The Diary of a Young Girl
discussion
just didn't find it as intresting or intriguing, but her writing structure was good and the idea of her story lasting till this day is remarkable.
Laura wrote: "Knowledge of important cultural/historical matters should not be seen as a privilege, to be enjoyed only by the fortunate ones who had better formation and can read (and enjoy) history books."They don't have schools where you grew up? We studied WWII probably during the 8th grade. Every single 8th grader in Finland. If after that you don't know/understand the background for the Diary, then people will think you are somehow stupid. And we didn't even read the Diary in schools, we read about it from the history text books. It was only a few chapters because there is a lot more to study. So I don't really understand how it can be a privilage.
No, there aren't any schools where I grew up and I never saw a book in my life. And I am also stupid, not just somehow. You Finns are so lucky to have schools. What are they like? I saw a school in a movie, once...Now, seriously. If you honestly think that all the schools in the world teach history in the same way, you are surprisingly clueless, for such an educated woman. Also, you cannot possibly think that history lessons where children are made to memorize dates and names (which happens in many schools, regardless of the country) makes you understand the importance of any historical background. I don't know if you're just going for the sake of arguing, just because you like to oppose me, or if you really, actually believe that. If it's the latter, then again, you are clueless, painfully clueless.
Laura wrote: "If you honestly think that all the schools in the world teach history in the same way"Well if they don't teach WWII or the Holocaust then I guess that is the decision of that country and its leaders. And it probably tells something about that country and its values. I can understand that it's not the most important thing for those countries that didn't take part in it. But I think we are talking mainly about Europe and USA and some other "Western" countries. If the people should know about them but don't, then there's a problem in the school system. It's the teacher's job to teach it but no one can make you learn it. You don't need that many sentences to explain the basic information about the Holocaust.
Tytti wrote: "Well if they don't teach WWII or the Holocaust then I guess that is the decision of that country and its leaders."Tytti, you are obviously smart and educated, so are you being naive here or just obsessed with contradicting anything I say? I'm talking about HOW they teach, not WHAT they teach. I'm saying that learning the dates and names, which is what many schools do, is not going to spike the interest of any child and is not going to make anyone understand anything. Really, stop pretending that you don't get it. I respect you at least enough to believe that you KNOW that not all schools have the same method, even if they are in the same country.
On a happier note: am I the only one finding it completely awesome that someone from Finland, someone from Germany, someone from Belgium and someone from the US are just casually having a debate over education? Seriously, the internet is such a magical thing :)I think there are a lot of misunderstandings in this thread. From what I understand (and I might be wrong) Laura is only saying that, whatever the subject, schoolteachers should do their best to try and spike interest in the students they are teaching, since it is well known that you will pay much more attention and probably remember a lot better the things that you have an interest for. And in turn, by having a larger part of the population actually 100% aware of things and with the same global knowledge, the whole country would probably fare much better.
@Tytti, you are lucky to come from a country such as Finland where education is particularly renowned. However, you should be aware that despite there being school everywher in the western world and despite most countries teaching globally the same thing, it is often taught in very different ways either in methodology or even in point of vue. For example, to keep with the subject of the holocaust, when I was an exchange student in the US, my history class was taught by a volleyball coach seriously knowing nothing about history and when it came to WW2 I really struggled not to get mad at all the moronic things he was saying and also at the terrible bias he had over everything... In summary, what I'm trying to say is that school in Finland probably already is great as is which is why you do not see the need of a change. You should however be aware that the education system is largely inferior in most countries of this world...
Renee: I was an ES in Texas, I understand 400% the bad connotation that "intellectual" has... But now with "geek" and "nerd" becoming compliments or things to be proud of, I think this is changing. And I honestly thing that if teachers truly found a way to spike their student's interests, intellectual would not ever be a bad thing anymore!
