NationStates Jolt Archive

I used to repect him but this has gone to far. Aside from the fact that he is a discipline nazi when on duty (former state-trooper now teacher and assistant dean-o-discipline) but cant even notice enough to enforce his own rules in class and such.. that type of hypocrisy is more or less expected from a high school teacher.

But what I can't stand is the man's bias...

When we began the unit on WWI he started off with a lecture on U-Boats. According to him as he said so himself, the U-Boats were completely useless weapons of war and their only value whatsoever was the fear they instilled in civilians.... the same civilians who didn't give a shit about all the warnings not to travel to England by sea. Today he showed us a video on WWI. I dare say this is something you would have seen in a theater news real in New York City during the war. (It was actually from that time too....) All the movie served to do was glorify the allies and portray the central powers as totally incompetent (as well as mocking the French) without any facts whatsoever. In almost ever case where a fact would be appropriate for a factual figure instead we were given descriptions such as marvelous, stunning defeat, bedlam, unlikely, glorious, blah-blah-blah. All I learned was there were over 75k casualties in the Argon on the American side. And on top of all this they repeated referred to the Ottoman Empire at the time as Turkey. Wtf? I even had to correct my teacher after lecturing on Turkey as one of Germany's allies in WWI. There was no such thing as Turkey (officially) until Kamil Attaturk came around after the end of WWI.

Honestly now I'm getting pissed at how us American students routinely get lied to and mislead by our teachers. I'm thankful I at least knew enough to realize I was being fooled. And what makes this whole thing even worse is that later int eh day while passing by an AP History class I heard the teacher lecturing on how Al-Queada was directly linked to the Chechens who held people hostage in that Russian movie theatre demanding Russian troops stop their occupation and genocide in Chechnya. What.The.Fuck Mister? Those Chechens were young men and women ages late-teens to early twenties. They were patriots who seriously beleived that this was the only way to help their people. Al-Queada with religious fundamentalists? maybe I dunno. But Chechen patriots? yeah right.


.....Oh the American educational system. I'm gonna have to talk with both those teachers next time I have class..... :rolleyes:

And here's me thinking "neutrality on historical issues" was part of the job description for being a history teacher...

You can lose credibility in people?

I'm starting to lose confidence in grammar..

Yeah I realized that error after I submitted the thread. But I'm confident NSG'ers can figure it out..

See, I'm waiting for the post tomorrow when you say that he asked for your opinions on how propaganda played a role in shaping the public mood, even in WW1, and you didn't know because you dismissed the video he showed you.

That would be fantastic.

I actually can't believe you're complaining about your teacher showing you archive footage that gave you an insight into the American (I assume) take on the war.

Anyway, I don't think "credibility" is the word you're looking for in your title. "Faith", maybe, but "credibility" doesn't make sense there.

Okay, well, if it was actually a news reel from the time of the war, of course it was slanted. You could have seen the same thing on the other side, I dare say.

As for the U-boats, sure they were a terror weapon, but the real aim was to cripple Allied shipping and so reduce their ability to wage war. It was ultimately ineffective, from the brief browse I did in Wiki. The main effect of the U-boat camaign was to bring the US into the war.

Your point about calling the Ottoman Empire "Turkey" is a quibble. Perhaps the country didn't officially become Türkiye Cumhuriyeti until Ataturk's time, but "Turkey" was the standard term used in Western Europe at the time. Your teacher was doing history no harm in using it.

As for al-Qaeda and the Chechens, I don't know either.

If you disagree with what's being presented in class, by all means, do some research and find out more. If you do that, your school is accomplishing something. I wouldn't assume you're being deliberately lied to, though. There aren't as many conspiracies out there as it may seem.

Yeah I realized that error after I submitted the thread. But I'm confident NSG'ers can figure it out..

figured it out...when I was young I experienced the same, history class depending on the teacher could be lesson in selective propaganda...now my kids history lessons are much better, teachers are very unbiased and blunt about my countries short comings...things are obviously different where you live...

