Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To object to childrens paintings of Hitler being displayed in school?

164 replies

coribells · 29/09/2012 15:44

My DS is in year 6 . He will be studying WW 11 this year in History. Obviously a big part of that will be learning about the Nazis and Hitler.
Over the past couple of years ive noticed childrens work displayed in the entrance hall, and in the assembly hall. These have included quite a number of childrens paintings of Hitler and descriptions of his early life etc. My stomach turns whenever I see these displays, it almost looks like he is being glorified in some way.
I am of german descent and my kids father is Jewish. Am I being over sensitive. ? would be unreasonable to talk the teacher is about the manor in which they display pictures of Hitler?

OP posts:
edam · 30/09/2012 10:20

William the Conqueror killed an awful lot of people. He harried the North - basically exterminated the entire population to demonstrate what would happen to you if you dared to rebel against him.

Difference between him and Hitler is that it was nearly 1,000 years ago and no-one alive now will be distressed by images of Willy the Bastard (his actual nickname at the time). And his kind of killing was the kind of thing conquerors did - it wasn't unprecedented, he didn't torture millions of people, he didn't have a whole propaganda thing churning out films of 'happy' concentration camps.

MmeLindor · 30/09/2012 14:05

I do think that yr 6 is quite young to learn about the holocaust in detail.

You can teach 11yos about the war, concentrating on the war at home - gas masks, bomb shelters, evacuations etc

My DD is 10yo and I would not be happy if she was taught about the gas chambers quite yet.

Which reminds me that I need to have a talk about this part of her family history. Been putting it off.

MmeLindor · 30/09/2012 14:07

yes, and the fact that there are people still alive who remember the war, of the effects of it on their family.

Mum told me about a girl in her class receiving word that her father had been shot and killed in the war.

Learning about Robert The Bruce or William the Conqueror is v different

ZZZenAgain · 30/09/2012 14:26

my dd has been learning about wwII at school and doesn't seem to consider it in the least as the remote and distant past. I am not so convinced that most dc do.

HoldMeCloserTonyDanza · 30/09/2012 14:30

This thread has gone really fucking weird.

There is nothing in the OP to suggest censorship or that children shouldn't learn about Hitler.

It's very clear that what she's worried about it the appropriateness of young children painting and displaying portraits of a mass murderer (when young children would have done the exact same in 1930s Germany as part of Hitlerjugend propaganda).

Honestly sometimes I think people wake up on the wrong side of the bed and just decide anyone would puts up an AIBU must be an unreasonable fool. I think people just enjoy having a go.

OP YANBU this is an incredibly cack-handed and insensitive way to teach children about a very important subject.

JamieandtheMagicTorch · 30/09/2012 16:22

mathanxiety has eloquently explained what I was trying to convey with my previous post about "stuff"

JamieandtheMagicTorch · 30/09/2012 16:23

and so do Himalaya's posts

achillea · 30/09/2012 20:16

I do think that there will be a psychological element to their curricular planning. To a 10/11 year old child, Hitler will be the name of a monster, even the photographs of him are of a slightly crazed 1930s weirdo. But the fact is that he was a human being and it is important that children realise that he was actually raised as a fairly ordinary child. I think this exercise is just a way for children to learn that anyone could have done this. He wasn't born with an evil mind, he nurtured evil and made it happen.

Leaning numbers and statistics is very useful, as mathanxiety suggested - maps and charts, but it is also useful to juxtapose the more abstract elements of history with the personal.

On the other hand, the headteacher might be a Neo-nazi Griffinite who wants to brighten up the school with some pictures of his hero. Shock

Out of interest what are the pictures like, are they all smiley and nice, or are they menacing and evil?

susitwoshoes · 30/09/2012 20:40

have been discussing this with DH. I think YANBU, agreeing mainly with Miss Annersley and MrSunshine. I actually think asking children of that age to paint something that is ugly and hateful and evil is a very age-inappropriate task, I would be surprised if many art school students could make a good fist of it. And painting is one thing, displaying is another, deeply ignorant and insensitive. What if this child's Jewish GPs came to the school? No-one (least of all the OP) is saying it shouldn't be taught but I fail to see what, at this age, painting a portrait of Hitler is bringing to the party. I would be very distressed if my DD was doing this at school. Fascism is a real part of the world today and the teaching of it needs to be handled very sensitively. Read The Wave (can't remember author) to see what happens when the teaching can go so very very wrong.

JustSpiro · 30/09/2012 21:16

Well, I must admit my somewhat laid back attitude to this issue has been altered a fair bit by my discussing it with my Dad who was born in 1938 and grew up in an area of East London with a large Jewish community. He thought it was totally not on, and since he would have a far more informed opinion that I have I would now say YANBU to at least question the context of the project and the school's reasoning for displaying the result in such a way, and take it from there if you feel the response you get is unsatisfactory.

mathanxiety · 30/09/2012 21:25

What my DCs learned about at that age (in the US) was thematic history. They studied the rise of civilised societies from the Fertile Crescent to the Han dynasty to the Mayans and Incas and Aztecs, the Egyptians, the Greeks, Persians and Romans and the rise of the west up to and including the age of exploration, the role of trade, agriculture, writing, technology/science and finance. They looked at myth and legend and the development of several major belief systems -- Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism, Judaism, Islam, Christianity including the Reformation. They looked at ancient states and the beginnings of the concept of the modern state, the idea of law, the concept of individual rights (Magna Carta).

As it was a thematic survey course they touched pretty briefly on all of these interrelated topics with the aim of giving them an idea of the vast scale of history, the global element, the fact that the US is a relative newcomer on the scene (important in the US to impart this sense of perspective). Maps, a little exposure to primary sources and introduction to the scientific study of history (bibliography requirement for every written exercise), visits to local synagogue and mosque and temple, power point presentations about various cultures, historical turning points etc were part of how they learned. They had cross curricular exposure through their English curriculum that year that focused on myths with an emphasis on Greek culture but didn't ignore other literature.

Basically, they explored what brings societies together, what causes them to increase their influence, and then what causes them to decline. It was a general survey that gave them a framework on which to build closer study of American development the following year and after that an exploration of modern history on a worldwide scale, including war and holocaust and ethnic cleansing in the modern era -- this they tackled at age 14 or so, and again in high school in much greater detail at age 17ish in AP European History.

I thought it was very age appropriate and appropriate for their stage of intellectual development, and since it gave a context to their later study of specific developments much more useful than diving straight in to isolated very appropriate from the pov of conveying a real understanding of history.

mathanxiety · 30/09/2012 21:28

diving straight in to isolated events or periods, and very appropriate from the pov of conveying a real understanding of history.

NellyJob · 30/09/2012 22:17

What if this child's Jewish GPs came to the school?
indeed, and not forgetting the Polish kids possibly attending the school whose grandparents or great grandparents worked as slaves in Hitler' Germany?

lashingsofbingeinghere · 30/09/2012 23:34

"Over the past couple of years ive noticed childrens work displayed in the entrance hall, and in the assembly hall. These have included quite a number of childrens paintings of Hitler being displayed as part of the Yr 6 curriculum."

Why are you only thinking of saying something now? Just curious.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page