tWiStEdD
deity of ultimate reason
I'm sure every newsreader out there has seen the coverage of the Victorian History textbook 'Humanities Alive 2' and the subsequent outcry from editorials and letters to the editor from average joe alike.
FOCUS: Given all the evidence, and leaving religious convictions aside, did the publisher step out of the sphere of historical reason or is it a valid historial opinion?
What differences can be shown to exist in both situations? What about similarities?
If the comparision is a legitimate one, were the Crusaders terrorists or freedom fighters?
Given this analogy, what implications does this hold for the term 'terrorist'?
Has it become an altogether blanket term or is it being used 'responsibly'?
Should this book remain in circulation or removed from schools? Why?
Please stick to the focus. If you feel someone is diverging from the point remind them of the focus and respond only to posts within the focus questions.
FOCUS: Given all the evidence, and leaving religious convictions aside, did the publisher step out of the sphere of historical reason or is it a valid historial opinion?
What differences can be shown to exist in both situations? What about similarities?
If the comparision is a legitimate one, were the Crusaders terrorists or freedom fighters?
Given this analogy, what implications does this hold for the term 'terrorist'?
Has it become an altogether blanket term or is it being used 'responsibly'?
Should this book remain in circulation or removed from schools? Why?
Please stick to the focus. If you feel someone is diverging from the point remind them of the focus and respond only to posts within the focus questions.
Last edited:
