Jaxson said:
Fair enough. I won't dispute the existence of teachers who are anti-military. Heck! There are military people who are anti-teacher. Only stands to reason.
All I ask is that you don't create a rule from what is probably an exception.
Peter Mackay wants more praise for Canadian troops
- Thread starter The Gues-|-
- Start date
Fair enough. I won't dispute the existence of teachers who are anti-military. Heck! There are military people who are anti-teacher. Only stands to reason.
All I ask is that you don't create a rule from what is probably an exception.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
Rodders,
Fair enough, I was probably too quick to the trigger on that one, your teaching plan is indeed commendable - I was wrong.
One question though, which ties into my earlier (unfounded) criticism of you. You state that twelve thousand Canadians served in Vietnam. While these did include a Medal of Honor winner, given that approximately 3.4 million US troops served in the SE Asian theatre, how can you teach this as having historical significance?
This goes to support my high school history experience of "disproportionate representation" of the canadian military in many wars. Why are statistically insignificant numbers like this presented? Would not a the turmoil of the October Crisis and the FLQ provide more insight into Canadian history?
Fair enough, I was probably too quick to the trigger on that one, your teaching plan is indeed commendable - I was wrong.
One question though, which ties into my earlier (unfounded) criticism of you. You state that twelve thousand Canadians served in Vietnam. While these did include a Medal of Honor winner, given that approximately 3.4 million US troops served in the SE Asian theatre, how can you teach this as having historical significance?
This goes to support my high school history experience of "disproportionate representation" of the canadian military in many wars. Why are statistically insignificant numbers like this presented? Would not a the turmoil of the October Crisis and the FLQ provide more insight into Canadian history?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
And in similar news, Hiller asks the Canadian public to support our troops in Afghanistan:
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/02/24/hillier060224.html
He has also sent a bill detailing what he wants to see from the Conservative government as well... and it is the current usual: more money, new transport planes, heavy lift choppers, etc.
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/02/24/hillier060224.html
He has also sent a bill detailing what he wants to see from the Conservative government as well... and it is the current usual: more money, new transport planes, heavy lift choppers, etc.
GO!!! said:
Apology accepted.
I never stated that there were 12,000 Canadians serving in Vietnam. In fact, it is very difficult to determine exact numbers. But these numbers are not the issue. You ask how I can teach or consider this to be historically significant. Well in a global sense, it isn't. But obviously teaching in a Canadian school, we focus upon Canadian history. This is not to say we limit ourselves absolutely to only teaching Canadian history, but I should think the merits of that focus would be apparent. I taught history in the UK, and not surprisingly, their curriculum had a focus on British history.
Most students, like most people unfortunately get their history from Hollywood. It doesn't take a degree in history to notice a great deal of historical inaccuracies in Hollywood productions. The Vietnam War was not simply a US vs. North Vietnam conflict. The French fought it first. Clearly the South was involved, Australia sent troops, and China and Russia had important roles in it. So, by sneaking under the umbrella of the focus on Canadian history, we are allowed to look at a modern conflict with many facets, such as the Cold War.
The October Crisis and the FLQ are components of my class. I spend more time on those than I do on Canadian involvement in Vietnam. Some topics take weeks, even months of study. Others like Vietnam may only be a few classes.
The worst kind of teacher is the one who has forgotten what it is to be a student. I chose teaching as a career because it is the next best thing to being a student. (If 6/49 should some day work out, I would spend the rest of my life being a student) As a teacher, it is vital to keep learning. How can I expect such of my students if I am not willing to do so? It is imperative that I garner their interest, so therefore I look for Canadian angles anywhere I can find. I am less interested in a student's ability to remember the dates of important events than I am in their demonstrating their understanding of that event. The former is memorization. The later is learning.
Excuse the diatribe but I can be somewhat defensive when it comes to teaching. It's like any other occupation. Most teachers are good, some are bad. I simply ask that people do not dismiss the majority because of the minority. Remember what happened to the airborne.
Again let me say that I happily accept your apology, and if you wish to continue this discussion, that's fine with me.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
http://www.torontosun.ca/Comment/Commentary/2006/02/27/1464748.html
Three weeks ago, we advised new PM Stephen Harper that one of his first acts should be to address Canadians on why our troops are on a dangerous mission in Afghanistan. That advice still stands. But it may already be too late.
As a Strategic Counsel poll revealed late last week, most Canadians have turned against the mission that began as a reponse to 9/11 and has become crucial to establishing democracy and stability in the face of a virulent, Tablian-led insurgency.
