Communism/Marxism in Schools

[socialist]

As I review various curricula from different provinces i notice that there is very little if any outcomes that teach what communism and marxism was about? Shouldn't students learn about the contributions of past historical figures such as Vladimir Lenin and Karl Marx and Antonio Gramschi? When I ask teens to explain to me what communism is, many tell me they have never heard of communism. Is this strange? Or should these things be taught in high school history classes?

[Shady]

I learned about them when I was in school. Both in history and philosphy.

[Moonlight Graham]

I learned about it very briefly in high school history. Communism is complex theory, moreso than say Liberalism/democracy, so it's harder to teach/learn IMO, but ya kids should be taught the basics.

[GostHacked]

Learn history or be doomed to repeat it.

[Bonam]

This stuff is generally taught in History 12, which is optional. Social studies/humanities courses in grades 8-11 don't touch 20th century history at all. I certainly think it would be a good idea to teach 20th century history in a mandatory class rather than a grade 12 elective.

[Jimmy Wilson]

Very true..

I started learning more about 20th Century history and going more in depth about the authoritarian/totalitarian ideologies in Grade 12.But,it was an elective and I took the course because I was interested in history...

Edited December 3, 2013 by Jimmy Wilson

[Moonlight Graham]

Social studies/humanities courses in grades 8-11 don't touch 20th century history at all. I certainly think it would be a good idea to teach 20th century history in a mandatory class rather than a grade 12 elective.

Is this true for all major school boards in all provinces?

[GostHacked]

Is this true for all major school boards in all provinces?

Kids can be taught how to use facebook at school, but don't learn about history....

[Bonam]

Is this true for all major school boards in all provinces?

This is true for schools in Vancouver, BC. I would expect that probably means it's true of other schools in BC, but don't know how it extrapolates to other provinces.

Edited December 3, 2013 by Bonam

[cybercoma]

*Gramsci

[socialist]

*Gramsci

Thanks for coming out and trolling.

[cybercoma]

Just providing the correct spelling for anyone interested in learning more.

[August1991]

As I review various curricula from different provinces i notice that there is very little if any outcomes that teach what communism and marxism was about? Shouldn't students learn about the contributions of past historical figures such as Vladimir Lenin and Karl Marx and Antonio Gramschi? When I ask teens to explain to me what communism is, many tell me they have never heard of communism. Is this strange? Or should these things be taught in high school history classes?

Should students today also learn about Erasistratus?

He believed that sick people were "imbalanced" and needed, for example, bleeding to return to a natural balance.

This bleeding/balance idea was the overwhelming consensus among scientists/doctors into the 19th century.

====

Here's the question: Should children today waste their time learning nonsense of the past?

[Michael Hardner]

Here's the question: Should children today waste their time learning nonsense of the past?

You mean like the bible, the effect of Christianity on history, the industrial revolution, and the subsequent rise of Communism, its effect on our governments to present day ?

Yes.

[eyeball]

They should also be taught how much people politicize history in the present and especially why.

[GostHacked]

They should also be taught how much people politicize history in the present and especially why.

I can get behind that. Propaganda is Public Relations.

[g_bambino]

They should also be taught how much people politicize history in the present and especially why.

I was taught that, in grade 7.

It isn't a phenomenon of the present day only. You should check out some reliefs on the walls of Egyptian temples some day.

[Moonlight Graham]

Students should be taught that history and other subjects may not be being taught to them by certain teachers in a way that's as unbiased as possible, but that some of their teachers may be teaching their students what they want their students to be taught in order to politically and ideologically influence them.

A "socialist" teacher is fine, but they need to keep those views at home and stick to the curriculum and textbook and let kids think for themselves.

[August1991]

You mean like the bible, the effect of Christianity on history, the industrial revolution, and the subsequent rise of Communism, its effect on our governments to present day ?

Yes.

I have no objection to teaching pupils that the Bible or Marxism exist.

MH, my objection is different.

There is a measure between what education ministry bureaucrats decide teachers should teach and what teachers teach.

There is a much larger measure between what teachers teach and what pupils understand.

And there is a final gap between what pupils understand and what they remember later in life.

IMHO, our current education system wastes years of good life.

Edited February 23, 2014 by August1991

[eyeball]

I was taught that, in grade 7.

It isn't a phenomenon of the present day only. You should check out some reliefs on the walls of Egyptian temples some day.

Weren't most of those built by pharaohs bent on appeasing and demonstrating their faith to the gods and to cultivate the same sense of order, appeasement and faith amongst society, mostly in the pharaohs?

If you've seen one governing system you've pretty much seen them all. It's how and why they're used and of course for whom, that really counts.

[Michael Hardner]

IMHO, our current education system wastes years of good life.

I'm always behind radical re-dos, having had inside information about how most businesses and public institutions operate. They're horribly uneconomical. We could do our jobs in 1/2 the time and spend the rest of our work week exercising IMO.

[g_bambino]

Weren't most of those built by pharaohs bent on appeasing and demonstrating their faith to the gods and to cultivate the same sense of order, appeasement and faith amongst society, mostly in the pharaohs?

Mostly. But, like other monuments and sculptures, they were also propaganda tools. Some temple walls are carved to depict the pharaoh (colossally out of scale with the other warriors) winning a battle he actually didn't. They say history is written by the victor. Not in ancient Egypt, it seems.

[August1991]

I'm always behind radical re-dos, having had inside information about how most businesses and public institutions operate. They're horribly uneconomical. We could do our jobs in 1/2 the time and spend the rest of our work week exercising IMO.

I object to "radical re-dos" (as you put it).

The problem is that when a government takes over an activity, it is hard to change it later. (Despite what progressives claim, governments are conservative.)

As a result, when a State tries to control something, the only way to change it is through radical/revolutionary change.

Edited February 25, 2014 by August1991

[Michael Hardner]

I object to "radical re-dos" (as you put it).

The problem is that when a government takes over an activity, it is hard to change it later. (Despite what progressives claim, governments are conservative.)

You misunderstand me. A radical re-do can also mean government walking away from something, like deregulation for example.

As a result, when a State tries to control something, the only way to change it is through radical/revolutionary change.

The State only gets the political will to control things when "the" public perceives failure. For example, the so-called trickle-down theory of economics appears to be failing utterly. At least, the public doesn't see themselves benefiting from it, so you can bet that something else will be proposed.

[August1991]

You misunderstand me. A radical re-do can also mean government walking away from something, like deregulation for example.

Precisely. You make my point.

The State only gets the political will to control things when "the" public perceives failure. For example, the so-called trickle-down theory of economics appears to be failing utterly. At least, the public doesn't see themselves benefiting from it, so you can bet that something else will be proposed.

Precisely. You make my point.

----

Obama, Bush W, Harper? Do something!