Is teaching &#x27;An Inspector Calls&#x27; at GCSE a national disgrace?

No.

Are you afraid students will be taught in a Marxist/socialist mentality without balance? Students are intelligent to think things out for themselves.

I did Sociology at A-Level which had an excessive level of Marxist theory to study. Not one person in my class became a Marxist.

English has to teach a variety of texts from different perspectives.

Reply 82

candytreeman

What the hell? OP: NO!

Why on earth should we only teach the norm of our society, at this point in time? Socialism is a legitimate and fruitful political philosophy. Your ruling government would call themselves democratic socialists anyway (that's another argument as to whether they are or not.. cough not).

You have to wake up and allow yourself to be influenced by other viewpoints in order to come to a rational conclusion. You will probably see that each theory of political philosophy / political economy has it's serious drawbacks, but also that their approach reveals brilliant insights into how the world does or should work.

Reply 83

MaceyThe

Stricof

Public sector jobs, not just teaching :facepalm:

And its hardly a socialist paper.

?? I never said it was.
And that is wrong that the whole public sector (ie. those that keep the country working,) are recruited from a left-wing rag. Would you not be horrified if Labour were in power yet all the teachers teaching your children had seen the jobs advertised in the Daily Mail, and the whole public sector was right-wing?

Stricof

What a load of balls. In history they still teach the glorious British Empire in GCSE and A level History.

Hardly.
There is a strong emphasis on "black history" as well as the "slave trade" now as it is compulsory teaching, with the sole intention of (in the words of the Government,) "helping to prepare pupils for life in a diverse and multi-ethnic society."

This in the same year that the Government decided it was no longer neccessary to study Sir Winston Churchill....

The teachings of the slave trade as essentially rich whites going to africa, catching all the natives (often with the use of force,) before putting them in shackles and shipping them over as slaves is for the most part wildly wildly innaccurate, but that's another story.

Reply 84

Baz1990

1

an inspector calls is not good enough to be taught at 15/16, should be taught to children at the ages of 11/12.

Reply 85

username202682

MaceyThe

?? I never said it was.
And that is wrong that the whole public sector (ie. those that keep the country working,) are recruited from a left-wing rag. Would you not be horrified if Labour were in power yet all the teachers teaching your children had seen the jobs advertised in the Daily Mail, and the whole public sector was right-wing?

Yes I would be horrified. Because thats a repugnant tabloid paper. However, if it were the Times, or to a less extent the Independent and the Telegraph, I would still have some sense of understanding.

This in the same year that the Government decided it was no longer neccessary to study Sir Winston Churchill....I learnt, in detail about Winston Churchill and his life last year and my college currently is doing so :curious:

The teachings of the slave trade as essentially rich whites going to africa, catching all the natives (often with the use of force,) before putting them in shackles and shipping them over as slaves is for the most part wildly wildly innaccurate, but that's another story.

And you don't see History other than British or European History as relevant to History students?

Reply 86

MaceyThe

Stricof

Yes I would be horrified. Because thats a repugnant tabloid paper.

Some people don't like the Guardian either, but have to just put up with the fact that many of the teachers indoctrinating their children are left-wing or socialist.

A quick example which I find disgusting:
'Schoolboys disciplined for 'refusing to pray to Allah'
The children had to children to wear Islamic headdresses, and parents were outraged.

My point is, every year, British school children learn about the horrors of the slave trade during "Black History Month.
British children are left in no doubt that slavery was the fault of their ancestors and they should feel deeply ashamed of their past, and in some way "owe" Africa, and immigration is fair to even things up.

Indeed, a leading education body recommends that "patriotism should be avoided in school lessons because British history is “morally ambiguous," and that "the slave trade, imperialism, and 20th century wars should be taught as controversial issues while students are deciding how they feel about their country."
link

However, it's a simple fact that all races and all civilisations have practised slavery: China, India, Arabs, Africa and in the Americas. All peoples have made slaves of their own and enslaved other peoples. And White Europeans are no exception.

Most indigenous British people reading this essay will have had ancestors who were slaves. The Anglo-Saxons made slaves of the Ancient Britons and the Anglo-Saxons were in turn enslaved by the invading Danish Vikings. When Oliver Cromwell conquered Ireland in the middle of the 17th century, he sent over 100,000 men, women and children to the West Indies to be sold into slavery.

-Is there any mention in "Black History Month" that Africa itself had its own domestic and international slave trade long before the appearance of the Europeans? :dontknow:

-Is it mentioned that whilst slavery only lasted 3 centuries in the west, it has lasted 14 centuries in the Middle East and exists today in many Muslim countries?
The Muslims were some of the world’s biggest enslavers, an estimated 19 million people becoming the victims of Islamic slavery. Their slave trade ran for far longer than that of the Europeans. Muslims enslaved both Black African and White European alike. (more info)

But is that taught? NO! British people are left with the impression that we should be deeply ashamed of our past and our heritage which is WRONG!

"A people separated from their history are easily persuaded." - Karl Marx

Reply 87

podsfer

3

I thought it was great. It really helps if you like the book you're studying at English Literature and I certainly did. I also don't think people's entire views are likely to be changed by a single book either. Though this is probably a joke topic anyway.

Reply 88

username202682

MaceyThe

Some people don't like the Guardian either, but have to just put up with the fact that many of the teachers indoctrinating their children are left-wing or socialist.

Also the link about school children and Islam role play is not related to course content. Please refrain from bringing it in

My point is, every year, British school children learn about the horrors of the slave trade during "Black History Month.
British children are left in no doubt that slavery was the fault of their ancestors and they should feel deeply ashamed of their past, and in some way "owe" Africa, and immigration is fair to even things up.

Once again, I'll point out that Historical Revisionism is not a bad thing. The amount of damage done to Africa is incomprehensible.

Indeed, a leading education body recommends that "patriotism should be avoided in school lessons because British history is “morally ambiguous," and that "the slave trade, imperialism, and 20th century wars should be taught as controversial issues while students are deciding how they feel about their country."
link

Right well "History and citizenship lessons should stick to the bare facts rather than encouraging loyalty to Britain when covering subjects such as the Second World War or the British Empire". These are objective subjects and shouldn't be taught in a way that influences the students. That is impartiality and has nothing to do with the political agenda. Students make up their own mind about it. Plain facts, are the dire needs of an Historian. It is then that the Historian can take the facts, plainly, cook it and serve it as he/she pleases.

-Is there any mention in "Black History Month" that Africa itself had its own domestic and international slave trade long before the appearance of the Europeans? :dontknow:

Saharan Africa I believe accounted for the vast majority of the slavery. Arabic people, I shall note are different from Africans. Africans were commodities to Arabs and Europeans.

-Is it mentioned that whilst slavery only lasted 3 centuries in the west, it has lasted 14 centuries in the Middle East and exists today in many Muslim countries?
The Muslims were some of the world’s biggest enslavers, an estimated 19 million people becoming the victims of Islamic slavery. Their slave trade ran for far longer than that of the Europeans. Muslims enslaved both Black African and White European alike. (more info)

Once again, not interested in the Muslim rant. yes the Arabs lasted longer. The killing of 10 people is just as morally bad as killing of 100. It is tactless to shift the blame further onto Muslims.

But is that taught? NO! British people are left with the impression that we should be deeply ashamed of our past and our heritage which is WRONG!

There are positives and negatives to all History, and once again I'll say Historical Revisionism seeks to explain both flavours of the ******* ice cream

"A people separated from their history are easily persuaded." - Karl Marx

I've never seen that quote before. Direct me to the book or legitimate source.
I've googled it and only found ******** sources that claim the quote.
So legitimate quotes only please.

Reply 89

BillyMarsh

10

OrdinaryDay

Sadly you see it as no more than the sum of its politics. "An Inspector Calls" comprises, like most art, layers of meaning and ideas. Its politics are only one of these: first and foremost, it's a piece of very skilful literature and you should appreciate it as that, even if disagreeing with its fundamental political persuasion. It would be a far more sophisticated analysis than "a piece of socialist trash" - it's a fantastic play.

I do see it far beyond its political bounds but that is what this argument is about.
However, I feel that the socialist bias is so strong and overrides the story, the big rant at the end where the inspector makes his speech for example.

Reply 90

MaceyThe

Stricof

Right well history and citizenship lessons should stick to the bare facts.

So why during "Black History Month" is it ok to mislead young impressionable minds that slavery was something simply something that white western people did to blacks, and not mention that blacks had been enslaved by other blacks in an African slave trade that far pre-dated the appearance of the Europeans?
Surely this is Black History too? Is it taught? No.

Surely "black history month" should include the history of how Arab Muslims went to war on and captured black men, women and children and turned them into slaves, and how this went on for 14 centuries?
Surely black people want to learn in Black History Month how Arab slave traders would raid black villages to the south, killing the adults and kidnapping the children?

Surely they want to know how black boys were castrated by the Arabs before being indoctrinated into an Islamic army, and how black girls were taken as household and sex slaves.

Surely that's important "black history," no?
But of course, none of that gets mentioned. Just how us Europeans should be ashamed for our terrible past. :rolleyes:

Reply 91

AntiMonarchist

After the fall of the wall the KGB infiltrated our education system to turn the nation's kids into commies.
It was predicted in Revelations ffs!!!
Repent sins, the end is near.

Reply 92

Rhadamanthus

jismith1989

A fair-weather libertarian, I see. (As, indeed, most libertarians are. One tends not to find the disadvantaged in society embracing libertarianism.)

Jeez, I was being sarcastic. If you didn't teach books with a bias there would be hardly anything to teach. But there must be a two-sided debate on it in class, then it should be left up to them to write what they want having heard both sides of the argument.

Reply 93

whisperings

usainlightning

In my AQA English literature course I had to study a pro-socialist text in depth. At the age of 16 and below many students are easily manipulated and I believe studying a text like this has led a significant number of students to have socialist views.
I would not advocate students studying a pro-capitalist text either.

1) This would be political correctness gone mad.
2) Some of us actually have our own minds, and don't get brainwashed by a play we are studying from a LITERARY aspect
3) If we all shared your views, then surely the majority of English literature would have to be wiped from the syllabus. The sort of English literature, I might add, that is extremely worthy of being studied.
4) The obvious argument to your statement is: surely as part of our school education we need to learn about different perspectives anyway, to broaden our own views and understand why people may think differently to us. We need to learn to become aware - so we do not become ignorant bubble-wrapped little creatures obsessed with our own (small) little worlds and not much else.
5) This is lunacy!

Reply 94

x-Disenchanted-x

I don't think that many kids will care about the politics.
I didn't.
I still don't. :smile:

Reply 95

whisperings