Derek Frankland — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 14:14:02 -0000

Somebody,far

brighter than me once said:-

Those that do not know their history are condemned to forever repeat it.

Any comments?

Re: Once upon a time there was a subject called history . . .

Kered Ybretsae — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 14:05:31 -0000

History may well be the poor relation of education. But it should not be forgotten that by looking into the past, we often see the present and sometimes the future.