British History to make a comeback in Schools?

The Bayeux Tapestry, chronicling the English/N...

Image via Wikipedia

 

The Education Secretary has announced that British History will make a comeback in the ‘heart of the national curriculum‘, in a back to basics move.

I have to say I broadly approve. Whilst I would not want to go back to the bad old days of names and dates of kings and queens, it seems absurd that children learn hardly anything about British history, but lots about politically correct history from the four corners of the globe. For instance, at GCSE I did about Cowboys and Indians – whats the point of that? For some reason, someone somewhere had the bare-brained idea that if we teach children about British history, they will turn out to be BNP supporters, and if we teach them about wars, then they will want to blow each others brains out. Actually, when it comes to military history, I think the opposite is true. But in general, history teaching in schools is mind numbing. I feel sorry for teachers who want to show some latitude but can’t, thanks to the curriculum.

As Al Murray said, British children seem to think that Nelson is the character with the funny laugh in the Simpsons. A sad indictment indeed. Basic elements of our history should be a given for everyone, and we should be encouraged to look back with pride on things that are worth feeling proud about. If we understand where we came from, and the world around us, we find it easier to place ourselves in it and be sure of who we are. It puts us in context. We do that by starting with our local area and our country, not the social history of the Umboto tribe of the Limpopo valley.

On a related matter, it appears that the renowned Historian Simon Schama has been asked to advise the Government on history teaching. This is a very positive step, to have a history academic advising rather than some shadowy policy advisor. Schama’s background is in Dutch Art and French Social History during the revolution, but he did also of course present the succesful History of Britain series on the BBC. Not always easy to watch, and a bit ‘top-down’, but hey its a step in the right direction.

On a more light-hearted note, the BBC News Magazine has posted a 7 question quiz on British History… I’m ashamed to say I only scored three!

About these ads

54 Comments

Filed under education, News, politics

54 responses to “British History to make a comeback in Schools?

  1. My friend, we’re both a foot shorter! I only managed 2, so I guess I get the chop first? Or, as a die-hard Trekkie, “Dammit, Jim, I’m a Doctor, not a Historian!”. Um….er….I, well, AM a historian! (Do I get any points for being a Yank? Points OFF?!? Oh….)

  2. x

    I am only a semi-historian as a bailed halfway through my second year.

    The only mitigation I can offer the court is that “my uni'” was ranked 8th in the UK for research. And it is a small university even for the UK. (Oh and it was chuck full of medievalists, poor souls…….)

  3. x

    Expect a more sensible comment later…..

  4. James Daly

    I just hope they make it more interesting – history has been the traditional bore of school subjects for too long, and it needn’t be that way. Young people learn better when they enjoy themselves, I’ve seen it in action.

  5. That’s the problem with so many history curricula – it’s all about names and dates. “In fourteen hundred and ninety-two, Columbus sailed the ocean blue”. OK, fine – so what? To much effort goes to teach the kids who and what, when what they connect with is WHY. I come from Chicago – why was it named that? It’s in Cook county – why did they name a county after him? Connect history to what the kids know, and get them interested locally, then spread out, always asking why. It works for history, and for other topics as well!

  6. Will this help with our sense of national identity?

  7. Not to be too much of a bloody Yank here,but as JFK said, “You can’t know where you’re going until you know where you’ve been”. So much of the world has been touched by the British through the Empire (I will NOT argue for good or bad here!) So much of British history still affects us today, from the adoption of English as the language of business and air traffic, to politics in the Middle East. Britons would be well-served to better understand where they came from, as would the people of any country! (Try asking a young American who Reagan, Carter, or Nixon were!)

  8. James Daly

    I’m not sure to what extent you can engineer a national identity from on top. If you do, it has to be over a matter of generations, and its more all-encompassing than a few history lessons.

    I think on a more basic level, it has got to be more holistic for young people to learn about where they come from, their heritage, and the world at large, through the past, the present and the future. Think of it as this… distance is latitude, time isd longitude. If you know both of them, you know where you are in the world. History can play that role.

