Felt of History: some consideraes One of the great questionings of the pupils concerning discipline are: so that it serves to study History? Because to study the past, if the gift is what it matters? They are questions that permeiam the mentality in classroom, and independent of the doubts of these pupils and the answers of these professors it disciplines, it of History continues to exist in the resumes, in official texts and in didactic books that appear frequently and soon they enter in the ways of circulation. The curricular orientaes point that the education of History must contribute for the one formation ' ' citizen crtico' ' , giving possibilities of the pupils to think and to take a critical attitude before the society. (BITTENCOURT 2002). According to HEIFER (2005), first objective of the historical knowledge is without a doubt the understanding of the historical citizens, the desvendamento of the relations that if they establish between the human beings in different times and spaces. It is looked to point the unfoldings that if had imposed with uncurling of the actions of these citizens. For FONSECA (2003), History in all its dimensions is formative. In this context, importance of education, knowing them, the methodologies, practical and the didactic ones is distinguished it, therefore through these and added ace experiences human beings it is that we understand the ideas and action of the men and women in the time.
To reflect the education of History in the present time is to reflect above all in the formative processes that if develop in the diverse spaces. Still as FONSECA, the central paper of History the identity construction is the formation of the historical conscience of the men making possible. On the relations between education of History and construction of the citizenship, it affirms: ' ' The proposal of methodology of the history education that values the problematizao, the analysis and the critical one of the reality conceives pupils and professors as citizens that they produce history and knowledge in classroom.
These expressed the oppression, through the practical ones representative express in the folclricas activities and the control of the church that permeavam its daily experience. It bears mentionning that the church tried to fight the musical rituals of the culture Afro-Brazilian, a time that its acts of control affected the conscience and the social behavior of the festive movements. However, this religious hegemony did not obtain to destroy the profiles of other traditional cultures, as in the case of the creation of the religious brotherhoods that they search to separate the church of the white elite and of the slaves. The sincretismo was created thus, spreading out itself it fusing of the church Christian catholic with the heathen religion of the slaves. It emerged, of this form, candombl and other proper expressions of the blacks. From century XVII the expressions, but alive of the tradition black music, the example of lundu, that it will be unfolded in other rhythms, such as the samba, maxixe, polca appear, and thus successively. In this process, music Afro-Brazilian arrives in the second half of century XIX, with the decurrent innovations of the development economic, social, cultural politician and.
Music is perceived through other vises, especially when the trends of this process of rupture create a new roupagem of the cultural expressions that goes to fix itself in century XX. Decurrent of this social importance they can insert music afro-Brazilian in the parameters of the pertaining to school resumes of the history education, considering the spreading of the diversity of the cultural traditions Afro-Brazilians. Analyzing it music in the context of the colonial escravista society, we search to reflect on the situation that originated the existing conflicts, that happen in the reactionary movements of domination imposed for the society. This music of black root portraies a moment where the culture of a people was submitted the innumerable forms of violence, but that in the expression of its identity it gave to form and voice to the slaves as mechanisms of social resistance.
With this attitude to remove Peter of its classroom during the mathematics lessons its notes had improved significantly, but problematic one appears another: Peter now carries through mathematics with a tutor, the school would be in such a way excluding Peter? The act to remove of the room a pupil who already possesss relationship difficulties, would not be generating in it a feeling of incapacity and inferiority? This practical ' would not be a form of the school; ' camuflar' ' what exists a pupil with difficulties and that the teacher is not being capable to take care of its individualities? This would not be exclusion? According to Eglr (2004, pg 1) the manifest pertaining to school exclusion in the most diverse and perverse ways, and almost always what it is in game is the ignorance of the pupil, ahead of the standards of cientificidade of knowing pertaining to school. It excludes, then, the ones that ignore the knowledge that it values e, thus, it understands that the democratization is massificao of education, and does not create the possibility of dialogue between different epistemolgicos places, not if it opens the new knowledge that had not fit, until then, inside of it. The pertaining to school systems also are mounted from a thought that cuts the reality, that allows to divide the normal and deficient pupils in, the modalities of regular and special education in, the professors in specialists, this and that manifestation of the differences. The schools that if say worried on the special education professors and pedagogos specialized in this area count on, but all the professors of the school must be qualified to give this attendance, are unacceptable that a professor inside ignores a pupil of the classroom if basing of that school possesss other responsible people for the special education. Get all the facts for a more clear viewpoint with film director. According to Mittler (2000), the professors of regular education consider imcompetent people to take care of to the differences in the classrooms, especially to the pupils with deficiency, therefore its specialized colleagues had always distinguished themselves for carrying through this attendance solely. We need as professors to inside assume our role of the classroom, must in them worry about all our pupils, no matter how hard he is easy and convenient it professor to ignore the existence of the pupil with learning difficulties, and friction it as ' ' badly aluno' ' , we must in them strengthen so that transmitted education reach to all, exactly that to reach some people it is necessary to rethink the form to transmit the content. while we reflect on what it would be an ideal education for pupils with necessities special, the life of Peter goes passing, and together with it its time to learn, will continue being professors in case that some of our pupils does not obtain to learn the taught content, but for that pupil this knowledge never more is perhaps recouped, today Peter is an daily pay-adolescent, but future she will be an adult and the life it goes to demand to it what another person demands of any. Then the school cannot be satisfied that Peter does not obtain to learn and simply leaves the life to pass.
This does not want to say that Scrates did not have contact with knowing of its time, or had never read treated some to philosophy; the error of the reasoning in I appraise, shared for many, is to reduce filosofar to a training in an educational institution any. It is necessary to create a philosophy system, and to possess a canonic recognition given by the time so that somebody can be considered philosopher? Perhaps certainly not, it functions in such a way between the saints catholics, who for a clerical convention, had been classified as such. In philosophy it is not thus. The philosopher does not need a endorsement of the time or an institution, or the recognition of a community to be philosopher. Let us make another silogism: To be religious I am not philosopher, I am professor of philosophy, philosopher pra me I am the David Hume! At least them it has the courage to confess that they are not philosophers, but sees the side good, if they do not know to think by themselves and if they become attached the canonic form of to make philosophy, as the theologian if becomes attached to the text of Toms Saint as an unquestioned authority, at least they are not hypocritical; dull sincere it is that they are! After all of accounts, what it is to be philosopher, if it is not necessary to possess a formal knowledge in philosophy, nor to construct a system, nor to have the endorsement of philosophical church that the canonic heading confers it of philosopher? Let us come back to our symbol occidental person of the wisdom human being, Aristotle, for who the philosophy is born of a feeling, not of an academic formation, or of a heading conferred for men, conquanto, of which feeling says Aristotle?> why? , as why everything this is there ahead of me? Or as Heidegger later will say: why exists the being on the contrary of the nothing? ; or why I must base me on an authority of the history of the philosophy when making a commentary in a philosophy lesson, if I possess rationality? To the professors of our academies, trained in Kant, or Discardings, (even though until the monkeys can be trained), recommends the new birth, not it new birth considered for Mr., to master of the law Nicodemos in chapters 3 of the room evangelho, which he is not very different, when he said: nobody can see the kingdom of God if not be born of the water and the spirit ; I would say to such dull sincere : nobody can become philosopher if not be born ahead of the astonishment of the reality, and proper thinking!