Understandably, there was quite a furore when a group of student leaders chose Hitler as their group name and, presumably, a role model of sorts.
A teacher wrote in TODAY (yesterday, 16/8) about how her student asked why no one gave Hitler credit for what he did for Germany. She also wanted to know why he hated the Jews so much and if there was anything in his life that could explain why he turned out the way he did. The student said she could not find answers to her questions. The teacher said she could have chosen to set the student some research work or scolded her for asking such questions, but chose instead to praise her for thinking on her own and then went on to explain the consequences of Hitler's policies.
I can't agree with how the teacher handled the girls' questions. I'm sure the student already knew about the negative effects of Hitler's policies and ideas. The pertinent questions she asked will remain unanswered unless she did more research! Actually, I don't know why she couldn't find the information she wanted. There is a lot of literature out there, print and on-line, that could help her understand more about the man. She would learn about how it was not just Hitler, but many Germans, and, in fact, many other Europeans, who hated the Jews as well, for a variety of reasons. She could also read about Hitler's rather pitiable youth, e.g. his loneliness as a child, his super-strict father, his failure in art (he wanted to be a painter), his mother's death, etc.
The problem is that people, even teachers, see historical, or even living, characters as single dimensional. The truth is that people are multi-faceted and even the 'worst' person would have saving graces. It is all a matter of perspective. So Hitler or any other person could give a whole range of lessons for young people, about all sorts of things -- empathy, decision-making, cause-effect, and, of course, perspective, among others.
For example, if we put ourselves in the shoes of post-World War 1 Germans, Hitler might be seen as a hero for he restored German pride and self-belief, and regained a lot (e.g. land) of what the Germans felt was rightly theirs. Communist leaders of the 2nd half of the 20th century are normally run down but it was the Communist era that brought about large scale industrialisation in the eastern bloc countries and also in China. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki purportedly ended World War 2 but some historical documents suggest that there was no real need to go to such an extreme measure to defeat the Japanese. So it really depends on which perspective one takes and the thing is, of course, that our textbooks generally reflect a rather western perspective of the world.
Students should be encouraged not just to ask questions. They should be encouraged to seek the answers and to understand that for many questions, there will be different answers.
Maybe someone could even develop a reality-cum-game-show-cum-inter-school-debate-cum-short-film competition of sorts based on this idea! We could call the show 'The Advocate' (as in the devil's advocate, since views such as 'Hitler was really a good guy' or 'Terrorists do have a point' would be presented for debate). Opposing school teams could be made to thrash out questions such as: 'Hitler: good, bad or ugly?' From the 'fastest finger' round (maybe they could have a quiz on World War 2 or something), a team would be selected as 'The Advocates', the ones who would take the side arguing for the least 'normal' perspective. They would get additional points because in stereotypical-thinking Singapore society, it would be harder to play the devil's advocate than to present the usual arguments running down, Hitler, Stalin, terrorists, etc.
Teams must then try their best to convince the judges of their stand through a short film or multimedia presentation. Presentations MUST be in proper English and words pronounced properly and without fake accents. Judges must sign an agreement not to feel obliged to let the team with the normally widely-accepted views win.
Obviously, the show would have to be for mature audiences only, since the whole crux is perspective and the winning team is not exactly the 'right' team, just the most convincing.
Special episodes could feature, for example, celebrity guests discussing mundane issues such as 'Taxi drivers do not believe they own the road', or non-celebrity guests could disuss 'Merc drivers are really very considerate people'.
People would be entertained and also educated about the supposed 'facts' from different perspectives. They would learn that empathising, and even sympathising, with someone or a particular idea or view does not have to mean that you agree with him/her/it or that you think he/she/it is right. You just understand that different perspective.
A teacher wrote in TODAY (yesterday, 16/8) about how her student asked why no one gave Hitler credit for what he did for Germany. She also wanted to know why he hated the Jews so much and if there was anything in his life that could explain why he turned out the way he did. The student said she could not find answers to her questions. The teacher said she could have chosen to set the student some research work or scolded her for asking such questions, but chose instead to praise her for thinking on her own and then went on to explain the consequences of Hitler's policies.
I can't agree with how the teacher handled the girls' questions. I'm sure the student already knew about the negative effects of Hitler's policies and ideas. The pertinent questions she asked will remain unanswered unless she did more research! Actually, I don't know why she couldn't find the information she wanted. There is a lot of literature out there, print and on-line, that could help her understand more about the man. She would learn about how it was not just Hitler, but many Germans, and, in fact, many other Europeans, who hated the Jews as well, for a variety of reasons. She could also read about Hitler's rather pitiable youth, e.g. his loneliness as a child, his super-strict father, his failure in art (he wanted to be a painter), his mother's death, etc.
The problem is that people, even teachers, see historical, or even living, characters as single dimensional. The truth is that people are multi-faceted and even the 'worst' person would have saving graces. It is all a matter of perspective. So Hitler or any other person could give a whole range of lessons for young people, about all sorts of things -- empathy, decision-making, cause-effect, and, of course, perspective, among others.
For example, if we put ourselves in the shoes of post-World War 1 Germans, Hitler might be seen as a hero for he restored German pride and self-belief, and regained a lot (e.g. land) of what the Germans felt was rightly theirs. Communist leaders of the 2nd half of the 20th century are normally run down but it was the Communist era that brought about large scale industrialisation in the eastern bloc countries and also in China. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki purportedly ended World War 2 but some historical documents suggest that there was no real need to go to such an extreme measure to defeat the Japanese. So it really depends on which perspective one takes and the thing is, of course, that our textbooks generally reflect a rather western perspective of the world.
Students should be encouraged not just to ask questions. They should be encouraged to seek the answers and to understand that for many questions, there will be different answers.
Maybe someone could even develop a reality-cum-game-show-cum-inter-school-debate-cum-short-film competition of sorts based on this idea! We could call the show 'The Advocate' (as in the devil's advocate, since views such as 'Hitler was really a good guy' or 'Terrorists do have a point' would be presented for debate). Opposing school teams could be made to thrash out questions such as: 'Hitler: good, bad or ugly?' From the 'fastest finger' round (maybe they could have a quiz on World War 2 or something), a team would be selected as 'The Advocates', the ones who would take the side arguing for the least 'normal' perspective. They would get additional points because in stereotypical-thinking Singapore society, it would be harder to play the devil's advocate than to present the usual arguments running down, Hitler, Stalin, terrorists, etc.
Teams must then try their best to convince the judges of their stand through a short film or multimedia presentation. Presentations MUST be in proper English and words pronounced properly and without fake accents. Judges must sign an agreement not to feel obliged to let the team with the normally widely-accepted views win.
Obviously, the show would have to be for mature audiences only, since the whole crux is perspective and the winning team is not exactly the 'right' team, just the most convincing.
Special episodes could feature, for example, celebrity guests discussing mundane issues such as 'Taxi drivers do not believe they own the road', or non-celebrity guests could disuss 'Merc drivers are really very considerate people'.
People would be entertained and also educated about the supposed 'facts' from different perspectives. They would learn that empathising, and even sympathising, with someone or a particular idea or view does not have to mean that you agree with him/her/it or that you think he/she/it is right. You just understand that different perspective.
Comments