Get Rid Of Black History Month?

[Gravekeeper]

So wouldn't the correct action not be to increase differences in races and genders and instead fix the fact that we are getting textbooks from complete morons?

Not when said morons would absolutely love to get rid of that which raises awareness to begin with. I'd rather said morons get jack and shit for satisfication. >.>

[AdminAssistant]

So wouldn't the correct action not be to increase differences in races and genders and instead fix the fact that we are getting textbooks from complete morons?

Well, yes, and I would add, that K-12 textbooks should be written by people in their respective fields, not by education committees. In other words, a history textbook should be written by....wait for it.....a historian!! Oh, wait, that makes sense. The shit that makes it into textbooks is designed to keep up our "American story." The Founding Fathers bullshit, the Civil War bullshit, the "slaves fought on the side of the Confederacy" bullshit, etc.

Now a lot of the folks here, I think, have gone to college. And it is currently the responsibility of college professors to undo the damage done in high school. (I'm friends with a lot of World Civ and History TA's. Oh, the stories they tell me...) So, chances are, if you've been to college, you've had a better, more correct version of US history. Now, what about all those who don't go to college? They don't ever get a correct version. They still believe the lies they've been fed by their teachers, preachers, and parents.

And that, my friends, is why we have the Tea Party.

[KnitShoni]

So wouldn't the correct action not be to increase differences in races and genders and instead fix the fact that we are getting textbooks from complete morons?

How is the existence of BHM and WHM increasing differences?

[Greenday]

How is the existence of BHM and WHM increasing differences?

You mean besides saying, "Because I'm black/female, I'm different from you so I deserve a whole special month dedicated to me"? Yes, how could dedicating a month to being different, flaunting it, and shoving it down everyone's throats ever increase how different we are? Clearly it's making us closer to being the same.

[KnitShoni]

You mean besides saying, "Because I'm black/female, I'm different from you so I deserve a whole special month dedicated to me"? Yes, how could dedicating a month to being different, flaunting it, and shoving it down everyone's throats ever increase how different we are? Clearly it's making us closer to being the same.

Oh, you mean the months that were given to Blacks/women because, for decades, they were completely ignored when learning about history, and even now, pretty much the only Blacks the vast majority of Americans learn about are mentioned during Black history month, and the accomplishments of women are just now being taught? It's not so much a case of, "I'm different so I'm special," as it is, "Hey, White boys didn't impact American History all by themselves, and maybe somebody should acknowledge that."

As far as the "shoving it down everyone's throat" part: Um...women and non-Whites have White male history shoved down our throats from day one. You have a problem learning about people different from you, but everyone else is supposed to be ok with it?

Instead of complaining THAT these months exist, why not look at WHY they exist? Why not realize that, though they SHOULDN'T be necessary in 2011, considering that Tennessee is seriously considering following the route Texas has as far as FURTHER white-washing history, they still ARE necessary.

[Greenday]

Oh, you mean the months that were given to Blacks/women because, for decades, they were completely ignored when learning about history, and even now, pretty much the only Blacks the vast majority of Americans learn about are mentioned during Black history month, and the accomplishments of women are just now being taught? It's not so much a case of, "I'm different so I'm special," as it is, "Hey, White boys didn't impact American History all by themselves, and maybe somebody should acknowledge that."

So instead of having whole months of jamming it down our throat, maybe just have teachers not suck at teaching history?

As far as the "shoving it down everyone's throat" part: Um...women and non-Whites have White male history shoved down our throats from day one. You have a problem learning about people different from you, but everyone else is supposed to be ok with it?

The difference between white, male history and the rest is that we just teach white, male history as history. When it turns to black history or women history, it becomes a fucking guilt trip on all the white, males in the room.

Instead of complaining THAT these months exist, why not look at WHY they exist? Why not realize that, though they SHOULDN'T be necessary in 2011, considering that Tennessee is seriously considering following the route Texas has as far as FURTHER white-washing history, they still ARE necessary.

They exist because some white guys said, "Gee, we sure fucked these people over in the past. I know, let's name a whole month after them and it'll be cool, right?" Sorry, we live in a country where gender or sex plays no part in the law. You have equal rights. This isn't anything new anymore and we need to stop acting like it's a shocker that at one point in history, blacks and women had no rights.

