New curriculum will 'make every lesson politically correct'

[B~E]

From the Daily Mail: New curriculum will 'make every lesson politically correct'

Children will be taught race relations and multiculturalism with every subject they study -from Spanish to science - under controversial changes to the school curriculum announced by the Government.

In music and art, they could have to learn Indian and Chinese songs and instruments, and West African drumming.

In maths and science, key Muslim contributions such algebra and the number zero will be emphasised to counter Islamophobia.

What. The. ****.

And in English, pupils will study literature on the experiences of migration - such as Zadie Smith's novel White Teeth, or Brick Lane, by Monica Ali.

Chaucer? Shakespeare? Milton? Donne? Keats? Wordsworth? Browning? Hardy? Austen? Nah. Zadie Smith and Monica Ali.

One critic accused Education Secretary Alan Johnson of 'politicising' lessons with the new agenda. Tory MP Douglas Carswell, a member of the Commons education select committee, said schools will be vehicles for multicultural propaganda and classrooms turned into 'laboratories for politically-correct thought'.

Mr Johnson was also attacked over attempts to put Britishness on the curriculum as it emerged that suggested core values are so woolly they could apply to many countries.

With concerns that standards in the three Rs are unacceptable, ministers will also face accusations that they are diverting attention away from vital subjects.

Under the recommendations - put forward in a report by former headmaster Sir Keith Ajegbo -teachers will be expected to make 'explicit references to cultural diversity' in as many subjects as possible....

However, Mr Carswell said: 'This report is prescribing precisely the wrong medicine to heal the wounds of a society that multiculturalism has divided. This is a stark example of the politically- correct lobby hijacking the citizenship agenda.

'Recent arrivals to this country have all the more reason to be given a sense of what we are all about so they can become part of it and share it. But instead this will give the green light to every politically-correct Left-Wing educationist to further undermine our society.'

However, Mr Carswell said: 'This report is prescribing precisely the wrong medicine to heal the wounds of a society that multiculturalism has divided. This is a stark example of the politically- correct lobby hijacking the citizenship agenda.

Why, isn't obvious. If multiculturalisme is the problem, what you need is more multiculturalisme!

[TrongaMonga]

literature on the experiences of migration

What the hell is that?

[Forged]

Chaucer? Shakespeare? Milton? Donne? Keats? Wordsworth? Browning? Hardy? Austen? Nah. Zadie Smith and Monica Ali.

I believe I had this argument in my compostion two class a few semesters ago. Neglecting obscure foreign writers, while emphasizing popular europeans, is not racism, it is simply choosing the best literature...

[B~E]

How did the argument went down?

[Forged]

The prof. said people consider chaucer and the like to be beter reading because the styles and the way it is written is consider classic and the norm. She said that had we grown up with other types of literature that is what would be taught.

As it was a subjective argument and a subjective class, I quit arguing with her round abouts there.

[Arxces]

Originally Posted by Forged

I believe I had this argument in my compostion two class a few semesters ago. Neglecting obscure foreign writers, while emphasizing popular europeans, is not racism, it is simply choosing the best literature...

Speaking as a former literature student I'm inclined to agree. English literature has always been a conservative branch of study, and has always focused on established writers of earlier centuries. There is no racism here, as there is no consensus on a truly great 20/21st century writer, European or otherwise, unlike the existing consensus on say Shakespeare for example. However, labeling these long-established authors as "the best" is not indisputable, as literature is a matter of personal preference. I'd venture to guess that your professor is just expressing the conservative tastes of literature academia.

Originally Posted by Forged

The prof. said people consider chaucer and the like to be beter reading because the styles and the way it is written is consider classic and the norm. She said that had we grown up with other types of literature that is what would be taught.

As it was a subjective argument and a subjective class, I quit arguing with her round abouts there.

Again, emphasising the conservative inclination of the literati, Chaucer, Keats, Austen, etc, are studied widely only because there is a consensus among the literature community that they make great works.

I personally have a problem with Jane Austen. I've read Emma, and I must say it's not exactly a page-turner. The style is so subtle and you have to really focus to capture the undertones and nuances Austen has created. Some people appreciate this, but I prefer the vibrant style of the Caribbean poet Derek Walcott. So just because something is widely studied, doesn't mean it is the best, it just means it has been around for long enough to be accepted into literature canon. As you've said, it's subjective.

The literati will not like this, but: LITERATURE FOR THE MASSES!!!