Some 62% of respondents said they're against sending troops to Afghanistan (where 2,200 are now based), while 73% would like to see a vote in Parliament on any further deployment.
Pollster Allan Gregg says some of the opposition is likely due to a lack of public awareness of the mission and general anti-U.S. sentiment -- a "knee-jerk" response "against doing anything with the Americans," he told the Globe and Mail.
We'd say it hasn't helped that through two elections, the governing Liberals disparaged Harper by suggesting he would send troops to help the Americans in Iraq -- thus fuelling anti-U.S. furor while failing to stress the importance of Canada's ongoing work in Afghanistan and in the wider war on terror.
As Sun columnist Charles Adler noted on Saturday and Salim Mansur reiterates today on Page 20, it hurts not only our troops but Canada's place in the world if we fail to take a stand on this. Now is not the time for a divisive debate, with our soldiers in harm's way. That should have been done at least a year ago.
Now is the time for Harper to remind Canadians and the rest of the world where we stand, and stand firmly. As Adler put it: "We are not there for public relations. We must kill bad guys and break their will. We must break the back of terror."
Last week, new Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor laid out a solid, ambitious plan for rebuilding our military strength, something Canadians support, according to both Gregg's poll and the recent election result. But part of that strength must come from a government that has a spine and isn't afraid to declare what Canada stands for.
In his speech, O'Connor said something basic we haven't heard from Ottawa in ages -- that Canadians were killed on 9/11, and that Canada will defend itself and its values.
How ignorant are average Canadians concerning geopolitics? Why is it that no one understands how the world works? Have a nice happy fuzzy day everyone. You know what?.... if we spent more time trying to learn and understand about important world affairs ( OMG that's , like, so boring!) instead of watching sitcoms, reality TV and listening to idiotic music, maybe then we would have more support for our troops and the operations we undertake. Everyone is comfortably numb! ??? It eats me up inside to see that no one cares about history, or significant world events - it's just plain ignorance- "give them bread and circuses". Keep them all distracted, keep them working hard so they may spend it all on frivolousness. (and no I'm not a commie, just a poli sci student who gets discuraged when they cut funding to history and poli sci programs because of a lack of interst! Take it for what it's worth people - not a good sign.) I see this ignorance everyday at school none the less (not saying which university, I'll get ripped on for it). Just because you can memorise your class readings, or are proficient in mathematics means nothing if you can't apply yourself to the real issues at hand. I still consider these "educated people" morons, for lack of a better word.
Sh*t I'm an angry guy..... rant off.
Three weeks ago, we advised new PM Stephen Harper that one of his first acts should be to address Canadians on why our troops are on a dangerous mission in Afghanistan. That advice still stands. But it may already be too late.
As a Strategic Counsel poll revealed late last week, most Canadians have turned against the mission that began as a reponse to 9/11 and has become crucial to establishing democracy and stability in the face of a virulent, Tablian-led insurgency.
Some 62% of respondents said they're against sending troops to Afghanistan (where 2,200 are now based), while 73% would like to see a vote in Parliament on any further deployment.
Pollster Allan Gregg says some of the opposition is likely due to a lack of public awareness of the mission and general anti-U.S. sentiment -- a "knee-jerk" response "against doing anything with the Americans," he told the Globe and Mail.
We'd say it hasn't helped that through two elections, the governing Liberals disparaged Harper by suggesting he would send troops to help the Americans in Iraq -- thus fuelling anti-U.S. furor while failing to stress the importance of Canada's ongoing work in Afghanistan and in the wider war on terror.
As Sun columnist Charles Adler noted on Saturday and Salim Mansur reiterates today on Page 20, it hurts not only our troops but Canada's place in the world if we fail to take a stand on this. Now is not the time for a divisive debate, with our soldiers in harm's way. That should have been done at least a year ago.
Now is the time for Harper to remind Canadians and the rest of the world where we stand, and stand firmly. As Adler put it: "We are not there for public relations. We must kill bad guys and break their will. We must break the back of terror."
Last week, new Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor laid out a solid, ambitious plan for rebuilding our military strength, something Canadians support, according to both Gregg's poll and the recent election result. But part of that strength must come from a government that has a spine and isn't afraid to declare what Canada stands for.
In his speech, O'Connor said something basic we haven't heard from Ottawa in ages -- that Canadians were killed on 9/11, and that Canada will defend itself and its values.
How ignorant are average Canadians concerning geopolitics? Why is it that no one understands how the world works? Have a nice happy fuzzy day everyone. You know what?.... if we spent more time trying to learn and understand about important world affairs ( OMG that's , like, so boring!) instead of watching sitcoms, reality TV and listening to idiotic music, maybe then we would have more support for our troops and the operations we undertake. Everyone is comfortably numb! ??? It eats me up inside to see that no one cares about history, or significant world events - it's just plain ignorance- "give them bread and circuses". Keep them all distracted, keep them working hard so they may spend it all on frivolousness. (and no I'm not a commie, just a poli sci student who gets discuraged when they cut funding to history and poli sci programs because of a lack of interst! Take it for what it's worth people - not a good sign.) I see this ignorance everyday at school none the less (not saying which university, I'll get ripped on for it). Just because you can memorise your class readings, or are proficient in mathematics means nothing if you can't apply yourself to the real issues at hand. I still consider these "educated people" morons, for lack of a better word.
Sh*t I'm an angry guy..... rant off.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
Rodders,
Given the above post by aluc (which I agree with) what is the solution to a total lack of interest from students at many levels in the area of history and political science?
I was fortunate enough to have history teachers who made history "come alive" in the classroom (in one case he brought in, and fired a musket, another time one impaled a dummy in uniform with a WWI vintage bayonet). These experiences (and others) led to a lifelong interest in history. Short of the pyrotechnics though, what will it take? I find poli sci interesting just because what is proposition today could be policy tomorrow, you can watch actors implement policies that they have spoken about (or not) and the nightly news is history in the making! How is this not interesting? How can students be "turned on" to these events?
Given the above post by aluc (which I agree with) what is the solution to a total lack of interest from students at many levels in the area of history and political science?
I was fortunate enough to have history teachers who made history "come alive" in the classroom (in one case he brought in, and fired a musket, another time one impaled a dummy in uniform with a WWI vintage bayonet). These experiences (and others) led to a lifelong interest in history. Short of the pyrotechnics though, what will it take? I find poli sci interesting just because what is proposition today could be policy tomorrow, you can watch actors implement policies that they have spoken about (or not) and the nightly news is history in the making! How is this not interesting? How can students be "turned on" to these events?
GO!!! said:
Well that's the trick isn't it? A friend and fellow teacher once told me that teaching is 10% knowledge and 90% performance. This is true. Anyone can learn something if they are so determined, but maintaining the interest of 30+ teenage students is a lot more challenging. First off, you have to have a passion for what you teach, otherwise it's going to be a real slog. Secondly, you must keep in mind that history is an incredibly vast subject. Because of the nature of this board, we are focusing on military history, but there are other types that we must also teach such as political, social, economic, development and demographic history. I find social history every bit as interesting as military history, but some students may not like either. The key is getting them to discover that no matter what they think, they like history. If they are an avid sports fan, well sports has history. If they are an avid music fan, then have them look at how history is a component of music. It's all about "cross-curriculum".
I realise this sounds long-winded, but it is an answer to your question. I as a teacher need to find ways to engage my students. I will never be totally successful at this so the best hope is to entice as many as I can. The greatest barrier to teaching history is the temporal, therefore I make every effort to show how events of the past have led to the current situation. That the world they are a citizen of is shaped by things both far in the past, and that which is happening today. They are both integral components.
I also permit as much freedom of expression as is possible. If a student writes an essay in which she states that Canada should participate in all matters of the "war of terrorism", even though I don't agree with her position, she will do well if her argument is well constructed.
But let's face facts. Most adults have no real clue either. How many people voted Conservative because the boys down at the plant are all doing it? How many people voted Liberal because their union suggested they do so? These are not informed decisions. I'm sure I'll open myself up for attack here, but anyone who truly believed that Saddam possessed WMD or was affiliated with Al Qaeda was only listening to spin. I know I have hindsight on this matter, but as someone who never bought either of those arguments, I am afforded some room to gloat. However I need to point out that my position on Iraq came about from researching many and varied sources. From considering the motivations of the different players, and ultimately from using my own intellect. I expressed my opinion to my students. Teachers should be human, not automotons. I had students challenge my opinion, some passionately. Well, mission accomplished! I want them to try and disprove my stance. That's learning.
One more point. You might be quite surprised at how politically and historically aware teenagers are today. They have more information sources at their disposal. Now some couldn't care less, but that's also very true of many adults.
Similar threads
