Get Rid Of Black History Month?

[blas87]

No, I never said that. Europe had black slaves before Americans did. That was my point. And that if we're going to point fingers at anyone, I'd point them at the rich black people in Africa who started the black slave trade, and the Europeans who were involved in the African Slave Trade. I'd rather not get into semantics about how Americans came from Europe.

[KnitShoni]

I'd rather not get into semantics about how Americans came from Europe.

Well, considering all Americans didn't come from Europe, just White Americans who had slaves then, that would be pointless.

Africans were enslaving their own. Europeans (and Americans) were enslaving other people's own. So, yes, I do blame the Americans who lived and had slaves then for slavery that occurred in this country then, and how it affected Blacks in this country then and for a long time after. They had the choice to own or not own slaves. They chose to own slaves.

[blas87]

And Europeans never had the choice? Rich black people who started it all never had a choice?

Slavery in France was not abolished until 1938. LONG after it was abolished in the states.

[KnitShoni]

And Europeans never had the choice? Rich black people who started it all never had a choice?

No, they didn't have the choice to own slaves in the US.

[Boozy]

I like the idea of Black History Month. I'm surprised that anyone could find it offensive, to be honest.

However, I would like to see a more integrated history curriculum in schools. I'm not sure how the States do it, but in Canada, I do find that history is taught in a piece-meal fashion that makes it difficult for students to fully grasp how social, economic, and political trends shaped the world around them.

In the meantime, however, BHM is a good thing.

[Gravekeeper]

Napolean was not actually short. >.>

I also don't see how "They did it first" in any way lessens or negates everyone else doing it. Also, France made its intial attempt at abolishing of slavery in 1315 under Louis X. But it was not exactly popular and didn't last. It was completely abolished in 1794, overturned in 1805, then totally abolished in 1848. The Brits abolished slavery in 1833. It was abolished in Upper and Lower Canada in 1793 and 1803 respectively.


The US, comparatively, abolished it in 1865 if I recall.

[Andara Bledin]

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).

So, then, where's our native American history month? Indigenous North Americans were marginalized and treated worse than blacks for pretty much the entire history of European conquest.

The US, comparatively, abolished it in 1865 if I recall.

That's the right date. And that was only as a political ploy to give the North a reason to keep fighting a war they were losing. Then again, we don't really teach that on in school, either. Not even during BHM.

^-.-^

[Gravekeeper]

So, then, where's our native American history month? Indigenous North Americans were marginalized and treated worse than blacks for pretty much the entire history of European conquest.

That's the right date. And that was only as a political ploy to give the North a reason to keep fighting a war they were losing. Then again, we don't really teach that on in school, either. Not even during BHM.

Ironically, the Spanish abolished the slavery of native Americans in the 1500s.....and then promptly replaced them with African slave labour instead. >.>

I actually still have my social studies binders and textbooks from high school. I tried running them by an American friend once and was, to be completely honest, horrified at how little of what I learned was actually taught in US schools. Even about US history. We were spared nothing. Especially not Shitty Things Canada Did(tm). None of it was skimmed over or spun in a better light.

[KnitShoni]

Ironically, the Spanish abolished the slavery of native Americans in the 1500s.....and then promptly replaced them with African slave labour instead. >.>

I actually still have my social studies binders and textbooks from high school. I tried running them by an American friend once and was, to be completely honest, horrified at how little of what I learned was actually taught in US schools. Even about US history. We were spared nothing. Especially not Shitty Things Canada Did(tm). None of it was skimmed over or spun in a better light.

And none of it should be. All of our people have done some fantastic things in history. All of our people have done some really shitty things. Why shouldn't we study all of them?


As far as where Native American history month is, Andara, that would be November: http://nativeamericanheritagemonth.gov/

[Greenday]

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.

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.

And this. Having these months is continually giving teachers a reason to not have to include blacks or women the rest of the year.

[FArchivist]

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?

Sure, we can get textbooks that accurately reflect history...once we've done away with the institutional racism and sexism that gets us the moron texts in the first place.

Do you have a solution on how we do that?

Note: Before you say "We have laws against racism and sexism." See below.

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

The teachers don't suck at teach history. They teach what they're told by the Education Board to teach. That's how we operate here in the USA; every state/county education board tells the teachers what to teach and how to teach it. How do you get on the Education Board? You get voted.

