Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Phil

Gove's take on WW1

291 posts in this topic

I saw the latest photo of Gove on the news. He looks twenty years older than he did when he got the job.

 

Proves he's not up to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it isn't 'left wing rubbish'

 

but it isn't great history

 

 

It's not meant to be history its meant to be comedy and actually, its great comedy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gove seems to want to have his cake and eat it.

First he wants a 'knowledge based curriculum' where kids are taught facts and when those 'facts' aren't presented in the way he wants them it's all wrong.

FWIW, and speaking as a History teacher, I've never known anyone teach this as fact, purely as an interpretation exercise which gets the kids thinking....oh hang on a minute.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gove is an utter and comlpete bumpkin, what does he think Blackadder is, an Historical Documentary, no Gove you numpty, its an Hysterical Comedy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gove seems to want to have his cake and eat it.

First he wants a 'knowledge based curriculum' where kids are taught facts and when those 'facts' aren't presented in the way he wants them it's all wrong.

FWIW, and speaking as a History teacher, I've never known anyone teach this as fact, purely as an interpretation exercise which gets the kids thinking....oh hang on a minute.....

Did you read the article?  He wasn't talking about facts.  He was talking about perceptions.  If you are indeed a history teacher then you will know that perception is very important when delivering a history lesson.  You can spin history how you want it and Gove is simply commenting upon how the first world war has often been portrayed.  He is only guilty IMO of maybe taking the TV portrayals slightly too seriously.  However, Gove doesn't strike me as a trivial bloke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not meant to be history its meant to be comedy and actually, its great comedy

I know mate

But the point is the at its being used as a history teaching  tool.

I think that might be what Gove is objecting to

 

The last Blackadder series does make a valid point, but it is far from the only point

And goves branding it left wing is ignorant nonsense

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  However, Gove doesn't strike me as a trivial bloke.

 

 

Kings Free Science School is one of his showpiece developments and got huge start-up grants. There has been a huge local scandal about funds going missing and, if it had been a state school, there would almost certainly have been prosecutions.

 

Unfortunately, for the past four months Mr Gove's diary has been fully booked and he has had to cancel his one programmed visit to Bradford.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-24677371

 

 

http://www.leftfootforward.org/2013/11/more-questions-for-michael-gove-on-free-school-fraud/

'Add to this the fact that the Kings Science Academy rents land from Alan Lewis, vice chairman of the Conservative Party, who is a patron of the school and stands to make almost £6m from the lease, and it becomes painfully clear that the onus is on Gove to show that his department acted appropriately in relation to this alleged crime.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue of how we perceive the First World War is going to be very important this year when we 'celebrate' the centenary of the start of the war.

 

The perception that the war was a futile exercise is commonly held, but is a gross simplification and doesn't pay due respect to our ancestors who lost their lives defending freedom and liberty as they saw them.

 

Of course there were mistakes, but I've never felt too comfortable laughing at something, even incidentally, that was in reality so tragic.

 

Maybe we all need to read up on the subject to try to understand it more that we do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue of how we perceive the First World War is going to be very important this year when we 'celebrate' the centenary of the start of the war.

 

The perception that the war was a futile exercise is commonly held, but is a gross simplification and doesn't pay due respect to our ancestors who lost their lives defending freedom and liberty as they saw them.

 

Of course there were mistakes, but I've never felt too comfortable laughing at something, even incidentally, that was in reality so tragic.

 

Maybe we all need to read up on the subject to try to understand it more that we do.

 

If we can't laugh at the tragedies of history we will be left with little to laugh about.

 

All Spike Milligan's great books on the war would be no more and one of the best films ever made The Producers would be a gonner.

 

Do people think the Nazis were a bunch of dancing nancies because Mel Brookes portrayed them that way?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we can't laugh at the tragedies of history we will be left with little to laugh about.

 

All Spike Milligan's great books on the war would be no more and one of the best films ever made The Producers would be a gonner.

 

Do people think the Nazis were a bunch of dancing nancies because Mel Brookes portrayed them that way?

Of course you're right.

 

And nobody objects to laughing at the Nazis. I only wish that we laughed at all extremists equally.

 

The problem with the First World War is that some people resort to mockery and nothing else, and they don't necessarily laugh at the people who deserve to be mocked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course you're right.

 

And nobody objects to laughing at the Nazis. I only wish that we laughed at all extremists equally.

 

The problem with the First World War is that some people resort to mockery and nothing else, and they don't necessarily laugh at the people who deserve to be mocked.

It is very true that the perceptions of the time were very different to the perceptions of now.  We would be wrong to dismiss the views of the time too lightly.

 

I am agreeing with you on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taken from the linked article:-

"The ruthless social Darwinism of the German elites, the pitiless approach they took to occupation, their aggressively expansionist war aims and their scorn for the international order all made resistance more than justified."

As opposed to the ruthless social Darwinism of the elites of the British Empire, the pitiless approach, etc, etc.

"And the war was also seen by participants as a noble cause. Historians have skilfully demonstrated how those who fought were not dupes but conscious believers in king and country, committed to defending the western liberal order."

Seen by participants as a noble cause? Conscious believers in king and country? And the Germans didn't also see their participation in the same light?

And defending the western liberal order? If that's going to be the flavour of the forthcoming celebrations then there's going to be more than the producers of satirical sitcoms ripping into them.

Defending the western liberal order... I always remember one of the justifications of British participation was the upholding of the right of small nations to exist (Britain had a treaty with Belgium that promised intervention in the event of invasion). The Britsh elites, of course, saw no problem in kicking seven shades of brown stuff out of Dublin during the period of WW1, and would continue to brutalise Ireland in the years following.

This whole exercise smacks of rewriting history to make it fit in with the modern Tory Party's narrative. Much like recent attempts to use Mandela's death for propaganda purposes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course you're right. And nobody objects to laughing at the Nazis. I only wish that we laughed at all extremists equally. The problem with the First World War is that some people resort to mockery and nothing else, and they don't necessarily laugh at the people who deserve to be mocked.

Have you heard of the wipers times?

Sometimes you have to laugh

This is about teaching children history

Like all subjects, including incidentally sport

It is dependent on the age and ability of the children you are teaching

Young children in primary school

Need to know about and have different experiences from say students doing gcse or a level history

Give is right in questioning the use of black adder or oh what a lovely war although both could be justified if used in the right way.

He is wrong to make a party political point out of it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course you're right.

 

And nobody objects to laughing at the Nazis. I only wish that we laughed at all extremists equally.

 

The problem with the First World War is that some people resort to mockery and nothing else, and they don't necessarily laugh at the people who deserve to be mocked.

 

But Gove seems to be getting his history mixed up, surely the "Social Darwinism" of the German leadership was a trait of their leaders in the second world war, the first world war was about imperialistic expansion (though much could be said the same of the second with the added Social Darwinism).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I mentioned earlier, it's always been taught as an interpretations exercise, leaving students to make their own mind up. I'm totally aware that individuals can and will be influenced by their own teachers possibly -standard initial response from some students is 'What do you think Sir ?'

However Gove here is implying that the whole thing is put across from one point of view ie accepted facts which he says are myths ie someone trying to falsify history to suit their own agenda. But that's exactly what he has sited previously that he wants for the teaching if history is FACTS, even though everything is open to interpretation.

I don't KNOW if these are true because I haven't studied them in enough detail to qualify my statements and I dare say Mr Gove hasn't either, he's just being the typical kid with his hand up trying to get the attention of someone...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Social Darwinism was prevalent at the time, as can be seen by a popular quote that one Britishman was the equal of two Germans, five French and ten blacks... Really sounds like the Social Darwinism was right from the heart of Berlin, although yes there were courses in such in that era at universities in Germany. Again Gove is pushing his own agenda here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taken from the linked article:-"The ruthless social Darwinism of the German elites, the pitiless approach they took to occupation, their aggressively expansionist war aims and their scorn for the international order all made resistance more than justified."As opposed to the ruthless social Darwinism of the elites of the British Empire, the pitiless approach, etc, etc."And the war was also seen by participants as a noble cause. Historians have skilfully demonstrated how those who fought were not dupes but conscious believers in king and country, committed to defending the western liberal order."Seen by participants as a noble cause? Conscious believers in king and country? And the Germans didn't also see their participation in the same light?And defending the western liberal order? If that's going to be the flavour of the forthcoming celebrations then there's going to be more than the producers of satirical sitcoms ripping into them.Defending the western liberal order... I always remember one of the justifications of British participation was the upholding of the right of small nations to exist (Britain had a treaty with Belgium that promised intervention in the event of invasion). The Britsh elites, of course, saw no problem in kicking seven shades of brown stuff out of Dublin during the period of WW1, and would continue to brutalise Ireland in the years following.This whole exercise smacks of rewriting history to make it fit in with the modern Tory Party's narrative. Much like recent attempts to use Mandela's death for propaganda purposes.

The 1839 Treaty had as it's roots the need to safeguard trade routes through the Scheldt Estuary (a contributory factor in the French Revolutionary/Napoleonic Wars, although France actually declared war on GB in 1793 but Britain knew the strategic value of supporting the Belgians as did Palmerston later when this Treaty was concluded. Don't give me any rubbish about it protecting smaller nations....it was about money...although Palmerston had a personal reputation for standing up to bullies at school. By the end of the 1830's Britain needed all the money it could get due to a recession that lasted into the 1840's

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand that Social Darwinism as a philosophy had been around fro years before WWI, but it was the German leadership of WWII that decide to take it to the extreme and it was after that war that the term tends to be used how we think of it now, unacceptable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand that Social Darwinism as a philosophy had been around fro years before WWI, but it was the German leadership of WWII that decide to take it to the extreme and it was after that war that the term tends to be used how we think of it now, unacceptable.

Exactly.and if anything that to me is what makes this from Gove totally unacceptable. He clearly knows this but chooses to make political points from it. Despicable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The WW1 military leaders were still 19th century warriors stuck in antiquated beliefs, for example, far too many believed that a swift flanking cavalry charge was the be-all and end-all of military tactics.  The fights to get things like aircraft and tanks used in combat were seen as dangerous precedents.  The tactics of the staff rank officers were more like that of the political officers at Stalingrad rather than competent military leaders, just grind out what's directly in front of you and damn the losses as long as you didn't go backwards.

 

The only good thing about it was that it started to drive home the lesson that good breeding is not the primary qualifier for good officer material.  From that point on, there was a far more professional officer class that paved the way to properly competent officers in time for WW2.

 

On the original point, Gove is a pathetic buffoon of a man who would struggle to fulfill the role of Baldrick in those days.  His grasp of history seems to be very shaky at best, you could change his statement of "The ruthless social Darwinism of the German elites, the pitiless approach they took to occupation, their aggressively expansionist war aims and their scorn for the international order all made resistance more than justified." to "The ruthless social Darwinism of the British Imperial elites, the pitiless approach they took to occupation, their aggressively expansionist war aims and their scorn for the international order all made resistance more than justified." and it would, arguably, make far more sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand that Social Darwinism as a philosophy had been around fro years before WWI, but it was the German leadership of WWII that decide to take it to the extreme and it was after that war that the term tends to be used how we think of it now, unacceptable.

 

Gove is a Tory. He can't admit any belief in social Darwinism or it would offend the squirearchy that bolster his party's vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? Whatever happened to  parental responsibility?

True!  The blame put on schools and the education system for bringing up kids is amazing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.