Opposing Views

Kooky said:

@Unveiled Artist
If you don't want to answer my questions or engage with me in conversation, then please be honest about it and say so directly, instead of dancing around the point and wasting my time in the process, thank you very much.

Click to expand...

Just state your point(s) and add some context and I'll answer your question again but try to make it more distinct when I know what you're trying to get at.

That's the most direct and honest way I can repeat my point:

Don't ask questions in a vacuum-add commentary and/or your point.

You'd get a better more detailed answer that way.

Kooky said:

Are you of the mistaken assumption that people don't talk about the Holocaust or that it's somehow a taboo subject among historians? Because I can tell you straight away that that's not, and never has been, the case.

Click to expand...

No.

I'm saying it depends on how you approach it would determine if its inappropriate or not.

Our personal opinions about the Holocaust shouldn't take place in an education setting.

As long as the discussion is appropriate to the context of the lesson.

We Never Know said:

Its no more ignorant than someone talking about geneocide on anti-vaxers

Click to expand...

I wouldn't compare those directly at all. One is ignorant, one is hate-speech.

Unveiled Artist said:

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.

Click to expand...

Murder is always wrong. There is no other side. Where is your moral compass?

Orbit said:

Murder is always wrong. There is no other side. Where is your moral compass?

Click to expand...

Here's a general gist of my points: Opposing Views

Unveiled Artist said:

No.

I'm saying it depends on how you approach it would determine if its inappropriate or not.

Our personal opinions about the Holocaust shouldn't take place in an education setting.

As long as the discussion is appropriate to the context of the lesson.

Click to expand...

Calling the Holocaust a genocide and a crime against humanity is not a personal opinion however, it's a statement of verifiable fact.

Kooky said:

Calling the Holocaust a genocide and a crime against humanity is not a personal opinion however, it's a statement of verifiable fact.

Click to expand...

Teaching opposing views depends on what part of the Holocaust the teacher wants to focus.

Why don't people have this reaction to say slavery... the point is the same. Opinions in an education environment is fine. Just as one talks about suicide and even can debate on why some think it's justifiable and others not so much. But it's broached in a way that doesn't promote suicide just critical thought and discussion.

Unveiled Artist said:

Teaching opposing views depends on what part of the Holocaust the teacher wants to focus.

Click to expand...

I suppose you are correct in a very technical, abstract sense, in that focusing away from any negative aspects of the Holocaust is, in a way, a shift in focus away from parts of the Holocaust - specifically, it is a shift away from any parts that would place that event in a historical context, and a delibate focus away from its material reality and towards a collection of meaningless abstractions, as in the manner of your suggestion to focus on its "efficiency", steadfastly refusing to look at that alleged "efficiency" in context.

In the classic technocratic mistake of argueing in circles of the "how", we, of course, completely miss the question of "why" - what would be the purpose of treating horrid historical atrocities in that manner? It strikes me as rather peculiar that you never cleared that up before you went full steam ahead with the question of methodology.

Why don't people have this reaction to say slavery... the point is the same.

Click to expand...

Slavery didn't form a part of my country's past that's still within living memory. But I recognize that there are many who are so far removed from atrocities that they can treat them in a distant, jocular manner or as subject of dispassionate, abstract debate on the same level as debating the value of different flavors of ice cream.

I also think you are sorely mistaken when you presume that nobody has strong reactions to slavery, because I have certainly observed people react with disgust at the suggestion that there would be positive aspects to human bondage; which suggests that they probably weren't as far removed emotionally, and so probably did not feel as lighthearted on the subject as others who might be less burdened by the reality of atrocity...

Opinions in an education environment is fine. Just as one talks about suicide and even can debate on why some think it's justifiable and others not so much. But it's broached in a way that doesn't promote suicide.

Click to expand...

I don't know what school you went to, but I strongly doubt that your curriculum included a debate on the pros and cons of suicide. I know that mine didn't. As a teacher, I would strongly refrain from broaching a subject in this manner, and your position in this matter betrays a frankly devastating ignorance on how to teach sensitive subjects to teenagers.

Unveiled Artist said:

No.

I'm saying it depends on how you approach it would determine if its inappropriate or not.

Our personal opinions about the Holocaust shouldn't take place in an education setting.

As long as the discussion is appropriate to the context of the lesson.

Click to expand...

If personal opinions have no place then you can't allow opposing views to factual history.

pearl said:

I think its important to present the actual history, not the morality or lack of.

Click to expand...

In many cases the history is due to a moral stand by one side, like the US Civil War, and the fight against the Nazis. It's pretty hard to understand the facts of the conflicts without them being justified as a morally correct thing to do.

Vietnam is an example of history where the moral justification is very weak. The war protests and the lies various administrations said are all part of that history.

F1fan said:

If personal opinions have no place then you can't allow opposing views to factual history.

Click to expand...

The argument is there is no opposing views to the Holocaust. My view is the Holocaust isn't just about genocide and in an education environment discussion about different perspectives of the Holocaust doesn't need to involve genocide.

It's not opposing history just discussing different perspectives of it.

F1fan said:

In many cases the history is due to a moral stand by one side, like the US Civil War, and the fight against the Nazis. It's pretty hard to understand the facts of the conflicts without them being justified as a morally correct thing to do.

Click to expand...

The fight against Nazis and Imperial Japan happened due to geopolitics (and the other side's aggression), the morality of it all only became apparent after the fact when the atrocities of the Axis powers came to light (Allied decisionmakers initially denied the reality of the Holocaust despite reliable information sourced from their own military intelligence, believing it to be communist propaganda tarring an otherwise honorable enemy).

Unveiled Artist said:

The argument is there is no opposing views to the Holocaust. My view is the Holocaust isn't just about genocide and in an education environment discussion about different perspectives of the Holocaust doesn't need to involve genocide.

Click to expand...

And your view is factually wrong, because if you want to actually teach people about the Holocaust in anything approaching a truthful manner, you need to acknowledge the material reality of the facts at hand; and the facts at hand point to the reality of genocide and atrocity.

The only perspective where one doesn't need to touch upon the genocidal reality of the Holocaust, is a perspective where one denies or downplays that material, factual reality of it.

Unveiled Artist said:

The argument is there is no opposing views to the Holocaust.

Click to expand...

No, there are opposing views, they are just too immoral and absurd to give time to.

My view is the Holocaust isn't just about genocide and in an education environment discussion about different perspectives of the Holocaust doesn't need to involve genocide.

Click to expand...

You've cited how the Germans were so efficient, and I asked how were they efficient. Even if there was an answer how would the efficiency of how Germans murdered the Jews of Europe be beneficial to a 13 year old kid? If you wanted to discuss efficiency is that you best option?

It's not opposing history just discussing different perspectives of it.

Click to expand...

The issue isn't different perspectives, it is opening the door to views that are contrary to fact. And giving time to nonsense like that doesn't help children learn anything. They could learn that nonsense is valuable because it gets the attention of adults and authority.

Kooky said:

The fight against Nazis and Imperial Japan happened due to geopolitics (and the other side's aggression), the morality of it all only became apparent after the fact when the atrocities of the Axis powers came to light (Allied decisionmakers initially denied the reality of the Holocaust despite reliable information sourced from their own military intelligence, believing it to be communist propaganda tarring an otherwise honorable enemy).

Click to expand...

There's plenty of moral ambiguity, like dropping the atomic bombs. My point is that even in hindsight there was a clear moral concern at the time that aggression by Japan and Germany because they violated the autonomy of independent nations. The atrocities made their actions even worse.

Kooky said:

And your view is factually wrong, because if you want to actually teach people about the Holocaust in anything approaching a truthful manner, you need to acknowledge the material reality of the facts at hand; and the facts at hand point to the reality of genocide and atrocity.

The only perspective where one doesn't need to touch upon the genocidal reality of the Holocaust, is a perspective where one denies or downplays that material, factual reality of it.

Click to expand...

You have to read the other replies. One example of a good view of the holocaust (NOT the motive and act of genocide) is the efficiency the Nazis were say economic wise. Students discussing their opinions about horrific historic events is fine. It depends on how its approached.

What you're saying has nothing to do with my points.

I never mentioned talking about the opposing views of genocide.

Kooky said:

And your view is factually wrong, because if you want to actually teach people about the Holocaust in anything approaching a truthful manner, you need to acknowledge the material reality of the facts at hand; and the facts at hand point to the reality of genocide and atrocity.

Click to expand...

My point was open discussion in an education environment with students sharing their opinions about horrific historic events.

It has nothing to do with teaching teaching anything other than what's recorded as facts.

I also never mentioned about genocide, opposing views of genocide, or anything like that. I don't talk about that. I'm just saying students should be able to voice their opinions about horrific historic events rather than being politically correct for the sake of the topic of discussion.

Kooky said:

The only perspective where one doesn't need to touch upon the genocidal reality of the Holocaust, is a perspective where one denies or downplays that material, factual reality of it.

Click to expand...

My point has nothing to do with genocide.

F1fan said:

No, there are opposing views, they are just too immoral and absurd to give time to.

Click to expand...

F1fan said:

You've cited how the Germans were so efficient, and I asked how were they efficient. Even if there was an answer how would the efficiency of how Germans murdered the Jews of Europe be beneficial to a 13 year old kid? If you wanted to discuss efficiency is that you best option?

Click to expand...

They succeeded. However, in US classrooms teachers have the option of letting students opt out of conversations like this. I'd be one of those students... so my point is very general.

F1fan said:

The issue isn't different perspectives, it is opening the door to views that are contrary to fact. And giving time to nonsense like that doesn't help children learn anything. They could learn that nonsense is valuable because it gets the attention of adults and authority.

Click to expand...

That's not how I approached this topic.

F1fan said:

In many cases the history is due to a moral stand by one side, like the US Civil War, and the fight against the Nazis. It's pretty hard to understand the facts of the conflicts without them being justified as a morally correct thing to do.

Click to expand...

Yes you are right. My only point is the history ought to be presented with the facts without any moral slant. Its for the hearers to consider the morality.
I couldn't agree more concerning Vietnam.

Unveiled Artist said:

You have to read the other replies. One example of a good view of the holocaust (NOT the motive and act of genocide) is the efficiency the Nazis were say economic wise. Students discussing their opinions about horrific historic events is fine. It depends on how its approached.

Click to expand...

No, that is not a good view to teach students because it completely dismisses and ignores historic context and material historic reality.

You are contorting to find anything positive to say about a genocide, and in this contortion, you also make statements that are not only ignoring the historical fact of genocide, but are also wrong in their economic context:

The Holocaust was a significant drain on the German economy, which needed the trains and military personnel diverted to Auschwitz et al - keep in mind that this was happening while Germany was fighting a world war against three of the world's premier military powers. They could have used the resources much more efficiently elsewhere to boost their war production - but for the Nazis, killing Jews was a more important objective, even, than winning their war (and even moreso once it became apparent that they were going to lose it).

Unveiled Artist said:

My point was open discussion in an education environment with students sharing their opinions about horrific historic events.

Click to expand...

Again, what would be the point of that? What's the purpose of "sharing" opinions on historic events based on lack of knowledge, ignorance, and total emotional distance to the events in question?

It has nothing to do with teaching teaching anything other than what's recorded as facts.

Click to expand...

Discussions in school - and especially in a subject like history - are supposed to be tools of education. If they solely happen because somebody wanted a discussion and for no other sensible reason, then they frankly should not happen.

This is arguably the point the teacher in the OP article was making: Without a clear educational context, discussions of subjects that most students are going to be ignorant about are not going to be of much value.

There is value in discussion in schools when it helps to teach people something - either about themselves, the world, or other people - but the subject has to be chosen in a way that allows such discussions to connect back to the lived reality of the students in that discussion.

I could see a valuable discussion about the Holocaust happening in a school in, say, Israel, where students can directly connect the facts they learn to the lived reality of their families and ancestors, or Germany, where it is in fact still part of the required curriculum to visit a concentration camp and talk about the atrocities the Nazis inflicted there - in both cases, such conversations would serve the function of remembrance, of connecting a distant past back to a lived and immediate reality.

Discussing the 'good parts' of the Holocaust does not serve any such purpose, and runs the additional risk of giving Holocaust deniers a platform from which to spout their nonsense to people who don't know better (because they haven't learned about it yet!).