Santa is moving fast

Santa is moving fast on Norad

via hellotxt

Why We Need to Teach Students about Consequences of Their Actions?

Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE

 

It's that time of year again.  Time to grade the 100 essay exams from the 4 classes I have been teaching.  I took a break a few times and came across this article about two cheating spouses who found each other at their child's preschool.  What was the surprising to me was the actions of these people and the claims that they make.  “I did a terrible thing as honorably as I could,” said Mr. Partilla, who moved out of his home, reluctantly leaving his three children. But he returned only days later. Then he boomeranged back and forth for six months.  Ok, that can be an honest statement.  But the problem is the word terrible and honorable do not belong in the same sentence.  It was "dishonorable" to leave your children and wife after years of marriage and be selfish.  That is what Mr. Partilla is being selfish.  While I can agree that living in a happy home is better than a sad home, he states that this was not the case.  So, he destroyed a happy home because he wanted a different life.  Ok, let's be honest about it and not try to sugar coat this whole incident. 

Ms Riddell is not guiltless in all of this either stating that "“The part that’s hard for people to believe is we didn’t have an affair,” Ms. Riddell said. “I didn’t want to sneak around and sleep with him on the side. I wanted to get up in the morning and read the paper with him.”  Ok, we all get those feelings.  And if one is not married with children, fine act on them.  However, when we get to a situation where there are several other people involved, one must start thinking of the other people, particularly the children.

What surprises me about this article, is the ease with which these people talk about their private lives.  If this were my life, I would not want to publicly illustrate that I was a lying, cheating, self-centered scoundrel.  I would want to keep this private.  This comes under the heading Too Much Information.  What purpose does this article serve?  That cheating is ok.  That one can go after their passions and damn all the other people involved.  What kind of example does this set for their children? 

I am not one to go around moralizing other people's business, but when the NYT decides to publish a story like this, I will comment.  I also agree that sometimes we cannot control who we fall in love with.  But, the thing that was painfully obvious in this story with the "happy" family picture was the absence of what the other spouses and children went through.  They were the ones that had to pay for this selfish act.  And it is a selfish act.  We all wonder at times whether we have married the right person.  What is clear here is that despite the protestations of restraint and that their marriages were not in trouble, there was something wrong before the marriages fell apart.  Frankly, I don't expect them in their PR effort to admit that, as this was clearly rehearsed. 

So what does this have to do with history and teaching?  Well, it is a lesson in the importance of one's actions.  That there is a responsibility on the part of the individual that is bigger than the self when one is involved in a relationship.  The historical illustration that comes to mind is Henry VIII.  While he may have wanted to break with Rome, he did not consider the effect his actions would be on his daughters or his wives.  While he was concerned about an heir, as history has shown, could he not have explored other options?  I mean he could have passed on the Tudor dynasty to one of his sisters and still have kept a Tudor line.  In fact, the issue of Lady Jane Grey comes to mind.  But it is an example of not considering ones actions beforehand. 

This is also the problem of the generation that is now in its 20s, they have no idea of what it is like to sacrifice.  And that is what should have happened here.  If they were unfulfilled in their lives, then they should have found other ways rather than destroy other lives.  If their marriages were not in trouble, why destroy them?  Again, I am not one to say stay together at all costs.  That would be unproductive.  But in a day and age when most marriages don’t last past 5 years.  People need to understand that relationships are not about the individual and as they grow more people get involved in the mix.  It is a sad statement and they probably are remorseful, but they should not have publicized it as a triumph. It was a sanctimonious article with a less than clear lesson on life.

 

Why We Need to Teach Students about Consequences of Their Actions?

Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE

 

It's that time of year again.  Time to grade the 100 essay exams from the 4 classes I have been teaching.  I took a break a few times and came across this article about two cheating spouses who found each other at their child's preschool.  What was the surprising to me was the actions of these people and the claims that they make.  “I did a terrible thing as honorably as I could,” said Mr. Partilla, who moved out of his home, reluctantly leaving his three children. But he returned only days later. Then he boomeranged back and forth for six months.  Ok, that can be an honest statement.  But the problem is the word terrible and honorable do not belong in the same sentence.  It was "dishonorable" to leave your children and wife after years of marriage and be selfish.  That is what Mr. Partilla is being selfish.  While I can agree that living in a happy home is better than a sad home, he states that this was not the case.  So, he destroyed a happy home because he wanted a different life.  Ok, let's be honest about it and not try to sugar coat this whole incident. 

Ms Riddell is not guiltless in all of this either stating that "“The part that’s hard for people to believe is we didn’t have an affair,” Ms. Riddell said. “I didn’t want to sneak around and sleep with him on the side. I wanted to get up in the morning and read the paper with him.”  Ok, we all get those feelings.  And if one is not married with children, fine act on them.  However, when we get to a situation where there are several other people involved, one must start thinking of the other people, particularly the children.

What surprises me about this article, is the ease with which these people talk about their private lives.  If this were my life, I would not want to publicly illustrate that I was a lying, cheating, self-centered scoundrel.  I would want to keep this private.  This comes under the heading Too Much Information.  What purpose does this article serve?  That cheating is ok.  That one can go after their passions and damn all the other people involved.  What kind of example does this set for their children? 

I am not one to go around moralizing other people's business, but when the NYT decides to publish a story like this, I will comment.  I also agree that sometimes we cannot control who we fall in love with.  But, the thing that was painfully obvious in this story with the "happy" family picture was the absence of what the other spouses and children went through.  They were the ones that had to pay for this selfish act.  And it is a selfish act.  We all wonder at times whether we have married the right person.  What is clear here is that despite the protestations of restraint and that their marriages were not in trouble, there was something wrong before the marriages fell apart.  Frankly, I don't expect them in their PR effort to admit that, as this was clearly rehearsed. 

So what does this have to do with history and teaching?  Well, it is a lesson in the importance of one's actions.  That there is a responsibility on the part of the individual that is bigger than the self when one is involved in a relationship.  The historical illustration that comes to mind is Henry VIII.  While he may have wanted to break with Rome, he did not consider the effect his actions would be on his daughters or his wives.  While he was concerned about an heir, as history has shown, could he not have explored other options?  I mean he could have passed on the Tudor dynasty to one of his sisters and still have kept a Tudor line.  In fact, the issue of Lady Jane Grey comes to mind.  But it is an example of not considering ones actions beforehand. 

This is also the problem of the generation that is now in its 20s, they have no idea of what it is like to sacrifice.  And that is what should have happened here.  If they were unfulfilled in their lives, then they should have found other ways rather than destroy other lives.  If their marriages were not in trouble, why destroy them?  Again, I am not one to say stay together at all costs.  That would be unproductive.  But in a day and age when most marriages don’t last past 5 years.  People need to understand that relationships are not about the individual and as they grow more people get involved in the mix.  It is a sad statement and they probably are remorseful, but they should not have publicized it as a triumph. It was a sanctimonious article with a less than clear lesson on life.

 

The 150th Anniversary of the Secession Crisis that Led to the Civil War Celebrated?

 

Well if you are confused about how to celebrate the illegal, yes it is illegal that was what part of the civil war was all about, secession of South Carolina from the union have a ball.  That is exactly what the one does if they are a white descendant of the South as found in The Guardian article described  here.

Once again many Southern Americans refused to confront the complexities of their ancestry.  As one noted and misguided descendant stated "For us the secession is not about a racial issue," said Michael Givens, the commander-in-chief of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, which sponsored the event. "We are not celebrating slavery, we are celebrating the courage and the tenacity of the people who were prepared to go out and defend their homes."  Defend their homes!  Ok homes is synonomous with property.  That is what the South was fighting for, to preserve their property.  When you consider that slaves were considered "property", much like our modern day farm animals and pets, then the whole concept gets much clearer.  The eminent Southern historian, Charles Drew also illustrated in a recent work that slavery was the main issue for the South as noted in the speeches of its Vice President Alexander Stephens. It was a war to preserve the Southern way of life, that of racial bondage and superiority much like World War II Germany.  Those who cannot see the parallels really miss the point. And I am preparing for an onslaught of emails from those who have not studied the issue. To deny racial superiority as a main component to the Southern way of life would be like saying the Nazi's were just another political party bent on world domination. 

In light of the decision of the Texas State Board of Education's decision to rewrite history, it has become even more imperative that we confront history as honestly as we can.  This means honestly looking at the goals of the States that decided to rebel from the Union.  The Civil War did not occur over night.  Only after a series of start political issues stemming from the Mexican War and the territories acquired therefrom, does the real issue emerge.  Slavery, that was the issue.  Those who state it was for reasons of States' Rights, forget that that argument did not emerged until the 1880s after the end of Reconstruction when Americans were attempting to obtain a consensus.  Now, after 150 years, Americans need to drop the consensus.  If the Civil War was about States' Rights, it was about the Right of the States' to keep their property, i.e. slaves. 

 

The 150th Anniversary of the Secession Crisis that Led to the Civil War Celebrated?

Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE

 

Well if you are confused about how to celebrate the illegal, yes it is illegal that was what part of the civil war was all about, secession of South Carolina from the union have a ball.  That is exactly what the one does if they are a white descendant of the South as found in The Guardian article described  here.

Once again many Southern Americans refused to confront the complexities of their ancestry.  As one noted and misguided descendant stated "For us the secession is not about a racial issue," said Michael Givens, the commander-in-chief of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, which sponsored the event. "We are not celebrating slavery, we are celebrating the courage and the tenacity of the people who were prepared to go out and defend their homes."  Defend their homes!  Ok homes is synonomous with property.  That is what the South was fighting for, to preserve their property.  When you consider that slaves were considered "property", much like our modern day farm animals and pets, then the whole concept gets much clearer.  The eminent Southern historian, Charles Drew also illustrated in a recent work that slavery was the main issue for the South as noted in the speeches of its Vice President Alexander Stephens. It was a war to preserve the Southern way of life, that of racial bondage and superiority much like World War II Germany.  Those who cannot see the parallels really miss the point. And I am preparing for an onslaught of emails from those who have not studied the issue. To deny racial superiority as a main component to the Southern way of life would be like saying the Nazi's were just another political party bent on world domination. 

In light of the decision of the Texas State Board of Education's decision to rewrite history, it has become even more imperative that we confront history as honestly as we can.  This means honestly looking at the goals of the States that decided to rebel from the Union.  The Civil War did not occur over night.  Only after a series of start political issues stemming from the Mexican War and the territories acquired therefrom, does the real issue emerge.  Slavery, that was the issue.  Those who state it was for reasons of States' Rights, forget that that argument did not emerged until the 1880s after the end of Reconstruction when Americans were attempting to obtain a consensus.  Now, after 150 years, Americans need to drop the consensus.  If the Civil War was about States' Rights, it was about the Right of the States' to keep their property, i.e. slaves. 

 

In Texas We Don't Burn Textbooks We Rewrite Them

I could not resist this video. It's funny but it's also right on point. I have written an article that explains the whole issues at Active History . I was honored to be able to write an article for them. At the same time be aware that the Texas State Board of Education (SBOE) is due to vote this Friday on the proposed standards. Hence, we need to standby to begin to boycott the publisher(s) who will publish what Winston Churchill called "terminological inexactitudes."

Despite the humor of the video, it illustrates a starker point. These standards will actually not promote education or raise standards. What they will do for the students of Texas public schools is LOWER standards putting these students at a disadvantage when it comes to college enrollment. With these standards Texas students have now been labeled as deficient in their learning. While they may get excellent marks in high school, college admissions boards will now assess Texas students with a jaundiced eye. And since 70% of high school students go to college, they will not be able to compete with peers who had the advantage of not going to a Texas public school. While high schools are not exactly equal nationwide, Texas students will now have to face the fact that the publicity of their inadequate education will not help them get into college. It will put them in the distinguished category that many college seekers dread, remedial. Yes, high school students may face an inordinate number of conditional college acceptances that of being forced to take remedial course before they are actually admitted. While this is not a disgrace in any way, it is the path that the SBOE has chosen for its students. And let's not forget the added cost Texas students will have to pay for their higher education because of this deficiency. Remedial classes do not always count towards a degree.

So, while the SBOE appears to be ready to lower standards, the rest of the high school population will now see college as a further away than they previously thought and their high school education sadly lacking.

Well it appears that Arizona has done it again. As if reaching into the past and enacting Nazi immigration laws were not enough, they are now working to prevent people from learning about their own cultures. A new law passed and signed by Governor Jan Brewer suggests that ethnic studies are programs designed to instill hatred of other races. The Articlein the New York Times has now further gone down the road of Nazi Germany. Strong words one may thing! Not so. In addition to requiring people to now be able to show they are citizens if asked, just like the German Reich laws in the early 1930s, now the state wants to prevent the teaching of Ethnic Studies in high schools. As the article states the law was designed to Prohibits a school district or charter school from including in its program of instruction any courses or classes that:

•Promote the overthrow of the United States government.
•Promote resentment toward a race or class of people.
•Are designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group.
•Advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals.

Well at least that is clear. Again we are going down that road isolating ethnic groups for not looking like an "American" and for their heritage. The problem is that like Texas almost 50% of the students in Arizona public schools are of Mexican, Latino, or Hispanic descent. So, learning about their own culture would teach them hatred of the state government? Why would they hate the state government? It has only placed every ethnic group under surveillance calling into question each person's "citizenship". Now, they want to prevent these same minorities from learning about their past? Their could be a good reason for this. After all the United States attacked Mexico in the 1840s to start a war that ended in obtaining most of the states of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California. The traditions that were in those states prior to US "purchase" were of mixed lineages already. The Spanish had over 200 years of governance before the US decided to free the peoples of those areas. Prior to the European discovery of America, the Natives had great empires such as the Aztecs, Myans, and the Inca. Are we now on the path to begin separating various ethnic groups to prevent "inter-ethnic" strife. The law that has now passed will begin a new era of strife, for the law will cause the exact problems it proposes to end. Instead of harmony and history, the law will only serve to make the vast population of the southwest second class citizens. In fact, a great majority of them are not. And when high school students in Tucson protested this law, the dressed up as several of their leaders has in the past. This led one legislator to use this as "proof" that the law needed to be passed. Ignorance works in mysterious ways. Mr Horne, who is running for Attorney General and making banning ethnic studies apart of his campaign, has hearkened back to a more sinister era. Like Herman Goebbels, he is attempting to show that the actions of his opponents are proof that he is right. Instead, what has happened is a reaction to laws that were passed. The laws had to occur "first". Otherwise, there is no reason to protest. Ethnic studies does not promote hatred of other races. Though true historical fact may show that they have every reason to have some animosity. As a nation, We cannot go back to the days of thematic historical interpretation were all was good and history books read like a child's first reading book. The truth is this type of history was the fiction. Times were never that good for working Americans. Women have been working in the labor forces for over 160 years to support their families. What this law aims to start is a process of indoctrination that cannot lead to a good ending. History is not a public relations tool. It is non-negotiable. It exists and, though it can be hidden and twisted, the truth does come out; the truth shall set us free.