Students Asked To Consider Arguments For Holocaust Denial

[NERVUN]

Again, we don't know WHAT kind of prepwork went into this unit.

Now, if I were teaching it, this would be done after a bout of prep, sourcing, researching, etc, and possibly after The Diary of Anne Frank, it depends. My point is that it CAN be done with prep. Any lesson is a disaster if you just toss students into it, but kids are capable of heavy lifting like this if given the support. I've seen them do it. I've also seen them be very silly, it's the nature of kids.

Well, it seems from the article that there wasn't any prep prior to this. The school admins seem to think so too as they acted quite contrite after the panel they held regarding this assignment.

Seems, mind you. There may have been. But it seems there wasn't.

Re-reading the article, it was done during the unit on The Diary of Anne Frank... Which is where I would have stuck it in the first place.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Well, it seems from the article that there wasn't any prep prior to this. The school admins seem to think so too as they acted quite contrite after the panel they held regarding this assignment.

Seems, mind you. There may have been. But it seems there wasn't.

Re-reading the article, it was done during the unit on The Diary of Anne Frank... Which is where I would have stuck it in the first place.

What sort of prep, if you know, was involved?

[NERVUN]

Re-reading the article, it was done during the unit on The Diary of Anne Frank... Which is where I would have stuck it in the first place.

What sort of prep, if you know, was involved?

Generally speaking, the Diary of Anne Frank is usually taught in conjunction with a bit more on the Holocaust, evidence of, what happened, why, who, how, etc. Usually students are, well, shell shocked after reading it. As to what this particular school did, I don't know. I don't have the lesson plans. We have news articles that are omitting those kinds of details.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

What sort of prep, if you know, was involved?

Generally speaking, the Diary of Anne Frank is usually taught in conjunction with a bit more on the Holocaust, evidence of, what happened, why, who, how, etc. Usually students are, well, shell shocked after reading it. As to what this particular school did, I don't know. I don't have the lesson plans. We have news articles that are omitting those kinds of details.

My history teachers approached differently. First they taught the evidence and then we read The Diary of Anne Frank. Eh, if there was some prep then I imagine it's ok.

[NERVUN]

Generally speaking, the Diary of Anne Frank is usually taught in conjunction with a bit more on the Holocaust, evidence of, what happened, why, who, how, etc. Usually students are, well, shell shocked after reading it. As to what this particular school did, I don't know. I don't have the lesson plans. We have news articles that are omitting those kinds of details.

My history teachers approached differently. First they taught the evidence and then we read The Diary of Anne Frank. Eh, if there was some prep then I imagine it's ok.

This was a language arts class, usually it's general background, read/explain, read/explain, etc. Capstone to sum.

[Nazi Flower Power]

No one is required to read a Holocaust thread on NSG. Students are required to do their homework.

But... but... they might encounter it here! Should we thus enforce an age limit on such threads here?

We have an age limit.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

My history teachers approached differently. First they taught the evidence and then we read The Diary of Anne Frank. Eh, if there was some prep then I imagine it's ok.

This was a language arts class, usually it's general background, read/explain, read/explain, etc. Capstone to sum.

Why are they discussing the Holocaust in an Language arts class?

[NERVUN]

But... but... they might encounter it here! Should we thus enforce an age limit on such threads here?

We have an age limit.

Yes, 13.

US 8th grade...

[NERVUN]

This was a language arts class, usually it's general background, read/explain, read/explain, etc. Capstone to sum.

Why are they discussing the Holocaust in an Language arts class?

The Diary of Anne Frank is a well known, well respected piece of lit. It's on the reading lists for just about every state in the US, and that means addressing the Holocaust. Not in as much detail as a history class would take it, but still.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Why are they discussing the Holocaust in an Language arts class?

The Diary of Anne Frank is a well known, well respected piece of lit. It's on the reading lists for just about every state in the US, and that means addressing the Holocaust. Not in as much detail as a history class would take it, but still.

It is regarded as a respectable piece of lit in several countries. I just don't get why it would be revisited in any other context but historical. That's all.

[Nazi Flower Power]

We have an age limit.

Yes, 13.

US 8th grade...

That's nice. It's still not a requirement for anybody to participate in threads that make them uncomfortable, so it does not make sense to compare NSG to an assignment that students are required to do.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

If you can refer to still aching wounds resulting from the attempted genocide of one's people within the past 75 years as "overzealous emotional outrage" with a straight face and have no sense of why that might be seen as somewhat callous, then I'm going to go ahead and conclude that we're not just speaking different languages, but might very well be living on different planets.

If you can't understand how such emotional outrage has no place in influencing acedemic policy when it comes to critical thinking, indeed, we just might be living on different planets.

There's nothing wrong with being upset or hurt, extremely so even, by an event. It's another thing to be so emotional about it that you begin to try and restrict ideas from being discussed in acedemic settings because they make you upset. Yes, that's ridiculous, and in such a context, those people are deserving of nothing more than being told to get over it. I have no patience for people's emotional nature when it interferes with truth and knowledge. I don't care if the Holocaust negatively impacted you, I don't care if Holocaust denial makes you extremely upset. That's not a reason to try and restrict what ideas can and cannot be argued for. Not a good one anyway.


This was an exercise in critical thinking. This is not as if the teachers were trying to teach Holocuast denial, as if it were true. That would be an entirely different story. But for people to get upset because critical thinking necessitates that their own claims be questioned and examined, and compared to opposing claims...yeah, they can just get over it. They need to learn to be able to remove their emotional bias and self-identification from their arguments, and allow opposing arguments to be made.

Considering the wide variety of other fake controversies that would serve to illustrate the lesson just as well, picking something else wouldn't interfere with truth or knowledge in the slightest. Critical thinking applied to the overwhelming evidence in existence that this happened? Like every other major world event of the media age, it has been documented to an astounding degree. There is no valid or serious argument to be made that it did not occur. All that the assignment does is serve to insult the memories of the dead, to attack the dignity and honor of those few survivors who remain, and to anger their descendants.

[Nazi Flower Power]

The Diary of Anne Frank is a well known, well respected piece of lit. It's on the reading lists for just about every state in the US, and that means addressing the Holocaust. Not in as much detail as a history class would take it, but still.

It is regarded as a respectable piece of lit in several countries. I just don't get why it would be revisited in any other context but historical. That's all.

I read it in English class. I thought it was boring and I don't remember much of it, but it was definitely on the reading list for 6th grade English.

[Infected Mushroom]

i think it was supposed to promote critical thinking and a question everything attitude in the students... at least in spirit.

[Aurora Novus]

Considering the wide variety of other fake controversies that would serve to illustrate the lesson just as well, picking something else wouldn't interfere with truth or knowledge in the slightest.

Of course not, but there's no serious reason not to pick the Holocaust either.

Critical thinking applied to the overwhelming evidence in existence that this happened? Like every other major world event of the media age, it has been documented to an astounding degree. There is no valid or serious argument to be made that it did not occur.

Which can also be said about most controversies that would be used in a educational setting. There's an obviously stronger side of an argument for pretty much every issue.

All that the assignment does is serve to insult the memories of the dead, to attack the dignity and honor of those few survivors who remain, and to anger their descendants.

Not at all. All the assignment serves to do is to train students in critical thinking. You're making it out to be more than it is, because you're being hyper-emotional and irrational. You cannot separate your sense of self-identification and emotions from a claim, so rather than face an opposing claim, you freak out about it. That's the opposite of critical thinking, and all the more reason to use the Holocaust to teach critical thinking. To avoid creating another generation that treats questions in such a manner.

Ask yourself, when is questioning the Holocaust NOT going to seem like an insult to those who died? 15 years down the line? 50? 500? Your emotional response to a given reality is not a reason not to question whether that reality is, well, real. In fact, your emotional response is a direc inhibitor to the process of knowing reality as it truly is, and not as we'd like it to be.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

It is regarded as a respectable piece of lit in several countries. I just don't get why it would be revisited in any other context but historical. That's all.

I read it in English class. I thought it was boring and I don't remember much of it, but it was definitely on the reading list for 6th grade English.

Interesting. I read it around 5th or 6th grade (equivalent), but it was read for the chapter on the Holocaust for history class. Then again, In Spanish class, when we had readings assigned, they were mostly Spanish-centric.

[Dzwergar]

There is lot of controversial events in history, that can be use as examples for critical thinking.
Critical thinking can be applied to topics like Bolsheviks' Revolution, French Revolution (or even best, whole political history of France since 1789 till 1815, or even 1848), Thirty Years War or political history of Europe prior to First World War. Also, old hot political topic can be used: optimates versus populares in ancient Rome, barons' rebellion against King John that lead to singning of Magna Carta, executionist movement in Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Federalist Party versus Democratic-Republican Party (Jeffersonian Republicans). Give the 8th grades some old controversy and see how they would act, what line of reasoning they would follow.
Out of this topics I would give the last one, european politics since, say, 1905 till 1915 under 8th grades scrutiny. Namely, I would ask boys and girls 13 of age to find country responsible for starting Great War. And I wonder, how many of them would name as such Great Britain or Russia instead Germany or Austria-Hungary.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Considering the wide variety of other fake controversies that would serve to illustrate the lesson just as well, picking something else wouldn't interfere with truth or knowledge in the slightest.

Of course not, but there's no serious reason not to pick the Holocaust either.

Critical thinking applied to the overwhelming evidence in existence that this happened? Like every other major world event of the media age, it has been documented to an astounding degree. There is no valid or serious argument to be made that it did not occur.

Which can also be said about most controversies that would be used in a educational setting. There's an obviously stronger side of an argument for pretty much every issue.

All that the assignment does is serve to insult the memories of the dead, to attack the dignity and honor of those few survivors who remain, and to anger their descendants.

Not at all. All the assignment serves to do is to train students in critical thinking. You're making it out to be more than it is, because you're being hyper-emotional and irrational. You cannot separate your sense of self-identification and emotions from a claim, so rather than face an opposing claim, you freak out about it. That's the opposite of critical thinking, and all the more reason to use the Holocaust to teach critical thinking. To avoid creating another generation that treats questions in such a manner.

This is to actual discussions of history what creation vs. evolution is to biology class. And you're making it out to be less than it is to the people that it would affect the most deeply. If you lack that base level of empathy, then I'm not sure how to explain to you why you're wrong.

[Aurora Novus]

This is to actual discussions of history what creation vs. evolution is to biology class.

No, it's not, because this isn't about teaching Holocaust denail. I've already addressed this. This is about teaching critical thinking, by asking students to examine claims, take a stance, and argue that stance. It's completely different.

Likewise, if (for some reason) they wanted to teach critical thinking by having students argue theistic creationism against modern science, I'd have no problem with that either. I would, however, have a problem if they tried to teach theistic creationism, or Holocaust denial, as fact.

And you're making it out to be less than it is to the people that it would affect the most deeply. If you lack that base level of empathy, then I'm not sure how to explain to you why you're wrong.

I'm not making it out to be less than it is to people. I'm fully aware of how it impacts people.

I'm saying to hell with your emotions. They're in direct opposition to crticial thinking, knowledge, and truth in this case. They have no place in this context. The Holocaust may upset you, fine. You may be upset that people deny it, fine. That doesn't give your argument any special credence however, and the situation deserves no speical treatment. It's a claim that deserves to be analized, like any other. If you can't accept that, if your emotional bias prevents you from allowing that, I reiterate. To hell with your emotions. To hell with petty, irrational feelings.

[Neo-Angland]

I was once assigned to defend the position that climate change is false in a staged debate in 8th grade. I lost, of course, but the fact that there was literally no evidence was enough to convince me more than I already was. Arguing a point into submission only makes it more defeated; that's why I look for videos of creationism/evolution debates online and laugh at the silly ploys and circular reasoning the creationists use. This assignment is excellent for the students, to make them really think of how they know what is true and false. In this case they would assimilate evidence for the Holocaust (of which there are multitudes) and perhaps fruitlessly search for some evidence of no Holocaust. Thus they would conclude that the Holocaust did indeed happen, maybe even breaking a few from a previously held mindset.

I actually did that myself and won!

In Australia, we, as students, have had to have argue/critically examine such issues in our History and Science classes.

If you search for the Ice-Core Sampling research, it shows that climate is a (relatively) constant cycle of 1,000 years on a macro level, There was only 2 confirmed man-made temperature jumps: the Introduction of CFC's in civil applications (1961) and the Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster of 1986 (I wonder if the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster had a similar effect too?).

Furthermore, recorded temperatures show a 5 year cycle (El Nino and La Nina) on a micro level, which while suffering from the spikes caused by the above two jumps, ended up re-establishing the temperature equilibrium and cycle.

The Point is though, that any point can be argued, and you will often find that much of the research on both sides are generated by think-tanks / institutes for the sole purpose of adding weight to their financier's agenda.

I also had to accept/refute the holocaust in an essay myself. All a student needs to question the Holocaust is to find the academics prosecuted in (now) in European Union member Countries, where it is illegal to question the numbers of Jewish deaths in the holocaust. Use this to argue that this would intimidate any academic researcher from publishing anything other then the 'official story'.

Also add in that many of the pro-Holocaust research institutes are financed via proxy by the Rothschild Dynasty, who have profited by moving their HQ to Israel (getting both lower tax-rates and International aid money for their fiefdom of Israel), and the students, like myself can get a High-Distinction/A+!

[Yumyumsuppertime]

This is to actual discussions of history what creation vs. evolution is to biology class.

No, it's not, because this isn't about teaching Holocaust denail. I've already addressed this. This is about teaching critical thinking, by asking students to examine claims, take a stance, and argue that stance. It's completely different.

Likewise, if (for some reason) they wanted to teach critical thinking by having students argue theistic creationism against modern science, I'd have no problem with that either. I would, however, have a problem if they tried to teach theistic creationism, or Holocaust denial, as fact.

And you're making it out to be less than it is to the people that it would affect the most deeply. If you lack that base level of empathy, then I'm not sure how to explain to you why you're wrong.

