Black. White.

[Dark Moth]

Well, people tend to learn what's more "important" in history. Generally speaking, with the US and much of europe, the so-called "white history" is more important to them, because it is that history which bears directly on them today. Hence, in U.S. history, you won't learn about the march of the Slavs at the dawn of Russian history. I think what's important here is that we dedicate our history to learning what's most important, but trying to be all-inclusive, all the time, when appropriate. And I think one way is to devote equal amounts of time to learning the history of one's own country as well as the history of the rest of the world. But to devote an entire month to the history of a particular skin color is just silly.

Edited February 17, 2006 by Mothman

[Craigboy2]

Well, people tend to learn what's more "important" in history.  Generally speaking, with the US and much of europe, the so-called "white history" is more important to them, because it is that history which bears directly on them today.  Hence, in U.S. history, you won't learn about the march of the Slavs at the dawn of Russian history.  I think what's important here is that we dedicate our history to learning what's most important, but trying to be all-inclusive, all the time, when appropriate.  And I think one way is to devote equal amounts of time to learning the history of one's own country as well as the history of the rest of the world.  But to devote an entire month to the history of a particular skin color is just silly.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I just feel up bringing up something that kind of scares me. In my world geography class, this redneck girl was complaining about having to learn about other countries. She just couldn't under stand what the point of it was, she wasn't planning on going to them, so why should she learn about them? She is pretty ignorant.

[alanschu]

Appeal to her nationalism.

 

Comment about how her country is very involved with world affairs, and understanding outside world affairs is important when making decisions about electing governments spend HER tax dollars, to take part in these world affairs.

[CoM_Solaufein]

Which is more than the children in many parts of the world, including such enlightened places as Japan and places in Europe can say ( I won't specify which countries in Europe, since folks around here are indignantly huffy about the slightest criticism of their own sacred country even as they hurl their daily "ain't America awful" invectives.)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I can't think of anyone here who gets huffy at the slightest criticism of their country.

 

In the UK, we have taught children very little British history and virtually nothing about the British Empire. Various governments have indicated that they wished more British history were taught so children would feel proud to be British, but they're worried that left-wing teachers will dwell too much on the attrocities of the Empire, so the compromise position is to ignore British history and teach about Nazi Germany instead. The German ambassador even complained about this, I think. But it's morally safe for us - we're not the baddies, in that story at least.

 

Most Japanese schoolchildren do learn about the Rape of Nanking, despite its absence in the official textbooks. In so doing, they learn to be sceptical of official textbooks, which I think is a history lesson well spent.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Well that doesn't sound right. The English people have a vast interesting history that their people should be taught. A lot of the history books I read deal with England since most of my family originated from there. .

[Marka Ragnos]

It is pretty much true.  When kids learn the exploration and expansion of the United States during the 1800's do the mainstream historical texts cover the Trail of Tears?  Do those texts mention Thomas Jefferson telling his Secretary of War to bring down the hatchet against the Native Americans?  Do they touch the decimation of the Native American cultures that was instigated by the government?  Or about the interment camps that Asian Americans had to endure during World War 2?

 

Of course not.  In schools they teach that White America is good and gracious to all and never show the ugly underside of Manifest Destiny.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

um.. actually yes, yes they do. Most of that stuff is even in the textbooks. *gasp*

[metadigital]

The Africans were violently removed from their families and countries and indentured for their lives. That's why they are different to other races.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not to downplay the horror of the slave trade over the centuries, but frankly the above could be said about a heck of a lot of folks throughout history, including the ancestors of most white Australians. What their decendants then did to the native Aboriginals after their unwilling arrival at the "new world" is yet another exercise in racism.

 

Racism and bigotry is hardly an American institution, please. It's a human institution.

 

Edit: Now that I've finished reading the thread I must give a massive to those who imply that Americans were not taught their own history in school. I certainly was. My children certainly were. Which is more than the children in many parts of the world, including such enlightened places as Japan and places in Europe can say ( I won't specify which countries in Europe, since folks around here are indignantly huffy about the slightest criticism of their own sacred country even as they hurl their daily "ain't America awful" invectives.)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Um, my comment was pertaining the whiners who were unhappy / unsure why there was a Black History Month. I never said that the US was the most profligate nor the most heinous, the British have a lot of blood on their hands (including colonising lots of countries, like the 1919 Jallianwala Bagh Massacre, not to mention the prequel to the World Wars with Germany as Europeans tried to carve up Africa, the Anglo-Zulu War, the Boer Wars and yes, the attrocities of Australia including the (accidental) putative genocide of the Tasmanian Aborigines).