  9. Absolutely,James. I didn’t mean to imply that one or two years’ worth of history education would be enough. Here in the states, we get several years’ worth throughout grade school (years 1-6) and a few more in junior high/high school (7-12). And we only have 234 or so years to cover – with notable skips (try to find a decent lecture on Vietnam!). Our schools do cover British history, but only where it directly impacts ours – Magna Carta, the kings who reigned while the Pilgrims sailed, and up to the Revolution. To properly cover the entirety of British history, you should start young (as we should, but don’t), and as you say, work out as you work back in time. Hook the kids while they are young, and they’ll continue to learn through the years, rather than shutting out all those boring dates and people they never met.

  10. x

    I don’t know what to say without the danger of becoming a rambling rant about uni’.

    Um. Too much concentration on the everyday. It is all very interesting but great events drive history. There are some botanists that study soil, but most study the plants.

    Too much about minorities, the others. When I did a medieval and early modern modules there were fights for books on Jews and witches. All the kids wanted to right about persecution of minorities. I wrote about castles and got a good first. :)

    And I think that history is too “Catholic;” that technology, by extension science and by further extension too much learning, is bad. It is people that matter. Yet technology is what separates for us from the animals and has so therefore driven history as much as human nature. I find this vein runs quietly deeply through humanities. I struggle to see how we will write the history of now without an understanding of information technology. And the sad thing is most in the IT field don’t have much of an idea of IT in sociological sense. Another place you see this is when nuclear weapons (especially the US attacks on Japan are discussed.) I remember one young female lecturer telling me that religion didn’t impact on her thought processes. Of course if it wasn’t for the Reformation and Protestant thinking she wouldn’t have gone to uni’, let alone a become lecturer, and spend her day questioning. Yet there is mawkish interest in the medieval period by academics; the ambivalence is striking.

  11. x

    Have you listened to this yet young Daly?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/features/in-our-time/

    (Being done with aren’t the Spanish wonderful slant….)

  12. Wow! Glad I went the technical route, got my degree in Business and Computer Science. Don’t get me wrong, I love you humanities types, you make debates FUN! (Har, har – just kidding – bad joke, that.) Although, I did manage to just slip by before the “political correctness” landed over here. I did a paper in high school once positing Rommel as a great general. Nowadays, I’d be in counseling as a closet neo-Nazi, and the authorities would be looking for my bomb stash! And for goodness sake, who WOULDN’T write about castles for Medieval history? Unless you wrote about the cool siege gear they used! Human heads and rotten cattle into the sling, and LAUNCH! (Think about the kind of counseling I’d have to go through for THAT!)

  13. x

    Siege engines are technology. What you are aiming at is to say something like the castle is the building through which civil (as opposed to clerical) power was transmitted and that through the medieval period civil power transformed from being martial to political. Or some such similar whack-a-doodle bluff, stuff. and nonsense.

  14. See, I told you I went the techie line! But don’t you mean the castle was where the people were OPPRESSED from, and that the level of oppression shifted from being ground under the military’s boot to being robbed blind by a self-appointed nobility? And that the political power has since been trying to shift the innately pious commoners away from the clerical power that was their sole saviour (pardon the pun) during the collapse of the Roman Empire and the early Dark Ages? (See, even us tech types can spout the humanist fluff!)

    • x

      Yes that’s about it. :)

      What got you marks at uni’ was spin. You good have roughly similar content but not push a certain element and loose out. I wonder how my marks would have been effected if I had moved further up the academic because of my political views. Though the latter like that of most middle aged people is more an ever changing mix of right, left, centre, common sense, and pragmatism viewed through a subjective lens than one particular ideology.

  15. Would it be possible for PC types to allow an objective teaching of history – surely their idea that we should be ashamed of our history, and constant efforts of talk down our achievements, will not allow it? Would the desire for young people to be “good Europeans” mean that centuries of conflict with France, Spain, etc are glossed over?