So think about it: The reason this moron shit is going to be taught is because the Texas public wanted this taught and voted in the people to make it happen. Democracy in action.

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.

Oh really? Exactly what causes you to feel guilty if you haven't done anything wrong? Or are they touching on things that make you personally angry because you know you've done them? Examine that: WHY do you feel guilty? People only usually feel guilty when they ARE guilty.

IThey 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.

Lord, I'm filling out the "Poor Put-Upon White Men" bingo card here. You're hitting every tired-out argument that's been used since David Duke in the 1980s.

Guess what? Yes, they have legal rights. That does not end discrimination. It does not end racism. It does not end prejudice. I can still hire white guys over black guys without censure; I can still pay men more than women without being brought to court; I can discriminate on basis of sex, race, religion, sexual orientation and everything else and never suffer a penalty.

Why? Because the law, much as I love it, doesn't correct racism that has been built into institutions, that people have been raised with, and that cultures have as tradition.

And you have no interest in educating people otherwise, so far as I can see.

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.

New Jersey buys the same textbooks that Texas buys.

Shit, the only time BHM and WHM were relevant was in early grade school.

Oh, really? I couldn't have guessed.
What this tells me is that you and your buds who went through the NJ school system have absolutely no clue about:
- how white privilege is a historical and present-day reality, prevalent in the institutional racism throughout small businesses, state government, county government, and local government in the USA
- about intersectionality, which is how there are other systems of oppression which intersect in people's life experiences in various ways. Sexism, classism, heterosexism/homophobia, transphobia, ablism, anti-Jewish oppression, racism, and any other oppressive belief systems all collect together to form the whole gamut of institutional racism
- the difference between legal racism and institutional racism
- how use of "tone argument" is a derailing technique mastered by those who utilize systems of oppression

You see, in GA, where we are daily surrounded by the reminders of our own oppressive practices in the past, we discuss these things in high school. But since you have not had the benefit of Racism 101, let's introduce to the first basic text:


White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack

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.

Really? You don't think the LGBT community is as pissed?
Guess what: They are. You don't hear about it because you don't hang around where they congregate. All you hear is what you get in your particular feed. Tell you what, I'll take you around and let you HEAR how pissed they are and their grievances.

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.

And this somehow mitigates the fact that white people owned slaves?
Aside from that, the point is irrelevant:

This fundamental difference from the condition of slaves in Africa emerged gradually, although the roots of racial categories were established early. Furthermore, slaves did not consolidate ethnic identifications on the basis of color, but it was widely understood that most blacks were slaves and no slaves were white. Although there were black, mulatto and American-born slave owners in some colonies in the Americas, and many whites did not own slaves, chattel slavery was fundamentally different in the Americas from other parts of the world because of the racial dimension.

- Hilary McD. Beckles, "The Colors of Property: Brown, white and Black Chattels and their Responses to the Colonial Frontier", Slavery and Abolition, 15, 2 (1994), 36-51

This all goes back to the Racism Equation, which is "racism = power + prejudice".

No longer relevant.

And yet, according to race apologists, all racism was done away with with the success of the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s. If this is true, perhaps you can explain

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

I'll be happy to consider that once you can provide a method that will prevent people from erasing these achievements in the current books, as is happening now. You can say "Focus on minority history is not the answer.", but it does absolutely NO GOOD to say that if you can't provide another solution.

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.

Welcome to the fight against institutional racism, which what we've been attempting for the past 40 years since the Civil Rights Movement. You can see how far we've gotten. Current estimates is that we'll be another 150-200 years in getting rid of institutional racism at the current rate, barring any setbacks.

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.

OK, then get rid of it. I'm a white guy, why the hell should I care? But don't be surprised when we regress back to the history texts and you have history teachers mansplaining to you why the accomplishments of women...well, what accomplishments of women? We all know you little ladies couldn't have done a thing without us men doing all the thinking for you.

Slavery in France was not abolished until 1938. LONG after it was abolished in the states.

What is your source for this?
I'm unable to find any mention of slavery in France up till 1938, nor am I able to find a statement of abolition. Perhaps you can point it out to me?

So, then, where's our native American history month? Indigenous North Americans were marginalized and treated worse than blacks for pretty much the entire history of European conquest.