(I think I heard my lit teacher faint...)

[x42bn6]

Originally Posted by Black~Enthusiasm

From the Daily Mail: New curriculum will 'make every lesson politically correct'



What. The. ****.



Chaucer? Shakespeare? Milton? Donne? Keats? Wordsworth? Browning? Hardy? Austen? Nah. Zadie Smith and Monica Ali.



Why, isn't obvious. If multiculturalisme is the problem, what you need is more multiculturalisme!

Britain is painfully ignorant when it comes to foreign cultures and Islamophobia is fairly dominant here - which is why this change is not really a bad thing. However, I find it hilarious to think that the number 0 could help change peoples' minds on Islamophobia - in this country, one would think that the best way would be to say what the Muslim world's contributions to the national drink of the United Kingdom (booze) in medicine or something...*

[Arxces]

Originally Posted by x42bn6

Britain is painfully ignorant when it comes to foreign cultures and Islamophobia is fairly dominant here - which is why this change is not really a bad thing. However, I find it hilarious to think that the number 0 could help change peoples' minds on Islamophobia - in this country, one would think that the best way would be to say what the Muslim world's contributions to the national drink of the United Kingdom (booze) in medicine or something...*

Hey! Primary alcohols were discovered by <drumrolls> MUSLIMS!!! They discovered it because they were wondering why alcoholic drinks was banned in Islam.

[B~E]

Originally Posted by x42bn6

Britain is painfully ignorant when it comes to foreign cultures and Islamophobia is fairly dominant here - which is why this change is not really a bad thing. However, I find it hilarious to think that the number 0 could help change peoples' minds on Islamophobia - in this country, one would think that the best way would be to say what the Muslim world's contributions to the national drink of the United Kingdom (booze) in medicine or something...*

Well my problem with this is that education is being messed with not on an objective basis, but in the name of promoting "diversity and countering islamophobia". Not only it will fail at achieving this goal, for Islam's image problem as nothing to do with how british are educated, but this is all done in the name of a political agenda who's worth is debatable.

Also, I could always raise the question of why should britons accept that their cultural heritage is being diminished in school for the sake of this political agenda.

[Arxces]

Originally Posted by Black~Enthusiasm

Well my problem with this is that education is being messed with not on an objective basis, but in the name of promoting "diversity and countering islamophobia". Not only it will fail at achieving this goal, for Islam's image problem as nothing to do with how british are educated, but this is all done in the name of a political agenda who's worth is debatable.

Also, I could always raise the question of why should britons accept that their cultural heritage is being diminished in school for the sake of this political agenda.

Being educated under the British Curriculum for the better part of my life, I am inclined to disagree. The way the British are educated does contribute towards islamophobia and general intolerance. Pupils in the UK learn History from the perspective of Europeans, while literature is exclusively concerned with dead, white men.

Even now they are being educated to fear outsiders, in the media especially. When I returned to London from the christmas holidays, the first thing I saw when boarding the tube was "Chapatti Bomber" on one of those free newspapers. This was interesting, as it would create an association in the minds of people, one that links chapatti flour (used in Indian cuisine) with terrorism. This is not a recent phenomenon. Remember the Disney film Aladin? Notice that while Aladin, Jasmine, all the good guys have an American accent, the evil characters like Jafar have an Arab accent.

How can this problem be solved? I don't know, but denying the cause of the problem will not bring us closer to solving it.

[B~E]

So you make a correlation between being taught in one's own cultural heritage, and fear of the outside world? Could you please expend on this? I can agree that someone who's been taught nothing but is own culture can be, in some cases, ignorant from the outside world, but I dont see how he can develop a phobia and hatred of other cultures.

The cause of Islam's image problem can be laid at the feet of islamic fundamentalist activism, not from the british educational system. Where does islamic fundamentalist activism comes from? We could debate at lenght on this, but my point here is that the british nation shouldn't dilute is own cultural heritage for the sake of dealing with a religion's image problem, since the roots of the problem can be traced directly to this religion's fundamentalism.

In my opinion, its not a perception problem, on the contrary.

...dead white men?

[Arxces]

I make a correlation between an unidoctrine, introvert education and general ignorance. Ignorance breeds fear, and it is human nature to fear something he does not understand. Fear leads to hate, loathing something we are unable to fully comprehend. It is true that Islam has an image problem in the west, no thanks to the radicals. However, looking at today's UK media, anyone would believe that the radicals represent the mainstream of Islam, and not the insignificant fringe group that they truly are. It is thus the fault of the public to fall prey of such generalisations. And they fall prey due to their ignorance. This is evident in the increase of racially-motivated attacks here in the UK.