As far as states like Texas and Tennessee being retarded and trying to fuck up history books, I don't know what you want me to do about that. I'm from New Jersey, where we don't put up with that shit. We have teachers who teach history in a proper fashion (chronologically, with people mentioned at the appropriate time). Shit, the only time BHM and WHM were relevant was in early grade school. We didn't even use the book most years. Most of my teachers hated the history book and taught us stuff that was actually correct.

Thinking about it, it's the gay population that should be pissed more than anything. We have blacks and women whining that they deserve a month because almost half a century ago now, they had little to no rights. Meanwhile, gay people are STILL being persecuted and I don't hear them whining about how unfair life is so they deserve a month.

[KnitShoni]

The difference between white, male history and the rest is that we just teach white, male history as history.

OK. You see that, right there? That sentence you typed? THAT is why there is BHM and WHM. We are taught white male history as history. Maybe your teachers in your schools in New Jersey did it right, but for MOST of the rest of the country, the only time we learn about Blacks in history or Women in history is during those months. Outside those months, women and minorities might as well not exist in history.


Guilt trip? It's a guilt trip to learn about Women's suffrage and Harriet Tubman and Frederick Douglass? Wow. I thought that was history. Never mind that, during these months, we are STILL taught white male history. These months basically ensure that Black history and women's history are included, if only for a little while, it the great swath of the rest of the country that isn't your school district in New Jersey.


Which Blacks and women are whining (whining? really? about something you say was started to ease white men's guilt? OK.) about needing these months? Because, in my experience, we'd rather all the stuff taught during those months be included in the rest of the year, instead of treating it like something separate that happened to occur during a given time period, as if those events only impacted Blacks and or/women, not the country as a whole.

[KnitShoni]

Oh. As far as this:

Thinking about it, it's the gay population that should be pissed more than anything. We have blacks and women whining that they deserve a month because almost half a century ago now, they had little to no rights. Meanwhile, gay people are STILL being persecuted and I don't hear them whining about how unfair life is so they deserve a month.

How many historical contributions went ignored because the contributor was gay, rather than the fact that they were gay simply being hidden or glossed over? How many contributions were attributed to straight men, versus simply thinking the man in question was "eccentric"?

[Greenday]

OK. You see that, right there? That sentence you typed? THAT is why there is BHM and WHM. We are taught white male history as history. Maybe your teachers in your schools in New Jersey did it right, but for MOST of the rest of the country, the only time we learn about Blacks in history or Women in history is during those months. Outside those months, women and minorities might as well not exist in history.

It seems you have misunderstood what I wrote. It's just taught as history. Not better history. Not worse history. Just history. Just like black history and women's history were taught as just history. They weren't made special.

Guilt trip? It's a guilt trip to learn about Women's suffrage and Harriet Tubman and Frederick Douglass? Wow. I thought that was history. Never mind that, during these months, we are STILL taught white male history. These months basically ensure that Black history and women's history are included, if only for a little while, it the great swath of the rest of the country that isn't your school district in New Jersey.

It's a guilt trip when every lesson, you have to remind every white male that they treated blacks and women like shit historically, yes.

Which Blacks and women are whining (whining? really? about something you say was started to ease white men's guilt? OK.) about needing these months? Because, in my experience, we'd rather all the stuff taught during those months be included in the rest of the year, instead of treating it like something separate that happened to occur during a given time period, as if those events only impacted Blacks and or/women, not the country as a whole.

You mean all those advocacy groups fighting for more public recognition aren't whining? That's certainly what I consider it. I don't hear white males fighting for their own month (Though when they do, it's sexist and racist. Because only white males can be racist and sexist. And if I made this statement in public, I'd be called a racist and sexist. Luckily this is Fratching and I'm not dealing with morons but that's how most people treat it. No one bats an eye at racism or sexism against white males).

[KnitShoni]

It seems you have misunderstood what I wrote. It's just taught as history. Not better history. Not worse history. Just history. Just like black history and women's history were taught as just history. They weren't made special.

It's a guilt trip when every lesson, you have to remind every white male that they treated blacks and women like shit historically, yes.

You mean all those advocacy groups fighting for more public recognition aren't whining? That's certainly what I consider it. I don't hear white males fighting for their own month (Though when they do, it's sexist and racist. Because only white males can be racist and sexist. And if I made this statement in public, I'd be called a racist and sexist. Luckily this is Fratching and I'm not dealing with morons but that's how most people treat it. No one bats an eye at racism or sexism against white males).

I understood what you wrote. My point was, Black history and women's history may have been taught as part of history in general where you live, but they are NOT taught that way in most other places.

I still don't get the guilt trip thing. The fact that white males treated Blacks and women like shit for the greater part of history is part of the history of this country. How is glossing over that any different than the current white-washing happening in our textbooks? This is not something that was pulled out of someone's rear. It actually happened. I've been to majority Black schools and predominantly White schools. None of the teachers in either school in any way emphasized the "evils of White men in history". It was taught as it was meant to be: as what took place during a given time period. History is not meant to make you feel good.

It still amuses me that White people get agitated about there being no White history month. You have 12. As has been mentioned, White history is taught, studied, and emphasized 365 days a year. That includes the 28 days for BHM and the 31 days for WHM. You all aren't left out. So you have to share a couple of them. I wish there was no reason for it, but, since most of Black history is only even given a passing mention during BHM, and Blacks and women are STILL fighting to have their contributions actually credited to them, not some white man, there is still reason for it.

[blas87]

In all fairness, you can't blame slavery (which is a big part of BHM) totally on white men. Black people had slaves of their own race before the white man stole that idea.

[Andara Bledin]

Never mind that black history pretty much didn't exist in the curriculum of schools until the late 1980s.

No longer relevant.

Never mind that the contributions of African-Americans are constantly and consistently denigrated in most history textbooks still.

Relevant, but the answer isn't to give them a segregated history month but to integrate their achievements in the current texts.

Hell, we have textbooks based on basic undeniable facts that can't even get it right (and teachers who don't know the difference). This isn't even new news, and yet it's still news.

What's needed isn't a new "month" to study all the things that have been left out (either through mishap or willfully) but for us as a society to stop being so apathetic and start insisting that what is taught is accurate and as complete as reasonable.

How is the existence of BHM and WHM increasing differences?

You mean besides saying, "Because I'm black/female, I'm different from you so I deserve a whole special month dedicated to me"?

I'm female and I resent even the perception that there need be a whole month dedicated to what only women have accomplished. It's just as bad as what it's supposed to be responding to.

It's institutionally-approved marginalization. As long as those "special" (snowflake or ed variety, take your pick) months exist, they are an excuse to not include them in the standard curriculum.

In all fairness, you can't blame slavery (which is a big part of BHM) totally on white men. Black people had slaves of their own race before the white man stole that idea.

Pretty much all races have had slavery in some form.

Generally, tribal slavery isn't the same as the Slavery everybody gets taught about in school, however, and other races gussy it up with some form of socio-economic structure.

^-.-^

[KnitShoni]

In all fairness, you can't blame slavery (which is a big part of BHM) totally on white men. Black people had slaves of their own race before the white man stole that idea.

Everybody had slaves at some point. But, regarding America, during and after slavery, Whites considered Blacks to be less than people (which is a large part of why Black history was ignored for so long, which is the actual reason for BHM, along with the fact that owning slaves isn't the only idea stolen by White men). That, I DO blame on the White people who lived during that time period.

[blas87]

Then you had better blame European whities as well, and not just Americans. Europeans took the idea from the black people in Africa who started it. And richer black people thought of their poor as less than people, so it's not that much different.

I mean, France did abolish slavery, but that freakshow shortman Napoleon re-instated it, and it wasn't completely abolished until 1938.

[KnitShoni]

Then you had better blame European whities as well, and not just Americans. Europeans took the idea from the black people in Africa who started it. And richer black people thought of their poor as less than people, so it's not that much different.

I mean, France did abolish slavery, but that freakshow shortman Napoleon re-instated it, and it wasn't completely abolished until 1938.

Considering the Whites in that time period came from Europe, what would be the point of making that distinction? Also, are you really saying Europe never had slaves? Or that they didn't until somebody went to Africa and saw slavery there?

Richer White people think of their poor as less than people, too. The difference is, it's based on money (or the lack thereof), not skin color.