    I think there is too much dogma. Teach it objectively, and let them make up their own minds.

    How much if this is PC dogma, and how much is simply dumbing down?

    • x

      I think you are forgetting that pupils and students are people. And like all people they are multifaceted. Sorry that’s vague. I will try to explain.

      You sit in a classroom with a load of teens. When prodded they trot out leftist views in the classroom. But what happens in real life? It all disappears. I wonder how many male students had called somebody “gay” as insult, or used words like “Paki” etc. etc. They tell teaches what they want to hear. And similar happens when they leave education and real life takes hold. Being nice and being politically correct disappears. I think that the media, who’s “professionals” share similar political views with academics paint a world on our TV screens and in our newspapers that is slightly out of kilter with reality.

      I am not saying British society is truly xenophobic, racist, homophobic, or misogynistic. Most people left alone will rub along; accommodations are found. But people recognise differences in each other; this the reaction to people banding together. The Left though like to heighten difference.

      I do think that syllabus have been dumbed down. I think there is too much in the national curriculum. I think there is too much effort put into the social engineering aspects of humanities to little real effect (thankfully.)

  16. I can’t speak to British education, but I have seen the “PC” spin applied to American teaching. Some of it is useful, such as our treatment of the native Americans (red Indians) and our massacres of Plains tribes, but it does disservice to the history. A common problem that I encounter is “How could we use the A-bomb on Japan?” Well, 2 reasons. First, at the time, we didn’t have all the information on its’ effects, and second, you’re thinking about modern-day Japan. People today cannot conceive of our hatred of the Japanese in the 1940s. Dig up some of the old propaganda films – they are HORRIFYING! If you clean up history to “PC” standards, you lose the main part I spoke of earlier in this thread – the WHY of history. We didn’t A-bomb because it was our only option to an invasion that could have seen a million dead American GIs (though it was a good reason). We bombed Japan because we thought they were backwards little savages who would kill our soldiers because they were barbaric little blood-thirsty monkey-men. To understand history, you have to look at the people who made it, and what THEY thought of other people. To paint over history with a “PC” brush is to rewrite it as surely as those in Japan who will not speak of their 1930s campaign in China and the rape of Nanking.

  17. James Daly

    Great contributions as always guys, cheers.

    I’m thinking about doing something a bit more in-depth about education and military history – its something i’ve always been interested in, and I can think of a few examples of projects that have worked well. Would be interested to hear what everyone thinks.

  18. x

    The area you should look at John as “suggested” is the A-bombs on Japan.

    One of the two 2nd year modules I did before escaping the Kremlin was on heritage.

    My young Australian lecturer had visited Hiroshima and the rights and wrongs of the attack were debated in a tutorial.

    I say debated with my tongue in my cheek. It didn’t take long before I got the tutor to admit a near complete lack of knowledge of nuclear weapons, the strategic bombing campaign on Japan. and dare I say she “suffered” from moral relativism. (She propounds that there is a moral absolute which is shaky philosophically.) This to my mind undermined her position totally as it was subjective and replete with bias. My teenage class mates trotted out the socialist mantra that nuclear weapons are wrong and those that supported the US made sure they stated a caveat regarding the weapons themselves.

    I know this is something I fond of saying, and to be honest I am getting tired of myself saying this, but there is a complete disconnect for the majority of society from war. And this may be good in one sense, but in another I believe there is vacuum at the heart. I was once read that the post war generation were morally corrupt because they hadn’t been to war. This puzzled me for a long time, but I now wonder if there is some truth in that rather strong statement. Young soldiers are taken the battle fields of north-west Europe. This is sobering experience for some, but I think for many the gravity is lost. Young men fight for the man next to them not for country and the wages. I don’t wish to sound harsh or condescending with that statement. I think we like to apply a moral veneer onto our servicemen. Partly if anything to set them aside, to separate them, because these youngsters are risking their lives so “we” need to detach our selves. I think this veneer gains a burnish and becomes “true” amongst the senior rates (and senior NCOs) as result of maturity as much as experience of combat (and difficult situations.) But the young middle class don’t even have this. Yet these from these classes will be drawn if not the leaders as least the middle managers of society.