Fazit, the problem of terrorism is caused by radical (un)Islamic teachings. However, the problem of bigotry and ignorance is linked to a society in itself. Discrimination is nothing new in the UK. Before the Muslims it was the Irish, before them the Blacks, and even further back the Jews. It seems that such social patterns are endemic to this society, which is why it is an encouraging sign that Her Majesty's Government has recognised the root of the problem and have at least taken some measure. How effective this measure is remains debatable.

[x42bn6]

In the United Kingdom, there are Religious Education classes in public and I think the majority of public schools. However, due to the lack of mosques and Islamic knowledge as a whole around the United Kingdom, it is hard. For example, my previous school in the United Kingdom got a bollocking for Religious Education - but only because there is a rundown church nearby. I believe the nearest mosque would be in Greater Manchester.

Islam has taken a massive bashing here. The bomber above is a crude example. The media tends to use the word, "Islamic terrorist" or "terrorist" - when terrorists could easily be more generalised without religion. We don't say, for example, "Christian Somali war" or "Muslim Iraqi uprising".

The fear of Islam here is rather mind-boggling - although I am lucky to be at Imperial College where there are quite a lot of Muslims.

To me, if this has to be countered, it has to start in schools and early childhood - but the teaching of zero and more "Eastern" texts is not the way to go. The history of zero will bore students and the quality of texts should not be compromised. Sure, study foreign texts - as long as the meaning is kept "unbastardised" and as long as it does not override quality.

London is in danger of not being able to cope with Islamophobia - and unless you are here, you cannot see it. I actually feel safer amongst Muslims because they are a minority like me. That, unfortunately, says a lot of things.*

[Forged]

However, looking at today's UK media, anyone would believe that the radicals represent the mainstream of Islam, and not the insignificant fringe group that they truly are.

Fringe group or not, the muslim extremist are still doing the bombings. This might not be true islamic teaching as the liberal agenda says it is not, I really don't know. I am not a theology scholar and I know little of islam, however, my philosophy of religon prof. did tell us that islam is a violent religon that teaches intolerance and hatred of infidels...

However, right or wrong, the actions of the few show the assumed intentions of the majority, and that is why people hate islam and want to distance themselves from muslims.

[x42bn6]

If Islam told people to go and kill other people for whatever reason, Islam would have been outlawed ages ago.*

[B~E]

Why wasn't it outlawed then?

[Arxces]

Originally Posted by Forged

Fringe group or not, the muslim extremist are still doing the bombings. This might not be true islamic teaching as the liberal agenda says it is not, I really don't know. I am not a theology scholar and I know little of islam, however, my philosophy of religon prof. did tell us that islam is a violent religon that teaches intolerance and hatred of infidels...

However, right or wrong, the actions of the few show the assumed intentions of the majority, and that is why people hate islam and want to distance themselves from muslims.

Unless your professor knows more about Islam than me, I'm afraid that his 'knowledge' on Islam is purely based on second-hand information and vested interest interpretation. The mistake in your logic comes from assuming causality where there is merely correlation. Where terrorists happen to be Muslim, you assume Islam is the cause. I will now demonstrate this fallacy.

Let us return to the 80s and early 90s, to a UK terrorised by the IRA and it's war for Irish independence. This war bears a great resemblance to the War on Terror of today in that it was mostly hidden (but was on a much smaller scale). The IRA carried out bombings throughout the UK, with more casualties than the total sum of Al-Qaeda operations to date. It was primarily an ideological war; the catholics of Northern Ireland wanted independence from the protestant/anglican union. If I then make the assumption that it was due to catholic faith (as you have assumed about the terrorists) that this Irish fringe group took arms, could I then not conclude (as you did) that Catholicism is an inherently violent religion? If this is the case, we would have to worry about 1.1 billion people around the world, lest they take up arms against us. Any reasonable person would not worry about this.

Let me throw you another angle. If, according to you, the intentions of the few show the assumed intentions of the majority, then could I reasonably assume that the majority of Americans do want to pick up a gun and shoot someone (in schools, in homes, in 7-11s, in gang battles, there are guns EVERYWHERE in the US), as so many of their countrymen have done?

