Post a reply

Re: snooker.org 'hits': a few observations

Postby LDS

mick745 wrote:British schoolkids should be taught the main events of british history - how many can name the year in which the battle of trafalgar took place for instance?


Knowing the exact date of the Battle of Trafalgar is not crucial information for the life a citizen of the UK beyond it's use as a quiz answer.

History is a vast subject, like really vast, like it's almost... everything. You cannot simply pinpoint one specific thing and say "all kids should be taught this" with any degree of justification over another historical topic.

In terms of youth education, the most important things will be topics that directly relate to their current lives and current political topics. Knowing the exact date of a battle over 200 years ago is specialist knowledge more suited to a degree or above.

Re: snooker.org 'hits': a few observations

Postby LDS

SnookerFan wrote:I think they start learning dates of stuff in history before they reach degree level, to be fair.


Dates will obviously come into any topic about history, duh.

The implication of Mick was that his chosen one specific date of relevance was somehow more relevant than any other date in history. Does he know the exact date of the other 1,000s of battles the British Empire engaged in? Of course he doesn't.

"Do you know the date of XYZ" is just a soundbite invented by someone with a specific political bias, in his case most likely British Nationalism and the movement to imagine England isn't part of Europe. Hey guys, you remember when we fought the French, ah the good ol' days! *yawn *yawn.

Re: snooker.org 'hits': a few observations

Postby Acé

In my school WW2 was the biggest focal point of history from year 7 to year 11

I chose History as a GCSE subject in year 10 and the main things we covered were WW1, WW2 (this was the most engaging for every student), Ancient Medicine, Kings and Queens (which was the most bucking boring one while everything else was interesting, imagine going from WW2 to this), Ancient Europe, and some other lesser things

ironically, nothing about Ireland, Wales, Scotland

Re: snooker.org 'hits': a few observations

Postby SnookerFan

Acé wrote:In my school WW2 was the biggest focal point of history from year 7 to year 11

I chose History as a GCSE subject in year 10 and the main things we covered were WW1, WW2 (this was the most engaging for every student), Ancient Medicine, Kings and Queens (which was the most bucking boring one while everything else was interesting, imagine going from WW2 to this), Ancient Europe, and some other lesser things

ironically, nothing about Ireland, Wales, Scotland


Do you mind me asking how old you are, Ace?

No reason other than curiosity.

Re: snooker.org 'hits': a few observations

Postby Acé

SnookerFan wrote:
Acé wrote:In my school WW2 was the biggest focal point of history from year 7 to year 11

I chose History as a GCSE subject in year 10 and the main things we covered were WW1, WW2 (this was the most engaging for every student), Ancient Medicine, Kings and Queens (which was the most bucking boring one while everything else was interesting, imagine going from WW2 to this), Ancient Europe, and some other lesser things

ironically, nothing about Ireland, Wales, Scotland


Do you mind me asking how old you are, Ace?

No reason other than curiosity.


24

Will be 25 in five months time

Re: snooker.org 'hits': a few observations

Postby Iranu

Acé wrote:In my school WW2 was the biggest focal point of history from year 7 to year 11

I chose History as a GCSE subject in year 10 and the main things we covered were WW1, WW2 (this was the most engaging for every student), Ancient Medicine, Kings and Queens (which was the most bucking boring one while everything else was interesting, imagine going from WW2 to this), Ancient Europe, and some other lesser things

ironically, nothing about Ireland, Wales, Scotland

Why was Kings and Queens boring?

Why do you think the other topics were ‘lesser’ than WWI and II?

Re: snooker.org 'hits': a few observations

Postby mick745

LDS wrote:
SnookerFan wrote:I think they start learning dates of stuff in history before they reach degree level, to be fair.


Dates will obviously come into any topic about history, duh.

The implication of Mick was that his chosen one specific date of relevance was somehow more relevant than any other date in history. Does he know the exact date of the other 1,000s of battles the British Empire engaged in? Of course he doesn't.

"Do you know the date of XYZ" is just a soundbite invented by someone with a specific political bias, in his case most likely British Nationalism and the movement to imagine England isn't part of Europe. Hey guys, you remember when we fought the French, ah the good ol' days! *yawn *yawn.


That's not what i was implying, but you seem to be labelling me as far right.

I was saying british kids should have at least a basic knowledge of the key events in british history yes there have been thousands of battles, but a few have been way more significant than others.

Other countries arent so squeamish about teaching their children about the key events in their own country's history.

It is shocking that the troubles in northern ireland was one of the most important events in uk history during the 20th century and yet people can leave school without knowing anything about it.

