http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/school-apologizes-over-pro-nazi-essay-assignment-180908350.html
QuoteIt's safe to say that "thinking like a Nazi" is not the most sound advice when it comes to assignments in high school, or in any academic institution for that matter.
And as such, a high-school in New York has formally apologized for assigning students homework that tasked them with writing a hypothetical essay on how they were sympathetic to Adolf Hitler's former regime and that "Jews are evil and the source of our problems."
The Albany Times Union reports that 10th-grade students at Albany High School were given the assignment as part of a critical thinking exercise where they are challenged to make an "abhorrent argument."
"You must argue that Jews are evil, and use solid rationale from government propaganda to convince me of your loyalty to the Third Reich!" say the assignment instructions for the five-paragraph essay.
Approximately one-third of the students refused to take part in the exercise. The English teacher who assigned the project has not been identified, and the school district has declined to say whether the instructor will face any disciplinary action.
Contrarian thinking is at the root of strong debate skills, but the assignment arguably pushed students out acceptable logical boundaries. And it's not the only such recent case of questionable homework. In February, another New York school tasked students with formulating a math equation using the whippings given to an African-American slave as the variable.
And in March 2012, a Washington, D.C., teacher was fired after assigning violent math problems to students.
Beyond making the abhorrent argument, students were encouraged to watch and read Nazi party propaganda materials. They were told to imagine their instructor as a Nazi government official who was demanding proof of their loyalty.
"I would apologize to our families," Albany Superintendent Marguerite Vanden Wyngaard told the paper. "I don't believe there was malice or intent to cause any insensitivities to our families of Jewish faith."
Vanden attributed the assignment style to a new Common Core curriculum enacted by the state, which requires more sophisticated writing standards.
*insert crack about this not being Europe*
Mine got an A. :)
You know, when I was a student, teachers had fucking lesson plans that got reviewed by the actual principals. You know, back when principals had a fucking real job, instead of being babysitters.
Idiots.
When I was in college, for my 300 lvl American Civil War class everyone was assigned a state and they had to focus all their work on it. For one of the assignments we read Uncle Tom's Cabin and had to write a review of the book from the point of a newspaper from our state. My state was Tennessee so I wrote the most spectacularly Lettowish review you can imagine. I got an A+. The professor thought it was so authentic he investigated me for plagiarism, but he discovered I was just brilliant. :cool:
I dont understand what the issue is.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 13, 2013, 07:40:06 PM
When I was in college, for my 300 lvl American Civil War class everyone was assigned a state and they had to focus all their work on it. For one of the assignments we read Uncle Tom's Cabin and had to write a review of the book from the point of a newspaper from our state. My state was Tennessee so I wrote the most spectacularly Lettowish review you can imagine. I got an A+. The professor thought it was so authentic he investigated me for plagiarism, but he discovered I was just brilliant. :cool:
Somebody got an F in humility.
It seems like a fair assignment to me.
Provocative for sure, but I don't think that's a bad thing. But you all knew that about me. :P
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 13, 2013, 07:43:25 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 13, 2013, 07:40:06 PM
When I was in college, for my 300 lvl American Civil War class everyone was assigned a state and they had to focus all their work on it. For one of the assignments we read Uncle Tom's Cabin and had to write a review of the book from the point of a newspaper from our state. My state was Tennessee so I wrote the most spectacularly Lettowish review you can imagine. I got an A+. The professor thought it was so authentic he investigated me for plagiarism, but he discovered I was just brilliant. :cool:
Somebody got an F in humility.
It actually had correct spelling in it, hence the investigation for plagiarism.
:D
10th grade is how old? 16 or so? If so, I think they are mature enough to handle the truth about the world's Jewry.
Quote from: 11B4V on April 13, 2013, 07:41:02 PM
I dont understand what the issue is.
The issue is that school administrators are morons, outpacing even the writer of the blog article.
Quote from: grumbler on April 14, 2013, 02:15:11 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on April 13, 2013, 07:41:02 PM
I dont understand what the issue is.
The issue is that school administrators are morons, outpacing even the writer of the blog article.
I gottcha there. Maybe they should have went with gay marriage or something. A more contemporary issue.
Quote from: Martinus on April 14, 2013, 02:02:56 AM
10th grade is how old? 16 or so? If so, I think they are mature enough to handle the truth about the world's Jewry.
:lol:
Quote from: 11B4V on April 14, 2013, 03:29:49 PM
I gottcha there. Maybe they should have went with gay marriage or something. A more contemporary issue.
They were probably jst finishing their study of WW2. Most schools (around here, anyway) teach world history in the 10th grade.
Quote from: grumbler on April 14, 2013, 05:09:12 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on April 14, 2013, 03:29:49 PM
I gottcha there. Maybe they should have went with gay marriage or something. A more contemporary issue.
They were probably jst finishing their study of WW2. Most schools (around here, anyway) teach world history in the 10th grade.
I read another article which states teacher was put on leave. This assignment was prep work for them reading Night.
Meh, I'd have loved that assignment as a kid.
Quote from: 11B4V on April 13, 2013, 07:41:02 PM
I dont understand what the issue is.
I guess it would be highly dependent upon the maturity level of the class. But that aside, yeah, a non-issue. One of my favorite classes in college was a political science class that went pretty in depth into Communism, Fascism, and Nazism. In each of the topics the instructor told us we'd have to think like a communist, fascist, or Nazi, as difficult as that may be, to really learn it. And of course nobody came out of that class goosestepping or reciting Marx as if it were the gospel.
There are better ways to do that kind of exercise.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 15, 2013, 09:36:02 AM
There are better ways to do that kind of exercise.
Agreed.
Quote from: derspiess on April 15, 2013, 09:33:52 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on April 13, 2013, 07:41:02 PM
I dont understand what the issue is.
I guess it would be highly dependent upon the maturity level of the class. But that aside, yeah, a non-issue. One of my favorite classes in college was a political science class that went pretty in depth into Communism, Fascism, and Nazism. In each of the topics the instructor told us we'd have to think like a communist, fascist, or Nazi, as difficult as that may be, to really learn it. And of course nobody came out of that class goosestepping or reciting Marx as if it were the gospel.
I think like a fascist all the time.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 15, 2013, 09:36:02 AM
There are better ways to do that kind of exercise.
:lmfao:
Okay, teach.
Quote from: grumbler on April 15, 2013, 01:23:13 PM
Quote from: merithyn on April 15, 2013, 12:48:15 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 15, 2013, 09:36:02 AM
There are better ways to do that kind of exercise.
Yep
Nope.
I think you have a point if you think the assignment was pointless. Otherwise, I would think there would have to be a better way to think critically about how people could have espoused such awful views without asking students to defend the premise that Jews are evil.
Quote from: grumbler on April 15, 2013, 01:22:57 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 15, 2013, 09:36:02 AM
There are better ways to do that kind of exercise.
:lmfao:
Okay, teach.
I'm sure even you could've come up with something better than "You must argue that Jews are evil, and use solid rationale from government propaganda to convince me of your loyalty to the Third Reich!" for a critical thinking exercise.
Quote from: garbon on April 15, 2013, 01:39:01 PM
I think you have a point if you think the assignment was pointless. Otherwise, I would think there would have to be a better way to think critically about how people could have espoused such awful views without asking students to defend the premise that Jews are evil.
You're not a teacher, and obviously only Teacher Knows Best.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 15, 2013, 01:46:14 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 15, 2013, 01:39:01 PM
I think you have a point if you think the assignment was pointless. Otherwise, I would think there would have to be a better way to think critically about how people could have espoused such awful views without asking students to defend the premise that Jews are evil.
You're not a teacher, and obviously only Teacher Knows Best.
I guess that's why teachers are often up against the wall when budgetary issues come along.
Quote from: garbon on April 15, 2013, 01:39:01 PM
I think you have a point if you think the assignment was pointless. Otherwise, I would think there would have to be a better way to think critically about how people could have espoused such awful views without asking students to defend the premise that Jews are evil.
I don't think you understand what Naziism was about. The premise that Jews were evil is at the core of Nazi beliefs. To say that students should try to think like a Nazi but not to think of Jews as evil is absurd on the face of it. Your concept only works if the exercise is designed to be a useless joke.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 15, 2013, 01:45:19 PM
I'm sure even you could've come up with something better than "You must argue that Jews are evil, and use solid rationale from government propaganda to convince me of your loyalty to the Third Reich!" for a critical thinking exercise.
It is a terrific exercise. It forces the students to actually read the rationales that the Nazis actually created here in the real world, instead of just making shit up on their own. It makes the familiar unfamiliar, and the unfamiliar familiar.
Most people don't like to think, and so they don't like exercises like this that require thinking. You sound like you just don't want people writing about Nazis because they are "so icky."
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 15, 2013, 01:46:14 PM
You're not a teacher, and obviously only Teacher Knows Best.
Obviously, Teacher Knows a Fuckton More Than You Do! :lol:
Quote from: garbon on April 15, 2013, 01:47:23 PM
I guess that's why teachers are often up against the wall when budgetary issues come along.
No, it is because administrators are morons and punish advanced teaching while rewarding mediocrity.
Quote from: grumbler on April 15, 2013, 01:50:07 PM
I don't think you understand what Naziism was about. The premise that Jews were evil is at the core of Nazi beliefs. To say that students should try to think like a Nazi but not to think of Jews as evil is absurd on the face of it. Your concept only works if the exercise is designed to be a useless joke.
I'm gonna call bullshit on this. The reason Nazism was so insidious was that it didn't solely consist of raving, antisemitic ideologues. Antisemitism was at the core of Hitler's credo; that doesn't mean it was a defining trait of every Nazi and Nazi sympathizer.
Quote from: grumbler on April 15, 2013, 01:53:57 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 15, 2013, 01:45:19 PM
I'm sure even you could've come up with something better than "You must argue that Jews are evil, and use solid rationale from government propaganda to convince me of your loyalty to the Third Reich!" for a critical thinking exercise.
It is a terrific exercise. It forces the students to actually read the rationales that the Nazis actually created here in the real world, instead of just making shit up on their own. It makes the familiar unfamiliar, and the unfamiliar familiar.
Most people don't like to think, and so they don't like exercises like this that require thinking. You sound like you just don't want people writing about Nazis because they are "so icky."
It's still a bit much for 10th graders.
Quote from: grumbler on April 15, 2013, 01:58:55 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 15, 2013, 01:47:23 PM
I guess that's why teachers are often up against the wall when budgetary issues come along.
No, it is because administrators are morons and punish advanced teaching while rewarding mediocrity.
Nope, I think I had it right as your three posts right before this one illustrate.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 15, 2013, 02:13:05 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 15, 2013, 01:53:57 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 15, 2013, 01:45:19 PM
I'm sure even you could've come up with something better than "You must argue that Jews are evil, and use solid rationale from government propaganda to convince me of your loyalty to the Third Reich!" for a critical thinking exercise.
