There is fake news everywhere even in the school system and even in "non faith" schools. The education is re-writing history all the time to suit the modern agenda and teaching the kids that. My kids come home with some nuggets occasionally. One my Son came out with the other day was that he had been taught in his history lesson about the black death that peasants could then become free men because there were less people alive. He then went into saying that peasants were slaves whereas free men were people who didn't have to work. So I had to tell him his teacher's were wrong and that freemen were people who weren't slaves and that back then slaves could be given their freedom by their owners and they were then freemen. He said it wasn't the teacher that told him, it came out of his textbook and the teacher was just reading it out while they followed in class. You could look into what children are being taught about the black "nurse" Mary Seacole and how Florence Nightingale is being reduced from her prominent role in history to let Seacole get equal billing despite the very questionable storyline that is given about Seacole's role. Also about the deliberate lies that are added in to make Nightingale out to be the "bad guy" in this storyline.
I think he was right. After the black death the peasantry were reduced by about a 2 thirds. All of a sudden there weren't enough peasants to work the fields for their masters. The old supply and demand law come into being and peasants were a valuable commodity. They could demand to be free and ask for a decent wage.
But the notion they give of freemen is of not being a slave and that freemen did not have to work as in "didn't need to work to survive." That freemen were not peasants and that all peasants were slaves. While it may be right that freemen were different to what we would say they are today it is wrong to say they didn't have to work because they quite obviously did in nearly all cases like we do now. It is also incorrect to teach them that if you weren't a freeman you were a peasant and that peasants were slaves because only a low percentage of the population were in effect slaves. It also ignores the fact the most freemen were peasants as well. The way they are being taught ignores the tiers of serfdom in between slaves and freemen which then leads the children to believe that all that were not freemen were slaves when the reality is that villeins were the largest proportion and they were not slaves.
Well I wouldn't be able to say what percentage of the population before or after the black plague were freemen or slaves or villains but more were "free" after. History is a tricky thing to be certain about, especially before it was filmed! (but I'm guessing the gentry didn't actually have to work, in the sense of planting potatoes, just as they don't now)
You mean they didn't film it? Lol I just asked my son what he learnt (t'was last week) and he said the premise was that there were freemen and then peasants. The notion I questioned with him was that freemen were peasants and he replied "No peasants were slaves." I can accept my understanding is slightly skewed away from the pre middle age English situation because I always remember Caecillius making one of his slaves a freeman when studying Latin at school. It is more the notion that all peasants were slaves and that freemen were not peasants that I questioned him on which then gets me wondering what other things my kids are being taught. The Mary Seacole/Florence Nightingale particularly alarmed me seeing as my kids are mixed race and so more sensitive to being told that Florence Nightingale was racist (as my middle son came home proclaiming British nurses are racist 3 years ago) and that Mary Seacole is promoted as being honoured by the military for her services when the reality was she used herbal medicine, went to the war to make money, was racist herself towards black people, wore medals that were not hers and that the reality was she ran a "canteen for military men" which is suggested by some brave people was actually a brothel.
Sorry should have said my kids are 3 and 4, kids can be cruel so I would hate my kids being teased if they said during class well my dad says this, the trend these days is for teenagers to drop out of religion once they have all the imformation at hand. Its even estimated that 4million Saudis lost thier faith in Islam last year - but of course they can not say anything to their families, but there are now alot social media groups offering help to those wanting to come out of the closit. to say indoctrinated is abit harsh, but when you see kids aged 3 on youtube brainwashed by parents, I can see where your coming from
No questions over protestors that take their kids, teach them the chants, get them to hold placards etc?
Wow - I was born in 1960 - was never taught about Mary Seacole - just spent 20 minutes reading about her - can't make an opinion - it just goes to show you can teach kids any version of history you like. ( or as they say - the victors write the history) It's quite scary!
The statue they raised (of which our government gave £240,000 to help fund) details her as a pioneering nurse. The kids are told a story of someone who came to Britain hearing bout the Crimea with the intent to go an nurse and then was ignored because of her skin colour. This programme by the BBC is very scary because while we are talking about fake news here our kids are being taught a bunch of lies as history. The fact she came to Britain not to nurse but to tend her gold stocks is ignored. The fact Nightingale had already left when she decided she wanted to apply is ignored as is the reason she was turned down was because she had no history of nursing. The fact they tell you she was poor when she was not. The fact she did not go over to the war to volunteer her services, rather she went over there to set up a business supplying goods to the officers is ignored. The fact the medals she wore were not hers nor was she honoured is ignored. The worst is that she is held up as an example for black people and equality when she was racist towards black people is ignored. The reason this ties into politics is because we should be honouring people no matter their colour and there is a case for honouring Mary Seacole as a figure in history but the problem is the whole revised version of the truth honouring her for things she didn't do, completely re-writing history is not something we should be doing without facts especially when half the stuff that is now taught about her is complete lies and misinformation and contradicted in her own book. If this is one case there are undoubtedly many more and it's scary to think kids are being taught a "preferred" version of history rather than the truth. Revisionists should be correcting history rather than altering it to suit a modern narrative. Michael Gove was attacked for trying to remove the teachings of Mary Seacole from the curriculum and it remained in. There is a BBC history programme for kids called horrible histories (youtube only has the audio) that my middle son watched and came home to me talking about. I had never heard of Mary Seacole before that but him saying Florence Nightingale was a racist flagged up seeing as her family were pro-abolitionists. There are also other History programmes and books the kids read and always this same "revised" narrative of a pioneer nurse when the facts quite simply are she dealt in herbal medicines (including some toxic metal treatments) had no nursing training, went to the war to make money and only on 3 occasions "treated" wounded. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5047327/ I am sure there will be many more things are kids are getting taught as part of the curriculum that are at best far fetched and at worst completely untrue (and no I am not talking about Climate Change or religion.)
Serfdom was widespread among peasants in the middle ages, & was tantamount to slavery in many ways. A surf was the property of a landowner, & owned nothing himself. In Russia this practice continued well into the 19th Century and was a factor in the social unrest that led eventually to revolution. Maybe you should listen to your son, & actually read his textbooks? He might have got the wrong end of the stick about Freemen (almost everybody has to work), but it sounds like he has a better understanding of medeaval history than you do.
I understand serfdom. It was the simplistic idea that freemen didn't work, that freemen weren't peasants and peasants were not freemen and that if you were not a freeman you were a slave that I questioned. And yes it might be him misunderstanding but they don;t bring textbooks home. They are given out at class and collected in at the end. It isn't like when I (we) went to school and we carried textbooks home and took the ones we needed each day. This is not the first time that he has offered up a very simplistic explanation of history as he has been taught at school and he is in top class so not prone to confusion on his teachings. The reason I used this example was because it was fresh in my mind last week. I have had to go through certain subject matter with him throughout the year on the internet when he comes back with some "modern" views. Probably hindering his progress in his lessons but he needs to know the facts and not some modern revision that ignores the facts. The fact that in reality most non freemen were tied to their landowner by necessity of survival does not mean it is right to wipe out the facts of feudal law and society that there were different levels of serfdom inbetween the top 10% (freemen) and the lowest 9% slaves. Slaves are "property." Those inbetween slaves and freemen were not "property" or owned by their landowner. You have written an entirely incorrect statement in that serfs were owned by the landowner which is not true. The Serf was tied to the land and not the property of an individual and it was not slavery as freemen would sell themself into serfdom. Slaves were the property of the landowner (or other individual) that is not the same as being tied to the land as a serf was and the serf was able to grow his own produce. You are talking about Russia when he is of course studying English history. Russia is not a good example seeing as the East were very late to move from serfdom.
Up through the ages and certainly from the early 19th century the names of workers changed. A Freemen as some have called them was a term to describe people not borne of Slaves. (Or had been granted their Freedom by their old masters). A term that began to change after the American civil war. The other advantage of being a freeman or peasant was the choice to actually move around which didn't happen that often granted because the term tied cottage came into being. So you couldn't move unless there was a home to go with the job!! A new differential was made for land workers also known as peasant land workers. (Pretty well all with tied cottages if you were married or lodgings if you weren't.) As the mills began to take off they too had to provide homes for their workers, a new term was invented namely the factory worker. The term Serf or peasant was still used for people that worked in the stately and larger homes etc, but because there were more work options, these positions were harder to fill. A new term was invented so instead of being a "serf" or "peasant" you were in fact invited to be "in service" a term that didn't really die out until just before the second world war and maybe a tad after!! The first and second world wars were attributed to be the real change to workers rights although some would argue that the toll puddle martyrs around 1820 was the real start in forming the first unions. They were of course sent to Australia for daring to form a union and protesting for workers rights. Although it took practically a hundred years for employers to finally acknowledge full workers rights. Not to forget the strength of the unions which were gaining in strength on a daily basis. Although granted what I have described above is a simplified version of written progress.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38884604 The Speaker has spoken. A state visit does not necessarily mean addressing Parliament but if it was intended (and I would imagine it wasn't in view of the recent reaction) it won't happen now. It's one thing the Queen meeting him - I'm sure she can deal with him - but addressing Parliament and spouting the crap that keeps coming out of his mouth would be going too far.
One thing the world learned in 2016 is "think before you act (or vote)" It may all work out in the end or it may all work out to be the end!