Re: snooker.org 'hits': a few observations

Postby Acé

Iranu wrote:
Acé wrote:In my school WW2 was the biggest focal point of history from year 7 to year 11

I chose History as a GCSE subject in year 10 and the main things we covered were WW1, WW2 (this was the most engaging for every student), Ancient Medicine, Kings and Queens (which was the most bucking boring one while everything else was interesting, imagine going from WW2 to this), Ancient Europe, and some other lesser things

ironically, nothing about Ireland, Wales, Scotland

Why was Kings and Queens boring?

Why do you think the other topics were ‘lesser’ than WWI and II?


No one was interested in it it was a boring topic, couldn't give a buck about Henry the 8th or Queen Elizabeth etc kings and queens never interested me

Re: snooker.org 'hits': a few observations

Postby sundaygirl

Studying the topic in history provides context to the current situation

But surely the barebones of what constitutes the uk was covered at school as part of citizenship?

When I was at school that topic was a subset of general studies G.C.S.E aka the easy one
Last edited by sundaygirl on 14 May 2021, edited 1 time in total.

Re: snooker.org 'hits': a few observations

Postby Iranu

Acé wrote:
Iranu wrote:
Acé wrote:In my school WW2 was the biggest focal point of history from year 7 to year 11

I chose History as a GCSE subject in year 10 and the main things we covered were WW1, WW2 (this was the most engaging for every student), Ancient Medicine, Kings and Queens (which was the most bucking boring one while everything else was interesting, imagine going from WW2 to this), Ancient Europe, and some other lesser things

ironically, nothing about Ireland, Wales, Scotland

Why was Kings and Queens boring?

Why do you think the other topics were ‘lesser’ than WWI and II?


No one was interested in it it was a boring topic, couldn't give a buck about Henry the 8th or Queen Elizabeth etc kings and queens never interested me

When you say no one do you mean you? I find it hard to believe that not a single person was interested in it.

Personally I found learning about some monarchs way more interesting than the World Wars. Not so much the Tudors though.

Re: snooker.org 'hits': a few observations

Postby mick745

Iranu wrote:
Acé wrote:
Iranu wrote:
Acé wrote:In my school WW2 was the biggest focal point of history from year 7 to year 11

I chose History as a GCSE subject in year 10 and the main things we covered were WW1, WW2 (this was the most engaging for every student), Ancient Medicine, Kings and Queens (which was the most bucking boring one while everything else was interesting, imagine going from WW2 to this), Ancient Europe, and some other lesser things

ironically, nothing about Ireland, Wales, Scotland

Why was Kings and Queens boring?

Why do you think the other topics were ‘lesser’ than WWI and II?


No one was interested in it it was a boring topic, couldn't give a buck about Henry the 8th or Queen Elizabeth etc kings and queens never interested me

When you say no one do you mean you? I find it hard to believe that not a single person was interested in it.

Personally I found learning about some monarchs way more interesting than the World Wars. Not so much the Tudors though.


The lives and activities of the kings and queens are so ingrained in british historical events i find it difficult believing you could study history without studying them.

Re: snooker.org 'hits': a few observations

Postby HappyCamper

count me as someone who didn't really care about the machinations of some blue-blood, inbred, horse-fucking robber-barons overly much.

Re: snooker.org 'hits': a few observations

Postby Iranu

mick745 wrote:The lives and activities of the kings and queens are so ingrained in british historical events i find it difficult believing you could study history without studying them.

Exactly.

Re: snooker.org 'hits': a few observations

Postby SnookerFan

sundaygirl wrote:The studying the topic in history provides context to the current situation

But surely the barebones of what constitutes the uk was covered at school as part of citizenship?

When I was at school that topic was a subset of general studies G.C.S.E aka the easy one


Yeah, but you're so old there was less history to cover when you were young.

Re: snooker.org 'hits': a few observations

Postby chengdufan

Holden Chinaski wrote:Ireland is where the leprechauns live, right?

Correct.
When there's a rainbow they make an appearance, standing over a pot of gold. They usually wear a hat.

Re: snooker.org 'hits': a few observations

Postby LDS

Acé wrote:
SnookerFan wrote:
Acé wrote:In my school WW2 was the biggest focal point of history from year 7 to year 11

I chose History as a GCSE subject in year 10 and the main things we covered were WW1, WW2 (this was the most engaging for every student), Ancient Medicine, Kings and Queens (which was the most bucking boring one while everything else was interesting, imagine going from WW2 to this), Ancient Europe, and some other lesser things

ironically, nothing about Ireland, Wales, Scotland


Do you mind me asking how old you are, Ace?