I'm not making it out to be less than it is to people. I'm fully aware of how it impacts people.

I'm saying to hell with your emotions. They're in direct opposition to crticial thinking, knowledge, and truth in this case. They have no place in this context. The Holocaust may upset you, fine. You may be upset that people deny it, fine. That doesn't give your argument any special credence however, and the situation deserves no speical treatment. It's a claim that deserves to be analized, like any other. If you can't accept that, if your emotional bias prevents you from allowing that, I reiterate. To hell with your emotions. To hell with petty, irrational feelings.

You're missing the entire point.

The reason that we don't need to critically examine this has absolutely nothing to do with my emotions. The reason that we don't need to critically examine it is that the evidence is so utterly convincing and overwhelming that it would be pointless to investigate the claim with any sort of skepticism. The totality of the evidence is there, and presents as convincing a case as has ever been made in history. The film evidence, the files, the memoranda, the diaries, the documents, the eyewitness accounts from both inmates and Nazis, the bodies, the ovens, the everything. This happened. This happened, it was real, and the facts of the matter are indisputable. To question it is as it would be to question gravity, or evolution, or germ theory. Therefore, there is no particular reason to pick this one topic, and indeed, to even suggest that there could be a valid opposing point of view is to grant the hint of legitimacy to monsters who would insult their memory through the most blatant and vicious slanders and libels against an entire people. You might as well have them seriously discuss the pros and cons of NAMBLA.

[Empire of Narnia]

What a stupid assignment. All it would do would be to guide impressionable kids to hate websites.

[Neo-Angland]

No, it's not, because this isn't about teaching Holocaust denail. I've already addressed this. This is about teaching critical thinking, by asking students to examine claims, take a stance, and argue that stance. It's completely different.

Likewise, if (for some reason) they wanted to teach critical thinking by having students argue theistic creationism against modern science, I'd have no problem with that either. I would, however, have a problem if they tried to teach theistic creationism, or Holocaust denial, as fact.




I'm not making it out to be less than it is to people. I'm fully aware of how it impacts people.

I'm saying to hell with your emotions. They're in direct opposition to crticial thinking, knowledge, and truth in this case. They have no place in this context. The Holocaust may upset you, fine. You may be upset that people deny it, fine. That doesn't give your argument any special credence however, and the situation deserves no speical treatment. It's a claim that deserves to be analized, like any other. If you can't accept that, if your emotional bias prevents you from allowing that, I reiterate. To hell with your emotions. To hell with petty, irrational feelings.

You're missing the entire point.

The reason that we don't need to critically examine this has absolutely nothing to do with my emotions. The reason that we don't need to critically examine it is that the evidence is so utterly convincing and overwhelming that it would be pointless to investigate the claim with any sort of skepticism. The totality of the evidence is there, and presents as convincing a case as has ever been made in history. The film evidence, the files, the memoranda, the diaries, the documents, the eyewitness accounts from both inmates and Nazis, the bodies, the ovens, the everything. This happened. This happened, it was real, and the facts of the matter are indisputable. To question it is as it would be to question gravity, or evolution, or germ theory. Therefore, there is no particular reason to pick this one topic, and indeed, to even suggest that there could be a valid opposing point of view is to grant the hint of legitimacy to monsters who would insult their memory through the most blatant and vicious slanders and libels against an entire people. You might as well have them seriously discuss the pros and cons of NAMBLA.

So why do you fear the inquiry into the subject matter, if there isn't any legitimate merit?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

You're missing the entire point.

The reason that we don't need to critically examine this has absolutely nothing to do with my emotions. The reason that we don't need to critically examine it is that the evidence is so utterly convincing and overwhelming that it would be pointless to investigate the claim with any sort of skepticism. The totality of the evidence is there, and presents as convincing a case as has ever been made in history. The film evidence, the files, the memoranda, the diaries, the documents, the eyewitness accounts from both inmates and Nazis, the bodies, the ovens, the everything. This happened. This happened, it was real, and the facts of the matter are indisputable. To question it is as it would be to question gravity, or evolution, or germ theory. Therefore, there is no particular reason to pick this one topic, and indeed, to even suggest that there could be a valid opposing point of view is to grant the hint of legitimacy to monsters who would insult their memory through the most blatant and vicious slanders and libels against an entire people. You might as well have them seriously discuss the pros and cons of NAMBLA.

So why do you fear the inquiry into the subject matter, if there isn't any legitimate merit?

Assumes facts not in evidence. Please rephrase the question.

[Neo-Angland]

So why do you fear the inquiry into the subject matter, if there isn't any legitimate merit?

Assumes facts not in evidence. Please rephrase the question.

Presupposes facts not in evidence do not exist, and disregards the legal penalties in Europe for questioning the numbers. Please rephrase the response to question.