Opposing Views

[Orbit]

Yes. All events can be approached in opposing views without promoting the event message or act itself.

Utter nonsense.

 

[Orbit]

The problem is there is too much personal opinion. Discussing history isn't/shouldn't be taken from a biased approach. That's why in the US many schools cannot talk about their religious and political views. Encouraging open dialogue doesn't mean you have to agree or disagree with the topic for or against.

A student should be able to say the Holocaust was a good idea without being reprimanded for it

WT actual F???!!!!

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Give us a hypothetical alternative view to the Manson murders. I'm curious.

I'm not too familiar with Manson murderers but just saying there should be discussion of two sides of historical events.

For example, a positive side of the holocaust may be how efficiency the Nazi conducted the mass event. The approach doesn't need to focus and/or promote genocide (or mass murderers) to discuss opposing views.

Why should personal opinions be in education?

Unless its a religious school where instructions are influenced with a religious overtone, I don't see anything wrong with it.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Utter nonsense.

How so?

Personal opinions shouldn't influence education instruction. That's why instructors can't talk about their views on religion and politics. It's the approach.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

WT actual F???!!!!

Unless it's a private school, students should be encouraged to air their opinions without being reprimanded for it.

 

[F1fan]

I'm not too familiar with Manson murderers but just saying there should be discussion of two sides of historical events.

OK, there's the factual side, what is the other side that is worth discussing? That it's legal to commit murder in California?

For example, a positive side of the holocaust may be how efficiency the Nazi conducted the mass event. The approach doesn't need to focus and/or promote genocide (or mass murderers) to discuss opposing views.

How was it efficient? What are 15 year old kids going to contribute to a discussion about how to commit mass murder faster?

Why should personal opinions be in education?

You're the one advocating for allowing wrong, alternative views to historical facts!!!!

Unless its a religious school where instructions are influenced with a religious overtone, I don't see anything wrong with it.

So a school that teaches unethical religious dogma can also teach other unethical topics?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

OK, there's the factual side, what is the other side that is worth discussing? That it's legal to commit murder in California?

Open communication and critical thinking in an educational and non-biased environment.

It depends on the approach. That would probably do best in a hypothetical. IF it were legal to commit murder in California, how would X situation be different.

How was it efficient? What are 15 year old kids going to contribute to a discussion about how to commit mass murder faster?

No. I was thinking of discussing how the Holocaust (slavery, etc etc) was structured. It was successful even though the event was horrific. I can't think of another approach. It just offers critical thinking.

You're the one advocating for allowing wrong, alternative views to historical facts!!!!

Not sure why the !!! I'm advocating talking about different perspectives of historical events in an education setting.

So a school that teaches unethical religious dogma can also teach other unethical topics?

Huh?

I didn't say unethical topics. I just said that personal opinions and biases can be discussed in private schools like religious education but not advocated in public schools.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't know where they find the material but discussing the good sides of the Holocaust does not have to focus on genocide. It's like discussing various ways to solve the same problem with the correct answer.

I do see an educational benefit. It depends on how it's approached. We shouldn't tell students they should only think f one dude of events we believe is ethically horrific. It's not about taking sides but discussing both sides.

It has nothing to do with deniers. That's not the purpose of the legislation. Critical thinking about history needs to approach varies events in productive ways. It's not saying the Holocaust was a good idea.

Sorry, but genocide is never the right answer. Are you aware of what the Holocaust was?

 

[VoidCat]

A student should be able to say the Holocaust was a good idea without being reprimanded for it

11 million folks died. Jews, LGBT folk, Roman gypsies, disabled among them. You would've been one of the first dead as a disabled LGBT woman. If I'd lived in that time in the area I would've been murdered in a death camp cuz of my autism and cuz I'm LGBT. In fact I probably would've been in an institution prior to that and then when the Nazis came to power I would've been murdered. After all they tested on prisoners and those in institutions first if I recall correctly. Something called Operation T4 aka Tiergartenstrasse 4 where they murdered a ton of folk with disabilities. And you want to say it's ok to say that it was a good idea without being reprimanded

 

[Stevicus]

Give us a hypothetical alternative view to the Manson murders. I'm curious.

Well I guess one could bring up the view of Manson and his followers. I think he said that he got the idea from listening to Beatles' music, like "Helter Skelter" and "Revolution 9." Therefore, the alternative view might be that it was actually the Beatles who are to blame for the murders. His followers thought he was Jesus Christ, so perhaps one can also claim he had "divine privilege" (kind of like "executive privilege").

So, yeah, I guess one could come up with a hypothetical alternative view on just about anything. It might be quite absurd and ridiculous, but it's possible.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Sorry, but genocide is never the right answer. Are you aware of what the Holocaust was?

I don't know where they find the material but discussing the good sides of the Holocaust does not have to focus on genocide. It's like discussing various ways to solve the same problem with the correct answer.

I can see different ways going about opposing views without focusing on genocide. There's a lot more to it than just mass murderers.

Our personal opinions (unless open discussion) shouldn't influence teachers educating students by critical thinking and open expression. Whether it be Holocaust, World War 1, Slavery, or Manson murderers the idea is the same.

 

[F1fan]

Open communication and critical thinking in an educational and non-biased environment.

It depends on the approach. That would probably do best in a hypothetical. IF it were legal to commit murder in California, how would X situation be different.

This sounds like a creative writing class, not a history or science class.

But what is the point of this exercise? That people can make up false scenarios?

No. I was thinking of discussing how the Holocaust (slavery, etc etc) was structured. It was successful even though the event was horrific. I can't think of another approach. It just offers critical thinking.

Why? So young republicans for trump can get ideas about how to deal with evil democrats?

Not sure why the !!! I'm advocating talking about different perspectives of historical events in an education setting.

It's not history.

What class is it? How to distort history in the the GOP School of How to Destroy America?

Huh?

I didn't say unethical topics. I just said that personal opinions and biases can be discussed in private schools like religious education but not advocated in public schools.

How are these relevant to history? In a history class a teacher reveals the facts about the events of history, not make believe.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

11 million folks died. Jews, LGBT folk, Roman gypsies, disabled among them. You would've been one of the first dead as a disabled LGBT woman. If I'd lived in that time in the area I would've been murdered in a death camp cuz of my autism and cuz I'm LGBT. In fact I probably would've been in an institution prior to that and then when the Nazis came to power I would've been murdered. After all they tested on prisoners and those in institutions first if I recall correctly. Something called Operation T4 aka Tiergartenstrasse 4 where they murdered a ton of folk with disabilities. And you want to say it's ok to say that it was a good idea without being reprimanded

A student should say his or her opinions without being reprimanded for it. Personal opinions aside, I advocate a constructive and open discussion education environment. If a student says they support, I don't know, conversion therapy that's their right. It just depends on how its approached.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't know where they find the material but discussing the good sides of the Holocaust does not have to focus on genocide. It's like discussing various ways to solve the same problem with the correct answer.

I can see different ways going about opposing views without focusing on genocide. There's a lot more to it than just mass murderers.

Our personal opinions (unless open discussion) shouldn't influence teachers educating students by critical thinking and open expression. Whether it be Holocaust, World War 1, Slavery, or Manson murderers the idea is the same.

Oh my! Should I laugh or should I cry. "the good sides of the Holocaust". That might be a first.

 

[VoidCat]

A student should say his or her opinions without being reprimanded for it. Personal opinions aside, I advocate a constructive and open discussion education environment. If a student says they support, I don't know, conversion therapy that's their right. It just depends on how its approached.

So saying that the holocaust was good despite it killing millions of people is ok? Are you ok with someone saying you should die? Cuz that basically what they would be saying. That itd be ok for you as a disabled lgbt person to have been murdered. I'm not saying severely punish the kid but definitely tell them how wrong it is to say that.

 

[F1fan]

Well I guess one could bring up the view of Manson and his followers. I think he said that he got the idea from listening to Beatles' music, like "Helter Skelter" and "Revolution 9." Therefore, the alternative view might be that it was actually the Beatles who are to blame for the murders. His followers thought he was Jesus Christ, so perhaps one can also claim he had "divine privilege" (kind of like "executive privilege").

So, yeah, I guess one could come up with a hypothetical alternative view on just about anything. It might be quite absurd and ridiculous, but it's possible.

It sounds like your suggestion is more looking at it from Charlie's perspective. Still, how is this relevant to history?

I suppose a teacher could assign an essay to pick an infamous crime of history and argue for why it's good. Note to class: don't murder anyone or else it's an automatic F.

 

[F1fan]

Oh my! Should I laugh or should I cry. "the good sides of the Holocaust". That might be a first.

Come on, the fun and sunny side of the Holocaust. Don't be so rigid.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

This sounds like a creative writing class, not a history or science class.

But what is the point of this exercise? That people can make up false scenarios?

Critical thinking on historical events, how they played out, and their benefit or consequence to societies.

If it's approached as offering opinions but not advocated beyond that, I see no issue. Not sure how false scenarios play into this though.

Why? So young republicans for trump can get ideas about how to deal with evil democrats?

Not sure how this fits?

It's not history.

What class is it? How to distort history in the the GOP School of How to Destroy America?

It's not distorting history, just talking about it without suppressing individual opinions in an open education environment.

How are these relevant to history? In a history class a teacher reveals the facts about the events of history, not make believe.

Saying Holocaust have positive notes in it isn't promoting make belief. Its how you approach it. The holocaust has more in it than just genocide. It's not like saying killing people is okay (in an illegal way), but it doesn't hurt to talk about it in context. The idea is not to indoctrinate students to think events should be bad or good but let them think out these things on their own-but in a history class, just talking about different perspectives of historical events doesn't mean you promote either side.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Oh my! Should I laugh or should I cry. "the good sides of the Holocaust". That might be a first.

An example is how the Nazi approached the mass murders. They were successful but maybe talking about the structure of their success and the productivity of it would be educational. Its not focused on genocide and not promoting it either.

Holocaust education doesn't need to be solely on genocide-and even if that becomes the focus of conversation, they can still approach it productively without advocating for it.

This is for any topic.

 

[Stevicus]

In one Texas district, teachers were told to give 'opposing' views of the Holocaust

Should we be discussing "opposing views" to the Holocaust?

There doesn't seem to be anything to oppose, but I'm sure people have their reasons.

From the article, this question stood out:

A teacher at the meeting asked, "How do you oppose the Holocaust?" Peddy responded, "Believe me. That's come up," according to NBC News.

However, it might be a helpful exercise in history to understand and know what the Nazi position actually was, along with what led to that form of government arising in Germany in the first place. It's helpful to learn from history, without making it into a political statement on contemporary politics.

That wouldn't necessarily be teaching the "opposing view," but in order to have an adequate understanding of events, it's important to know the various points of view - including that of governments like the U.S., which turned away Jewish refugees trying to escape the Nazis. Or, when the Soviets liberated Majdanek and broadcast to the world what was happening, the other Allied governments and officials dismissed it as Soviet propaganda.