Have any of you ever watched the "vlogbrothers" educational videos? Either on thei main youtube channel or on their "crash course" channel? The different way that they present things is a great asset in spiking interests and I have seen manytimes young teens watch one of their videos and start researching the subject! And you know what? Now many school actually use their "crash course" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NIgq...) videos to catch their student's attention and it works! And I swear it does not lessen the knowledge! What is being taught is still the same, it is simply taught in a way that makes student actually enjoy learning and remember what they learn. And trust me, they will still learn to work and to make efforts and to have discipline because you simply cannot live a successful or happy life without being those things...
Laura wrote: "...you are surprisingly clueless..."Play nice. We must set good examples for the kids.
(I'm taking a survey. Were you home schooled?)
Laura wrote: "TI'm talking about HOW they teach, not WHAT they teach. I'm saying that learning the dates and names, which is what many schools do, is not going to spike the interest of any child and is not going to make anyone understand anything."Then there is something wrong with the school system! Maybe someone should try to fix it.
We were taught some of the most important facts and some dates, some names, too, of course, and explained some of the reasons behind some events. In tests we had to write essays to show that we had understood it. The Holocaust was probably covered during one 45-minute class, though most of the students already knew a lot about it. If you can't learn about the Holocaust then you will have a hard time learning about anything else. It's probably one of the "easier" subjects to teach, compared to more complicated ones likes "the reasons for WWI". If kids don't find it one bit "interesting" (=worth knowing) then there is probably something wrong with them. I'm not sure how making it "entertaining" would help.
Alice wrote: "someone from Germany"I don't think Laura is German...
"my history class was taught by a volleyball coach seriously knowing nothing about history and when it came to WW2 I really struggled not to get mad at all the moronic things he was saying and also at the terrible bias he had over everything..."
Which is why they probably should try to fix it, instead of continuing the same way and then demanding that people are educated by someone else when they are already adults, but only as long as it's easy and entertaining. And I can tell that at least in my time, our schools were not very entertaining. But even the worst students learned about the Holocaust.
BTW, that Crash Course about WWII conveniently forgets the early role of the Soviet Union in the war.
I'm not German, but I live in Germany. Technically, I write from Germany. I grew up in Argentina. Yes, there are schools there, too. The system was terrible. I have no clue if it improved; I haven't been there for years.So, about "BTW, that Crash Course about WWII conveniently forgets the early role of the Soviet Union in the war.", by Tytti, "I have seen manytimes young teens watch one of their videos and start researching the subject!", by Alice.
Meaning... the Crash Courses are obviously not meant to be THE WHOLE teaching; it's supposed to (sigh, repeating again) spike the interest on the subject, so that they will be willing to learn more about it. Things not covered by that, will come up during further research.
Laura wrote: "the Crash Courses are obviously not meant to be THE WHOLE teaching; it's supposed to (sigh, repeating again) spike the interest on the subject"Well I happen to think that the start of the war would be a lot more important thing to mention than many of the other stuff he says. Especially when it's also a start of another genocide. But different people have different priorities. Some genocides are important, some are not.
Tytti wrote: "Well I happen to think that the start of the war would be a lot more important thing to mention than many of the other stuff he says. Especially when it's also a start of another genocide. But different people have different priorities. Some genocides are important, some are not. "I get it, you made it very clear that you disagree with the whole concept. Everyone who's not like you (meaning, who doesn't share your natural love for history books and other elevated things) should just stay ignorant, rather than going any other way.
It's the start of the war! Poland was even their ally! What else is he not telling when he "forgot" to mention that tidbit? As I said, it's very conveniant to not mention that. Makes everything so much more simple, which is the problem I have with "entertaining teaching".
Alice, I'll just +1 your comment.Part of a lesson plan in Maryland, US is to generate student interest. I would expect something similar in most other schools. The teacher should motivate the students to want to learn. Some students do want to learn just because it's new material or a subject that natively interests them but other students have a hard time getting excited to learn some topics. Generating that student desire to learn is part of being a teacher.
Actually they DID make a sitcom about the Nazis! Remember 'Hogan's Heroes'? It never ceased to amaze me how they got away with it.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OO5ye...
Alice wrote: " I was an ES in Texas, I understand 400% the bad connotation that "intellectual" has... But now with "geek" and "nerd" becoming compliments or things to be proud of, I think this is changing...."This is true, but I don't think it's helping "intellectual" any. Geek and nerd are rooted in being techno-centric and the geeks and nerds became acceptable, and then, when everyone (especially certain of types of the female persuasion with sensible priorities) realized the geeks and nerds were making the big bucks it became a very desirable label.
Now the geeks and nerds speak derisively of the intellectuals — anyone with a liberal arts background or bent. "You want fries with that?"
Unless you've parlayed that BA into a law degree and have, against the odds, developed a successful practice.
"Intellectual" is still an epithet. Especially to people who don't understand words like "epithet."
And no, I don't have any degrees of any sort, other than a paralegal cert. I'm just an ignorant cumhall.
Unfortunately there's a reason why intellectuals catch a lot of flak.A lot of them have left a trail of destruction in their wake.
Straight from the No Spin Zone?
Christine wrote: "Actually they DID make a sitcom about the Nazis! Remember 'Hogan's Heroes'? It never ceased to amaze me how they got away with it.Maybe they didn't. Bob Crane, the star, was found bludgeoned to death in a motel room: http://www.nationalenquirer.com/true-...
The still unsolved murder may have been committed by Nazis and under the cover of Crane's pornography escapades.
Christine wrote: "Actually they DID make a sitcom about the Nazis! Remember 'Hogan's Heroes'? It never ceased to amaze me how they got away with it.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OO5ye..."
There is another one - Allô, Allô
http://youtu.be/NO3_rXCYxLU
Duane wrote: "Unfortunately there's a reason why intellectuals catch a lot of flak.A lot of them have left a trail of destruction in their wake."
"Useful idiots" many of them, friends of Uncle Joe. Still continues today, really, not mentioning his crimes in the same vein as Hitler's.
Though USA is so conservative a country that most Europeans are bleeding-heart liberals in comparison, regardless of their political views. How dare we offer affordable health care to everyone?!
I think one of the things that makes Anne Frank's diary so valuable is that it is an uncensored piece of history.No matter what methods of teaching get used, the history we get is always heavily censored. It always has been. Look at all the lies the Roman *historians* spread about the Celts — and every other civilization they wanted to assimilate. And those *histories* still are cited and taught in classrooms even after they've been exposed as rankest propaganda.
Even modern history.
Even with good teachers.
It wasn't until I was out of school that I discovered China had been involved in WW2! And I found that out through literature. But China was an enemy nation so it was convenient to forget that we were allies then.
And the Holocaust: we were led to believe it was only or mainly the Jews. No one mentioned that, among many other smaller groups, the Nazis came frighteningly close to wiping out the Romani in the concentration camps.
We weren't taught (then, it's well known enough now that it's difficult to pass over) about the Japanese internment camps here in the U.S.
And no one is talking about the practice of eugenics and entities like the Rockefeller Institute that shared their "research" with the German powers coming to the fore directly preceding WW2.
The things They don't teach you . . . Censorship is alive and thriving in every textbook in every classroom in every corner of the world.
And that's a good reason for Anne Frank's diary to continue to be required reading, even if it isn't a cool YA story and there aren't any vampires in it.
There are worse things in it.
Renee wrote: "I'm just an ignorant cumhall."As a guy who likes words, I've never seen that term used before. Where'd you come across that? Is it a family/local thing?
Petergiaquinta wrote: "Renee wrote: "I'm just an ignorant cumhall."As a guy who likes words, I've never seen that term used before. Where'd you come across that? Is it a family/local thing?"
In Old Irish, it's a female slave ;-) Sometimes spelled "cumhal" or "cumhail."
Do you pronounce it "kum-hall"or "kool"?And again, is it a family thing or what?