The truth is that too many people fall into this trap where they believe the media blindly. Consequently, any correlation is set up (via clever media tactics/lies) to become causal relationships. Terrorism is a complicated problem, one not caused by religion, but rather by real-world conditions. People don't attack other people for no reason. Suicide bombers, for example, don't create themselves. Let us look at Palestine, the 'world capital' of suicide bombers. Why are they so angry at Israel? It is because they are oppressed. Everyday there are excursions by the IDF into Gaza, there are Apaches (made in the USofA) in the sky ready to shoot people violating curfew. There is a wall that blocks the Palestinians vital access to arable land for farming. The entire budget for the PLO has to be approved by Israel. These people lead a miserable life. Allah promises eternal Hellfire for those who commit suicide. Yet these people are willing to compromise their religious beliefs in order to do some little bit against their oppressors. This is how desperate their conditions are. It has nothing to do with them being Muslim. It has everything to do with them being oppressed.

Now I'm not justifying the actions of terrorist. As a devout Muslim I fear Allah and He has banned the killing of innocents on threat of Hellfire. I am obliged to pursue the truth, and the reality is that Islam (and any religion) has been used and abused far too much. Humans are selfish beings who will use any excuse to further their own agenda. In the past the Crusades was justified by religion (even though the nobles reaped handsome profits from their conquests and new lands). Today the US hunts for oil in the name of democracy. The ultimate point is: don't blame ideology for the flaws of humans.

Originally Posted by Black~Enthusiasm

Why wasn't it outlawed then?

Has anyone read this through? I'm halfway through. It's very interesting. Notice that Islam has created protocols for warfare predating the Geneva conventions. Non-combatants, women and children cannot be killed, nor their property or crops damaged. Notice also that a war must be conducted only when there is just cause, with many provisions for cooperation and the peaceful resolution of conflicts. The Prophet Muhammad participated in various battles, but he was also an excellent diplomat, negotiating numerous treaties peacefully. This is what Islam says about warfare.

[please help me :(]

He has banned the killing of innocents on threat of Hellfire.

I've read the quran,but i haven't found any verse that tells muslims not to kill innocent people(non muslims).

[Arxces]

Originally Posted by please help me :(

I've read the quran,but i haven't found any verse that tells muslims not to kill innocent people(non muslims).

Here are some verses I've found:

Al-Maida 5:32 (Translated by Yusuf Ali):

32. On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our messengers with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.

Al-Furqan 25:68,69 (Translated by Yusuf Ali):

68. Those who invoke not, with Allah, any other god, nor slay such life as Allah has made sacred except for just cause, nor commit fornication; - and any that does this (not only) meets punishment.
69. (But) the Penalty on the Day of Judgment will be doubled to him, and he will dwell therein in ignominy,-

Double penalty for the guy who kills innocents. Need I say more...

[TheJanitor]

In the United Kingdom, there are Religious Education classes in public and I think the majority of public schools. However, due to the lack of mosques and Islamic knowledge as a whole around the United Kingdom, it is hard. For example, my previous school in the United Kingdom got a bollocking for Religious Education - but only because there is a rundown church nearby. I believe the nearest mosque would be in Greater Manchester.

Yeah its around the corner from where I am now. Ashton Underline. Theres quite a few temples and mosques round here, I'm quite surprised there aren't any down south. Sometimes I see Muslims in crowded areas in town (Manchester) and feel afraid. They can look real suspicious, we all know what people would think if one were to not pick up their suitcase. I dont personally know any Muslim I dont like, they're usually very placid people but what they're carrying in they're large rucksack as they get on the packed double decker stagecoach bus.
So yes perhaps I have a phobia or fear of them. But I would think that a certain sterotype of bombers during the IRA attacks was used aswell.

People are too afraid to be racist they end up being racist. Like employers having to employ a certain % of minorities. You give a job to a less qualified paki than to a English is lawful discrimination. I can't buy halal food in the canteen at my school. I asked why, and I got the reply to the effect "because Halal food is for people that need halal food". Thats just like saying only the Italiens can eat pizza. If there isn't enough, MAKE MORE. I know the government is probably subsidising the food but it makes no sense, it'd be cheaper if schools made and bought more of it. How are rules like this ever going to help with cultral intergration? The government are making it worse for them, by treating them differently and making special exceptions for them they simply divide us more.

I mean who wants to invite someone to the pub who might sue you if you slip the word paki into a conversation?