Lessons in Indian history 'anti-British'

arden forester · 27-12-2006, 11:41 PM

Lessons in Indian history 'anti-British, inaccurate and sexually explicit'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...nlessons27.xml

Quote:

New lessons in Indian history announced today are anti-British and expose 12- to 14-year-olds to the sexually explicit Kama Sutra, according to a curriculum association.

It accuses the Government's curriculum advisers of a "politically correct" interpretation of Britain's imperial past based on false claims about Winston Churchill.

The lesson plans published today by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) — entitled "How and why is the legacy of British rule in the Indian subcontinent interpreted in different ways?" — is supposed to take between 10 and 15 hours of the time taken to cover 20th century history.

Is Blairite Britain getting out of hand? Answers on a postcard to -

Rt.Dishon. Vacuous Airhead,
Downing Street!

Right Links · 28-12-2006, 09:17 AM

Its been out of hand for a long time.

g hall · 28-12-2006, 12:35 PM

I think there are more things to worry about under this government.

As for the Kama Sutra if they think that is sexually explicit don't they watch TV?

Indian history does have relavence to the UK today

John Carter · 28-12-2006, 01:18 PM

Why the hell are 12-14 year-olds being taught Indian history?

If they want to learn about Indian history, they should go to India. If they want to learn about French history, they should go to France.

Westcountryman · 28-12-2006, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Carter

Why the hell are 12-14 year-olds being taught Indian history?

If they want to learn about Indian history, they should go to India. If they want to learn about French history, they should go to France.

Geez, then we'd have a load of ignorant children running around. I've studied US and European history, along with UK history. There's no problem with learning about foreign histories - it was done under the Empire too.

John Carter · 28-12-2006, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ModernUKIP

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Carter

Why the hell are 12-14 year-olds being taught Indian history?

If they want to learn about Indian history, they should go to India. If they want to learn about French history, they should go to France.

Geez, then we'd have a load of ignorant children running around.

So you're saying that we don't have a bunch of ignorant children running around?

g hall · 30-12-2006, 06:28 PM

Quote:

So you're saying that we don't have a bunch of ignorant children running around?

They are running the country

Aardvark · 30-12-2006, 10:08 PM

..but if we hadn't had an Empire then Richard Burton wouldn't have translated the Kama Sutra into English. I have a copy and I would suggest that those who are concerned should compare the language with that of Chaucer in 'The Miller's Tale' or read Lady Chatterley's Lover. Chaucer and Lawrence are both part of the curriculum.

Teaching of Indian/Imperial history is no bad thing so long as the teaching is balanced. India has one of the best railway systems in the world courtesy of the Empire. It was the Brits who introduced tea planting and created a labour intensive industry that has served India well.

I did the Black Hole of Calcutta as part of my history. I can't see the problem.

French history has to be taught with English history. We still had Calais in the 16th century and our monarchs claimed the throne of France. Some of our greatest victories were on French soil and are as much part of our history as theirs. The Queen is still the Duke of Normandy and we still have the Channel Islands. How can we not teach English history without Napoleon or Dunkirk or D-day or Crecy or Agincourt or the Field of the Cloth of Gold or Quebec etc etc.

Britannist · 30-12-2006, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aardvark

.. Some of our greatest victories were on French soil and are as much part of our history as theirs....

The French don't teach their school pupils about the battles they lost - especially as most of them they lost to us English.

Education in continental EU nations is doctored to avoid portrayal in a good light of the heroism in defending europe's freedom by British soldiers in two world wars.

The Battle of Waterloo visitor centre in Belgium sells far more Napoleon memorabilia than souvenirs marking the British victory there - and that's because the French turn up in huge numbers at the site quite unaware that they actually LOST the battle.

It's not in their school text books, you see.

You won't find the word Agincourt mentioned too many times in France either. :twisted:

Aardvark · 31-12-2006, 08:11 AM

So the man who burnt Joan of Arc was just wasting matches? :cry:

28-12-2006, 09:17 AM	#2 (permalink)
Right Links Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 58	Its been out of hand for a long time. __________________ Right Links, Linking all the Right People

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

28-12-2006, 12:35 PM	#3 (permalink)
g hall Uber Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: erewhon Posts: 5,935	I think there are more things to worry about under this government. As for the Kama Sutra if they think that is sexually explicit don't they watch TV? Indian history does have relavence to the UK today

28-12-2006, 01:18 PM	#4 (permalink)
John Carter Uber Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: On Sabbatical Posts: 5,110	Why the hell are 12-14 year-olds being taught Indian history? If they want to learn about Indian history, they should go to India. If they want to learn about French history, they should go to France.

30-12-2006, 10:08 PM	#8 (permalink)
Aardvark Moderator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Oxonia Posts: 4,253	..but if we hadn't had an Empire then Richard Burton wouldn't have translated the Kama Sutra into English. I have a copy and I would suggest that those who are concerned should compare the language with that of Chaucer in 'The Miller's Tale' or read Lady Chatterley's Lover. Chaucer and Lawrence are both part of the curriculum. Teaching of Indian/Imperial history is no bad thing so long as the teaching is balanced. India has one of the best railway systems in the world courtesy of the Empire. It was the Brits who introduced tea planting and created a labour intensive industry that has served India well. I did the Black Hole of Calcutta as part of my history. I can't see the problem. French history has to be taught with English history. We still had Calais in the 16th century and our monarchs claimed the throne of France. Some of our greatest victories were on French soil and are as much part of our history as theirs. The Queen is still the Duke of Normandy and we still have the Channel Islands. How can we not teach English history without Napoleon or Dunkirk or D-day or Crecy or Agincourt or the Field of the Cloth of Gold or Quebec etc etc.

31-12-2006, 08:11 AM	#10 (permalink)
Aardvark Moderator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Oxonia Posts: 4,253	So the man who burnt Joan of Arc was just wasting matches? :cry: