the thing that bothers me is that he was having this sort of discussion in a geography class... if he was a poli-sci teacher, this would be a perfectly valid discussion.
but you could still argue that geography plays a very important role in world politics.
the teacher definitely has a point of view, and that obviously differs from yours and others, but he isn't forcing it on the kids.
i've had conservative teachers in school do the same shit. it goes both ways. where exactly is the propaganda in what he was saying?
You're kidding, right?
propaganda (n.) 2. any systematic widespread dissemination or promotion of particular ideas, doctrines, practices, ect. to further one's own cause or to damage an opposing one
--Webster's New World Dictionary, third college edition
The only thing this teacher misses is the "widespread," but that seems a lack of access more than a lack of intent. His dissemination is widespread enough to be inappropriately included in a lecture to a classroom of students whom he is supposed to be teaching geography.
"Why are we fumigating coca crops in Bolivia and Peru if we're not trying to control other parts of the world."
--emphasis added
That doesn't seem like propaganda to you?
Or, how about this:
"Do you see how when, you know, when you're looking at this definition, where does it say anything about capitalism is an economic system that will provide everyone in the world with the basic needs that they need? Is that a part of this system? Do you see how this economic system is at odds with humanity? At odds with caring and compassion? It's at odds with human rights."
--emphasis added
Is he qualified to be teaching economic theory? Is it appropriate in a geography class, or is it promoting one's own cause and ideas?
Or this:
"Do you see the dangerous precedent that we have set by illegally invading another country and violating their sovereignty in the name of protecting us against a potential future--sorry--attack?"
Now he knows what's legal and illegal, when the governments of the world haven't made that determination!?! Hmm. That doesn't seem like propagandizing to you?
"Sounds a lot like the things that Adolf Hitler use to say."
See, now he's a historian!
And he's really doing a *good* job interpretting Bush's speech for his students. He's not quoting Bush; he's telling them what he thinks Bush meant, not what Bush said. That's not promoting ideas to damage an opposing cause?
(*sarcasm intended)
"We've attacked them on their soil with the intention of killing their innocent people."
And now, he's telling his students what he thinks the military intended.
You can agree with him. Fine. That's your choice. But he's teaching his opinions as facts in fields of study that he's totally unprepared for teaching, getting students to recite his ideas BACK TO HIM!!! That's propaganda. If he wants to compare somebody to Hitler, he should look in the mirror.
My English teacher took me aside at the end of the year and pulled out of his jacket pocket a recorder. He gave me the best advice, which was always carry a recorder with you, because you never know when you need evidence.
Of course, he was crazy, but still good advice.
i just read the transcript... i didnt know he was getting his students to recite his ideas back to him. i agree, that's over the line for what a teacher should be doing in a geography class. but if he is merely throwing out a differing viewpoint from say, what their textbooks might be saying, then i see no harm in it.
and there are valid arguements that what we have done by invading iraq was not altogether by the books...
and i also think it's fair to say most american kids in high school can think for themselves and form their own opinions regardless of what slant their teacher is coming from. they're humans, not robots.
i mean was he testing them on this rant of his or was he just having a class discussion?
Not having been in the class, I don't know if he was testing them on this or not. But every class I've ever had, we were responsible for soaking up every bit of information thrown out there by the instructor. Bannish even made sure to give his students time to write down the details of what he was saying. So I think it's fair to say he expected them to all be able to "recite" his views back to him in the form of a test or quiz.
I'd argue that most kids in high school can NOT think for themselves. Not that I'm blaming them. They form their opinions based on what their authority figures tell them is right (as do we all). Unfortunately, in too many cases this means teachers rather than parents. Bannish wasn't helping analyze both sides of anything, he was simply laying down his views. Which were decidedly anti-American.
I think this happens far more often than any of us might like to admit.
And in a situation where the majority of kids believe what they're taught, the result is a bunch of pessimistic adolescents who hate their country because they've been indoctrinated for years by Leftist philosophy which glosses over the good in America and only concentrates on a Socialist world view. Thanks to teachers like Bannish.
No wonder the tone of political discourse is so bitter nowadays. We're training a whole generation to think of our country the way our enemies do.
"i mean was he testing them on this rant of his or was he just having a class discussion?"
He was certainly requiring them to take notes, which, from my student days, meant it was going to be on the test.
As far as high school students thinking for themselves...while I was in high school there were a few who bothered to do so, but most did not, beyond whether or not they wanted to party, take drugs, get a job, have sex, ya' know, the immediately important stuff.
Commenting by HaloScan
