Advertisement

More on the difference between headlines and reality: “Rewriting the history books”

More on the contrasting reality that exists afar from the positive headlines on Malta’s history and prehistory.

When they said they were going to “rewrite the history books” I was genuinely confused about whether there has been a swathe of new and recent publications that I was unaware of.

This is a digital copy of what they call “workbook” and “educational resources” and is used to teach history to young children in schools. I suppose this is what they were talking about in the press.

This is just a document compiled by a teacher, although this is a product that should supposedly have been supplied by a professional publisher. Note, that they are teaching children the defunct and incorrect dates of the “Arab occupation” and the “Norman occupation of 1091” instead of actually presenting the updated dates and information that Malta was predominantly Muslim from 1000 to the 1240s.

It’s incredible how they are still teaching the wrong history by literally teaching myths from Word documents writing in Comic Sans while they are telling the public they will be “updating the history books”.

Sure. They can’t even get their history right let alone write any history books.

 

 

 


Comments

3 responses to “More on the difference between headlines and reality: “Rewriting the history books””

  1. Count Roger I avatar
    Count Roger I

    What are you on about? That is simply a list of important dates. You know the Norman period starts with the Norman invasion of Malta in 1091. I see your point, the Arabs largely kept doing their thing for a while, but Malta was still vassalised under the Normans, which is why its not incorrect to give those dates.
    Don’t be so harsh.

  2. I feel bad for the teacher–undoubtedly it’s very embarrassing for him, and I’m not sure it’s fair to publicly highlight a single teacher’s mistake, as this is not an example of a textbook or government, but still–every educator has a responsibility to get their facts correct, and it’s beyond ironic that the slide prior to the dates is all about evidence and the use of primary and secondary sources. Sadly, the teacher gets the dates wrong about the prehistoric period, as well. The Neolithic period is from about 5,900 BC – 2400 BC, and the Temple Period is embedded within the Neolithic (it’s not a separate phase).

  3. […] the publication of this story showing the recourses provided to children studying history in schools, the author of the workbook […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *