| Topic: | Re:Are our State shools allowed to teach history? | |
| Posted by: | Alan Clark | |
| Date/Time: | 25/06/20 14:41:00 |
| If I've understood the thrust of this thread it is (1) removing street names does not alter history even though it might seem to some that's what people are trying to do; (2) people keep wanting to view it (history) through the eyes of "modern" views. But removing street names, removing statues, renaming buildings does not intend to change history. Or re-write history through the lens of current norms. These actions are taken to stop the celebration of an individual who, now, the majority think less worth celebrating. This not to change or re-write any history. This is to say, hey, this bloke Haverlock (who probably never even visited this particular street) is not really worthy of such honour. He's got no connection with this street. In fact, given many residents might have their own family history that was negatively impacted by this Haverlock, then might be best to resign Haverlock to the history books. That is, still in the history books but no longer celebrated out in the street. And, you know, I've no problem with that. And I bemused as to why this makes anyone think that such actions change the way history is taught in schools. |