It is a terrific exercise. It forces the students to actually read the rationales that the Nazis actually created here in the real world, instead of just making shit up on their own. It makes the familiar unfamiliar, and the unfamiliar familiar.
Most people don't like to think, and so they don't like exercises like this that require thinking. You sound like you just don't want people writing about Nazis because they are "so icky."
It's still a bit much for 10th graders.
Don't slide back, it's a ridiculous exercise. No need to ask college students to prove Jews are evil either.
Quote from: grumbler on April 15, 2013, 01:55:03 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 15, 2013, 01:46:14 PM
You're not a teacher, and obviously only Teacher Knows Best.
Obviously, Teacher Knows a Fuckton More Than You Do! :lol:
Enjoy all the free press when your critical thinking exercise on "You must argue that gays are evil, and use solid rationale from propaganda to convince me of your loyalty to the Republican Party!" backfires on you.
Or do you have the girls working on their "You must argue that slavery is good for negroes" plantation dioramas this semester already?
Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 15, 2013, 02:07:52 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 15, 2013, 01:50:07 PM
...The premise that Jews were evil is at the core of Nazi beliefs...
...Antisemitism was at the core of Hitler's credo...
So basically you two agree, then.
I think it's harder to find non-Anti-Semitic Nazis than it is to find non-Anti-Semitic Fascists; can you name one of any prominence?
Quote from: garbon on April 15, 2013, 02:14:22 PM
Don't slide back, it's a ridiculous exercise. No need to ask college students to prove Jews are evil either.
I think it's a useful way to learn about Nazi ideology. Know your enemy & all that.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 15, 2013, 02:07:52 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 15, 2013, 01:50:07 PM
I don't think you understand what Naziism was about. The premise that Jews were evil is at the core of Nazi beliefs. To say that students should try to think like a Nazi but not to think of Jews as evil is absurd on the face of it. Your concept only works if the exercise is designed to be a useless joke.
I'm gonna call bullshit on this. The reason Nazism was so insidious was that it didn't solely consist of raving, antisemitic ideologues. Antisemitism was at the core of Hitler's credo; that doesn't mean it was a defining trait of every Nazi and Nazi sympathizer.
I( gonna call bullshit on this. No one claims that Nazis "solely consist of raving, antisemitic ideologues" - that's a classic strawman argument. Antisemitism was at the core of Naziism. The goal of the Nazis was to restore Germany and then advance the Aryan race through purifying it of "tainted blood" and wrong thinking, until the Aryans evolved into Supermen. The Jews were a threat to all of these objectives, and the government said so. See the Nuremberg Laws, for instance. To argue that antisemitism wasn't part of government propaganda (which is what the assignment is about) is to ignore history.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 15, 2013, 02:13:05 PM
It's still a bit much for 10th graders.
I don't think so. I think the kids would enjoy it, for the most part. Not many would succeed at the task, but that's fine. Failure creates more opportunities for learning than success does.
Quote from: derspiess on April 15, 2013, 02:19:07 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 15, 2013, 02:14:22 PM
Don't slide back, it's a ridiculous exercise. No need to ask college students to prove Jews are evil either.
I think it's a useful way to learn about Nazi ideology. Know your enemy & all that.
I think you can do that without writing an essay showing how the Jews are evil (with help from Nazi propaganda). After all, I don't think most of us were tasked to write such essays in school. :unsure:
Quote from: Agelastus on April 15, 2013, 02:16:59 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 15, 2013, 02:07:52 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 15, 2013, 01:50:07 PM
...The premise that Jews were evil is at the core of Nazi beliefs...
...Antisemitism was at the core of Hitler's credo...
So basically you two agree, then.
I think it's harder to find non-Anti-Semitic Nazis than it is to find non-Anti-Semitic Fascists; can you name one of any prominence?
Oskar Schindler :contract:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 15, 2013, 02:15:46 PM
Enjoy all the free press when your critical thinking exercise on "You must argue that gays are evil, and use solid rationale from propaganda to convince me of your loyalty to the Republican Party!" backfires on you.
Godwin's Law strikes again. :contract:.
Quote from: grumbler on April 15, 2013, 02:25:17 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 15, 2013, 02:15:46 PM
Enjoy all the free press when your critical thinking exercise on "You must argue that gays are evil, and use solid rationale from propaganda to convince me of your loyalty to the Republican Party!" backfires on you.
Godwin's Law strikes again. :contract:.
Doesn't apply, as the OP was already about Naziism. VOID WHERE PROHIBITED MEIN FUHRER
Quote from: garbon on April 15, 2013, 02:24:28 PM
I think you can do that without writing an essay showing how the Jews are evil (with help from Nazi propaganda). After all, I don't think most of us were tasked to write such essays in school. :unsure:
Those of us who went to good schools certainly were.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 15, 2013, 02:27:15 PM
[Doesn't apply, as the OP was already about Naziism. VOID WHERE PROHIBITED MEIN FUHRER
Of course it applies. It always applies.
Quote from: derspiess on April 15, 2013, 02:19:07 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 15, 2013, 02:14:22 PM
Don't slide back, it's a ridiculous exercise. No need to ask college students to prove Jews are evil either.
I think it's a useful way to learn about Nazi ideology. Know your enemy & all that.
So tell me more about yourself Spicy.
Quote from: grumbler on April 15, 2013, 02:22:09 PM
I( gonna call bullshit on this. No one claims that Nazis "solely consist of raving, antisemitic ideologues" - that's a classic strawman argument. Antisemitism was at the core of Naziism. The goal of the Nazis was to restore Germany and then advance the Aryan race through purifying it of "tainted blood" and wrong thinking, until the Aryans evolved into Supermen. The Jews were a threat to all of these objectives, and the government said so. See the Nuremberg Laws, for instance. To argue that antisemitism wasn't part of government propaganda (which is what the assignment is about) is to ignore history.
Backing away from your original assertion (that Nazis were, by definition, antisemites) doesn't make it a strawman. There were plenty of economic reasons to side with or join the Nazis without having to believe that Jews were a pestilence to be exterminated.
Again, the fact that antisemitism was a part of the propaganda from the top doesn't mean it was universally accepted by all Nazi party members.
Quote from: katmai on April 15, 2013, 02:29:14 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 15, 2013, 02:19:07 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 15, 2013, 02:14:22 PM
Don't slide back, it's a ridiculous exercise. No need to ask college students to prove Jews are evil either.
I think it's a useful way to learn about Nazi ideology. Know your enemy & all that.
So tell me more about yourself Spicy.
:hug:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 15, 2013, 02:15:46 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 15, 2013, 01:55:03 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 15, 2013, 01:46:14 PM
You're not a teacher, and obviously only Teacher Knows Best.
Obviously, Teacher Knows a Fuckton More Than You Do! :lol:
Enjoy all the free press when your critical thinking exercise on "You must argue that gays are evil, and use solid rationale from propaganda to convince me of your loyalty to the Republican Party!" backfires on you.
Or do you have the girls working on their "You must argue that slavery is good for negroes" plantation dioramas this semester already?
:D
Quote from: grumbler on April 15, 2013, 01:53:57 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 15, 2013, 01:45:19 PM
I'm sure even you could've come up with something better than "You must argue that Jews are evil, and use solid rationale from government propaganda to convince me of your loyalty to the Third Reich!" for a critical thinking exercise.
It is a terrific exercise. It forces the students to actually read the rationales that the Nazis actually created here in the real world, instead of just making shit up on their own. It makes the familiar unfamiliar, and the unfamiliar familiar.
I also am of the opinion that this is a good exercise in critical thinking about some of the abhorrent issues that Nazis were about. Ugly assignment yes, but serious discussion on that ideology would give students some good information and insight on not only Nazis, but what brings people to believe in such a hideous ideology.
Quote from: katmai on April 15, 2013, 02:29:14 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 15, 2013, 02:19:07 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 15, 2013, 02:14:22 PM
Don't slide back, it's a ridiculous exercise. No need to ask college students to prove Jews are evil either.
I think it's a useful way to learn about Nazi ideology. Know your enemy & all that.
So tell me more about yourself Spicy.
I am a friend to Mexicans. Even to the wanna-bes :hug:
Your turn on SongPop, btw.
Quote from: derspiess on April 15, 2013, 03:32:54 PM
I am a friend to Mexicans. Even to the wanna-bes :hug:
Your turn on SongPop, btw.
I saw that :D
And I can't help it if they call me Pocho!
Quote from: grumbler on April 15, 2013, 01:53:57 PM
It is a terrific exercise. It forces the students to actually read the rationales that the Nazis actually created here in the real world, instead of just making shit up on their own. It makes the familiar unfamiliar, and the unfamiliar familiar.
Most people don't like to think, and so they don't like exercises like this that require thinking. You sound like you just don't want people writing about Nazis because they are "so icky."
I agree that it's a good exercise in general. I disagree that it's a good exercise regarding the topic. There are a myriad of other positions that can offer the same lesson in critical thinking without subjecting a group of people to "see the side" of people who could conceivably have killed members of their family. I mean, my grandmother came from Germany in 1947. That's a little too close to home, from my perspective. Especially when there are a multitude of other scenarios that offer the same exercise without the potential concerns that this one does.
It's just not necessary to go there, imo, and can still cause more harm than good. Why do it?
Quote from: merithyn on April 15, 2013, 04:20:30 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 15, 2013, 01:53:57 PM
It is a terrific exercise. It forces the students to actually read the rationales that the Nazis actually created here in the real world, instead of just making shit up on their own. It makes the familiar unfamiliar, and the unfamiliar familiar.
Most people don't like to think, and so they don't like exercises like this that require thinking. You sound like you just don't want people writing about Nazis because they are "so icky."
I agree that it's a good exercise in general. I disagree that it's a good exercise regarding the topic. There are a myriad of other positions that can offer the same lesson in critical thinking without subjecting a group of people to "see the side" of people who could conceivably have killed members of their family. I mean, my grandmother came from Germany in 1947. That's a little too close to home, from my perspective. Especially when there are a multitude of other scenarios that offer the same exercise without the potential concerns that this one does.
It's just not necessary to go there, imo, and can still cause more harm than good. Why do it?
Because apparently it is what they do at good schools.
Quote from: merithyn on April 15, 2013, 04:20:30 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 15, 2013, 01:53:57 PM
It is a terrific exercise. It forces the students to actually read the rationales that the Nazis actually created here in the real world, instead of just making shit up on their own. It makes the familiar unfamiliar, and the unfamiliar familiar.
Most people don't like to think, and so they don't like exercises like this that require thinking. You sound like you just don't want people writing about Nazis because they are "so icky."
I agree that it's a good exercise in general. I disagree that it's a good exercise regarding the topic. There are a myriad of other positions that can offer the same lesson in critical thinking without subjecting a group of people to "see the side" of people who could conceivably have killed members of their family. I mean, my grandmother came from Germany in 1947. That's a little too close to home, from my perspective. Especially when there are a multitude of other scenarios that offer the same exercise without the potential concerns that this one does.
It's just not necessary to go there, imo, and can still cause more harm than good. Why do it?
If it's a good exercise to learn how to defend opinions that you actually find wrongheaded, distasteful, or even abhorent, then what better topic to pick than the Nazi's?
The Nazis are a terrible example to use for this kind of exercise. Their ideology was notoriously shoddy in terms of logical thinking. Same is really true for any racist ideology - the argument depend on assuming obviously false premises and thus there is little value in such an exercise.
A better example would be something like Aristotle's theory of natural slavery (which also has the "virtue" of not being explicitly racialist). Or Filmer's patriacha. And yes I understand that this is ostensibly part of unit on modern history but the assignment doesn't seem particularly well designed to teaching the actual history either.
Quote from: dps on April 15, 2013, 05:51:51 PM
If it's a good exercise to learn how to defend opinions that you actually find wrongheaded, distasteful, or even abhorent, then what better topic to pick than the Nazi's?
Think about high school morons for a moment: how many of them are angry and confused young boys that get enamored with Nazis and
don't find them wrongheaded, distasteful or abhorrent?
I can think of two everybody knows real quick:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.ddmcdn.com%2Fgif%2Fvideo-game-violence-1.jpg&hash=4ed8cd0d45c585382fd3e5554a8ac57bbc3b589c)
So I guess Grumbler already ran this exercise.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 15, 2013, 06:10:26 PM
Quote from: dps on April 15, 2013, 05:51:51 PM
If it's a good exercise to learn how to defend opinions that you actually find wrongheaded, distasteful, or even abhorent, then what better topic to pick than the Nazi's?
Think about high school morons for a moment: how many of them are angry and confused young boys that get enamored with Nazis and don't find them wrongheaded, distasteful or abhorrent?
That's why the Waffen-SS are more professional.. :P
Quote from: 11B4V on April 15, 2013, 06:49:41 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 15, 2013, 06:10:26 PM
Quote from: dps on April 15, 2013, 05:51:51 PM
If it's a good exercise to learn how to defend opinions that you actually find wrongheaded, distasteful, or even abhorent, then what better topic to pick than the Nazi's?
Think about high school morons for a moment: how many of them are angry and confused young boys that get enamored with Nazis and don't find them wrongheaded, distasteful or abhorrent?
That's why the Waffen-SS are more professional.. :P
But as long as they aren't represented by white print on black counters, everything's OK.
Quote from: dps on April 15, 2013, 06:59:35 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on April 15, 2013, 06:49:41 PM
That's why the Waffen-SS are more professional.. :P
But as long as they aren't represented by white print on black counters, everything's OK.
Now I want waffles.
Quote from: dps on April 15, 2013, 06:59:35 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on April 15, 2013, 06:49:41 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 15, 2013, 06:10:26 PM
Quote from: dps on April 15, 2013, 05:51:51 PM
If it's a good exercise to learn how to defend opinions that you actually find wrongheaded, distasteful, or even abhorent, then what better topic to pick than the Nazi's?
Think about high school morons for a moment: how many of them are angry and confused young boys that get enamored with Nazis and don't find them wrongheaded, distasteful or abhorrent?
That's why the Waffen-SS are more professional.. :P
But as long as they aren't represented by white print on black counters, everything's OK.
But, but, but that's the way it's suppose to be. It has to be. :huh: :unsure:
Grumbler was a member of the Teacherbund. :sleep:
Quote from: grumbler on April 15, 2013, 01:53:57 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 15, 2013, 01:45:19 PM
I'm sure even you could've come up with something better than "You must argue that Jews are evil, and use solid rationale from government propaganda to convince me of your loyalty to the Third Reich!" for a critical thinking exercise.
It is a terrific exercise. It forces the students to actually read the rationales that the Nazis actually created here in the real world, instead of just making shit up on their own. It makes the familiar unfamiliar, and the unfamiliar familiar.
Most people don't like to think, and so they don't like exercises like this that require thinking. You sound like you just don't want people writing about Nazis because they are "so icky."
But since none of this involves math, science or manual skills, is it actually worthwhile? Not really.
Even if it were a great critical thinking exercise (which it isn't), the teacher is a moron if he thought it wouldn't cause a huge shit storm, possibly resulting in a loss of his job.
If he wanted to do something along those lines, why not ask students to consider why some Germans supported National Socialism or something to that effect, rather than writing an essay that could appear in the Voelkisher Beobachter?
I encourage Grumbler to try this exercise with his students. :)
Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 15, 2013, 03:17:44 PM
Backing away from your original assertion (that Nazis were, by definition, antisemites) doesn't make it a strawman. There were plenty of economic reasons to side with or join the Nazis without having to believe that Jews were a pestilence to be exterminated.
Ah, so you are dropping the strawman, but now changing my premise for me? Sorry, gonna call bullshit on that, as well. I am talking Nazi ideology and propaganda, just like the assignment was. You can talk about individual Nazis all you want; they aren't relevant to my point.
QuoteAgain, the fact that antisemitism was a part of the propaganda from the top doesn't mean it was universally accepted by all Nazi party members.
Again, thank You, Captain Obvious-but -Irrelevant.
Quote from: merithyn on April 15, 2013, 04:20:30 PM
I agree that it's a good exercise in general. I disagree that it's a good exercise regarding the topic. There are a myriad of other positions that can offer the same lesson in critical thinking without subjecting a group of people to "see the side" of people who could conceivably have killed members of their family. I mean, my grandmother came from Germany in 1947. That's a little too close to home, from my perspective. Especially when there are a multitude of other scenarios that offer the same exercise without the potential concerns that this one does.
It's just not necessary to go there, imo, and can still cause more harm than good. Why do it?
Again, education isn't about what is safe and comfortable and uncontroversial. Reading and understanding tracts with which one disagrees is an essential life skill. It is one that, frankly, most people don't have (in part, perhaps, because they were educated in systems that feared to challenge students' indoctrinated belief systems). The year your grandmother left Germany is simply irrelevant to the assignment given to students in Albany New York in 2013.
While there certainly are a number of topics about which one can educate students, I feel that it is important to have them read books like
Night, no matter when your grandmother left Germany. As part of the preparation for reading books like Night (which book assumes a lot of knowledge about the Holocaust on the part of the reader), I think it is entirely appropriate to give students a critical thinking assignment, even if some woman in Illinois feels uncomfortable about it.
No matter what assignment is given, there will always be someone who could argue that "there could have been a better assignment." Better is the enemy of good enough.
Well thankfully Albany disagrees with you. :)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 15, 2013, 06:08:07 PM
The Nazis are a terrible example to use for this kind of exercise. Their ideology was notoriously shoddy in terms of logical thinking. Same is really true for any racist ideology - the argument depend on assuming obviously false premises and thus there is little value in such an exercise.
I don't think you understand the purpose of the exercise. It wasn't to get the students to critique the quality of Hitler's prose or to quantify the rigor of Goebbels' conclusions, but to get students to read and comprehend what the Nazis themselves were saying they were doing, and why, so that the Holocaust isn't just some absurdly horrific clown show undertaken by deranged men for no reason, as most people seem to think it was. What happened to Elie Wiesel and his father isn't comprehensible unles one undertands what the Nazis thought they were doing.
History is sometimes "icky." We shouldn't ignore history we find distasteful in favor of some Greek philosophers whose work has no practical merit but which is therefor divorced from the ickiness of history. The Nazi leadership looked in the mirror and say heroes. It is important that we teach students how that could happen, even if it means teaching about reality and not just theory.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 15, 2013, 10:36:35 PM
But since none of this involves math, science or manual skills, is it actually worthwhile? Not really.
I don't think you are in a position to disdain critical thinking skills. Ide! Imagine where you would be if you had them. :P
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on April 16, 2013, 03:53:10 AM
Even if it were a great critical thinking exercise (which it isn't), the teacher is a moron if he thought it wouldn't cause a huge shit storm, possibly resulting in a loss of his job.
If he wanted to do something along those lines, why not ask students to consider why some Germans supported National Socialism or something to that effect, rather than writing an essay that could appear in the Voelkisher Beobachter?
I can tell that you don't teach. If one wants to teach critical thinking skills, then one doesn't assign "book report" assignments like you suggest. Students learn a little bit when writing descriptive essays like you suggest, but not much.
I think the teacher obviously overestimated the maturity and professionalism of his bosses in the bureaucracy, but that's a risk every public school teacher faces (and the reason I left public school teaching). I don't think he is a moron, I think he is somebody who doesn't think as bureaucratically as most people on the forum here, and thus is poorly suited to teach in a bureaucratic environment.
Quote from: garbon on April 16, 2013, 06:20:12 AM
Well thankfully Albany disagrees with you. :)
Exactly. We wouldn't want students to learn critical thinking skills in public schools; thankfully, most public school systems are as bureaucratic as Albany's so I will always have parents willing to pay me to do so in a private school, where we don't have nearly as much of the bureaucratic bullshit.
You win and I win when the American education system fails its students. :)
Grumber- Would you mind writing an essay that Jews are evil and the source of our problems? I ask because I'm pretty sure the Nazis never came up with a consistent reason why, they just expected everyone to believe and shot everyone who didn't.
Quote from: grumbler on April 16, 2013, 06:32:48 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 16, 2013, 06:20:12 AM
Well thankfully Albany disagrees with you. :)
Exactly. We wouldn't want students to learn critical thinking skills in public schools; thankfully, most public school systems are as bureaucratic as Albany's so I will always have parents willing to pay me to do so in a private school, where we don't have nearly as much of the bureaucratic bullshit.
You win and I win when the American education system fails its students. :)
I suspect they will not pay to teach that particular exercise.
Quote from: grumbler on April 16, 2013, 06:32:48 AM
You win and I win when the American education system fails its students. :)
I think we all win when our students avoid such a poorly designed critical thinking assignment. Was this a companion follow-up to reading Uncle Tom's Cabin and assignment on using passages that were cited from the Bible to state how black people deserve to / should be slaves?
Quote from: grumbler on April 16, 2013, 06:30:02 AM
I can tell that you don't teach. If one wants to teach critical thinking skills, then one doesn't assign "book report" assignments like you suggest. Students learn a little bit when writing descriptive essays like you suggest, but not much.
I think the teacher obviously overestimated the maturity and professionalism of his bosses in the bureaucracy, but that's a risk every public school teacher faces (and the reason I left public school teaching). I don't think he is a moron, I think he is somebody who doesn't think as bureaucratically as most people on the forum here, and thus is poorly suited to teach in a bureaucratic environment.
Considering how you think this is a great assignment, I am pretty relieved to hear that you can "tell I can't teach." :)
Quote from: grumbler on April 16, 2013, 06:30:02 AM
I can tell that you don't teach. If one wants to teach critical thinking skills, then one doesn't assign "book report" assignments like you suggest. Students learn a little bit when writing descriptive essays like you suggest, but not much.
Says the guy who's "clarified" his assertion that the assignment should be challenging students to regurgitate the propaganda and not realistically think like an actual party member. I've got a kettle I'd like you to meet, sir.
Quote from: garbon on April 16, 2013, 06:55:57 AM
Quote from: grumbler on April 16, 2013, 06:32:48 AM
You win and I win when the American education system fails its students. :)
I think we all win when our students avoid such a poorly designed critical thinking assignment. Was this a companion follow-up to reading Uncle Tom's Cabin and assignment on using passages that were cited from the Bible to state how black people deserve to / should be slaves?
It's a perfectly valid exercise assuming the class is mature enough to handle it and in that respect I'm not going to second guess the teacher on the spot.
I remember having to do similar exercises myself; in one case it was taking a position opposite to your normal opinion and then making a speech to your classmates on the issue to try and convince others of the validity of your position (even though, of course, you personally didn't believe in it.)
Inherently as described it was a decent exercise in critical thinking; of course, if I was the teacher the next assignment would have been an assignment to deconstruct and demolish the arguments made by the student in the previous assignment. I wonder what this teacher's next assignment would have been absent this hysteria?
Would people have been this enraged if the class had been asked to take the part of a good Stalinist during the purges? Or, for another example, a good Maoist?
--------------
Incidentally the OP says it was an English Teacher setting the assignment - it wasn't a history class assignment as a couple of people around here seem to have concluded by the tone of their posts.
Quote from: Agelastus on April 16, 2013, 07:25:03 AM
It's a perfectly valid exercise assuming the class is mature enough to handle it and in that respect I'm not going to second guess the teacher on the spot.
It depends on the context, but probably not. Arguing the Nazi party platform is just regurgitating an ideology, which by definition, discourages critical thinking. Arguing the viewpoint of a hypothetical Nazi could, however, touch on intersecting agendas and encourages the student to choose whether the speaker is following lock-step or going that way to further their own agenda.
Quote from: Agelastus on April 16, 2013, 07:25:03 AM
It's a perfectly valid exercise assuming the class is mature enough to handle it and in that respect I'm not going to second guess the teacher on the spot.
I remember having to do similar exercises myself; in one case it was taking a position opposite to your normal opinion and then making a speech to your classmates on the issue to try and convince others of the validity of your position (even though, of course, you personally didn't believe in it.)
Inherently as described it was a decent exercise in critical thinking; of course, if I was the teacher the next assignment would have been an assignment to deconstruct and demolish the arguments made by the student in the previous assignment. I wonder what this teacher's next assignment would have been absent this hysteria?
Would people have been this enraged if the class had been asked to take the part of a good Stalinist during the purges? Or, for another example, a good Maoist?
I think there's little to be gained in asking students to defend racism.
Quote from: garbon on April 16, 2013, 07:36:51 AM
I think there's little to be gained in asking students to defend racism.
Pfft, what do you know about asking students to defend racism. You're gay and black, and probably don't even have a teaching license.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 16, 2013, 07:40:12 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 16, 2013, 07:36:51 AM
I think there's little to be gained in asking students to defend racism.
Pfft, what do you know about asking students to defend racism. You're gay and black, and probably don't even have a teaching license.
It's true. I've never had the advantage of developing the critical thinking skills that you get from defending racist arguments. :(
Quote from: garbon on April 16, 2013, 08:02:04 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 16, 2013, 07:40:12 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 16, 2013, 07:36:51 AM
I think there's little to be gained in asking students to defend racism.
Pfft, what do you know about asking students to defend racism. You're gay and black, and probably don't even have a teaching license.
It's true. I've never had the advantage of developing the critical thinking skills that you get from defending racist arguments. :(
well you are a republican :whistle:
Quote from: garbon on April 16, 2013, 07:36:51 AM
Quote from: Agelastus on April 16, 2013, 07:25:03 AM
It's a perfectly valid exercise assuming the class is mature enough to handle it and in that respect I'm not going to second guess the teacher on the spot.
I remember having to do similar exercises myself; in one case it was taking a position opposite to your normal opinion and then making a speech to your classmates on the issue to try and convince others of the validity of your position (even though, of course, you personally didn't believe in it.)
Inherently as described it was a decent exercise in critical thinking; of course, if I was the teacher the next assignment would have been an assignment to deconstruct and demolish the arguments made by the student in the previous assignment. I wonder what this teacher's next assignment would have been absent this hysteria?
Would people have been this enraged if the class had been asked to take the part of a good Stalinist during the purges? Or, for another example, a good Maoist?
I think there's little to be gained in asking students to defend racism.
Sure there is.
To my mind, racism (and more generally, bigotry) is an enemy of civil society - or at least, more correctly, an attitude that leads to the creation of enemies of civil society.
The old saying is that, if you wish to defeat an enemy, you must understand them.
The point of an exercise like this is not specific to the Nazis and Jews. Rather, they stand as simply an example (albeit an extreme one) of how shabby ideological thinking, unexamined and unchallenged, relying on emotion and prejudice rather than logic or fact, in an atmosphere of chrisis, hysteria and false patriotism, can lead to horrific public consequences.
Nothing could better insulate children from being victimised in turn by such a process than being asked to think through how to manipulate the levers of rhetoric themselves, based on a historical example.
The fear is not that the kids are ever likely to want to recreate Nazism and its rage against te Jews - lets face it, that is about as likely in America as the kids wanting to recreate Tsarist Russia. Rather, the the notion is to understand how rhetoric and propaganda work generally to justify what is on its face unjustifiable.
Quote from: chipwich on April 16, 2013, 06:35:04 AM
Grumber- Would you mind writing an essay that Jews are evil and the source of our problems? I ask because I'm pretty sure the Nazis never came up with a consistent reason why, they just expected everyone to believe and shot everyone who didn't.
In order to understand Nazi thinking, you have to understand scientific racism and social Darwinism. The Nazis positioned themselves not as random lunatics, but as the wave of the future - based on what they claimed was the best, most modern science of the day; though of course as we know, riddled with bullshit.
You see echoes of this bullshit to this day.
The notion is that:
(a) races of humans are distinct and their distinctness can be measured (this from anthropology);
(b) some races of humans are provably better that others - more intelligent, more creative (many anthropologists believed this to be true);
(c) the "survival of the fittest" applies to races as it does to species - the "unfit" are doomed to die out (and in fact
deserve to do so), as
(d) science has replaced the old morality - survival of the fit is not only a description, it is a moral goal (not only Nazis believed this);
(e) a thinking person, belonging to a particular race, would naturally want his or her race to prosper at the expense of all others - struggle what science states is the state of nature, of reality itself (many non-Nazis believed that struggle was both inevitable and a positive good - see Marx);
(f) the basis of morality should be science, and the scientific morality pointed to treating humans as one would treat any other type of livestock - to attempt through eugenics and culling, to make the race better - to
fail to do this is actively immoral (again, eugenics);
(g) that Jews, a distinct race, can "ape" non-Jews and even interbreed with them, thus infecting them with their inferior genetic material, which acts to degrade the race;
(h) the Jews have always known and acted on the theory of the struggle of the races (though not presumably with such scientific rigour) - they are attempting to be "the fittest" by infecting non-Jewish society and culture, deliberately spreading degrading and immoral art and philosophy for the specific purpose of undermining competing "races" such as the Germans;
and therefore (i) any measures taken to remove the Jews and their influence are moral (and, in fact, defensive);
(j) such measures require harshness which democracies are incapable of - which is why one needs, for the good of the race, a supreme leader invested with unlimited powers.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 15, 2013, 06:08:07 PM
The Nazis are a terrible example to use for this kind of exercise. Their ideology was notoriously shoddy in terms of logical thinking. Same is really true for any racist ideology - the argument depend on assuming obviously false premises and thus there is little value in such an exercise.
A better example would be something like Aristotle's theory of natural slavery (which also has the "virtue" of not being explicitly racialist). Or Filmer's patriacha. And yes I understand that this is ostensibly part of unit on modern history but the assignment doesn't seem particularly well designed to teaching the actual history either.
If the purpose of the exercise was to use the Nazis as an example of rigourously logical thinking, I would agree.
Quote from: Malthus on April 16, 2013, 08:12:44 AM
Sure there is.
To my mind, racism (and more generally, bigotry) is an enemy of civil society - or at least, more correctly, an attitude that leads to the creation of enemies of civil society.
The old saying is that, if you wish to defeat an enemy, you must understand them.
The point of an exercise like this is not specific to the Nazis and Jews. Rather, they stand as simply an example (albeit an extreme one) of how shabby ideological thinking, unexamined and unchallenged, relying on emotion and prejudice rather than logic or fact, in an atmosphere of chrisis, hysteria and false patriotism, can lead to horrific public consequences.
Nothing could better insulate children from being victimised in turn by such a process than being asked to think through how to manipulate the levers of rhetoric themselves, based on a historical example.
The fear is not that the kids are ever likely to want to recreate Nazism and its rage against te Jews - lets face it, that is about as likely in America as the kids wanting to recreate Tsarist Russia. Rather, the the notion is to understand how rhetoric and propaganda work generally to justify what is on its face unjustifiable.
And again I think you can do this without asking children to defend racism. :mellow:
I stated it before but now I'll ask it - did most of Languish have to complete a similar assignment?
Quote from: garbon on April 16, 2013, 08:52:06 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 16, 2013, 08:12:44 AM
Sure there is.
To my mind, racism (and more generally, bigotry) is an enemy of civil society - or at least, more correctly, an attitude that leads to the creation of enemies of civil society.
The old saying is that, if you wish to defeat an enemy, you must understand them.
The point of an exercise like this is not specific to the Nazis and Jews. Rather, they stand as simply an example (albeit an extreme one) of how shabby ideological thinking, unexamined and unchallenged, relying on emotion and prejudice rather than logic or fact, in an atmosphere of chrisis, hysteria and false patriotism, can lead to horrific public consequences.
Nothing could better insulate children from being victimised in turn by such a process than being asked to think through how to manipulate the levers of rhetoric themselves, based on a historical example.
The fear is not that the kids are ever likely to want to recreate Nazism and its rage against te Jews - lets face it, that is about as likely in America as the kids wanting to recreate Tsarist Russia. Rather, the the notion is to understand how rhetoric and propaganda work generally to justify what is on its face unjustifiable.
And again I think you can do this without asking children to defend racism. :mellow:
Certainly one can. But I don't see why one
must. Using controversy to generate interest is not inherently a bad thing.
The modern notion of shying away from anything that hints of controversy (or violence), or that may possibly upset anyone, strikes me as designed to produce the sort of bland, boring versions of history and rhetoric under which I suffered as a high school student.
Quote
I stated it before but now I'll ask it - did most of Languish have to complete a similar assignment?
We did one much less controversial (and, admittedly, less interesting) - to take a position from Canadian history and support it (I got the Family Compact, a group of colonial grandees that effectively ruled Upper Canada with patronage and corruption).
I'd much rather have "done" the Nazis.
Quote from: garbon on April 16, 2013, 08:52:06 AM
I stated it before but now I'll ask it - did most of Languish have to complete a similar assignment?
Well lawyers are trained to be able to defend either side in any dispute, and there are an awful lot of lawyers here on Languish...
Quote from: chipwich on April 16, 2013, 06:35:04 AM
Grumber- Would you mind writing an essay that Jews are evil and the source of our problems? I ask because I'm pretty sure the Nazis never came up with a consistent reason why, they just expected everyone to believe and shot everyone who didn't.
I wouldn't mind writing such an essay if you gave me your propaganda that showed how and why you believe the Jews are the source of all your problems. I am pretty sure the Nazis explained why the Jews were one of Germany's problems, whether you are aware of them or not. The Holocaust Museum has a web site that can maybe help you get started: http://www.ushmm.org/outreach/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007679
Quote from: Malthus on April 16, 2013, 09:09:55 AM
Certainly one can. But I don't see why one must. Using controversy to generate interest is not inherently a bad thing.
The modern notion of shying away from anything that hints of controversy (or violence), or that may possibly upset anyone, strikes me as designed to produce the sort of bland, boring versions of history and rhetoric under which I suffered as a high school student.
I don't think there's anything wrong with not assigning children to emulate racist thought. I don't think that's making things bland. After all, even without that assignment, we're still having kids confront the horror that is the holocaust.
Quote from: Malthus on April 16, 2013, 09:09:55 AM
We did one much less controversial (and, admittedly, less interesting) - to take a position from Canadian history and support it (I got the Family Compact, a group of colonial grandees that effectively ruled Upper Canada with patronage and corruption).
Yeah, I'm going to say that's not really the same though yes it does involve critical thinking. ;)
Quote from: Barrister on April 16, 2013, 09:27:41 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 16, 2013, 08:52:06 AM
I stated it before but now I'll ask it - did most of Languish have to complete a similar assignment?
Well lawyers are trained to be able to defend either side in any dispute, and there are an awful lot of lawyers here on Languish...
I don't think similar should be reduced simply to using an argument to defend a position you don't support. I don't think anyone is saying that's a bad idea.
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on April 16, 2013, 07:11:56 AM
Considering how you think this is a great assignment, I am pretty relieved to hear that you can "tell I can't teach." :)
Given that you are resorting to
ad homs, I conclude that you are past the point where you can participate in the debate on an intellectual basis. :)
Quote from: garbon on April 16, 2013, 06:55:57 AM
I think we all win when our students avoid such a poorly designed critical thinking assignment. Was this a companion follow-up to reading Uncle Tom's Cabin and assignment on using passages that were cited from the Bible to state how black people deserve to / should be slaves?
I think we smart people win when blinkered people censor learning that doesn't fit their narrow little stereotypes of what learning is. less competition for us.
As for the
Uncle Tom's Cabin story, it isn't comparable to the story in
Night, but I certainly could see where you would need to teach students about slavery before they could successfully undertake UTC. In this case, the unfamiliar to the students would be the mental viewpoint of the slaves, so I'd probably have them write something based on an excerpt from
Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave, whether that horrified you or not.
Quote from: Malthus on April 16, 2013, 08:32:54 AM
(b) some races of humans are provably better that others - more intelligent, more creative (many anthropologists believed this to be true);
(e) a thinking person, belonging to a particular race, would naturally want his or her race to prosper at the expense of all others - struggle what science states is the state of nature, of reality itself (many non-Nazis believed that struggle was both inevitable and a positive good - see Marx);
(f) the basis of morality should be science, and the scientific morality pointed to treating humans as one would treat any other type of livestock - to attempt through eugenics and culling, to make the race better - to fail to do this is actively immoral (again, eugenics);
(h) the Jews have always known and acted on the theory of the struggle of the races (though not presumably with such scientific rigour) - they are attempting to be "the fittest" by infecting non-Jewish society and culture, deliberately spreading degrading and immoral art and philosophy for the specific purpose of undermining competing "races" such as the Germans;
Yet without this these being factually true, the argument is still a non-sequitor.
Quote from: garbon on April 16, 2013, 09:28:19 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 16, 2013, 09:09:55 AM
Certainly one can. But I don't see why one must. Using controversy to generate interest is not inherently a bad thing.
The modern notion of shying away from anything that hints of controversy (or violence), or that may possibly upset anyone, strikes me as designed to produce the sort of bland, boring versions of history and rhetoric under which I suffered as a high school student.
I don't think there's anything wrong with not assigning children to emulate racist thought. I don't think that's making things bland. After all, even without that assignment, we're still having kids confront the horror that is the holocaust.
Yes, but I thought the issue was that one should
not set such an assignment - indeed that one should (as per the story in the OP) be required to
apologize for having done so, or even be disciplined for it.
While I quite agree that
this particular assignment isn't somehow essential for a complete education and that many alternative assignments could be created, the idea that a school or a teacher should be in serious crap
merely for setting such an assignment seems to me guaranteed to provide blandness and lack of creativity in education. It's handing over the curriculum to those who are easily offended by the controversial.
I've been convinced of the value of this particular assignment (though not from grumbler; Malthus made some very good points).
I do, however, still object to there not being an "opt out" option. I know that as a senior in high school, I wouldn't have been able to do this assignment. In fact, as a 43-year-old college graduate, I would still struggle with this assignment. I believe that having the option to find another topic to use for a similar lesson should be in place.
Quote from: chipwich on April 16, 2013, 09:43:16 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 16, 2013, 08:32:54 AM
(b) some races of humans are provably better that others - more intelligent, more creative (many anthropologists believed this to be true);
(e) a thinking person, belonging to a particular race, would naturally want his or her race to prosper at the expense of all others - struggle what science states is the state of nature, of reality itself (many non-Nazis believed that struggle was both inevitable and a positive good - see Marx);
(f) the basis of morality should be science, and the scientific morality pointed to treating humans as one would treat any other type of livestock - to attempt through eugenics and culling, to make the race better - to fail to do this is actively immoral (again, eugenics);
Yet without this these being factually true, the argument is still a non-sequitor.
Most of the points you highlighted are not disprovable. In fact, the only one which is, was highly controversial at the time the Nazis were around among actual scientists (though the weight of evidence was already highly against them at the time) - namely, that races were distinct and some better than others. None of the rest is really disprovable.
How can you say that "the basis of morality should be science" is "not factually true"?
Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 16, 2013, 07:19:03 AM
Says the guy who's "clarified" his assertion that the assignment should be challenging students to regurgitate the propaganda and not realistically think like an actual party member. I've got a kettle I'd like you to meet, sir.
I have no idea (nor would the students) of how to "realistically think like an actual party member." You'd have to be a party member to do that, and I don't think even you want to create Nazi party members.
All you can ask is that the students, to the best of their ability, place themselves in an unfamiliar position: that of someone trying to use official propaganda effectively to support an abhorrent position and so "prove" their loyalty to the "Nazi state."
Your kettle remains unmet.
Quote from: Malthus on April 16, 2013, 09:49:42 AM
Quote from: chipwich on April 16, 2013, 09:43:16 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 16, 2013, 08:32:54 AM
(b) some races of humans are provably better that others - more intelligent, more creative (many anthropologists believed this to be true);
(e) a thinking person, belonging to a particular race, would naturally want his or her race to prosper at the expense of all others - struggle what science states is the state of nature, of reality itself (many non-Nazis believed that struggle was both inevitable and a positive good - see Marx);
(f) the basis of morality should be science, and the scientific morality pointed to treating humans as one would treat any other type of livestock - to attempt through eugenics and culling, to make the race better - to fail to do this is actively immoral (again, eugenics);
Yet without this these being factually true, the argument is still a non-sequitor.
Most of the points you highlighted are not disprovable. In fact, the only one which is, was highly controversial at the time the Nazis were around among actual scientists (though the weight of evidence was already highly against them at the time) - namely, that races were distinct and some better than others. None of the rest is really disprovable.
How can you say that "the basis of morality should be science" is "not factually true"?
I don't remember who has the burden of proof in this case, but I believe the Nazis are the ones that need to prove them
Note that I am aware that Lawyers should be capable of taking both sides, but to my knowledge that doesn't extend to counterfactuals or non-sequitor opinions.
QuoteI ask because I'm pretty sure the Nazis never came up with a consistent reason why, they just expected everyone to believe and shot everyone who didn't.
Read Masters of Death, Ordinary Men, and The Good Old Days. Even psychos can justify to themselves "why", however fucked up the thought process is.
Quote from: merithyn on April 16, 2013, 09:47:15 AM
I do, however, still object to there not being an "opt out" option. I know that as a senior in high school, I wouldn't have been able to do this assignment. In fact, as a 43-year-old college graduate, I would still struggle with this assignment. I believe that having the option to find another topic to use for a similar lesson should be in place.
Those who find this kind of critical thinking hard are the ones for which it would be of the most benefit. I don't think students should be able to opt out of assignments that they think are too hard; they often need to fail to succeed.
Quote from: Malthus on April 16, 2013, 09:43:48 AM
Yes, but I thought the issue was that one should not set such an assignment - indeed that one should (as per the story in the OP) be required to apologize for having done so, or even be disciplined for it.
While I quite agree that this particular assignment isn't somehow essential for a complete education and that many alternative assignments could be created, the idea that a school or a teacher should be in serious crap merely for setting such an assignment seems to me guaranteed to provide blandness and lack of creativity in education. It's handing over the curriculum to those who are easily offended by the controversial.
I think the issue is with this particular assignment and not the notion that one can't have critical thinking assignments that involve the Nazis. After all this assignment asked them to prove Jews are evil and to do a good enough job so that their instructor - standing in a a Nazi government official, would be convinced of their loyalty to the party.
Quote from: chipwich on April 16, 2013, 09:57:29 AM
I don't remember who has the burden of proof in this case, but I believe the Nazis are the ones that need to prove them
Note that I am aware that Lawyers should be capable of taking both sides, but to my knowledge that doesn't extend to counterfactuals or non-sequitor opinions.
Huh? I'm saying that a statement like "the basis of morality should be science"
is not disprovable. It's an axiomatic statement of opinion. Burden of proof doesn't enter into it.
I dunno where you are getting the "counterfactuals or non-sequitor opinions" from. It isn't a "counterfactual", as the Nazis (at least, some Nazis) actually believed this. Indeed, so do some people today (though this does not, of course, make them Nazis).
In fact, when one studies the Nazis, one realizes that their philosophy (insofar as it has any coherence) is simply a farrago of notions popular among Europeans at the time, all jumbled together and taken to an extreme. The version I set out was the more "intellectual" one; other Nazis absorbed all sorts of odd notions, ranging from hollow-earth theories to neo-paganism (Hitler himself thought they were "nuts").
Quote from: garbon on April 16, 2013, 10:07:58 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 16, 2013, 09:43:48 AM
Yes, but I thought the issue was that one should not set such an assignment - indeed that one should (as per the story in the OP) be required to apologize for having done so, or even be disciplined for it.
While I quite agree that this particular assignment isn't somehow essential for a complete education and that many alternative assignments could be created, the idea that a school or a teacher should be in serious crap merely for setting such an assignment seems to me guaranteed to provide blandness and lack of creativity in education. It's handing over the curriculum to those who are easily offended by the controversial.
I think the issue is with this particular assignment and not the notion that one can't have critical thinking assignments that involve the Nazis. After all this assignment asked them to prove Jews are evil and to do a good enough job so that their instructor - standing in a a Nazi government official, would be convinced of their loyalty to the party.
It's self-evidently play-acting.
In this case, no-one expects that the kids will come out of the exercise being
real Nazi propagandists, any more than one expects a Shakespearian actor in drama class will
really go on a murderous rampage and be haunted by guilt.
In my school assignment, I was supposed to defend the Family Compact. No-one expected that I would thereby end up a
real 19th century Upper Canadian plutocrat (more's the pity! :( ).
Quote from: Malthus on April 16, 2013, 10:12:38 AM
It's self-evidently play-acting.
In this case, no-one expects that the kids will come out of the exercise being real Nazi propagandists, any more than one expects a Shakespearian actor in drama class will really go on a murderous rampage and be haunted by guilt.
Agreed but if the articles around are any indication, more than a handful of students didn't feel comfortable with this play-acting.
Quote from: grumbler on April 16, 2013, 10:01:19 AM
Quote from: merithyn on April 16, 2013, 09:47:15 AM
I do, however, still object to there not being an "opt out" option. I know that as a senior in high school, I wouldn't have been able to do this assignment. In fact, as a 43-year-old college graduate, I would still struggle with this assignment. I believe that having the option to find another topic to use for a similar lesson should be in place.
Those who find this kind of critical thinking hard are the ones for which it would be of the most benefit. I don't think students should be able to opt out of assignments that they think are too hard; they often need to fail to succeed.
The critical thinking part isn't too hard. The emotional impact would be, however.
Quote from: garbon on April 16, 2013, 10:19:12 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 16, 2013, 10:12:38 AM
It's self-evidently play-acting.
In this case, no-one expects that the kids will come out of the exercise being real Nazi propagandists, any more than one expects a Shakespearian actor in drama class will really go on a murderous rampage and be haunted by guilt.
Agreed but if the articles around are any indication, more than a handful of students didn't feel comfortable with this play-acting.
Well, sure.
And I assume that more than a few in drama class would be uncomfortable playing the Jew in
The Merchant of Venice or the Moor in
Othello or, for that matter, the woman Katherina in
The Taming of the Shrew.
The fact is that, depending on the level of outrage one is willing to cater to, pretty well all of Western literature and drama will eventually be 'off limits', as themes or racism, violence, and mysogeny can be found throughout.
Quote from: Malthus on April 16, 2013, 10:26:53 AM
Well, sure.
And I assume that more than a few in drama class would be uncomfortable playing the Jew in The Merchant of Venice or the Moor in Othello or, for that matter, the woman Katherina in The Taming of the Shrew.
The fact is that, depending on the level of outrage one is willing to cater to, pretty well all of Western literature and drama will eventually be 'off limits', as themes or racism, violence, and mysogeny can be found throughout.
I think there is a difference between your examples and asking people to pretend as though they are racist. That said, I don't think I'd have an issue if a teacher let a kid switch parts if they felt uncomfortable.
When there are better ways to teach children the same skills, why not steer clear of having them defend racism? I don't think most of us had to defend racism growing up in order to learn about Nazis and develop critical thinking skill, so why should kids now?
Quote from: Malthus on April 16, 2013, 08:32:54 AM
In order to understand Nazi thinking, you have to understand scientific racism and social Darwinism.
Because that's covered so well in 10th grade English.
Quote from: chipwich on April 16, 2013, 09:57:29 AMI don't remember who has the burden of proof in this case, but I believe the Nazis are the ones that need to prove them
Note that I am aware that Lawyers should be capable of taking both sides, but to my knowledge that doesn't extend to counterfactuals or non-sequitor opinions.
It is perfectly possible to get to completely wrong results by applying logical reasoning to facts - and nazis were quite rigorous in their "scientific" thinking - they just took a number of opinions (which are neither provable nor disprovable facts) to extreme (but logical) conclusions.
For example, eugenics is a *very* logical point of view - its main failing is that it is inhuman and immoral, not that it is a non-sequitur or counter-factual.
Which begs the question, what would a "think like a Pole" exercise be like? :hmm:
Quote from: garbon on April 16, 2013, 10:37:10 AM
When there are better ways to teach children the same skills, why not steer clear of having them defend racism? I don't think most of us had to defend racism growing up in order to learn about Nazis and develop critical thinking skill, so why should kids now?
This was English class, not history class - it was about defending the indefensible/wrongheaded position, not about "learning about Nazis".
Nazis may be an extreme example - but I guess that's why they are even better as a subject of such exercise, since everyone knows they are evil.
Besides, by that reasoning, is there any socio-political thesis that is not generally shared by the majority of the populace that you would use for such exercise? I mean in each case, someone might find defending such position abhorrent.
Quote from: Martinus on April 16, 2013, 11:13:05 AM
Besides, by that reasoning, is there any socio-political thesis that is not generally shared by the majority of the populace that you would use for such exercise? I mean in each case, someone might find defending such position abhorrent.
I think it's okay if we brightline a few items like sexuality, gender and sexuality. I also think you can engage in critical thinking about these concepts without be assigned to pretend to be someone would socially backwards views.
Quote from: derspiess on April 16, 2013, 11:11:10 AM
Which begs the question, what would a "think like a Pole" exercise be like? :hmm:
You have one potato. The Jew down the road has a bag of potatoes. How many times must you hit him with a shovel to get his potatoes?
How many screen doors are needed to finish a submarine?
Quote from: merithyn on April 16, 2013, 10:23:55 AM
The critical thinking part isn't too hard. The emotional impact would be, however.
That's part of the reason to do the exercise; to demonstrate that it is possible to engage in intellectual pursuits, and that not
everything has to be about one's emotions. It is precisely those who have the hardest time separating their emotions from their intellect that can gain most by a challenge like this.
School isn't about teaching students to avoid challenges, it is about teaching them to overcome challenges.
If you tried it, you would discover that, over time, you could control your emotions and respond to challenges like this assignment in a purely intellectual manner. A good school will allow one to do this as a teenager, and not be crippled by emotionalism into adulthood.
am i crippled by emotionalism
Quote from: garbon on April 16, 2013, 11:26:44 AM
I think it's okay if we brightline a few items like sexuality, gender and sexuality. I also think you can engage in critical thinking about these concepts without be assigned to pretend to be someone would socially backwards views.
I put this through my gibberish-English translator and it came out gibberish. You might want to re-word it in English. Before you do, look up "bright line" so you don't misuse it again, and re-think whether "socially backwards" is really the kind of view you think you are describing.
Quote from: The Brain on April 16, 2013, 12:41:18 PM
am i crippled by emotionalism
No, you just suffer from anticapitalism.
Quote from: grumbler on April 16, 2013, 12:43:15 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 16, 2013, 11:26:44 AM
I think it's okay if we brightline a few items like sexuality, gender and sexuality. I also think you can engage in critical thinking about these concepts without be assigned to pretend to be someone would socially backwards views.
I put this through my gibberish-English translator and it came out gibberish. You might want to re-word it in English. Before you do, look up "bright line" so you don't misuse it again, and re-think whether "socially backwards" is really the kind of view you think you are describing.
Oh I'm sorry I wasn't talking to you. Your inability to comprehend is not really a concern of mine. :console:
Yeah, they over-capitalismed the shit out of me last year.
Quote from: garbon on April 16, 2013, 12:49:40 PM
Oh I'm sorry I wasn't talking to you. Your inability to comprehend is not really a concern of mine. :console:
Cool. Your inability to communicate doesn't really lower the quality of your posts; in fact, it is probably better for your rep that you write gibberish than that you express your ideas clearly. :hug:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 16, 2013, 01:06:35 PM
Yeah, they over-capitalismed the shit out of me last year.
Oh. Sorry. I meant capitalization, not capitalism, in both my response to you and my response to The Brain. Stupid auto-correct!
Fuck, I could use some over-capitalization right about now. I'll PM my PayPal account.
Quote from: grumbler on April 16, 2013, 01:07:53 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 16, 2013, 12:49:40 PM
Oh I'm sorry I wasn't talking to you. Your inability to comprehend is not really a concern of mine. :console:
Cool. Your inability to communicate doesn't really lower the quality of your posts; in fact, it is probably better for your rep that you write gibberish than that you express your ideas clearly. :hug:
Hey there really isn't a reason we need to interact here. :)
Quote from: garbon on April 16, 2013, 10:19:12 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 16, 2013, 10:12:38 AM
It's self-evidently play-acting.
In this case, no-one expects that the kids will come out of the exercise being real Nazi propagandists, any more than one expects a Shakespearian actor in drama class will really go on a murderous rampage and be haunted by guilt.
Agreed but if the articles around are any indication, more than a handful of students didn't feel comfortable with this play-acting.
So? In any given class, more than a handful of students won't feel comfortable with multiple-choice quiz.
Quote from: dps on April 16, 2013, 01:30:33 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 16, 2013, 10:19:12 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 16, 2013, 10:12:38 AM
It's self-evidently play-acting.
In this case, no-one expects that the kids will come out of the exercise being real Nazi propagandists, any more than one expects a Shakespearian actor in drama class will really go on a murderous rampage and be haunted by guilt.
Agreed but if the articles around are any indication, more than a handful of students didn't feel comfortable with this play-acting.
So? In any given class, more than a handful of students won't feel comfortable with multiple-choice quiz.
So you don't see a difference between kids being upset that they are asked to create racist arguments vs. kids that are upset because they have a multiple-choice quiz? :huh:
Quote from: grumbler on April 16, 2013, 12:36:31 PM
Quote from: merithyn on April 16, 2013, 10:23:55 AM
The critical thinking part isn't too hard. The emotional impact would be, however.
That's part of the reason to do the exercise; to demonstrate that it is possible to engage in intellectual pursuits, and that not everything has to be about one's emotions. It is precisely those who have the hardest time separating their emotions from their intellect that can gain most by a challenge like this.
School isn't about teaching students to avoid challenges, it is about teaching them to overcome challenges.
If you tried it, you would discover that, over time, you could control your emotions and respond to challenges like this assignment in a purely intellectual manner. A good school will allow one to do this as a teenager, and not be crippled by emotionalism into adulthood.
Posting on Languish is like a PhD in this. ;)
Quote from: garbon on April 16, 2013, 01:50:35 PM
Quote from: dps on April 16, 2013, 01:30:33 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 16, 2013, 10:19:12 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 16, 2013, 10:12:38 AM
It's self-evidently play-acting.
In this case, no-one expects that the kids will come out of the exercise being real Nazi propagandists, any more than one expects a Shakespearian actor in drama class will really go on a murderous rampage and be haunted by guilt.
Agreed but if the articles around are any indication, more than a handful of students didn't feel comfortable with this play-acting.
So? In any given class, more than a handful of students won't feel comfortable with multiple-choice quiz.
So you don't see a difference between kids being upset that they are asked to create racist arguments vs. kids that are upset because they have a multiple-choice quiz? :huh:
It's not that I don't see a difference, it's that I don't think that they need to be shielded from things that upset them.
Quote from: dps on April 16, 2013, 03:06:50 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 16, 2013, 01:50:35 PM
Quote from: dps on April 16, 2013, 01:30:33 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 16, 2013, 10:19:12 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 16, 2013, 10:12:38 AM
It's self-evidently play-acting.
In this case, no-one expects that the kids will come out of the exercise being real Nazi propagandists, any more than one expects a Shakespearian actor in drama class will really go on a murderous rampage and be haunted by guilt.
Agreed but if the articles around are any indication, more than a handful of students didn't feel comfortable with this play-acting.
So? In any given class, more than a handful of students won't feel comfortable with multiple-choice quiz.
So you don't see a difference between kids being upset that they are asked to create racist arguments vs. kids that are upset because they have a multiple-choice quiz? :huh:
It's not that I don't see a difference, it's that I don't think that they need to be shielded from things that upset them.
Well I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I think being upset over being asked to pretend to be racist is legitimate enough to be shielded from. Not so a multiple-choice quiz though really having those generally makes me think the teacher is lazy. :P
Quote from: grumbler on April 16, 2013, 09:39:16 AM
I think we smart people win when blinkered people censor learning that doesn't fit their narrow little stereotypes of what learning is. less competition for us.
:XD:
Quote from: grumbler on April 16, 2013, 06:23:59 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 15, 2013, 10:36:35 PM
But since none of this involves math, science or manual skills, is it actually worthwhile? Not really.
I don't think you are in a position to disdain critical thinking skills. Ide! Imagine where you would be if you had them. :P
If you think teaching hobbies to people, who if they did care about it could easily learn about it without your help, while pretending it's a vital service on par with math and science education, advances a tremendously valuable individual or social purpose, and I should automatically believe you when you say this when you're arguing from a totally biased position, then maybe I'm not the one with the critical thinking problem. :)
World War II is cool, but the salient lessons are not really arguable and are easily imparted in detail within a couple of hours, and in short in a few minutes: racism is really bad, totalitarianism is also bad if it's not done just right, so it should probably be avoided altogether, unprovoked aggression between nations is usually bad but not when America does it, and the air force is more valuable than the navy. Now go learn something important, like calculus. You can play Europa in your free time.
Compelling arguments all, Ide. But you still went to law school. That's on your permanent record.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 16, 2013, 08:08:05 PM
Compelling arguments all, Ide. But you still went to law school. That's on your permanent record.
They taught me critical thinking. When they did, I realized I shouldn't have gone to law school because critical thinking is almost entirely worthless in business or industry or even law itself without quantitative skills or interpersonal skills. It's something of an ouroboros.
Anyway, I also fail to see how writing like a Nazi actually produces critical thinkers. However, the argument could be advanced that writing bullshit that you neither believe in nor even respect but you write anyway because you have to
is a valuable skill, so perhaps grumbler is right and this teacher should be praised after all.
I told Ide he should go into Engineering, but noooo. He had to be like John Edwards. You can still get a good job as an engineer with a record. You just build doomsday weapons for super villains.
In all seriousness, I actually don't think history in particular and social science in general should be taken out of K-12 education. There is a social value in having people basically understand that the Holocaust is bad and shouldn't be repeated and stuff, or that racism was a thing until Quentin Tarantino healed race relations in America forever. So grumbler should still have his gig--well, not his particular gig, which iirc is at a fancy private academy that should be burned to the ground and its earth salted, but at a public high school.
As for PDH--well, with his PhD and long-time teaching experience he would not doubt be very competitive as a prospective K-12 teacher. :)
I can't stand teaching kids.
Quote from: PDH on April 16, 2013, 08:43:49 PM
I can't stand teaching kids.
When did you ever teach a grown-up? :D
Quote from: Ideologue on April 16, 2013, 08:44:57 PM
Quote from: PDH on April 16, 2013, 08:43:49 PM
I can't stand teaching kids.
When did you ever teach a grown-up? :D
Really, I can't stand teaching grown-ups either. I just stand up there and talk and force them to remember stupid shit.
Quote from: garbon on April 16, 2013, 06:55:57 AM
Quote from: grumbler on April 16, 2013, 06:32:48 AM
You win and I win when the American education system fails its students. :)
I think we all win when our students avoid such a poorly designed critical thinking assignment. Was this a companion follow-up to reading Uncle Tom's Cabin and assignment on using passages that were cited from the Bible to state how black people deserve to / should be slaves?
As I mentioned I basically did that assignment in College. I thought it was a great assignment.
I agree that most public schools are run by cowards who would be cowed by the mob into punishing a teacher who gave that assignment.
Quote from: Malthus on April 16, 2013, 08:12:44 AM
The old saying is that, if you wish to defeat an enemy, you must understand them.
Understanding does not require actually doing the thing in question. I can reach an understanding about what will happen if I jump off a bridge without actually jumping off a bridge. An essential attribute of an educated adult is the ability to analyze a problem or a question without having to literally assume each position. I don't think having adolescent Amercian kids take on the role of Nazi propagandists helps the understanding of the power of Nazi propaganda; on the contrary, it risks trivializing it. Nazi propanganda is powerful enough-- and visual enough for the present generation -- to stand on its own.
What I still haven't really heard from either you or grumbler is exactly what pedogogical goal is served by this exercise or why it is the best way to achieve it,
Quote from: grumbler on April 16, 2013, 06:21:48 AM
I don't think you understand the purpose of the exercise. It wasn't to get the students to critique the quality of Hitler's prose or to quantify the rigor of Goebbels' conclusions, but to get students to read and comprehend what the Nazis themselves were saying they were doing, and why,
See comment to Malthus above. I'm not yet convinced that this is really the best way to go about it.
QuoteWe shouldn't ignore history we find distasteful in favor of some Greek philosophers whose work has no practical merit but which is therefor divorced from the ickiness of history.
Aristotle???
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 17, 2013, 08:52:30 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 16, 2013, 08:12:44 AM
The old saying is that, if you wish to defeat an enemy, you must understand them.
Understanding does not require actually doing the thing in question. I can reach an understanding about what will happen if I jump off a bridge without actually jumping off a bridge. An essential attribute of an educated adult is the ability to analyze a problem or a question without having to literally assume each position. I don't think having adolescent Amercian kids take on the role of Nazi propagandists helps the understanding of the power of Nazi propaganda; on the contrary, it risks trivializing it. Nazi propanganda is powerful enough-- and visual enough for the present generation -- to stand on its own.
What I still haven't really heard from either you or grumbler is exactly what pedogogical goal is served by this exercise or why it is the best way to achieve it,
Then you have been reading by posts rather selectively, as I state what I thought the goal was immediately underneath the part you quoted.
However, for the sake of argument, I will restate.
QuoteThe point of an exercise like this is not specific to the Nazis and Jews. Rather, they stand as simply an example (albeit an extreme one) of how shabby ideological thinking, unexamined and unchallenged, relying on emotion and prejudice rather than logic or fact, in an atmosphere of chrisis, hysteria and false patriotism, can lead to horrific public consequences.
Nothing could better insulate children from being victimised in turn by such a process than being asked to think through how to manipulate the levers of rhetoric themselves, based on a historical example.
The fear is not that the kids are ever likely to want to recreate Nazism and its rage against the Jews - lets face it, that is about as likely in America as the kids wanting to recreate Tsarist Russia. Rather, the the notion is to understand how rhetoric and propaganda work generally to justify what is on its face unjustifiable.
You can agree or disagree just as you like, but you cannot legitimately say I never posted my position.
Mind you, I'm not making the argument that this is the *best* way to do it. I don't have to. Rather, I'm simply saying this is *a* perfectly legitimate way of doing it.
Is it though? I mean the task is asking them to make strong rational arguments. I'm not sure how that helps convey "how shabby ideological thinking, unexamined and unchallenged, relying on emotion and prejudice rather than logic or fact, in an atmosphere of chrisis, hysteria and false patriotism, can lead to horrific public consequences."
Quote from: garbon on April 17, 2013, 09:05:39 AM
Is it though? I mean the task is asking them to make strong rational arguments. I'm not sure how that helps convey "how shabby ideological thinking, unexamined and unchallenged, relying on emotion and prejudice rather than logic or fact, in an atmosphere of chrisis, hysteria and false patriotism, can lead to horrific public consequences."
From the OP:
QuoteThe Albany Times Union reports that 10th-grade students at Albany High School were given the assignment as part of a critical thinking exercise where they are challenged to make an "abhorrent argument."
"You must argue that Jews are evil, and use solid rationale from government propaganda to convince me of your loyalty to the Third Reich!" say the assignment instructions for the five-paragraph essay.
The task isn't "to make strong rational arguments". It is to make arguments solidly grounded on Nazi government propaganda - in short, using Nazi rhetoric to make an argument that is acknowledged in the very assignment as being "abhorrent", all as part of an exercise designed to promote "critical thinking".
Quote from: Malthus on April 17, 2013, 09:26:27 AM
From the OP:
QuoteThe Albany Times Union reports that 10th-grade students at Albany High School were given the assignment as part of a critical thinking exercise where they are challenged to make an "abhorrent argument."
"You must argue that Jews are evil, and use solid rationale from government propaganda to convince me of your loyalty to the Third Reich!" say the assignment instructions for the five-paragraph essay.
The task isn't "to make strong rational arguments". It is to make arguments solidly grounded on Nazi government propaganda - in short, using Nazi rhetoric to make an argument that is acknowledged in the very assignment as being "abhorrent", all as part of an exercise designed to promote "critical thinking".
Sure but if the arguments aren't supposed to aim at being convincing then I think the assignment is even worse. I don't think we need children spending time making irrational arguments - they are already quite capable of that (:D). And putting together a weak argument that just draws on a smattering of propaganda isn't really critical thinking.
I concur with garbon's point: there is a tension here between the objective of teaching kids to make and defend arguments and of teaching them to understand history.
That comes through in Malthus's last response, where he says the point is to teach "critical thinking", with the scare quotes in his own post. That's a bit vague to say the least. it certainly sounds a lot more like the skill of devising and making arguments but M insists that is what it is not about. Hence my confusion.
For the purposes of understanding history, I could understanding this kind of play-acting method if used for an historical period or area that is very unfamiliar to contemporary Americans, as a way of trying to bridge the vast differences in mentalities and culture. It might make sense for example for ancient Greece, or medieval Russia or 19th century China. But Nazi Germany is not particularly unfamiliar or strange. It was a modern Western society. it used familiar forms like video, visual imagery, and newspapers. Its racist ideology sadly is not all that unfamiliar in the present day, even in present day America where Nazi-influenced organizations are not exactly unknown. So the value of this particular method seems questionable in this context.
Using rationale the speeches of Cato the Elder write a convincing paper on why Carthage must be destroyed.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 17, 2013, 09:43:13 AM
I concur with garbon's point: there is a tension here between the objective of teaching kids to make and defend arguments and of teaching them to understand history.
That comes through in Malthus's last response, where he says the point is to teach "critical thinking", with the scare quotes in his own post. That's a bit vague to say the least. it certainly sounds a lot more like the skill of devising and making arguments but M insists that is what it is not about. Hence my confusion.
I'm not using scare quotes. I'm actually quoting the article in the OP. It you find the term vague, blame the writer of the original article.
I've said what I thought the exercise was about. It isn't about "teaching history", but about using an extreme historical example to teach them the uses and abuses of rhetoric. No scare quotes needed around "critical thinking", because learning how an abhorrent argument may be put persuasively and passionately (even where its basis is irrational nonsense)
is, in fact, an important aspect of critical thinking - in that it insulates the learner from being persuaded by such arguments in the future.
QuoteFor the purposes of understanding history, I could understanding this kind of play-acting method if used for an historical period or area that is very unfamiliar to contemporary Americans, as a way of trying to bridge the vast differences in mentalities and culture. It might make sense for example for ancient Greece, or medieval Russia or 19th century China. But Nazi Germany is not particularly unfamiliar or strange. It was a modern Western society. it used familiar forms like video, visual imagery, and newspapers. Its racist ideology sadly is not all that unfamiliar in the present day, even in present day America where Nazi-influenced organizations are not exactly unknown. So the value of this particular method seems questionable in this context.
The notion that modern American schoolkids are likely to be familiar with the mentality and culture of Nazi Germany is I think quite incorrect. To the vast majority, it will be quite as alien to them as Medieval Russia.
Quote from: Malthus on April 17, 2013, 09:58:25 AM
I've said what I thought the exercise was about. It isn't about "teaching history", but about using an extreme historical example to teach them the uses and abuses of rhetoric. No scare quotes needed around "critical thinking", because learning how an abhorrent argument may be put persuasively and passionately (even where its basis is irrational nonsense) is, in fact, an important aspect of critical thinking - in that it insulates the learner from being persuaded by such arguments in the future.
If that's all it is - why not read/view (as they did) some nazi proganda and then write an essay about how Nazis used that to formulate/propagate their world view. Not sure where an essay where you must argue that Jews are evil fits in.
Quote from: garbon on April 17, 2013, 10:03:47 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 17, 2013, 09:58:25 AM
I've said what I thought the exercise was about. It isn't about "teaching history", but about using an extreme historical example to teach them the uses and abuses of rhetoric. No scare quotes needed around "critical thinking", because learning how an abhorrent argument may be put persuasively and passionately (even where its basis is irrational nonsense) is, in fact, an important aspect of critical thinking - in that it insulates the learner from being persuaded by such arguments in the future.
If that's all it is - why not read/view (as they did) some nazi proganda and then write an essay about how Nazis used that to formulate/propagate their world view. Not sure where an essay where you must argue that Jews are evil fits in.
Because actually doing something teaches you more than writing about someone else doing something.
It is easy, for example, to critique someone elses' trial advocacy skills. Much harder to actually run a trial - but doing it teaches you a lot more. This is why lawyers spend big bucks doing trial advocacy programs, where you have to actually "act out" a trial, rather than simply writing a critique of the great trials of history.
Quote from: Malthus on April 17, 2013, 10:08:29 AM
It is easy, for example, to critique someone elses' trial advocacy skills. Much harder to actually run a trial - but doing it teaches you a lot more. This is why lawyers spend big bucks doing trial advocacy programs, where you have to actually "act out" a trial, rather than simply writing a critique of the great trials of history.
Right so this might be a useful exercise if the end purpose was to make someone a really effective Nazi propagandist. But I assume that was not the purpose. ;)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 17, 2013, 10:13:52 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 17, 2013, 10:08:29 AM
It is easy, for example, to critique someone elses' trial advocacy skills. Much harder to actually run a trial - but doing it teaches you a lot more. This is why lawyers spend big bucks doing trial advocacy programs, where you have to actually "act out" a trial, rather than simply writing a critique of the great trials of history.
Right so this might be a useful exercise if the end purpose was to make someone a really effective Nazi propagandist. But I assume that was not the purpose. ;)
Indeed. I think that's why in this case I don't see why a critique isn't more useful. After all, as Malthus said - the point isn't to make convincing arguments - so it seems like students would just be aping Nazi propaganda with the hope that they'd see how terrible it is. Not sure how that's more effective than trying to examine why such propaganda is unconvincing / thinking about how people could have found it convincing.
Quote from: garbon on April 16, 2013, 11:26:44 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 16, 2013, 11:13:05 AM
Besides, by that reasoning, is there any socio-political thesis that is not generally shared by the majority of the populace that you would use for such exercise? I mean in each case, someone might find defending such position abhorrent.
I think it's okay if we brightline a few items like sexuality, gender and sexuality.
What does it mean? Aside from you mentioning sexuality twice, are you saying these are fine to debate or not fine to debate?
Quote from: PDH on April 16, 2013, 08:43:49 PM
I can't stand teaching kids.
Use a chair then. :rolleyes:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 17, 2013, 10:13:52 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 17, 2013, 10:08:29 AM
It is easy, for example, to critique someone elses' trial advocacy skills. Much harder to actually run a trial - but doing it teaches you a lot more. This is why lawyers spend big bucks doing trial advocacy programs, where you have to actually "act out" a trial, rather than simply writing a critique of the great trials of history.
Right so this might be a useful exercise if the end purpose was to make someone a really effective Nazi propagandist. But I assume that was not the purpose. ;)
At this point, I'd just be repeating myself. I assume you at least understand what I was saying, even if you disagree with it.
Quote from: Malthus on April 17, 2013, 10:56:06 AM
At this point, I'd just be repeating myself. I assume you at least understand what I was saying, even if you disagree with it.
I understand, but I don't agree about its likely effect or efficacy.
Quote from: Martinus on April 17, 2013, 10:37:51 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 16, 2013, 11:26:44 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 16, 2013, 11:13:05 AM
Besides, by that reasoning, is there any socio-political thesis that is not generally shared by the majority of the populace that you would use for such exercise? I mean in each case, someone might find defending such position abhorrent.
I think it's okay if we brightline a few items like sexuality, gender and sexuality.
What does it mean? Aside from you mentioning sexuality twice, are you saying these are fine to debate or not fine to debate?
One was supposed to be race. I think it is fine not to have students create racist, homophobic or sexist arguments as a lesson in critical thinking.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 17, 2013, 11:29:47 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 17, 2013, 10:56:06 AM
At this point, I'd just be repeating myself. I assume you at least understand what I was saying, even if you disagree with it.
I understand, but I don't agree about its likely effect or efficacy.
Yeah agreed. I understand where Malthus is coming from but I don't see why it'd have that effect/be effective.
I'd also add that given it's offensive nature and it is dubious as a lesson plan, I'd stick to the side of staying away from such exercises.
Quote from: garbon on April 17, 2013, 12:04:52 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 17, 2013, 11:29:47 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 17, 2013, 10:56:06 AM
At this point, I'd just be repeating myself. I assume you at least understand what I was saying, even if you disagree with it.
I understand, but I don't agree about its likely effect or efficacy.
Yeah agreed. I understand where Malthus is coming from but I don't see why it'd have that effect/be effective.
I think originally the discussion was whether the furore over this is justified - not whether this is the most efficient/effective way of teaching this particular issue. I think this is a completely different topic.
Quote from: Martinus on April 17, 2013, 12:08:42 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 17, 2013, 12:04:52 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 17, 2013, 11:29:47 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 17, 2013, 10:56:06 AM
At this point, I'd just be repeating myself. I assume you at least understand what I was saying, even if you disagree with it.
I understand, but I don't agree about its likely effect or efficacy.
Yeah agreed. I understand where Malthus is coming from but I don't see why it'd have that effect/be effective.
I think originally the discussion was whether the furore over this is justified - not whether this is the most efficient/effective way of teaching this particular issue. I think this is a completely different topic.
See my amended post.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 17, 2013, 11:29:47 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 17, 2013, 10:56:06 AM
At this point, I'd just be repeating myself. I assume you at least understand what I was saying, even if you disagree with it.
I understand, but I don't agree about its likely effect or efficacy.
Fair enough.
Would you say that it is possible reasonable people could disagree over this?
Because really that is the test - not whether it is
the best possible lesson, but whether it is a lesson
reasonable people would generally agree has no value and is thus worthless and offensive.
Quote from: Malthus on April 17, 2013, 01:10:14 PM
Because really that is the test - not whether it is the best possible lesson, but whether it is a lesson reasonable people would generally agree has no value and is thus worthless and offensive.
Not sure I could agree with that. After all my position is that it isn't worth it enough to balance out the offensiveness.
Just sounds like a scheme to train the next generation of internet debaters. :(
Quote from: mongers on April 17, 2013, 02:06:22 PM
Just sounds like a scheme to train the next generation of internet debaters. :(
Ad hom! Ad hom! Strawman!
Quote from: Martinus on April 17, 2013, 12:08:42 PM
I think originally the discussion was whether the furore over this is justified
No but outrage is a cheap commodity.
Quote from: Malthus on April 17, 2013, 01:10:14 PM
Because really that is the test - not whether it is the best possible lesson, but whether it is a lesson reasonable people would generally agree has no value and is thus worthless and offensive.
I tend to garbon's view - that most reasonable people would recognize that the lesson plan could easily be misunderstood or even seen by other reasonable people as offensive and thus absent a strong case for efficacy probably should be avoided.