No reason other than curiosity.


24

Will be 25 in five months time



Just to clear up one very important point here, your lack of knowledge about the two islands being different countries is not the fault of a lack of history on the subject.

You learn about international borders in Geography not History.

Geography is the study of what currently is, History is the study of why that happened.

The extent to which someone like Ace needs to know the History of Ireland is somewhat debatable. He is, after all, an English citizen, not an Irish citizen. The same can be said for Scotland and Wales, but more so for Ireland as Ireland is a separate country.

Furthermore, since Ace is 24, then his GSCEs would have been 10 yeas ago to 8 years ago, a time when the Irish question was pretty much resolved once again. There wasn't a lot anyone needed to know. It's only come back into the spotlight as a result of Brexit, which wasn't a thing 8 to 10 years ago.

And yes, Ace is quite correct, in that the most relevant history to Ace's generation would have been the two world wars. As they are the reset that put the world in the position it is in today.

Re: snooker.org 'hits': a few observations

Postby LDS

mick745 wrote:That's not what i was implying, but you seem to be labelling me as far right.

I was saying british kids should have at least a basic knowledge of the key events in british history yes there have been thousands of battles, but a few have been way more significant than others.

Other countries arent so squeamish about teaching their children about the key events in their own country's history.

It is shocking that the troubles in northern ireland was one of the most important events in uk history during the 20th century and yet people can leave school without knowing anything about it.


There is so much to unpack here I don't even know where to start. Practically every word deserves it's own essay, lmao.

Firstly, I didn't label you as far right. If you associate British Nationalism with the far right then that's something you can take up with all those other people you obviously argue with on the matter.

You then talk about British kids and British history. Rather than say English kids and English History. As if you aren't aware that all of the regional nations that comprise the United Kingdom have their own syllabuses more suited to their own regional interests.

No, I don't think the current situation of politics in the devolved territories would be improved by teaching kids about Wellington and Nelson.

English kids maybe. But I would suggest there are more important things that are more relevant to the 21st century.

You say the Battle of Trafalgar is more significant than other battles, but you completely fail to elaborate on why. It was a battle the British Empire won. Hooray!! Sound the Trumpets!! Lets wave a flag an remember we won a battle once!! Awesome, now we've had the kids do that, what was it you wanted them to LEARN from that battle?

It's not about "squeamish". Using that words clearly indicates you're reading from someone else's propaganda script, no human being would phrase a sentence like that. You believe that not bothering with the wars of the French Revolution is evidence of someone attacking your culture? People are 'afraid' to teach this bit of history? How about no, how about that particular era has passed from us by such a large amount of time that it's relevance has naturally, and obviously reduced in relevance? Is that ok?

You are no doubt shocked that kids aren't taught every facet of history whenever any topic arises about any subject under the sun, but I bet you've never had the job of creating a curriculum at a school. Hint: Other subjects are required to be learned in the timeframe of one week of a few hours worth of lessons.

To which, kids probably are told the date of the Battle of Trafalgar at some point, just not many of them bother to remember it. Because without a relevant course of study on the subject the simple knowledge of the date of something is not, by itself, the definition of education.

Re: snooker.org 'hits': a few observations

Postby LDS

Holden Chinaski wrote:That's all very interesting, LDS, but what about the leprechauns?


They make for a very unpopular topic for movies. The original Leprechaun movie currently stands at 4.8/10 on IMDB. And yet this is as nothing compared to Leprechaun 6: Back 2 Tha Hood which stands at just 3.9/10.

They are probably in Snookerfan's top 10.

Re: snooker.org 'hits': a few observations

Postby Holden Chinaski

LDS wrote:
Holden Chinaski wrote:That's all very interesting, LDS, but what about the leprechauns?


They make for a very unpopular topic for movies. The original Leprechaun movie currently stands at 4.8/10 on IMDB. And yet this is as nothing compared to Leprechaun 6: Back 2 Tha Hood which stands at just 3.9/10.

They are probably in Snookerfan's top 10.

Does Warwick Davis still play the leprechaun?

Re: snooker.org 'hits': a few observations

Postby SnookerFan

Holden Chinaski wrote:
LDS wrote:
Holden Chinaski wrote:That's all very interesting, LDS, but what about the leprechauns?


They make for a very unpopular topic for movies. The original Leprechaun movie currently stands at 4.8/10 on IMDB. And yet this is as nothing compared to Leprechaun 6: Back 2 Tha Hood which stands at just 3.9/10.

They are probably in Snookerfan's top 10.

Does Warwick Davis still play the leprechaun?


No.

They recently made one without him.