If he had shown it with the intention of making us mindful of the WWI America mindset I would have commended him. But he shows it to the class as if it were a documentary from the history channel. I think he even called it that once. He tells them a U-Boat sucks and they will believe it.

If you can remain calm and argue history with him then I'm sure he'll respect you for it. He may repremand you for interrupting his lesson, but (if he has any academic values), he should definately respect you for putting forward an actual argument.

My AP US II teacher calls him Gavrilo Princeps.

It irks me, as WWI is my favorite time of history.

There aren't as many conspiracies out there as it may seem.Well at least in the real, but in NSG there as as many conspiracies per person then there are at, well there is nothing else to compare to NSG when it comes to sheer amount of conspiracies made, stated, and theroized.

Just think of history in the future. We won't have films of propaganda, we'll have presidential speeches of propaganda. Also Just think of students listening to recordings of Rush or Sean and having students question why anyone would actually think they were giving "news". That aside, When I was teaching the thing I liked best was when a student challenged me. I would sometimes say outrageous things just to see if anyone would say anything. Nothing is worse for a teacher than a bunch of lumps for students. I say challenge him in a respectful way (not a "your an idiot" way) If you're respectful and have evidence I'll bet it'll go a long ways toward an A.

Kamil Attaturk

Kemal Atatürk. Please, don't butcher the history you're having a hissy fit over.

Today he showed us a video on WWI. I dare say this is something you would have seen in a theater news real in New York City during the war. (It was actually from that time too....) All the movie served to do was glorify the allies and portray the central powers as totally incompetent (as well as mocking the French) without any facts whatsoever. In almost ever case where a fact would be appropriate for a factual figure instead we were given descriptions such as marvelous, stunning defeat, bedlam, unlikely, glorious, blah-blah-blah.
Newsflash, propaganda wasn't just something the bad guys did.

wasnt ww1 still the silent movie era?

the footage might have been from the war or slightly before the US entered the war but surely the film was from some later time.

I honestly don't know how big a role U-Boats played in WW1. WW2, sure, they were a huge factor, but WW1? You honestly don't hear about them much (aside from the Lusitania).

Chechen patriots?!

Right, the people who took over a school and indiscrinately murdered kids. Real patriots right there.

Oh, and I suppose the insurgents in Iraq are freedom fighters.

Chechen patriots?!

Right, the people who took over a school and indiscrinately murdered kids. Real patriots right there.

Oh, and I suppose the insurgents in Iraq are freedom fighters.

Yeah, right up there with the IRA.

I honestly don't know how big a role U-Boats played in WW1. WW2, sure, they were a huge factor, but WW1? You honestly don't hear about them much (aside from the Lusitania).

U-boats almost knocked Britain out of the war. At their peak, you were looking at 500000+ tonnage of merchant shipping getting sunk every month. A country like the UK, which wasn't agriculturally self-sustaining, that's a big impact.

The Britons finally introduced the convoy system in 1917, which cut down on their losses, but it was still pretty bad.

Oh, and indiscriminate U-boat attacks was the main reason why America joined the war, so U-boats were more significant in World War 1 than World War 2.

Just not as advanced.

You are right to question your teacher. When I took a history course at college, the teacher made it clear from the start that history is about opinions and facts and helped us to see the difference when history was being presented to us in books as well as orally.

ps While I am here, I would just like to thank the US of A for winning the war.;)

ps While I am here, I would just like to thank the US of A for winning the war.;)

*sigh*

Yeah, our history teacher has the same thing, only its the stereotypical 'British Bias', which basically means that up until WWI the UK was the only nation that did anything, and where any particularly emberassing moment in British history is glossed over.
The Spanish Armada, for instance. Apparently it resulted in the immidiate downfall of the entire Spanish Empire, which TOTALY did not keep expanding until the 1790's.

Kemal Atatürk. Please, don't butcher the history you're having a hissy fit over.

Since the Ottoman Empire and Turkey use(d) Arabic script, the precise spelling of names is often a matter of conjecture in Western script. There is no "correct" spelling.

As to the topic: I would suggest, that when you come to do whatever essay or paper is required on the subject, that you very carefully show your teacher's position to be false. Use only information that you can back up with research, and reinforce your conclusions strongly. Include a comprehensive bibliography. If no one challenges this person, he will continue to spew drivel forever.

Chechen patriots?!

Right, the people who took over a school and indiscrinately murdered kids. Real patriots right there.
The Chechens argue that those people wer Russians, posing as Chechens in order to discredit their cause.

U-boats almost knocked Britain out of the war. At their peak, you were looking at 500000+ tonnage of merchant shipping getting sunk every month. A country like the UK, which wasn't agriculturally self-sustaining, that's a big impact.

The Britons finally introduced the convoy system in 1917, which cut down on their losses, but it was still pretty bad.

Oh, and indiscriminate U-boat attacks was the main reason why America joined the war, so U-boats were more significant in World War 1 than World War 2.

Just not as advanced.
Thanks. That's good to know.

I admit I know far less about WW1 than WW2. Mostly just the ground war in Europe.

Chechen patriots?!

Right, the people who took over a school and indiscrinately murdered kids. Real patriots right there.

Oh, and I suppose the insurgents in Iraq are freedom fighters.

Don't confuse the actions of a few terrorists. Many Chechens have very good reasons for not wishing to be controlled from Washington.

Since the Ottoman Empire and Turkey use(d) Arabic script, the precise spelling of names is often a matter of conjecture in Western script. There is no "correct" spelling.

Well, you could counter-argue that seeing as how one of Ataturk's primary policies was the introduction of the latin alphabet, that Fass' point stands. Although, as usual, the point is unnecessarily pedantic and counter-productive.

The U-Boats were not terror weapons. They were weapons used to blockade GB. They have the disadvantage of being an island. It is for that reason they built such a strong navy.

U-Boats were a weapon that could bypass the blockade of the North Sea with the Grand Fleet.

The major help for Germany was that these U-boats could easily cut the logistic lines GB needed. It wasn't until America entered the war and provided DDs for the convoy system that the U-boats lost their effectiveness.

Had the US not entered the war and provided the convoys, Germany would've won the war thanks to the U-boats.

I used to repect him but this has gone to far. Aside from the fact that he is a discipline nazi when on duty (former state-trooper now teacher and assistant dean-o-discipline) but cant even notice enough to enforce his own rules in class and such.. that type of hypocrisy is more or less expected from a high school teacher.

But what I can't stand is the man's bias...

When we began the unit on WWI he started off with a lecture on U-Boats. According to him as he said so himself, the U-Boats were completely useless weapons of war and their only value whatsoever was the fear they instilled in civilians.... the same civilians who didn't give a shit about all the warnings not to travel to England by sea. Today he showed us a video on WWI. I dare say this is something you would have seen in a theater news real in New York City during the war. (It was actually from that time too....) All the movie served to do was glorify the allies and portray the central powers as totally incompetent (as well as mocking the French) without any facts whatsoever. In almost ever case where a fact would be appropriate for a factual figure instead we were given descriptions such as marvelous, stunning defeat, bedlam, unlikely, glorious, blah-blah-blah. All I learned was there were over 75k casualties in the Argon on the American side. And on top of all this they repeated referred to the Ottoman Empire at the time as Turkey. Wtf? I even had to correct my teacher after lecturing on Turkey as one of Germany's allies in WWI. There was no such thing as Turkey (officially) until Kamil Attaturk came around after the end of WWI.

Honestly now I'm getting pissed at how us American students routinely get lied to and mislead by our teachers. I'm thankful I at least knew enough to realize I was being fooled. And what makes this whole thing even worse is that later int eh day while passing by an AP History class I heard the teacher lecturing on how Al-Queada was directly linked to the Chechens who held people hostage in that Russian movie theatre demanding Russian troops stop their occupation and genocide in Chechnya. What.The.Fuck Mister? Those Chechens were young men and women ages late-teens to early twenties. They were patriots who seriously beleived that this was the only way to help their people. Al-Queada with religious fundamentalists? maybe I dunno. But Chechen patriots? yeah right.


.....Oh the American educational system. I'm gonna have to talk with both those teachers next time I have class..... :rolleyes:

Your next course of action should entail one of the below:

1. Lodging a formal complaint, detailing the historical inaccuarcies your teacher uses in his curriculum.

2. Offering deatiled information that explicitly defeats his "facts" (use a legitimate source)

3. Murdering your teacher, being oh so careful as too dice up the remains, succesfully hiding the various pieces in the student bodies next serving of "chunky chilly"

.....Oh the American educational system. I'm gonna have to talk with both those teachers next time I have class..... :rolleyes:

If you know so much more than all the history teachers in your school what are you still doing taking classes? Should you not have graduated already and be doing the teaching yourself?

The U-Boats were not terror weapons. They were weapons used to blockade GB. They have the disadvantage of being an island. It is for that reason they built such a strong navy.

U-Boats were a weapon that could bypass the blockade of the North Sea with the Grand Fleet.

The major help for Germany was that these U-boats could easily cut the logistic lines GB needed. It wasn't until America entered the war and provided DDs for the convoy system that the U-boats lost their effectiveness.

Had the US not entered the war and provided the convoys, Germany would've won the war thanks to the U-boats.

Come wars end, German soldiers were attacking fresh recruits to the front for prolonging the war and their own starvation. Germany, at home and the front, was suffering the effects of blockade too, and FAR more harshly. And Britain wasn't totally reliant on American convoys for protection. As you stated, they had quite a sizeable navy of their own, and not all of it was used to blockade Germany. Because the americans CERTAINLY didn't at that time, have the four ships per convoy necessary to protect it on their own. Britain, on the other hand, with its navy twice the size of the next two competitors, did.

Come wars end, German soldiers were attacking fresh recruits to the front for prolonging the war and their own starvation. Germany, at home and the front, was suffering the effects of blockade too, and FAR more harshly. And Britain wasn't totally reliant on American convoys for protection. As you stated, they had quite a sizeable navy of their own, and not all of it was used to blockade Germany. Because the americans CERTAINLY didn't at that time, have the four ships per convoy necessary to protect it on their own. Britain, on the other hand, with its navy twice the size of the next two competitors, did.

Britain would've run out of supplies before Germany had the US not used it's DDs for convoy duty. If you don't believe me, read Massie's "Castle's of Steel." In the book, he quotes Admiral of the Fleet Sir John Jellicoe saying the exact same thing. Given the fact Jellicoe was the CO of the Grand Fleet and later First Sea Lord, he is probably the best source on the subject.

The Royal Navy was powerful, but that was really true when it came to dreadnoughts. Germany tried to break the blockade with their own dreadnoughts. The most notable action was when they tried to take out Beatty's BCF in an action that resulted in the Battle of Jutland.

Britain's DNs proved to be superior, but the fact remains that the Royal Navy didn't have the destroyer force for the convoys.

Interesting. I've read up on it, mainly several years ago, but didn't recall any commentary on the situation by Jellicoe. perhaps I should read that myself. it's entirely possible that what I read *the names evade me* had a pro-allied slant that could bias one or two things.

Don't confuse the actions of a few terrorists. Many Chechens have very good reasons for not wishing to be controlled from Washington.
.

The Chechens are controlled by Moscow, not USA. We honestly couldn't care less about Checnya. I could certainly understand why the Chechens would wage guerilla war against the Russians, they have been wronged (deliberate canonning of Chechen apartment buildings) by the Russians greviously. However, what happened at Beslan in 2004 completely and utterly disgusts me.

And it should disgust you too.

The Chechens are controlled by Moscow, not USA. We honestly couldn't care less about Checnya. I could certainly understand why the Chechens would wage guerilla war against the Russians, they have been wronged (deliberate canonning of Chechen apartment buildings) by the Russians greviously. However, what happened at Beslan in 2004 completely and utterly disgusts me.

And it should disgust you too.

And what the Russians did to their own people in their botched rescue attempt? Killed and injured many more people than the Chechens did, from what I remember.

And what the Russians did to their own people in their botched rescue attempt? Killed and injured many more people than the Chechens did, from what I remember.

So are you saying that the Russians are morally equivalent to the instigators of that atrocity?

Incompetence is one thing. Evil is another.

So are you saying that the Russians are morally equivalent to the instigators of that atrocity?

Incompetence is one thing. Evil is another.

No, I'm not saying there on the same low level as those specific Chechens were (being as they are ultimately responsible for the death's caused by the Russians). I'm morely saying that the Russians, well... after seeing that on TV I did this a lot.:headbang:

No, I'm not saying there on the same low level as those specific Chechens were (being as they are ultimately responsible for the death's caused by the Russians). I'm morely saying that the Russians, well... after seeing that on TV I did this a lot.:headbang:

Ok. Glad we cleared that up.

As for the Russians, must be something in that Vodka, if'n you ask me!:D

I used to repect him but this has gone to far. Aside from the fact that he is a discipline nazi when on duty (former state-trooper now teacher and assistant dean-o-discipline) but cant even notice enough to enforce his own rules in class and such.. that type of hypocrisy is more or less expected from a high school teacher.

But what I can't stand is the man's bias...

When we began the unit on WWI he started off with a lecture on U-Boats. According to him as he said so himself, the U-Boats were completely useless weapons of war and their only value whatsoever was the fear they instilled in civilians.... the same civilians who didn't give a shit about all the warnings not to travel to England by sea. Today he showed us a video on WWI. I dare say this is something you would have seen in a theater news real in New York City during the war. (It was actually from that time too....) All the movie served to do was glorify the allies and portray the central powers as totally incompetent (as well as mocking the French) without any facts whatsoever. In almost ever case where a fact would be appropriate for a factual figure instead we were given descriptions such as marvelous, stunning defeat, bedlam, unlikely, glorious, blah-blah-blah. All I learned was there were over 75k casualties in the Argon on the American side. And on top of all this they repeated referred to the Ottoman Empire at the time as Turkey. Wtf? I even had to correct my teacher after lecturing on Turkey as one of Germany's allies in WWI. There was no such thing as Turkey (officially) until Kamil Attaturk came around after the end of WWI.

Honestly now I'm getting pissed at how us American students routinely get lied to and mislead by our teachers. I'm thankful I at least knew enough to realize I was being fooled. And what makes this whole thing even worse is that later int eh day while passing by an AP History class I heard the teacher lecturing on how Al-Queada was directly linked to the Chechens who held people hostage in that Russian movie theatre demanding Russian troops stop their occupation and genocide in Chechnya. What.The.Fuck Mister? Those Chechens were young men and women ages late-teens to early twenties. They were patriots who seriously beleived that this was the only way to help their people. Al-Queada with religious fundamentalists? maybe I dunno. But Chechen patriots? yeah right.


.....Oh the American educational system. I'm gonna have to talk with both those teachers next time I have class..... :rolleyes:

I feel sorry for you. We have the best history teacher in the world who is really funny, and teaches us stuff that really matters (US History).

I used to repect him but this has gone to far. Aside from the fact that he is a discipline nazi when on duty (former state-trooper now teacher and assistant dean-o-discipline) but cant even notice enough to enforce his own rules in class and such.. that type of hypocrisy is more or less expected from a high school teacher.

But what I can't stand is the man's bias...

When we began the unit on WWI he started off with a lecture on U-Boats. According to him as he said so himself, the U-Boats were completely useless weapons of war and their only value whatsoever was the fear they instilled in civilians.... the same civilians who didn't give a shit about all the warnings not to travel to England by sea. Today he showed us a video on WWI. I dare say this is something you would have seen in a theater news real in New York City during the war. (It was actually from that time too....) All the movie served to do was glorify the allies and portray the central powers as totally incompetent (as well as mocking the French) without any facts whatsoever. In almost ever case where a fact would be appropriate for a factual figure instead we were given descriptions such as marvelous, stunning defeat, bedlam, unlikely, glorious, blah-blah-blah. All I learned was there were over 75k casualties in the Argon on the American side. And on top of all this they repeated referred to the Ottoman Empire at the time as Turkey. Wtf? I even had to correct my teacher after lecturing on Turkey as one of Germany's allies in WWI. There was no such thing as Turkey (officially) until Kamil Attaturk came around after the end of WWI.

Honestly now I'm getting pissed at how us American students routinely get lied to and mislead by our teachers. I'm thankful I at least knew enough to realize I was being fooled. And what makes this whole thing even worse is that later int eh day while passing by an AP History class I heard the teacher lecturing on how Al-Queada was directly linked to the Chechens who held people hostage in that Russian movie theatre demanding Russian troops stop their occupation and genocide in Chechnya. What.The.Fuck Mister? Those Chechens were young men and women ages late-teens to early twenties. They were patriots who seriously beleived that this was the only way to help their people. Al-Queada with religious fundamentalists? maybe I dunno. But Chechen patriots? yeah right.


.....Oh the American educational system. I'm gonna have to talk with both those teachers next time I have class..... :rolleyes:

You complain that US teachers don't deliver a fair side? Why is it they all tell the exact same side? Why is it that british (yeah, british should maybe be capitalized....not this time!!!) instructors and students turn their faces to things such as independence of free nations like the United States and Austrailia? Cocky S.O.B's keep believing y'all won the war and you still tax us while goofy white dudes from Texas and sinister white women from New York...Arkansas...or where ever represent us.:upyours:

And what makes this whole thing even worse is that later int eh day while passing by an AP History class I heard the teacher lecturing on how Al-Queada was directly linked to the Chechens who held people hostage in that Russian movie theatre demanding Russian troops stop their occupation and genocide in Chechnya. What.The.Fuck Mister? Those Chechens were young men and women ages late-teens to early twenties. They were patriots who seriously beleived that this was the only way to help their people. Al-Queada with religious fundamentalists? maybe I dunno. But Chechen patriots? yeah right.

While al Qaeda mightn't be directly linked to the particular incident recounted in the OP, re: theatre attack, there is significant evidence to suggest alQ has extensive ties with the Chechen rebels.

eg:
Mounir al-Motassadek told his trial in Hamburg that at least four of the (9/11 hijackers) had gone to Afghanistan to be trained for the war in Chechnya.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2372971.stm

An Al Qaeda-connected group calling itself the Islambouli Brigades, which has been active in Pakistan, claimed responsibility for both the simultaneous downing of two passenger jets on Aug. 24, that left 90 dead, and a suicide bomb in Moscow on August 31 that killed ten more.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0907/p01s02-woeu.html

Are there links between Chechen groups and al-Qaeda?

Experts cite several ties, including:

The late Chechen warlord Khattab, a Jordanian-born fighter who was killed in Chechnya in April 2002, and Osama bin Laden. Khattab apparently first met bin Laden while both men were fighting the 1979-89 Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. The U.S. ambassador to Russia, Alexander Vershbow, said shortly after September 11, “We have long recognized that Osama bin Laden and other international networks have been fueling the flames in Chechnya, including the involvement of foreign commanders like Khattab.”
Zacarias Moussaoui, whom U.S. authorities have charged with being the “20th hijacker” in the September 11 attacks, was reported by the Wall Street Journal to be formerly “a recruiter for al-Qaeda-backed rebels in Chechnya.”
Chechen militants reportedly fought alongside al-Qaeda and Taliban forces against the U.S.-backed Northern Alliance in late 2001. The Taliban regime in Afghanistan was one of the only governments to recognize Chechen independence.

Does the Russian government say that al-Qaeda is active in Chechnya?
Yes. Russian authorities, including President Vladimir Putin, have repeatedly stressed the involvement of international terrorists and bin Laden associates in Chechnya—in part, experts say, to generate Western sympathy for Russia’s military campaign against the Chechen rebels. Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov claimed that a videotape of Khattab meeting with bin Laden had been found in Afghanistan, but Russia has not aired the tape publicly. Most experts put the number of foreign militants in Chechnya at approximately 200, out of several thousand fighters.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9181/

I would argue that in this particular case, your history teacher is guilty of not doing enough research, possible media-influence and perhaps hyperbole, but innocent of lying.

Here's an idea for you:
Instead of jumping onto this board, complaining & moaning about perceived faults in your teachers - how about do some research yourself and present your findings to the teacher to show him where he's gone wrong.

Awww, po lil baby whining about schooooooo.



Too many teardrops for one heart to be cryin'
Too many teardrops for one heart
To carry on
You're gonna cry ninety-six tears
You're gonna cry ninety-six tears
You're gonna cry cry, cry, cry, now
You're gonna cry cry, cry, cry
Ninety-six tears c'mon and lemme hear you cry, now
Ninety-six tears (whoo!) I wanna hear you cry
Night and day, yeah, all night long
Uh-ninety-six tears cry cry cry
C'mon baby, let me hear you cry now, all night long
Uh-ninety-six tears! Yeah! C'mon now
Uh-ninety-six tears!

Am I the only one who winces when I see the title of this thread? Either the teacher has lost all credibility with you, or you have lost confidence in the teacher. Grrrrrrrr

You can lose credibility in people?

I'm starting to lose confidence in grammar..

Personally, I'm enjoying the bad grammar here, since the best interpretation I can come up with for what this thread's title grammatically means is "When I am inside my history teacher, I should not be believed!" That sounds like a much more entertaining topic. :p

I dare say the true crime is that you failed to realise a great opportunity. Remember the cornerstone of history is the belief that humanity can learn from it's past. The teacher presented you with a piece of footage showing an amazing insight into the nature of war-time reporting and something that shows an interesting parallel to modern news sources (IE Fox News). This could have been a great opportunity to understand the war-time mentality of the media, but you squandered it.

History is an exercise is discretion, there is no such thing as an unbiased source. No primary account, no historical text based on that account, or lesson based on that text can possibly unbiased. There is a duty in history to remove -to a certain degree- emotion and opinion, allowing the facts to be shown, but the onus ultimately must fall on the individual to judge the motives of the source and evaluate the facts for his/herself.

know this may sound predictable....

Read some Noam Chomsky

My wife had to study the Kosovan war for her thesis, you simply wouldn't believe the abject mendacity in the lies spread throughout the west regarding the whole affair...

The government documents tell the truth, but government spokesmen and the media decree the exact opposite... it's lunacy - it's like OJ and johnnie cochrane all over again...

You are right to question your teacher. When I took a history course at college, the teacher made it clear from the start that history is about opinions and facts and helped us to see the difference when history was being presented to us in books as well as orally.

ps While I am here, I would just like to thank the US of A for winning the war.;)
But to what end? I'm sorry but the way you said that doesn't really make him/her sound like that great of teacher.

Different how? Bias? Really bias, wrong, what?

Since the Ottoman Empire and Turkey use(d) Arabic script, the precise spelling of names is often a matter of conjecture in Western script. There is no "correct" spelling.

There is a correct spelling - the one used in Turkish. And that is "Mustafa Kemal Atatürk." That's also the spelling used internationally. "Kamil" is just silly and wrong, especially as it doesn't even approximate the pronunciation of the name.

I think he/she just wanted to whine and cry and for everyone to show sympathy and help dog the teacher saying how right he/she was in their view. Many today do not want to do the extra work research would involve or to have to actually prove themselves they prefer to just try to remove those who do not see it their way or who might actually ask them to make something of themselves in life by applying themselves.

But to what end? I'm sorry but the way you said that doesn't really make him/her sound like that great of teacher.

Different how? Bias? Really bias, wrong, what?
Funny, 'cause I got the opposite opine of him. By telling his class right from the start not to believe everything written and realise that historical accounts are always going to be biased in favour of one party, he's doing them a service. He's pushing them to think critically and analyse everything.
It's a cliche, sure, but it's also very true to remember that history is written by the victor.
Do you think that had the Nazis won WWII, we'd know as much as we do today about their concentration camps?

I dunno, I had a pretty awful teacher for History too, he tried to tell us about the deadly defenses the Japanese had at the beaches of Normandy on D-Day. Thankfully everyone realized how worthless he was pretty early on in the semester.

There is a correct spelling - the one used in Turkish. And that is "Mustafa Kemal Atatürk." That's also the spelling used internationally. "Kamil" is just silly and wrong, especially as it doesn't even approximate the pronunciation of the name.

I don't know much about Turk but being of Lebanese ancestry and having several relatives named Kamil, I know the interpretation of spelling from Arabic to English varies greatly. Kamil is spelled many different ways in English. My own last name varies greatly depending on how the official on Ellis Island decided to write it down. This doesn't just apply to names. I've been trying to find an ethnic food on the internet. These are just a few of the spellings I've run into: Keshek; Keshik; Kishik; Kishk; Kashik; Kashk; Kashik; Keshk; and every other variable of vowels. The problem is there are some sounds in Arabic that don't have equivalents in English. Also, with all Semitic languages, vowels are always in question. Third, dialects vary greatly among speakers of Arabic. Because of past limitations in communication, dialects can change within just a few miles, KM.

This can all be seen as reporters struggle with Iraqi names.

I don't know much about Turk

Turkish, and while the rest of your post is a nice elaboration, it is inconsequential to it.

Turkish, and while the rest of your post is a nice elaboration, it is inconsequential to it.

Then boiling it down, Kamel, Kamil, Kamal, can be spelled several different ways. I know several that spell it differently. Any time there is a translation spelling varies. Example: Jesus was not his name in Hebrew. Communication takes place when meaning is transfered from one mind to another. The symbols used have no meaning in and of themselves. If you knew who was being written of, then the thought was transfered from one mind to another.

I don't want to read all the way through...did someone already make fun of the bad grammar used in the title?

I don't want to read all the way through...did someone already make fun of the bad grammar used in the title?

Very yes.

Oshi-

Very yes.

Oshi-Was it Fass who did the deed? :D

Damor, Nadkor, Dempublicents, Poliwanacraca all did, actually. Fass didn't though. So much for NSG being the melting pot where cultural and individual stereotypes come to flame each other. This thread needs more consistency.

Then boiling it down, Kamel, Kamil, Kamal, can be spelled several different ways.

Kemal, the Turkish name, on the other hand cannot. It's that simple. His name is Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. Nothing else.

You complain that US teachers don't deliver a fair side? Why is it they all tell the exact same side? Why is it that british (yeah, british should maybe be capitalized....not this time!!!) instructors and students turn their faces to things such as independence of free nations like the United States and Austrailia? Cocky S.O.B's keep believing y'all won the war and you still tax us while goofy white dudes from Texas and sinister white women from New York...Arkansas...or where ever represent us.:upyours:
Sorry, what?

I'm sorry dude, that's cocked-up. I could teach better history then that idiot.