to be horrified that people are forgetting the Holocaust?

[FleurDelacoeur]

www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/study-shows-americans-are-forgetting-about-holocaust-n865396

OK, so it's an American study but 11% of all adults and 20% of millenials in the US haven't heard of the holocaust, or aren't sure whether they've heard of it or not.

Given that this is one of the most important events of the 20th century isn't this simply appalling? How can people NOT know??

I'm not aware of the curriculum in the rest of the UK but I know my secondary age kids in Scotland have learned about the Holocaust as part of a WW2 topic, and it was touched on in RE too when they learned about Judaism.

And quite frankly if it wasn't in the curriculum I'd be making sure they knew about it as it's such an important event which should never be forgotten.

It was a European disaster nearly 3/4 of a century ago. Its inevitable it will fade into history. I am not surprised other continents dont necessarily teach it at schools as they have their own historical disasters to learn about

It was within living memory and of direct relevance to America, who were in the war and helped liberate those that remained in the camps and was where a great many DPs ended up. How idiotic to say the Americans had their own "historical disasters" to learn about!

Look at the Lefts attempts to label everyone that didn't want to be part of the EU a "Racist" or "Stupid".

When Brexiters were labelled as racist or stupid it wasn't because they supported Brexit, but for specific reasons they presented in support of it. Such as saying that hundreds of millions would flock towards the NHS.

I still stand that it tends to be hate speech that shuts down free speech.
Such as the use of "Lefts" as an offensive term.

Strongmummy- I think the one of the main uses of history is very much about understanding how the past relates to the present.

Unfortunately, that is increasingly the case

Of course when you teach it you’re going to teach what happens in the past, but without relating it to the now it’s not very accessible. I think we may actually be agreeing

Yes, although I think it can, and mostly should, be taught without relating to the now

mostly should, be taught without relating to the now

Why?

Learning is easier when it relates to a problem or to real life.

Why not start off from current events and see how they relate to past events?
History is about how we got here. Otherwise it's a useless discipline.

SlowDown76mph-History is taught in UK schools through a very specific and limited cultural lens.

It is now being taught too much through the lens of 'liberal progressive' identity politics.
When I was at school, many years ago, it was very different . The fashion back then was for the teaching history from a class perspective, an approach which is sadly lacking today

I was an adult before I knew that the British 'invented' concentration camps in the Boer war.

The British did not 'invent' concentration camps, and making comparisons between the Boer War camps and the death camps of the Holocaust is disingenuous. There is no comparison

When Brexiters were labelled as racist or stupid it wasn't because they supported Brexit, but for specific reasons they presented in support of it.

Rubbish - it's the stock "no platforming" phrase.

It's used all the time, especially on MN, to disregard anything that anyone who disagrees with a remainer says.

Alpineflowers- mostly should, be taught without relating to the now

Lweji-Why?

Because 'the now' can prejudice how we view the past

Lweji - Learning is easier when it relates to a problem or to real life.

True but i am not sure this is entirely helpful when studying history

Why not start off from current events and see how they relate to past events?

Because that would be the study of current events in relation to the past

History is about how we got here. Otherwise it's a useless discipline.

The study of history is not about primarily about 'how we got here' and it is not undertaken in order to be 'useful'.
The study of history is about researching primary and secondary sources and putting the evidence into the context of the times. Basically, that's it

@Alpine I take it back, we’re not agreeing

I'm not surprised by the stats.
Hitler and Stalin are my favourite bits of German and Russian history, any history actually, but that's just personal to me.

Russian history my favourite and also Polish.

Princess

Limon I wasn't having a go at you!

The study of history is about researching primary and secondary sources and putting the evidence into the context of the times. Basically, that's it

That's how you research history. But not necessarily how best to teach it. At least at secondary level.

The truth is that history research is informed by the present and the context in which the researcher is integrated, for interpretation of any findings or texts, even.
History is not only about dates and places and people. It must be interpreted too.

In any case, it's still only useful in how it explains the present. And if we want to understand the present, we should understand the history behind it.

It's used all the time, especially on MN, to disregard anything that anyone who disagrees with a remainer says.

Actually, not really. But the targets like to think so.

I just don't see how anyone can think this is in the past in a period where white supremacists in the US, in Russia, in Europe, in the UK are deriving inspiration from the Nazis and openly using Nazi symbols.

As for "liberal progressive identity politics", from what I can see, that is often the bit where somebody (often a professional historian) says
"but don't black people have a history too?"

corythatwas-As for "liberal progressive identity politics", from what I can see, that is often the bit where somebody (often a professional historian) says "but don't black people have a history too?

I haven't even mentioned Black History. My reply, which you only partially quoted, was a reference to teaching moving away from an older class based perspective, and now being taught "to much through the lens of 'liberal progressive' identity politics".

