« Pakistan: "Moral" Muslim Women Kidnap And Tie Up Baby |
| Should The Islamic World Apologize For Slavery? - Part Two »
April 1, 2007
UK: Schools Avoid Holocaust, Pandering To Muslim Bigotry
Two weeks ago, we published an article on the way Muslim indoctrination has crept into British schools via the National Curriculum, which is compulsory for all state-funded schools.
A story from the Mail on Sunday relates that teachers in some schools are not teaching children about the Holocaust, in case their anti-semitic Muslim pupils object. The same applies for the Crusades.
The National Curriculum does officially include the Holocaust, in Key Stage 3 (children over 11), specifically in year 9 (age 14-15), in Unit 19. The Crusades are also Key Stage 3 topics, and are taught to children in year 7 (aged 12-13).
Though the National Curriculum deals with "slavery" as a topic for Key Stage 3, year 9 students, this is the slavery practiced by white Europeans upon black Africans. Nowhere does the National curriculum deal with Mohammed's ownership of slaves, nor the 14 centuries of Muslims exploiting black Africans in their slavery, nor the 300 years in which Muslims kidnapped white Europeans to use them as slaves.
The Mail on Sunday reports that the Historical Association claims that the way teaching about slavery is conducted, white and black pupils feel alienated. If slavery was taught honestly, then all children should be equally alienated - black people sold slaves, white people sold slaves, Muslims had black and white slaves, and early Chinese, Greek and Indian civilizations practiced slavery.
The Historical Association has produced the study for the Department for Education and Skills (DFES). It is entitled: "Teaching emotive and controversial History 3 - 19" or "TEACH 3 -19" . Some background information on this can be found by clicking HERE or HERE.
The Mail has had access to the full report and quotes extensively from this.
Teachers and schools avoid emotive and controversial history for a variety of reasons, some of which are well-intentioned. Staff may wish to avoid causing offence or appearing insensitive to individuals or groups in their classes. In particular settings, teachers of history are unwilling to challenge highly contentious or charged versions of history in which pupils are steeped at home, in their community or in a place of worship.The report stated that teachers did not want to confront "anti-Semitic sentiment and Holocaust denial among some Muslim pupils."
"In another department, the Holocaust was taught despite anti-Semitic sentiment among some pupils, but the same department deliberately avoided teaching the Crusades at Key Stage 3 (11-14-year-olds) because their balanced treatment of the topic would have directly challenged what was taught in some local mosques...The report has been created with a donation of £50,000 ($98,400) from the DFES.....In certain educational settings, white working-class pupils in the minority can feel alienated if the role of white abolitionists in the process of abolition is so downplayed that all credit is given to economic factors and black resistance in ending the slave trade.
UPDATE: The Historical Association's report "Teaching Emotive And Controversial History 3-19 can be found in a 48-page pdf file HERE.
Posted by Giraldus Cambrensis at April 1, 2007 6:29 PM
Comments
I believe the essay was called "The Ruin Of Britain" the last time they were invaded? Only that time it required a far more larger force because they didn't have the power of "political correctness" and the news media back then. So much for the respect of "indigenous peoples".
Posted by: Catawhumpus ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.westernresistance.com/nav-commenters.gif)
at April 1, 2007 9:12 PM
If you follow the link to the schools curriculum for the crusades it is notable that the context of Muslim conquest of the middle east, north africa, sicily, and spain is strangely omitted.
Another topic does cover the Muslim expansion (http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/schemes2/secondary_history/his06/06q2?view=get), where oddly we are not asked to discuss the conflict of religions but rather to ponder:
"From a Muslim perspective, one answer to this question may be a religious one: that the spread of Islam was a consequence of divine intervention in human affairs. Teachers may wish to discuss this with pupils, but it should be made clear that in the study of history we confine ourselves to looking at purely historical factors."
which surely explains why no discussion of the divine provanance of Crusader victories is included under the original topic.
Given the overwhelming "evenhandedness" of this approach, one has to wonder what exactly do the pupils get taught in the mosques that conflicts so strongly with the teachers attempts to promote multiculturalism.
Posted by: JohnM at April 2, 2007 11:04 AM
i'd just like to point out that Religious Education is NOT compulsory in British schools.
The school can decide what units it wishes to use or not
http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/schemes2/religion/?view=get
"The scheme is not statutory; you can use as much or as little as you wish. You could use the whole scheme or individual units. The sections on 'using this scheme' and 'sequencing the units' can help you to decide how you want to use the scheme. "
so , for example, a Catholic school made up of mostly Catholic children is free to have a Catholic RE syllabus. Similarly a Jewish school is free to concentrate on the Torah. A school made up of mostly Muslim students is free to focus on the Koran.
It is NOT compulsory to teach the Koran to Christian pupils in the UK. The website i linked to is more about guidance for teachers on how to teach the different religions.
Posted by: archduke at April 10, 2007 11:03 AM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)