Difference between revisions of "Talk:World History Homework Eleven - Model"
(→Canada a colony during WWI?)
(reply to Clement)
|Line 118:||Line 118:|
::::#at the moment, more than thirty hours a week: I'm a teacher (History, Math) in Germany.
::::#at the moment, more than thirty hours a week: I'm a teacher (History, Math) in Germany.
::::[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 09:30, 29 April 2009 (EDT)
::::[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 09:30, 29 April 2009 (EDT)
== References ==
== References ==
Revision as of 09:04, 29 April 2009
IMO, some of the answers - and their evaluation - are a little bit problematic.
- The Great War was not a suburbian soccer match where the mothers of the players pretend not to keep score. Germany asked for an armistice. Unconditionally. Austria-Hungary, too. To stay in the picture above: that's the diplomatic equivalent of crying uncle. Yes, they have lost. Big time.
- Italy hadn't entered the war on the side of the central forces. It choose to enter the war on side of the allied forces in 1915. The history of Italians alliances is quite complex, but it seems to be not fair to implicate that they switched sides during the war. They just picked their team late. BTW, the musings of B. Mussolini were as important to these processes as were the opinions of H. Clinton to the War in the Gulf: just another flip-flopping politician of the opposition
- Russia: you accepted answers like
- The Allies won the “Great War” or World War I in 1918
- The Triple Entente won World War I.
- The Allies (Britain, France, Russia, Italy, Japan, and United States) won World War I. and even
- Britain, France, Russia, and America gained more power and land than any other country, but they all lost a large amount of men in World War I.
FYI: Russia wasn't represented in Versailles, it isn't counted with the victors. The triple entente was dead in 1918. And Russia lost more land and population than any other country.
For educational purposes, you should look at a map of Europe before - and after the Great War. The shifted frontiers give a clue which countries had lost - and which hadn't.
Clement ♗ 11:03, 26 April 2009 (EDT)
- Clement, your rant is a criticism looking for a flaw. The problem is that you haven't found a flaw. I don't think any of my students tried to use a word "suburbian" either, as you do.
- If you can identify a specific error, then let's see it. So far, you haven't been able to do that, although obviously you are trying very hard.--Andy Schlafly 15:04, 26 April 2009 (EDT)
- suburban / suburbian - sorry for the i: Your students have good spelling skills. Color me impressed.
- However: A student should be able - after taking your lesson - to identify the parties of the Great War. As you outlined, the outcome of the war lead to many grudges held by different nations, and these grudges played an important role in the time to come.
- And I don't want to talk about subtleties like Canada, New Zealand and Australia not being colonies at the time of the war, but dominions.
- No, it's about the part two of the major participants had in this war.
- Clement ♗ 16:20, 26 April 2009 (EDT)
- Clement, failing to find a specific error, you resort to vague generalities, questionable opinion, and debatable semantics (e.g., a dominion is subservient to the British monarch as a colony is).
- Keep looking. Thanks and Godspeed.--Andy Schlafly 16:50, 26 April 2009 (EDT)
- I don't understand you: You are lambasting me for inserting an i in suburban, but you don't have a problem with the sentence ''Britain, France, Russia, and America gained more power and land than any other country, but they all lost a large amount of men in World War I.? That's part of a fantastic analysis...
- Clement ♗ 17:06, 26 April 2009 (EDT)
- If you think that statement is wrong, then which country do you think gained more land than that group? Again, your lack of specificity reflects a lack of identifiable errors. And surely you don't doubt the loss of life by those four nations, or their gain in power.--Andy Schlafly 17:10, 26 April 2009 (EDT)
- What land did Russia gain? What power? It became place of a civil war, and Poland defeated in the Battle of Warsaw in 1920! To be as specific as it seems to be necessary: Russia didn't gain power due to the Great War. Russia did lose land due to the Great War.
- Clement ♗ 17:27, 26 April 2009 (EDT)
- That took some time. A propos vague generalities: Do you see the problem with this sentence The Allies (Britain, France, Russia, Italy, Japan, and United States) won World War I now? It is less problematic than the statement discussed above, but as the teacher, you should at a comment to this one, too.
- Or this good answer: In World War One, no one really “won” in the true sense of the word; the frontiers remained much as they had been before the war .
- What about Poland, the Baltic States, the Free town of Danzig - the whole Ottoman Empire dissolved! Clement ♗ 00:52, 27 April 2009 (EDT)
- I referred to frontiers as a border between two countries. After the Great War, the frontiers between many existing states were shifted ( Germany - Belgium, France and Denmark, Austria - Italy, Bulgaria - Romania), others were created anew. Which other meaning of the word frontier do you think was used?
- I'm discussing entries with editors on this site. I haven't encountered any liberal here, but I would be as resolute in a discussion with him as I'm with you.
- Clement ♗ 00:29, 28 April 2009 (EDT)
Canada a colony during WWI?
Clement claimed that Canada was not a colony of Britain during WWI, but everything I've seen demonstrates that Canada was not yet independent.--Andy Schlafly 17:32, 27 April 2009 (EDT)
- You are completely correct, Andy.
"It was the First World War that accelerated the process to independence. The major colonies played a role of such magnitude that they no longer could be considered mere colonies of Great Britain.
The international status of Canada evolved rapidly in the post-World War period: in 1919, Canada was one of the signers of the Treaty of Versailles and was elected as an independent member of the League of Nations. In 1926, the Balfour resolution was adopted at the Imperial Conference. Arthur Balfour presented this resolution to the Imperial conference of the self-governing dominions. In it Great Britain recognized that the Dominions were "autonomous communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate to one another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations". Thus, by 1931, Canada and the other Dominions had become "autonomous communities...equal in status" to Great Britain." 
- Andy I think that you have entirely missed his point. Clement sought to draw a distinction between the status of colony and that of dominion. He didn't say that Canada was independent. I think his point was that Canada was more properly referred to as a dominion at the time. Whether that is a distinction of any significance I don't know. I note that he referred to the issue as a subtlety and said that he did not wish to raise the point. Obviously the far more significant issue for him was the characterisation of Russia's post-war situation. --EdmundB 19:41, 27 April 2009 (EDT)
- Well, clearly Canada's legal status, during World War I was that of a colony, and by 1931 it was considered autonomous with the Balfour resolution being implemented. It is too picky to quibble over public perceptions, rather than the information I gave above, detailing the legal definition, and that is it was certainly not an autonomous dominion prior to 1930. If not that, it was a colony, and by any other name, it still was one. --₮K/Admin/Talk 20:08, 27 April 2009 (EDT)
- TK, I think you may not have understood your own quote. The quote does not draw the distinction that you appear to suggest, between British controlled colonies and independent dominions. Dominions may or may not be independent. Your quote merely says that by 1931 the dominions had become autonomous communities. That is not why they were called dominions. Canada had used the dominion title since 1867 without gaining any extra autonomy or new powers with the title change. I suspect that might have been what Clement was talking about (aboot?). I think that Andy may have made the same mistake, equating the dominion title with independence. I believe that the process is slightly more subtle than that with dominion standing somewhere in between colony and independence. --EdmundB 20:53, 27 April 2009 (EDT)
- Edmund, do a search on Google on: Canada colony "World War I". Endless sites refer to Canada as a colony during World War I. The term "dominion" is obscure at best; Canada was a colony of Britain during WWI. Yet Clement suggested that this was a mistake in my teaching. Someone who insists that someone else is wrong should at least have his facts right, don't you think?--Andy Schlafly 21:48, 27 April 2009 (EDT)
- FWIW, I did a quick Google, and found that Canada became a self-governing dominion of the British Empire in 1867.  The first Canada Day, known then as Dominion Day, was celebrated on July 1st, 1867.  However, it's not clear whether Canada had a clear-cut specific moment of independence from the British Empire, as discussed here and here, and here or here. --Hsmom 00:04, 28 April 2009 (EDT)
- I didn't claim that Canada, Australia or New Zealand were fully independent during the Great War. But the correct label for these entities in 1914 was dominion and not colony.
- Endless sites refer to Canada as a colony during World War I. You can't trust everything you find in the internet - even if it seems to be a popular choice.
- The term "dominion" is obscure at best; Canada was a colony of Britain during WWI. Canadians may beg to differ: The name Dominion of Canada was adopted during confederation in 1867; the term "dominion" was new, and it seemed a better choice than "kingdom" (which might annoy the Americans).
Anyway, it's not an important point as Canada doesn't take a prominent place in your lectures - it is just mentioned a few times:
- Lecture 5: Russia today is by far the largest country in the world in land mass, having almost twice the area of the second-largest country (Canada).
- Lecture 8: From France, Jacques Cartier discovered Canada and the Mississippi Basin, including Louisiana in 1534 and 1541.
- Lecture 8: Britain gained both Canada and India as a result of the Seven Years War, but lost the American colonies two decades later in the Revolutionary War.
- Lecture 10: Canada achieved effective independence (as a Dominion within the British Empire) in 1867, but still remained within the British empire (Newfoundland remained a British territory and did not join Canada until 1949). nota bene: here, you state that it became a effectively independet dominion. So, the term dominion shouldn't be obscure at best to your students.
- Lecture 11: For example, Britain drew upon its colonies of Canada, Australia and New Zealand to supply a failed Gallipoli campaign, which sought to forge a supply line to Russia. nota bene: colony again
- Lecture 12: By the middle of 1940 a real world war had begun again. On one side were the Axis Powers of Japan, Germany and Italy. On the other side where the Allied Powers of Great Britain and its colonies (commonwealth), the nations of Australia, Canada and New Zealand, France and its colonies, and potentially the United States and the Soviet Union. nota bene: here, the reader gets the impression that Australia, Canada and New Zealand weren't part of the commonwealth...
You stated that I I seem to be excessively critical. May I observe that you seem to be quite opinionated? How many edits did it take to drive home my point that Russia didn't win the Great War? And after a lengthy - rather inquisitive - discussion, you seem to concede the point. But you don't do so on the page where the discussion was held, but elsewhere . Clement ♗ 07:44, 28 April 2009 (EDT)
- Properly so, the conduct of students is expected to be different from instructors, ClementB. Your conduct is increasingly that of a "wiki lawyer" or inquisitor, rather than a student's, and rather pedantic as well. Discussion and vigorous debate are part of the academic process, and I well remember enduring 6 total years of it in college. However there is a huge difference between that vigorous debate and picayune disputes over tense or what the word "is" is. You are demanding of Mr. Schlafly a degree of self-explanation and preciseness that would never be tolerated by professor's on the campuses of Harvard, Yale or Stanford. Collegiate discourse is invited by Mr. Schlafly, from what I have observed the past several years. But when the usual student questioning turns to being barely civil, with a definite "gotcha" aim, the student stops being that, and becomes merely a common obstructionist or, in the common vernacular, a troll. Such activity actually impedes the learning process, whereby the class becomes a vehicle for discussing the class content and teaching methods, rather than allowing everyone to learn the intended material. I hope you take my points here to heart, because you will be the beneficiary, not me. --₮K/Admin/Talk 19:28, 28 April 2009 (EDT)
- Clement, I'd just ask you if you've ever been so nit-picky about any teacher or textbook you've had in the past. The answer is almost certainly "no". And realizing that creates an opportunity for you to open your mind the way that the Prodigal Son did when he finally admitted that he would be far better off as the lowest servant on his father's estate than as his own arrogant master who always insisted he must somehow be right.
- Put another way, Clement, how many hours and weeks and years of your own time have you donated to guiding teenagers to good colleges and careers, and away from the addictions and depressions that plague so many of them?--Andy Schlafly 19:35, 28 April 2009 (EDT)
- TK: Wrong information impedes the learning process. I try to correct wrong statements. Yes, I'm an advocate of my points, as they tend to be attacked and ignored at first. I don't claim to be a collegiate of Aschlafly. But I'm not ignorant on the subjects under discussion, neither: I've studied history. My edits have shown to any open-minded reader that I'm well informed at topics like the history of Europe.
- Aschlafly: To correct some obvious errors has proven to be a cumbersome task. And it is a little bit frustrating to get questioned on my motivation when we should discuss the facts. The motives of the Prodigal Son weren't questioned by his father, he was glad to accept him back and he showed him that he was welcomed.
- Nit-picking? No. Accurate. We most certainly stress different points: for me, the role of Russia is crucial to the history of Europe, though not beneficial.
- So, my main point in the discussion above was to show the quite important point that Russia didn't win the Great War. That is well-known, and it shouldn't be necessary to invest the energy I had to just to get it accepted at last.
- But alas, it is accepted. So I'll turn my attention to other questions. And I will go on to try to correct statements which seem to be wrong to me.
- Clement ♗ 23:58, 28 April 2009 (EDT)
- Afterthought: First: I think we all can agree that especially the purely educational entries to this site are to be held to the highest standard: what you learn in your school-days represents what you take for common knowledge, and it is seldom questioned afterward. So, misconceptions should be avoided. Therefore, I don't understand that being critical is seen to be questionable. Aschlafly, to paraphrase you from here: Surely, you don't think your that lectures are perfect? There is always room for improvement, even / especially if it is marginal.
- Second: We are all here to teach and be taught, the frontier between pupils and teachers is fuzzy at best.
- Clement ♗ 08:31, 29 April 2009 (EDT)
- Clement, I asked you two simple questions above: (1) "if you've ever been so nit-picky about any teacher or textbook you've had in the past" and (2) "how many hours and weeks and years of your own time have you donated to guiding teenagers to good colleges and careers, and away from the addictions and depressions that plague so many of them?" You didn't answer them. Surely you're at least capable of answering those simple questions. Godspeed.--Andy Schlafly 08:50, 29 April 2009 (EDT)
- yes, I have always been a stickler for precision. In class, I would have pointed out a blunder like enumerating Russia with the winners of the Great War at once, while I would have commented on a minor question of taste (clearly, dominion is preferable to colony) afterward. In my experience, the better teachers could answer my critique - or at least, postponed a discussion - while other teachers took refuge in sarcasm or distraction. As for textbooks: I wrote to a couple of textbook editors. In my experience, the answers were always thankful, to the point and explanatory: either, they promised to rectify things in future editions, or, they explained at length - and fully satisfactory - their choice of words. None of them ever tried to play hide-and-seek.
- at the moment, more than thirty hours a week: I'm a teacher (History, Math) in Germany.
- Clement ♗ 09:30, 29 April 2009 (EDT)
- Clement, I don't believe for a moment that you "donate" "more than thirty hours a week" "to guiding teenagers to good colleges and careers, and away from the addictions and depressions that plague so many of them." Perhaps you'd like to change your answer to something more credible.
- Losing credibility, your claim that you "wrote to a couple of textbook editors" also fails to persuade. If you really did that, then you could have easily and quickly provided the details of who, why, when, etc.