Why on earth would anyone even say that black people don't have a history? Do people 'say that often'? I doubt it

Can I just say calling the Holocaust a 'European disaster' is both naive and offensive.

It diminishes and downplays it, making it sound like a natural disaster or something that was sad, but couldn't be helped, so let's move on. And brushing it off as 'three-quarters of a century ago, of course its being forgotten, let's move on'...?? . Wow. Just wow.

Agree, huge ignorance. It's not so hard these days to self educate. In an era of mass Holocaust denial ( Irving for a start ), just saddened that a really interesting discussion of a genocide within living memory, on our doorstep, with so many contemporary lessons has been hijacked. Really good read is " Hitler's Willing Executioners" by Daniel Goldhajen. I read it after years of bringing teenagers to Auschwitz as part of a HET programme of education. And of course it's relevant, we are all bystanders now, we are all aware of current genocides and to educate ourselves at least begins a process of self examination.

I think the problem with the wiki link may be how it defines genocide. Eg Stalin's regime of violence is broken down into particular dates of events but if you take account of all the events he was responsible for it far exceeds in death toll the ww2 holocaust.

Plus the holocaust toll figure used by wiki isn't just Jews but all the other groups that were targeted.

I wonder how many died as a result of British colonialism.

My own personal experience of learning about ww2 began with my grandparents 3 of whom served, one was present at the relieving of a concentration camp but never spoke of it. Talking with my parents about it, watching films, first book I read on that era was the silver sword.

I think it is an important event to learn about but I also think history as taught in many British schools is very biased and limited. Limited I understand as there's time limitations, bias there's no excuse for.

I was at school in the 80's and that very much was the case (that all Germans were complicit, that it was only Jews that were targeted) in how the holocaust was taught.

"We should be horrified, because quite frankly if we forget it it will happen again." To make THAT comment on a thread where pps have already made clear (and there's a link to more info on this) it HAS happened/is happening again - even though not to the same extent by latest figures known - REALLY Annoys me.

"Most of us know about the Holocaust and WW2 because it makes good subject matter for films." I suspect also because the timing coincided with the rise of cinema and prolific film making.

Regarding national curriculum not all of us were still at school when it came in and doesn't apply to Scotland even now I don't think.

Couldn't disagree more with the idea of teaching history without relating it to the present. Pointless teaching it only within the context of when it happened.

Pointless teaching it only within the context of when it happened.

That's what the discipline of history is, though. We should not make explicit links because that's academically questionable - there is no clear present day equivalent to the Holocaust and to contrive one is irresponsible.

What we should do is teach history in its context and invite students to make their own links and find their own parallels. To do otherwise - for example to equate Trump or Putin to Hitler, is facile and simplistic. I've heard people say 'The Jews are now doing to the Palestinians exactly what was done to them' and it makes me cringe.

I haven't read the whole thread but I can really recommend a book of photography called The Children We Remember. It explains things in very clear terms. Some of the photos are pretty graphic though. I think I found it on my parents' book shelf when I was about 8 and they took time to explain it to me.

Tulips agree, to call Israel the new nazis makes me sick actually. To the point below yours, genocide needs a definition and it has a very well now trajectory. No no one ever ever with any sense will ever deny the huge atrocities committed via slavery colonisation etc etc etc but The UN exist for a reason. Human rights is, historically a new thing, defined, made and established as a direct consequence of WW2. And in order to monitor human rights they need definitions. So get over any problems with definitions of genocide, and it's not a defensive thing either. If you want to discuss something at an intellectual level you have to understand definitions exist to make such discussions possible. The Holocaust was a genocide, so too was Armenia, Rwanda, Pol Pot and current situation in Sudan. African slave trade, Irish famine, Native American, was not, they are cases of mass murder and historical injustice and NOONE here is denying that.

@bumper you know the Armenian genocide didn’t take place in Armenia don’t you......so to say Armenia is rather ignorant.

I agree that to call Israel the new Nazis is rather obnoxious, however many people (myself included) find the fact that a country founded on the back of a huge human catastrophe can treat the original occupants in such a vile way rather ironic. Could be of course that I feel particularly strongly because my family lost their house and land in Jerusalem and have no right of return

Strongmunny, I'm aware of the genocide you refer too and where it took place, I used the word 'Armenia' as that is what it is referred to in previous posts. Sorry to hear of your families horror in Jerusalem but a little bit of history will confirm that the rise of the state of Israel was not due to the holocaust. Now what is your actual point? If it's the pain of your family's past I get its emotive, I'm Irish, I'm know lots of my ancestors died due to colonisation but I don't call it genocide because I've educated myself.