  19. A couple of interesting facts concerning the A-bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which few people realise today. First, the Americans killed far more Japanese and destroyed far more infrastructure (houses, factories, hospitals, etc.) in the Tokyo fire-bombings. Second, the Japanese army was still willing to fight after Nagasaki. The Soviet entry into the war (and the Kuriles, in that order) was as much a goad to getting the Japanese to surrender (some say more so).

    As to the young peoples’ detachment, there is an interesting alternative here in the States – military re-enacting. Not the “softcore” types who stay in hotel rooms, go out on the field to march around for a few hours, then retire to their rooms. I mean the kind I was involved in – pitch your tent, cook your food over an open fire, bring EVERYTHING you need on your back (and ONLY those things available in the 1940s), fight and eat and sleep in the same clothes for 48-72 hours (sometimes more). You can’t duplicate getting shot at (unless you come from my hometown of Chicago or other major cities ), but you get the sensations of sleeping in the rain, eating in the mud, and waking up to frozen canteens (happened to me!). It also brings to the general public, without the stomach for the “adventure”, a first-hand sensibility of getting to see what it was like. Not perfect, but every bit helps!

    • x

      That is the sort of “stuff” in para’ 1 I was on about. Background and context. Nothing happens in a vacuum. Unless it is something that a “Right Wing” government has done, something the US has done, or something an armed force has done.

      The times I have been in the field playing soldiers really brought it home to me the realities of soldiering.

      I am not saying kids are unsympathetic as such. It is easy to nod in class and make nice noises. And then after class go for a burger. I think we all suffer from a “disconnect” of those things we have no direct experience.

  20. Oh, and James, as to your exploration of military history and education, I say “go for it”. (surprised you, didn’t I? ) As you can tell from my comments here, I’m all for more education on military history. As I’ve said before, “hook ‘em while they young”. The more education about military events and their impact on world events, the better. When a Russian work colleague of mine, whose father was at the Nuremberg trials, can ask me “Did Canada have an army in WW2?”, I need no better indicator that more people need to know a LOT more about military history.

    • x

      I remember telling one kid at uni’ about how the Soviets moved whole factories thousand of miles. I don’t think he believed me.

      You can’t trust entirely without question the remembrances of those present at past events.

      • True, some vets’ stories can be off the facts, but some can be absolutely unforgettable. We were doing a German (NOT NAZI!) WW2 setup in a beautiful pine forest. Felt just like the Hurtgen Forest. We had an honest-to-God German vet come up to the campsite. Now, for background, my buddy built replica bicycles for those of us who couldn’t afford WW2 vehicles, and thought very highly of his bikes. So, we’re talking to the vet, and my buddy asks him about the bikes. The vet replies “Those Godd*mn bicycles!” My buddy deflates, certain that the vet means HIS bicycles. When I pressed the vet for details, he recounted how the Germans rode bicycles all over occupied Europe, and hated bicycles! (Not totally accurate – Panzer Grenadiers disliked getting stuck with them instead of trucks or half-tracks, but foot soldiers liked riding better than walking.) We had a fascinating, though occasionally disturbing, time listening to his stories (including shooting and killing a Russian soldier with a flare gun – disturbing!) and learning things never covered in any history book. Don’t rely on vets to be 100% accurate (our German friend did have a couple facts wrong due to propaganda), but seek the vets out and get their stories. Their perspectives’ are TRULY unique, and can be quite enjoyable!

        • x

          Yes. In black and white what I said looked harsh………..

          In mitigation I fond of telling those who said the Germans were never going to win the U-boat campaign according to tonnage figures that sinking and building ships are only half the story. Those tables don’t convey the fear my grandparents felt with newspapers and newsreels full of sinking vessels and German planes in the sky. At the time it would have been impossible to tell that the U-boats couldn’t win the war..

          • No, no, no, X, I wasn’t yelling at you! You weren’t harsh, you were truthful. I’ve had American vets deny our campaign in Alaska (one of my pet campaigns,I chase the ones few people have heard of). I just wanted to tell a cool story, that’s all. No insult taken, all is fine, keep at it! I’m having a BALL! Seriously, this is the best interplay I’ve had with other people in years. (I’m in a VERY rural area of Ohio – redneck doesn’t BEGIN to convey the intellectual void around here.)

  21. More questions:

    1. Is the distaste for portraying fighting in campaigns of the past related to the idea that children should be taught not to fight back when bullied? Morally wrong in my opinion to deny them there right to self defence, but we are in a messed up society.

    2. Why is there teaching of things in isolation – for example teaching about what a dreadful thing Hiroshima was but forgetting to put it in the World War Two context – particularly when the campaigns in the Far East and Pacific had shown how barbaric the Japanese could be, and the use of Kamikaze tactics demonstrated the need delivering a psychological blow. And why is the plight of the POWs who suffered at Japanese hands forgotten? More Japanese lives were saved by thr atomic bomb than were taken by it – although it is not PC to say that.

    3. Regarding veterans – I think old age and the normal mental processes that we all have mean that they may have genuine memories of things that are 100% reliable. Additionally, a number of them will have had head (brain) injuries – which plays havoc with memories and can result in two plus two not adding up to four.

    4. Who says the U Boats were never going to win? The Battle of the Atlantic was far more closely run than most of the public think even now.

    5. On that topic, why do many programmes about the Atlantic campaign often mention the numbers of U Boat men who were lost, and the thousands of merchant seaman who died, but the Royal Navy’s losses are forgotten?

  22. WEBF- Wow, what a list! Seriously, I’ll take a shot at it, then I’ll let the wiser heads around here correct any missteps.

    1. I think (in general) the world is beginning to recognise the futility of sacrificing millions of people to make a dubious political point. Remember, for the past 60 years, war would be the end of the world (nuclear war). Most of the wars since the end of WW2 have been piddly little squabbles by comparison to WW1 or WW2.

    2. Americans latch onto “big” historical events. The campaigns along the island chains during WW2 are rarely spoken of, yet one island, Iwo Jima, draws all the attention. And for many years, China was the US’s enemy, so we tended to ignore what happened to them in WW2 at the hands of the Japanese.

    3. Don’t blame the vets, blame old age. I’ve caught myself committing factual errors, and I’m only 47! Sucks to get old, trust me.

    4. That’s a whole topic to debate, but I’m on your side. If the Allies hadn’t gotten people like Henry Kaiser to rush-build shipping, I think Britain would have been in major trouble. Defeat? Probably not, but the reconquest of Europe would’ve been slower and far more costly.

    5. I think it’s the “big event” syndrome again. Nowhere did the U-Boats and the Merchant Marine fight a bigger battle, so that’s their glory moment (yes, years can be a “moment”). The RN fought throughout the war; they had a number of battles to hang their fame on (especially Bismarck), so the Atlantic became a campaign that wasn’t flashy. Plus, the German U-Boats had their most glory in the Atlantic (despite the fact they blew up American shipping like crazy in sight of America’s coastal cities), and since they had the greatest percentage of casualties of any service in any military during WW2, that tends to draw them into the limelight.

    These are all brief answers, so be kind in chastising me! Seriously, we can discuss any of these in detail. These are just quickie answers. Hope they help!

    • Sorry, I was a bit too glib on #3. While it isn’t any fun to realise your mental record might be skipping a groove, in the vets’ defence, most of the information they have about the war (other than what they directly witnessed) was from contemporaneous news sources. Many vets put their war behind them after it was over, and aren’t the voracious consumers of the History Channel and history books as we amateur historians are. They may be working on information that’s decades out of date. Always bear in mind, many vets don’t want to go back to those times, due to lost friends or other emotional pains. So they may be sound of mind, just working on out-of-date information.

  23. x

    The trouble with the U-boat campaign is people tend to take as a whole. At the beginning of WW2 there weren’t many U-boats. For the whole campaign only 1 in 10 convoys saw a U-boat and of those encounters there were few, if any. “massacres.” Ship production figures verses losses shift throughout the war. Growing effectiveness of ASW technology. Though the later U-boats gave the Allied admirals the heebie-jeebies when they saw what was coming down the pipe the majority of U-boats were old technology; more submersible torpedo boat than a true submersible in an SSN sense. RADAR was forcing them down, detection of periscopes was possible at tens of miles (30 if I remember properly.)

    I suppose you could say that with US entry into the war the Germans would have won. I suppose that is a less than fanciful counter factual scenario than some I have seen.

  24. X- I think you meant that WITHOUT the entry of the US, the Germans would have won WW2. (Yes? Or am I confused – again, yet, or still?) I’m not so sure if they would have triumphed. Yes, the most likely path would be Britain suing for peace and Germany facing east exclusively. Since almost 90% of German troop looses were on the East Front, the best (IMHO) the Germans could have done would be to negotiate a settlement of a German Europe and a Russian Asia. With Hitler’s idiotic declaration of war on the US following Pearl Harbor, we were going after Germany one way or another. We’d have probably gone after Japan first to secure Canada and Australia, then used them to help us work our way back against the Germans (just one possible scenario). Either way, I do agree with you, the “battle” of the Atlantic was a long campaign, with various stages (think about the Germans’ so-called 1st and 2nd “Happy Times”, among other stages) and constantly shifting technology. That all of the subs used in WW2, Allied and Axis, were (as you so rightly called them) temporarily submersible torpedo boats makes the campaigns so technically fascinating. Even if you’re not very interested in submarines, I highly recommend the movie “Das Boot”. It gives a great depiction of life aboard those tiny terrors. I was lucky to grow up in Chicago, home of the U-505, a captured Type VII U-Boat, the most common type. I’m 5’9″, and I’ve banged my head several times going through it. I get nervous spending 10 minutes in her, on dry land with her on supports. What it must have been like at sea, with nowhere to go! Claustrophobia, thy definition is WW2 sub!

    • By the way, X, if you want to take this off to the side so we don’t bore all Mr. Daly’s readers to death, let me know and I’ll post my Email address. I get enough spam to it, I’m not worried about it being hijacked. And thank you for this entertaining discussion!

  25. x

    I think Mr Daly appreciates the traffic.

    When doing comments on blogs I am forever missing n’t, nots, withouts, withs, etc.

    It can be quite embarrassing at times.

  26. x

    Yes I have seen Das Boot several times.

    I visited U534 several times while she was still in Birkenhead before she was cut up and moved. Though I am lead to believe the new museum is much, much better than some first feared.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_submarine_U-534

  27. James Daly

    Guys talk to your hearts content, I find it fascinating how conversations evolve.

  28. James- Thanks for the nod of approval. Though you might regret it – I’m a bit hard to shut up once I get going, as you have well seen.

    X- I completely understand about the typos. My keyboard lacks a W and K key, and the bottom row of letters is a bit sporadic. I’ll ask the same forbearance if something I type comes out incomprehensible. And I’m glad you’ve seen a U-Boat in the flesh (steel?). US boats aren’t much better, even the long-range Pacific ones, and it is VERY hard to explain the confined quarters, as most people have seen them in movies like the abominably inaccurate U-571 where they appear absolutely luxurious. And thanks for the British site. Another very good site is http://uboat.net/index.html (not sure why that doesn’t display as a link). There’s an incredible amount of information, both about the U-Boats and their crews, and the Allied ships they fought against. Enjoy!

    • Bloody Windows! Stupid thing didn’t display the U-Boat site as a link when I was typing. I can only hope there is a special corner of Hades, being prepared by Satan right now, for Mr. Gates as a “thank you” for Windows ……

  29. John

    I wasn’t chastising you. My point about the U Boats was that the Battle went through phases – and in particular UK oil stockpiles got dangerously low at times. It of course wasn’t a single battle – but hundreds if not thousands.

    The Ubootwaffe attacked en masse, on the surface, at night. The RN had put its faith in early version of ASDIC (what we now call Sonar), but these were unable to detect small vessels moving at speed on the surface.

    What was it you were saying about the impact of technology on history?

  30. WEBF- No offence or chastisement taken. I was just pleading the ability to be brief – something I very RARELY am! For convenience, the whole campaign is usually divided into phases, so you don’t get bogged down in each individual action. Hence my mention of what the Germans called “The Happy Times” first and second, the battle of the Atlantic seaboard (the US’ opening months, when we didn’t even have the good sense to black out our coastline!), and so forth. And the German tactics themselves changed – early war, there were a number of daylight solo surface attacks, using the deck gun! (Courageous or crazy – you make the call!) I won’t even get into the evolution of the air portion of the campaign. Though I have to say this – if you want the definition of “dedication to duty”, read about the pilots on board the CAM ships (Wiki gives a decent write-up). But all my bluster above withstanding, you do make an excellent point – the title “Battle of the Atlantic” does not do the campaign justice, and it should be seen as a mini-war within the greater conflict. It was, indeed, a war – multiple combatants, fighting over a HUGE battlefield, bringing new tactics, technologies, and even participants to bear on an ever-changing attempt to control the personnel and territory of three continents (Europe and both Americas). That’s why we history geeks are out there. We have to educate the people, who want to see WW2 as a 4-minute music video, that WW2 was more than a few colourful phrases in a history book, squeezed between the two equally compacted periods glibly titled “The Great Depression” and “The Cold War”.
    Thank you, that is all. (Steps down off soapbox.)

  31. Nothing wrong with getting on one’s soapbox now and then…

  32. These days, it ain’t the getting on the soapbox, it’s the getting back down off it that can be a real pain in the …. um…..hip. I think I need a new screen name. Last name, Atrick. First name, Jerry……

  33. Pingback: British History to make a comeback in Schools? « Daly History Blog : Yurtay.Org ~ Travel World Vacations

  34. With havin so much written content do you ever run into any
    issues of plagorism or copyright violation? My blog has a lot
    of exclusive content I’ve either authored myself or
    outsourced but it looks like a lot of it is popping it up all over
    the web without my agreement. Do you know any methods to help reduce content
    from being ripped off? I’d definitely appreciate it.

  35. In addition, they’re saved online and you will get to watch
    those videos that are not on DVD yet. Port Nicholson’s descent into chaos is equally scary and wonderfully acted.
    You will be pleased to produce a massive collection.

  36. If the Phillies win Game 3, they’re up 2-1, and the Yankees are back against the wall.

    To find out about these auditions, you have to be extremely eager.
    He will get you the dates and make sure that you don’t skip the audition.

  37. It was not hard-to-find programs that ran on the iPad however, not on the Prime.
    An iPhone works as an iPod and only have to bring one.

    Being an old Apple fan, I intend to share my experience on iOS ideas.

  38. Study on as we share particulars about this wonderful phone!
    Your photograph will be saved in your new album named
    as “Saved Photos”. Without question it’s your choice, I’m just bringing’ the advice here.

  39. As you do it, you then have to wait around for a few seconds for the notification message to seem.
    Also, it offers Apple update alerts and tells about what you
    are needed to do and when. You can ruin your phone if you are careless.

  40. Click on that software download and install it.
    Clearly, this is an annoyance, and an untethered jailbreak is the gold standard.
    However you can conserve a fortune when you buy refurbished items.

  41. It’s remarkable to pay a visit this site and reading the views of
    all friends on the topic of this post, while I am also zealous of getting know-how.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s