"Coo-al" would be most recognizable. I always wonder, though, with old languages that aren't commonly spoken today, if at all, how do we KNOW exactly how they were pronounced?
Definitely not a family thing, at least not the genetic family. They have no clue what I'm talking about most of the time. They're mostly into gossiping, blaming and bitching. I avoid communication with them as much as possible. Keeps me off the whipping post. ;-)
Interesting...thank you for indulging me. I can't find much reference to the word on the Interwebs (beyond the I
beyond the Irish hero (Cormac, anyone? Oh, never mind...). And I've never heard it used in your context.Okay, everyone, sorry for the intrusion! Back to bickering about Joe Stalin and John Green and what a boring dumb book that diary thing is! (moar exclamation points!!!)
Renee wrote: "And that's a good reason for Anne Frank's diary to continue to be required reading, even if it isn't a cool YA story and there aren't any vampires in it."I've "always" wondered about that required reading thing. We have one or two books that everyone usually reads at school but that's it. We had to write book reports of course but we chose the books ourselves (or maybe from the list when we are older). Now they have a reading diploma but it's just to encourage reading.
(I think we were taught about those things that you mentioned, though not about the Rockefeller thing, it isn't relevant. Or at least I have learned about them somewhere...)
Renee wrote: "In Old Irish, it's a female slave ;-) Sometimes spelled "cumhal" or "cumhail." "A bit of trivia: the Finnish word for 'a slave', "orja", has the same origin as "Aryan".
That is interesting...I assume that's because you Finns are not Indo-Europeans, eh?
I assume you're one, Anamika!
Petergiaquinta wrote: "That is interesting...I assume that's because you Finns are not Indo-Europeans, eh?"No, or more precisely Finnish isn't, it's Finno-Ugric. In the early 20th century "some people" considered Finns to be related to Mongolians, and members of an inferior race. Even today one can sometimes hear something like that.
So your next-door neighbors, the Aryans, would make good material for your slaves (historically speaking, lololo).
Petergiaquinta wrote: "So your next-door neighbors, the Aryans, would make good material for your slaves (historically speaking, lololo)."Well, it has been speculated that one time in history, they were. But of course a "slave" has a similar origin, coming from "slav" or something like that.
I don't know a lot of Finns (comparatively speaking with other Scandinavians), but those I have known are mostly fair (light-skinned and features) and don't look much different at all from your neighbors in Sweden and Norway. Is that because of population shifts and now the original Finns are mostly marginalized (are they the Sami up north?), and although Finns still speak a vastly different language most of the people I know who are Finnish are actually not the Finns of ancient history?
Tytti wrote: "No, or more precisely Finnish isn't, it's Finno-Ugric. In the early 20th century "some people" considered Finns to be related to Mongolians, ..."Wasn't it found that ALL of our mitochondrial DNA can be traced back to a Mongolian woman?
Well, first of all, we are not Scandinavians. Also I can often spot Finns based on our features, even among other fair-skinned people, there are differences.As for the rest, the origin of modern-day Finns isn't certain. Groups of people have been coming here for centuries/millenniums and Finnish has been spoken in these parts for at least about 3000 years, I think... I believe genetically we are closest to the Dutch people, but on the other hand, people from Eastern and Western Finland differ greatly from each other, even more than people from different parts of Europe.
Sami people are another matter, genetically they are somewhat different from both Finns and Scandinavian, I believe, and some of them even look different. Their origin is even more in mystery and the languages are very different from Finnish (there are many of them), but OTOH Finns and Estonians can understand each other a bit. Hmm... I hope this is close to the most recent research, it's very complicated.
http://homepage.univie.ac.at/Johanna....
Renee wrote: "Wasn't it found that ALL of our mitochondrial DNA can be traced back to a Mongolian woman?"I don't remember reading about that... I would find it pretty odd, simply because it's not that close to Africa... But anyway, the problem with calling Finns Mongoloid is that it was based on a racial classification and had a derogatory "meaning", there were no real science behind it. But still some people claim that Finns have slanted eyes. (Actually I have but they are not common.)
Many men are descendants of Genghis Khan and my friend can prove she is a descendant of Charlemagne (many more are but can't prove it) but I haven't heard of that.
Tytti wrote: "But still some people claim that Finns have slanted eyes. (Actually I have but they are not common.)"Yes, that's more what I was thinking of in my line of inquiry. I don't find "Mongolian" or "Mongoloid" any more troubling a word than "Aryan," as long as people understand how it's being used in the context.
That's interesting that Finns and Dutch are genetically related when their languages are so far apart. I think language groups and migrations of peoples in history is fascinating to explore.
Petergiaquinta wrote: "I don't find "Mongolian" or "Mongoloid" any more troubling a word than "Aryan," as long as people understand how it's being used in the context."I find it troubling because it simply didn't have any other reason than to make Finns an inferior "race" compared to the Swedes and other Germanic people, based on just language, I suppose. And really, it wasn't that long ago and some people still mention it nowadays. (Not that there is anything wrong with Mongolians, just that we look nothing alike.) And when we say that it's not true, we get called racists, like one Mongolian did in one discussion.
(ETA: Many of these "scientists" had never even seen a Finn and when someone visited Finland, they wondered where all the Finns were...)
But language and DNA connects your people to the East...not sure which people, the Huns or the Mongols? And that's why you say you aren't Scandinavian, right?People change over time in appearance, but the DNA points to their origins.
Consider northern Indians...they look little like Germans anymore, but they're mostly the same peoples.
Or the people of Iran or the ethnic majority in Afghanistan...don't look much like the English or the French, but they are the same people overall.
Petergiaquinta wrote: "But language and DNA connects your people to the East...not sure which people, the Huns or the Mongols? And that's why you say you aren't Scandinavian, right?"No, neither. The language and genetics are completely different things. There's no genetic link to either of them.
We are not Scandinavians because only Danes, Norwegians and Swedes are. Even the Icelandic people are a bit "iffy" because they are descendents of Scandinavians but Iceland isn't geographily a part of it. But for us Finns it's easy, we don't even speak a Scandinavian language. Everyone can hear that even the name "Skandinavia" is a loan word in Finnish.
Geography doesn't point to who we are when it all gets boiled down to our origins...where are the Finns from historically?
Petergiaquinta wrote: "Geography doesn't point to who we are when it all gets boiled down to our origins...where are the Finns from historically?"Like I said, it's not known. People have lived in these parts since the Ice Age, for more than 10,000 years. And the "Scandinavia" is very much defined by geography, along with the language and culture, history, too. Genetics doesn't really play a role in it.
I've just been doing some reading/skimming over the past hour here while talking with you...as you say, these questions relating to origins and language are very much debated in the scientific communities and what was once believed about them seems to be under great reconsideration. Very interesting stuff...especially when you add the Sami into it all...size of teeth, shape of skulls, melting glaciers. As I said, the migrations of peoples is a fascinating topic.
Petergiaquinta wrote: "size of teeth, shape of skulls"I don't really think those have anything to do with it...
Sure it does, strangely enough...scientists can tell a lot from skeletal remains. I've known about skull shape for a long time, but reading about the size of teeth is a funny thing that I hadn't run into before.Another added interesting dimension to this discussion of the migration of peoples is the way nationalist politics comes into it. In the same way that some fundamentalist Christians will insist the earth is only 6,000 years old, some peoples will insist they have "always" lived somewhere. Fundamentalist Hindus seem to resist the notion their peoples came out of Eastern Europe. Here on my side of the world, many Native Americans will claim their peoples always lived in the New World instead of migrating from Asia.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
Walden or, Life in the Woods (other topics)
The Diary of a Young Girl (other topics)
Books mentioned in this topic
Dracula (other topics)Walden or, Life in the Woods (other topics)
The Diary of a Young Girl (other topics)
Bush and intellectual in the same line... Ay."
Theatre of the Absurd.