That's November, but it's very hard to even have a history week when pretty much all Native American history since the colonization of the Americas by Europeans has been wiped out because of genocide. Native Americans only make up about 0.8% of the U.S. population and that is after slow decline in the last 50 years; it's expected to be 0.5% by 2100, possibly extinct as a cultural group by 2200.

That's the right date. And that was only as a political ploy to give the North a reason to keep fighting a war they were losing. Then again, we don't really teach that on in school, either. Not even during BHM.

This must be a Yankee problem because all that is high school material here in GA. And I know it's standard college material.

[KnitShoni]

And this. Having these months is continually giving teachers a reason to not have to include blacks or women the rest of the year.

So, it's a catch 22. Most people aren't taught women's/any non-White male history, so we have these months. We have these months, so there is no need to teach women's/any non-White male history outside these months.

[Greenday]

Since I despite quote, response, quote, response, repeat 20X, I'm not doing it.

We could do it by not voting in the morons who chose what goes into books. We could do it by not taking a state known for racism and religion pushing and using their books.

If they aren't including black people or women when there were relevant black people or women, then yes, they do suck at teaching history.

I don't feel guilty at all. I've never held anyone down. I've never enslaved anyone. I just don't like the accusatory tone people give during those months.

What does having a black history month or women's history month have to do with institutional racism/sexism? What do they do to prevent it? Have they had ANY effect in stopping it? No, they haven't. It's pointless at this point in time.

New Jersey may buy books from Texas, but we aren't dumb enough to take it as gospel. My teachers had us go over what was true and skipped the BS.

No, what that quote tells you is that you didn't read it correctly. It was only relevant in early grade school because later on, teachers stopped bothering use February to teach black history and March for women's history. They included it wherever it was relevant throughout all of history.

So you are saying you are surrounded by racism? Sounds like a regional problem. My area is a complete mix of all different races. White, black, hispanic, latino, asian, etc. Racism on a blatent scale doesn't happen. And it's not like only white males own businesses or upper management positions or get paid more. We know it goes on in other parts of the country. We teach what's relevant to our region and apparently you are forced to deal with what's relevant to your region (which is apparently everyone being a racist so they have to spoon feed you how to not be racist).

I know the LGBT community is pissed. I have multiple friends in the LGBT community. It just seems like I keep hearing arguments from the black community and women about how bad things USED to be instead of how they are. Sure, some people are fighting about today's issues but more often than not, they talk about how unfair it used to be. The LGBT community is pretty much unrecognized in the eyes of the law. At least blacks and women can use the law to their advantage when they are blatently discriminated against. The LGBT community gets laughed at in their face.

So, it's a catch 22. Most people aren't taught women's/any non-White male history, so we have these months. We have these months, so there is no need to teach women's/any non-White male history outside these months.

Interesting. I always understood it to be a "Our bad, this is the government's officially way of apologizing."

[AdminAssistant]

We teach what's relevant to our region and apparently you are forced to deal with what's relevant to your region (which is apparently everyone being a racist so they have to spoon feed you how to not be racist).

Before anyone thinks that Greenday lives in the land of Wonderful Education, I'd just like to point out my friend from Philly (a hop and a skip away) who doesn't know basic geography because his school didn't teach it outside of the Tri-State area.

FA, I'm glad that at least your school in GA has kinda figured it out. "How to not be racist" teachings don't make it far in rural Arkansas. And I went to a school that was generally better than those around it.

As far as the LGBT community goes, I think someone else pointed this out earlier, usually their accomplishments *are* listed among the others. It's just conveniently forgotten that "oh, they were gay." Oscar Wilde has been taught as a great author and playwright since his own time. But we're just now re-discovering Susan Glaspell, Rachel Crothers, Susanna Centlivre, wonderful playwrights who just so happened to have vaginas.

[KnitShoni]

Interesting. I always understood it to be a "Our bad, this is the government's officially way of apologizing."

That may very well be how it started. I think, though, it was their way of apologizing without having to include minorities/women in "real" history. They could throw these groups a bone, and go on about their business. Problem is, it's now backfired. People in those groups don't understand why their history is still really only taught during those months. People outside those groups wonder why those groups are singled out for attention without really thinking about why that attention was ever necessary, much less why it still is.