 

Japan and Germany were, after all, just trying to catch up to France, Spain, Britain, etc, when they took on the world.

 

I didn't do history when I was schooling in the US, so I can't really comment (although I wasn't overly impressed with the standard, generally).

[Dark Moth]

But in today's day and age, are you really advocating a "Black History" month?

Edited February 18, 2006 by Mothman

[Surreptishus]

Segregation and civil rights strife are still in living memory. So yeah

[metadigital]

I think it might be a mechanism for the two nations of the US to establish a rapport. Seems there is a large disconnect between the African Americans and the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant overclass.

[Dark Moth]

Blacks aren't the only race in history that's suffered segregation. Perhaps you'd like for there to be a "Jewish history" month? Maybe a "Hispanic history" month as well?

 

Anyway, back to meta, my point is that things like Black History Month may start out with good intentions, but really mostly what they do is only contribute to the racial divide in America. If we're still making distinctions based on skin color, for good or bad, it's a pretty sad statement. The moment we stop looking at mere skin color, trying to work together, and not holding grudges against a particular race, the better. If we want to learn about Black history, incorporate it into our mainstream education. That is when we'll be truly reconciled and inclusive. But don't set aside a specific time period for it, otherwise that division will always exist.

Edited February 18, 2006 by Mothman

[metadigital]

It's not what I'd like.

 

The Jews control the media (films and tv, not sure about the others off-hand) and have made sure that everyone knows about their suffering. Also, there are laws to enforce their protection in all the countries where the National Socialists might re-appear.

 

Also, it wasn't the US who thought up and executed the Final Solution.

Still, if it's required for the society to heal itself, then I don't have any issues.

[Dark Moth]

It's not what I'd like.

I was referring to Surreptishus.

 

Also, it wasn't the US who thought up and executed the Final Solution.

Still, if it's required for the society to heal itself, then I don't have any issues.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But it doesn't automatically heal a nation, though. If you still try to separate one race from the other, one history from the other, then that's still segregation. Going back to the point in my previous post, I believe true healing would be wear we stop making distinctions and incorporate all histories into our education. There are many in my country, blacks included, who feel "Black History" month only prolongs the racial divide here in the states. But hey, what do I know? It's not like I have credibility. Right?

Edited February 18, 2006 by Mothman

[Walsingham]

I'm with mothman. Having a black anything month perpetuates the notion that skin colour says something about you, which is frankly asinine. I know there are black people - even friends of mine - who feel being black is important to them. But I'm afraid I disagree. Or at least, it OUGHT to be as nonsensical as having a blonde history month.

 

Meta, you mentioned the Anglo-Boer war, which if I recall was executed at least in part because the Boers were using the blacks as slaves (public indignation etc), whereas they had limited rights in the colony. Great Britain also outlawed slavery decades before the US or France. The Royal Navy even boarded slave ships at sea, and transported freed slaves back to Africa. So while we certainly did bad things there was some good as well.

[Dark_Raven]

If they need to do a <insert race who has been "victimized"> month it should be for the Indians of the Americas who had their land basically stolen from them.

[Hurlshort]

That's actually 4th grade now. The entire year is devoted to that. White US history begins in 8th grade.

[metadigital]

I'm with mothman. Having a black anything month perpetuates the notion that skin colour says something about you, which is frankly asinine. I know there are black people - even friends of mine - who feel being black is important to them. But I'm afraid I disagree. Or at least, it OUGHT to be as nonsensical as having a blonde history month.

 

Meta, you mentioned the Anglo-Boer war, which if I recall was executed at least in part because the Boers were using the blacks as slaves (public indignation etc), whereas they had limited rights in the colony. Great Britain also outlawed slavery decades before the US or France. The Royal Navy even boarded slave ships at sea, and transported freed slaves back to Africa. So while we certainly did bad things there was some good as well.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yep. No argument. History isn't black and white (pun intended). (I also didn't mention the Germans and the Khoikhoi, or even the French in Algeria ...)

 

The biggest problem for contemporary Africans is corrupt Africans. Still, it's not like Africa has a monopoly on corruption, it's just that big money makes for a bigger temptation, in quantity and numerousness of theft.

 

I take the point about not segregating "black historry" from the rest; I agree in principle (of course), but perhaps, just as there is positive discrimination, this might be a good stepping stone to a more balanced historical perpective.

 

After all, there is still a lot of endemic racism in various parts of society. Not to mention an unwillingness to spurn ignorance and pandemic stupidity.

 

We the internet community, as a demographic, are above-averagely educated, liberal (small "l") and tolerant compared to society at large.