yourmumsdomain.com

I just remembered something a (daily mail reading) co-worker said to me a while ago -

"Fucking Indians are taking over this country. How would they like it if we fucking went over to their country and took it over?"

There really isn't a lot you can say to that.

First dibs on making a tea company

who wants to start a fish and chip shop?

Pad you are a fucking genius

Villa, i'm going to BOMBay your house

strengthens arguments to making history a more central school subject and compulsory to the age of 16.

pain wrote:strengthens arguments to making history a more central school subject and compulsory to the age of 16.

Actualy, I reckon it strengthens the arguement for compulsary euthanasia amongst Daily Mail readers.

Daily Mail gave us a free Barry Manilow album last week tho.

They best.

Pain is right actually. History was an option at my school from year 9 onwards if I remember rightly, and most cuntz I knew dropped it to pick something easy like 'PE'

I like your idea as well though Villar

Calix wrote:Pain is right actually. History was an option at my school from year 9 onwards if I remember rightly, and most cuntz I knew dropped it to pick something easy like 'PE'

I like your idea as well though Villar

It's an underrated subject, there's been talk of 'cultural studies' or 'citizenship lessons', when all that's needed is a better grip on history.

The British curriculum is too preoccupied with the events of the 1930s and 40s that lead to the post-war world where Britain still clung to the status of an important power, but I guess if the UN security council still reflects the world of the 1950s how can classrooms catch up.
Kids should be learning more about cultural integration and immigration in the 1960s, race riots, unemployment in the 70s and Thatcherism and how it's all relevant now.

Couldn't agree more, except I don't think you can cut down on the amount of time we spend on the 30s and 40s, more time in general is just needed to teach history.

30s, rampant unregulated capitalism followed by the depression and then a rebuilding of society on very different lines..ah i'm just waffling now but it's hugely important imo. 40s for obvious reasons. Those two decades still shape today's society more than any other.

History was the best subject, actually interesting. Our curriculum is different than England/Wales though, we dedicated an even amount of time to Scottish History/War Period/Russia Revolution, but yes I agree.

I think it's fair to say the education system as a whole is a joke though.

We also did something similar to this 'Citzenship' crap as a module, and what an absolute joke it was. Free qualification for not being a retard.

My history at school consisted soley of the industrial revolution

I remember doing Stone Age, Iron Age, Romans, War of the Roses, pretty much all the middle age Kings and Queens and lots of Industrial Revolution and World War stuff. It was all very interesting but I didnt do it for GCSE.

I didn't need a class to tell me how awesome capitalism and Thatcher are.

Zim Zum wrote:I remember doing Stone Age, Iron Age, Romans, War of the Roses, pretty much all the middle age Kings and Queens and lots of Industrial Revolution and World War stuff. It was all very interesting but I didnt do it for GCSE.

I didn't need a class to tell me how awesome capitalism and Thatcher are.

This, but with more Henry VIII and less cavemen.

Calix wrote:Couldn't agree more, except I don't think you can cut down on the amount of time we spend on the 30s and 40s, more time in general is just needed to teach history.

30s, rampant unregulated capitalism followed by the depression and then a rebuilding of society on very different lines..ah i'm just waffling now but it's hugely important imo. 40s for obvious reasons. Those two decades still shape today's society more than any other.

True, I also find economic history from that period very interesting but not sure how it would go down in the classroom.

Hard to find time for the extra lessons though surely; the very similar nature of R.E (religious education) to History would make it seem an obvious sacrifice, however religious studies appears more relevant in a state terrified of violence aggravated by religious differences.

Might as well drop the compulsory language and accept the fact that English is an adequate first, second and third language and such a meaningless token effort is not going to make millions of distracted schoolchildren grow up bilingual.