Peter Gibbon is a Harvard educator. He thinks students should be patriotism. And Howard Zinn is a historian. He think students should have critical thinking. Both had different of opinion about Patriotism, critical thinking, and education. In my opinion teachers should emphasize patriotism and students should focus on learning to be proud of their country and of the heroes of the past. I agree with Gibbon about students should respect our heroes at the past, because the heroes had contribution to the country. Although Zinn is right that students should learn the true from the past, be respect of our hero as important as the truth.
According to Gibbon "In school, give moral and ethical education the same importance as the presentation of reality" (Gibbon, "In Search"130). It's mean student should learn more respect from the past same importance as teaching true to the students. But Zinn argues that student's should learn the mistakes heroes made in the past, even though the heroes made contributed.
God Bless America Again
The Cupps God Bless America Again Banner 1
English: Student pledging to the flag, 1899.For example, Gibbon thinks Columbus was a hero, who discover the maps for people who need to travel place to place without lose their direction, but Zinn thinks Columbus was killer, because Columbus use slave to work for him, and he killed slave. For my own experience before Columbus was my favorite explorer hero from my history class; however, his contribution made me want to learn more about him, but after I read "Columbus" from Zinn, it made me so disappointed from the past. I agree with Gibbon, in the past heroes sacrificed people because they wanted to complete their goals. I disagree with Zinn because I think students should learn more good things than bad things from the past, develop it will help them look up to heroes.
Students should not only...
No way, students havea right to think for themselves and form their own opinions
"From my opinion I agree with Zinn about students shouldn't say yes to the government every time , but I disagree students should look critically at past because if students look critically at past, they will dislike their country and it will make students disrespect the members of an earlier generation."
I find this statement rather strange. It seems to discredit your whole argument. You seem to be saying that if students were taught to think critically about the USA and it's history, they would realise that the USA has some pretty big problems, would begin to question why their country is the way it is and perhaps even try to change the society they live in. Surely this can only be a good thing? Your statement is saying that you think a society would be better off if it's inhabitants did not think for themselves, or question their country's leaders, or critically analyse the events tha have made their country what it is. Your statement also seems to acknowledge that the USA isn't the peaceful, democratic country that it promotes itself as, and that people would realise this is they scratched beneath the surface.
This essay lacks any kind of material that backs up your opinion, which means your arguments are very unconvincing, for example, "...why we have to do all this kind of respect? Because we have to be proud of our own country, and then others will give more respect than they're own country."
What i find most disturbing about this essay, apart its the obvious language and grammar problems, is the conclusion you reach: people who are alienated from thier country will automatically become dropkicks and drug addicts. I believe in an education system where the emphasis is on teaching students to become critical thinkers and active citizens, where students not only learn about the society in which they live, but how they can have an active part in changing it for the better. I think the style of teaching that you advocate promotes a student body of drones who simply regurgitate what their teacher tells them, without analysis or thought.
2 out of 2 people found this comment useful.