+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
                 02/21/2018 01:49 PM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  2.610 Visits   2 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
12/27/2006 12:36 PM ID: 59168 Permalink   

British History Curriculum May Expose 12- to 14-Year-Olds to the Kama Sutra


The British Qualifications and Curriculum Authority's new lessons covering the history of India have come under fire for being anti-British and for exposing students to sexually explicit material.

One web site that teachers are told to recommend to students aged twelve to fourteen contains direct links to the Kama Sutra. A QCA spokesperson said teachers should check resources before they use them.

Chris McGovern, director of the History Curriculum Association, also accuses the new material of selective and at times inaccurate quoting. He says that the lessons take a "politically correct", anti-British view of history.

    WebReporter: ixuzus Show Calling Card      
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
  "anti-British" view of history?  
I suppose that's slang for a realistic view of history. It's anti-British the same way analyzing America's affairs abroad is anti-American.

McGovern said, "The general tone of the unit is anti-British, with little about positive consequences of imperial rule."

Ah yes, the positive consequences brought to the savages of a nation which was doing so poorly before our invasion. Were the Brits also greeted as liberators? How I long for a world without ideals of superiority.
  by: ManilaRyce     12/27/2006 12:59 PM     
We may just have it, and then we'll be in real trouble.

Some notions of superiority are justified, meritocratic even.

Blood isn't an accomplishment, except when that blood reflects refinements and strengths not present in that of other peoples.

They've gone from one extreme to the other.

They've gone from Empire and Colonialism in 50 years to Internationalism and Internal Colonization (with or without assimilation!)

Britain has a ways to go yet before it understands what balance means in it all.

There are racists, there are white racists, and people of color that are racists. And they all want to point to racism and cultural failings of the others.

And they're all correct, except Western Europe has done remarkably well in the context of history and recently in terms of civilization. Even if not without barbarity.
  by: Hollywood   12/27/2006 02:08 PM     
You're assuming India is better of now because of Britain. I defy you to find these examples of progress which saved India from itself. We accept that Western Europe saved the world, when just the opposite is true. Western "civilization" occupied countries to exploit their resources, not to help them progress. Imperialists countries don't have friends, they have interests.

India was a major center of commerce and culture before it was occupied. After two centuries of British rule it was crushed and made into a rural society. During British rule there were massive famines in India which all but disappeared after Great Britain was expelled. The Indian economy was also a disaster until India was free. The fact that many Brits still consider themselves benevolent saviors is delusional at best. Any progress that India has made, past or present, is owed to the Indians in spite of Britain, not because of it.
  by: ManilaRyce     12/27/2006 03:03 PM     
I had a bit of a hunt and the best I can come up with is that the British gave them cricket which they adore. Other than that it's pretty much like you said.
  by: ixuzus     12/27/2006 03:31 PM     
I think you're looking at the mismanagement of a large Imperial order and claiming that that alone constitutes a kind of failure and poor reflection on the Imperial power.

Well it does.

But the cultural benefits, not the least of which are sports, religious, artistic and scientific exchanges, all of these were invaluable for both cultures and civilizations.

Imperialism represents a kind of cultural promiscuousness, but it is very powerful to bring into contact societies which might otherwise view each other as alien and with suspicion.

The relationship is imbalanced, as human relationships often are. But it is between nations and so the imbalance is more apparent.

But the relationship is mutually beneficial, there can be no doubt of that.

The Communists wished for us all to join them in a nightmare of agro-industrial barbarism... production without civilization. The Village without the Naturalism.

They ruined otherwise effective colonial establishments in South Africa and Vietnam.

There was poor administration in Vietnam, that much is obvious and admitted. But that was the French.

The Communists wished for Universal poverty, the Imperialists merely sought to secure the blessings of self-rule and liberty for people everywhere.

So much that they had to endure a colonial government in order for it to happen.

Iraq might set the record straight.

Not easily or well, immediately.

But I believe it might yet.

Occupation can benefit backward and ignorant people in a way warfare, neglect, and simple trade never could.

I'm not apologizing for Imperialism or advocating it, let it be noted.

I'm simply pointing out its efficacy for improving the cultures of both societies in the experiment, as it always does, with lasting benefits to both.
  by: Hollywood   12/27/2006 04:22 PM     
  Blame Culture & Matter of Time  
I notice there's a blame culture and sloped shoulders.

This spaghetti of issues hides some real concerns.

1) It's important to report history as accurately and without bias as possible. That's why there is a 50-year delay before secrets become declassified; so that history can be properly recorded without fear that it would harm the national psyche of any nation.

We applaud Germany has faced up to it's past. We sometimes deride Japan for not facing up to some of the atrocities to PoWs and 'sex-slaves'.

So where does Britain stand in owning up to it's past glories as well as it's misdeeds?

2) Despite the need for 'cold, brutal, truths', there is a period in a person's childhood where it is inappropriate. Learning the truth about Barney, Santa and Greek Mythology and X-Men may be hard enough. Let's not bring them right up to date with Gitmo and racial disparagements till they hit their late teens.

3) Sensationalism aside; what the heck does Karma Sutra have to do with this?

Yellow Journalism
  by: redstain   12/27/2006 05:00 PM     
if you had read history, and i mean read read history , you will see how the british threw the world back 300-400 years in techonological advancement.
  by: FunkMan   12/27/2006 08:52 PM     
it's not karma sutra, it's kama sutra, and i've read the book on kama sutra, quite interesting. kinda scary too, when you get to the part where they tip you about wasps! omfg! gotta read it to believe it!. scary!!!!
  by: FunkMan   12/27/2006 08:53 PM     
Hey, Britain got ahead by that same amount, at least.

I'm not claiming a zero-sum system of advancement is at play here, merely that the British knew how to effectively dispose of the resources they extracted from other countries.

And the indigenous population clearly didn't.

And still they struggle most places.

A few, like India, the example was well set, they learned the language, and now look at what a modern country, they are very slowly and painfully becoming!

They're taking our jobs here in America, that far they've come.

This anti-British hatred is foolish and unwarranted.
  by: Hollywood   12/27/2006 11:04 PM     
  Dark History is nothing to be ashamed of....  
.. as long as you acknowledge it and learn not to repeat it.

@FunkMan: How did the British set technological development back 300-400 years? Please elaborate and justify that statement.

@Hollywood: I'd contest that British was completely beneficial to the Indian culture - even after discounting the Independence-Ghandi affair. A British colleague of mine went to India during his 'hippy' days. On his return he said to me that many parts of India culture look back upon the British influence fondly. However they never remembered incidences of British Raj getting coolies to work on their rails in almost slave labor conditions. And that many of the resources of India was exported out of the country to feed the British Empire. I'd say it was a give/take relationship, mostly in the British Government's benefit.

India's development hasn't been slow or painful. It's one of the FASTEST growing economies. In one generation, it's will have moved from a country needing aid everytime there's a flood to a nation that will form an integral in our and Europes economy. (Stay your skillsets competative or we'll be caught with our pants down).

I'd agree that the anti-British sentiment is unwarrented. The history in India is nothing to be proud of, but they were harsh days.

Jeez, I wish nations would get some damned moral fibre and take responsibility for their deeds (or misdeeds). If their governments can't do that on an international basis - how can the citizens trust them to take responsibility with their People's affairs?
  by: redstain   12/27/2006 11:37 PM     
nah, not gonna elaborate, no time to give history lessons. look it up if you want to, if it interests you that much :) or else leave it be, won't change anything.
  by: FunkMan   12/28/2006 09:16 AM     
  @Funkman: no need to be all haughty about it  
If you don't want to explain yourself, fine. Personally, I think your statement leaves people in the dark.

But if your want to alienate the readers - who normally have an open-mind and want to know more - just so you can sound all superior about it, be my guest.
  by: redstain   12/28/2006 12:21 PM     
  to translate  
"nah, not gonna elaborate, no time to give history lessons. "
I cannot backup my claims at all.

"look it up if you want to, if it interests you that much :) or else leave it be, won't change anything."
I made it all up now I'm leaving it up to you to prove I did, because I can't prove I didn't.

Now, you prove me wrong.
  by: slamdaddy     12/28/2006 06:29 PM     
(to step into an argument that isn't mine)

if you had read history, and i mean read read history , you will see how the FUNKMAN threw the world back 300-400 years in techonological advancement.

And no, I DO NOT care to back up my arguments. ;)
  by: dal   12/28/2006 10:02 PM     
  This is terrible  
Teenagers are going to learn that sex is enjoyable? That cannot come to pass! Here's hoping Britain puts a stop to this and teaches its citizens to be properly ashamed of sexuality.
  by: lĀ“anglais     01/01/2007 08:55 PM     
  oh come on...  
contained links to what. Haven't they heard the saying "porn is only 5 or less clicks from any site."
  by: darkrom666   01/04/2007 07:33 PM     
Copyright ©2018 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: