I’m not disagreeing with you about the connection, I’m disagreeing with you about the strict necessity for knowing it in any detail. I’ll revert to my etymology example – you don’t need to know the roots of the words you use in order to use those words correctly. Nice to know? Absolutely. Vital? Absolutely not.
I think we need to admit to ourselves that any education is necessarily scattershot. If you were to ask a hundred people what students “need to know,” you’d come up with a hundred different things. And given that, it’s not unreasonable to ask what students might want to know. Two-thirds of the student population in Philadelphia is of African descent. Is their desire to know something of African history so illegitimate? What’s so wrong with their wanting to reconnect with a history from which they were forcibly divided?
I think the idea of an African and African American class is fantastic. African American history is just American history but unfortunately it’s a part of our history that was largely ignored for many years. For a high school curriculum I think AA history is a bit narrow in scope for a required course.
History classes in high school tend to cover issues with very broad brushes because of time constraints. You really can’t teach American or World history in a year or two. You could spend a whole year on the Civil War, the Revolution, or the Civil Rights movement and you still wouldn’t learn the whole story. You just don’t have time to specialize like that in high school.
In high school I remember some of my fellow students asking…complaining really, “This stuff doesn’t matter so why do we have to learn it?” Granted things like the Reformation or the French Revolution might not really matter to me these days there’s still a good reason to learn about these things. History isn’t just about dates and events it’s the study of human nature. Why did the French revolution occur? How come the Reign of Terror occured in post revolution France but something simliar didn’t happen in the United States after their revolution or civil war? A basic understanding of the past can help you understand what’s happening now and what might happen in the future.
As far as education goes I think the arts and athletics are important enough to be part of curriculum. We want high school graduates who are well rounded individuals who have been exposed to different things, right?
Also art - quite a few European figures like Picasso were strongly influenced by African art.
Even beyond that the entire Mediterranean Basin and Near East, including North Africa, must be taken to be part of “western civilization”. All were inextricably linked. Further contacts across the Sahara with West Africa were more than ephemeral, witness the spread of Islam ( a “western” religion by any standard ).
At any rate I would tend to support such a class as an elective. As a flat requirment? If all it did was bounce another elective, I wouldn’t consider it a huge deal. However insomuch as the African-American experience should be part of a normal curriculum in U.S. history and that a more in depth study, including an examination of African history, would seem to be a more focused look than is necessary for all in terms of basic educational literacy, I’d prefer to see it as an elective. I took something like “World History II” as an elective as a sophmore in HS and this seems to be in the same general category.
But again, if the school board is adamant it be taught and the primary fallout is a little less elective choice on the part of the student body one year, I wouldn’t kick about it. More knowledge isn’t a bad thing.
Maybe so, but as others have said, it depends on what is being taught. “He who knows nothing is nearer the truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors.” — Thomas Jefferson
Well, if they are teaching straight Afrocentrism, too much of which is sadly less than academically rigorous, that’s one thing. But if they are replacing journalism, band or some other elective with a solid course in actual history, while it is not a situation I would consider ideal ( again, my strong preference would be to make it an elective - art classes and the like teach useful skills and knowledge too and should be a viable choice for those so inclined ) I also don’t think it is the end of the world.
Just as an aside I’d have happily taken such a course as an elective if it had been offered, as I was already a little history geek at that point. Sadly history electives were in short supply in my HS ( and no geography at all, nor much in the way of AP stuff, just a single senior-level “honors” English course, I think - stupid California public schools ).
This is oblique, but isn’t slavery the biggest mistake in the history of the New World? and aren’t we doomed to repeat the lessons of history we forget?
I understand that the history of slavery is not the same thing as African or African American history, but to the extent that they are interwoven, there’s a tiny but plausible argument that this course should be the FIRST requirement.
My mother’s side? I don’t know anything except my grandfather’s grandfather was Irish. On my father’s side we’ve successfully traced our ancestors to the Kru (or Kroo if your French) Tribe of Liberia region.
I think you’d be very hard-pressed to find a group of blacks who claim to be “representin’” Africa. What you’re sidestepping (or just not seeing) is the fact that African-Americans have a cultural affinity with their African-derived culture not with African culture. Sorry to disappoint you but most of us have no desire to order the latest ox-hide drum studded with cowrie shells from amazon.com. Nor will you find many black communities lighting tribal fires in the middle of the woods in order to increase their “cultural affinity” with an African culture they know very little about.
The intent isn’t to “claim” African status; rather, it is an attempt, by black students, to learn about a history of a continent that the world has turned its back on. Renob, I think, exemplifies what many people think: Africa isn’t important. Perhaps this is why the U.S., for decades, turned a blind eye toward apartheid, how the globe did nothing in regards to halt the atrocities in Rwanda, and how war crimes in Sudan are being assiduously swept under the rug. Maybe this “Africa doesn’t matter” attitude is why we just don’t give a damn about them.
If every African were killed and the “black” African continent were to sink to the bottom the ocean, the world would shrug and go about their daily lives. If five Palestinians go and kill 100 Jews in Israel, the U.S. would start carpet-bombing up and down the Gaza Strip.
I think you fundamentally misunderstand classical history. Read what Tamerlane said: the entire Mediterranean contributed to what i would consider ‘Western Civilization’. Babylon, Sumeria, Egypt, Phoenecia, Persia and Carthage, for example, made Greece and Rome what THEY were. Not to mention the fact that pretty much all of the Mediterannean basin WAS ‘Rome’ by the end. Some of the great works of Roman literature came from writers in North Africa. Augustine, arguably one of the most influential men on ‘Western Civ’ EVER was from Carthage, and bishop of Hippo, another North African city.
It’s silly to draw continent lines on human nations.
Greek quarry, rock cutting, and building techniques all came from Egypt, as did Greek geometry. The Greeks didn’t have to build in pyramidal shapes or use as many columns in rectangular shapes, but that’s only because they had access to marble, and didn’t have to use limestone, like the Egyptians did. But the Greeks built their columns exactly the same way as the Egyptians.
I suspect that there would not have been hordes of them. To the extent that they were involved in the Roman empire, I’d search on Roman plus Nubian or Ethiopian. (Theyt probably start showing up in paintings and stories after the Renaissance–and in movies in the 20th century–because they would have appeared “exotic” to the artists or audiences.) I do not know whether any Roman writings refer to Kush, although after the fall of Kush, the Romans did battle the Nobatae successor state during which time there may have been prisoners taken to be employed in the arenas.
This is a funny debate to me because, from an academic standpoint, it is equivalent to, “School district makes 2nd year of foreign language a requirement.” (we all know how fast that thread would sink) We should acknowledge that viability of this subject as a debate has a lot to do with the volatility of the subject matter rather than the question at hand.
I think there is somewhat of a debate because, yes there is only so much time in high school, but African history is a laudable subject much on par with many other requirements of high school. I would give the school district the benefit of a doubt in this case to decide whether it is appropriate for their students.
Just chiming in to say that my high school required 1 year of American History and 2 years of World History. The American History part adequately covered the contributions of African American culture, groups , and individuals, as well as contributions by everyone else. The World History classes covered all continents and cultures equally well (except for the “Barbarians” of Northern Europe before the colapse of Rome). The school I went to was a suburban (well funded and mostly white) public school.
As I stated above, that’s fine if they want to learn about a place that’s been neglected in their schooling. However, this should be done only after they learn about the history of areas of the world that have a much more important impact on their lives. Learn about African history, but only after you learn about the history of Western Civilization and Europe. These civilizations, not Africa, are what shape the U.S. that any kids – black or white – live in. It wasn’t Africa that gave us our culture; it was Europe. Get grounded in the fundamentals and then learn about the periphery.
I would have no problem with this requirement by the schools if it were part of a larger focus on history. If Philadelphia was really stressing the study of history and giving their students a great education in history overall, then I would say that this requirement was good. However, from what the articles indicate, this is not happening. It sounds like Philadelphia is merely giving into a fad and teaching about Africa because it has a lot of Black students, regardless of whether or not this knowledge will actually be of any benefit to the students.
In terms of its contribution to history, it isn’t. At least not compared to the Middle East or Europe or even China.
No, those decisions were because there was no national interest involved on the continent. Foreign policy is set due to national interests. We have a national interest in a steady supply of oil in the Middle East, and thus we intervene there. In the Cold War we had an interest in checking the spread of communism in Asia, so we intervened there. Africa had nothing for us, so we didn’t do much there. It’s a matter of priorities.
I’m sure that Palestinian suicide bombers have killed many more than 100 Israelis, and we have yet to launch the bombers. Why? Because it’s not in the U.S.'s interest to get involved that directly in the internal struggle between Israel and the Palestinians. Foreign policy is based on rational decisions about what is good for the U.S. That’s why we give a lot of attention to the Middle East and very little to Africa.
True, but this has very little to do with the Africa where most African-Americans’ descendants are from. Augustine, the Egyptians, and North Africans were not black. If the school district is trying to teach African history because it is made up of a majority of black students, then they should leave North Africa out of it, because black students have no more connection to the Egyptians or Augustine than they do with the Greeks. And any good Western Civ course would cover the legitimate contributions of the Egyptians and North Africans like Augustine, so why would you need a separate course to teach about them?
You and I both know this course is going to be focused on black African history, a history that has little to do with the world we live in today.
The more you keep ignoring African and African-American contributions to shaping American law, commerce, early economy, infrastructure, music, art, language, food, and current pop culture the more I wonder who you’re trying to convince – yourself or others.
Then you shouldn’t, because it is.
It doesn’t just have black students, it has a growing population of African immigrants and expatriates and their school aged children entering the city. As this Afrocentric and multicultural focus has been growing for some ten years now, it’s quite safe to say it’s not a “fad.”
First you say against common sense and the evidence of my observations and experiences that Africa has no contribution to Western civilization. Now you say it has no contribution to even history. Son, Africa has more history than mankind’s been recording it in writing. And “even” China? Way to dismiss a culture with recorded history going back 4,000 years to the Xia dynasty.
You were right the first time. It’s a matter of national interest, not priorities. We don’t value the quality of human life, atrocities, famine, civil rights abuses unless we have a vested interest in exploiting it somehow.
As our energy focus shifts from oil to other means, and we start eyeing Africa for possible entry into its “underdeveloped” markets, I suspect even that will change.
Because you need to get your head out from two millennia ago and have more focus on developments in the more recent past. This would include more West African studies as well as Eastern and Northern African societies. You concentrate it in one course for the same reason you concentrate any information: to monitor it and for controlled dissemination.
African history is certainly a focus of the course, as well as the TransAtlanticslave trade and how it damaged both African development and created the amalgamated African-American population in America.
As I’ve said repeatedly here, I have nothing against teaching African-American history. What I’m objecting to is prioritizing the teaching of African history, as if what happened in ancient Ghana or how the Asantis governed has any relevance to the lives of black students in Philadelphia today.
I mis-wrote. Please replace my use of the word “history” in that sentence with the word “western civilization.”
True, and it would be foolish for us to do otherwise. It would be idiotic for us to waste our resources in getting involved in trying to police ancient tribal struggles that manifest themselves in the wars of this world unless these tribal struggles jeapordize our national interests. This not only includes the conflict between the Tutsis and Hutus (where in one nation one group slaughters the one and in the other country one group slaughters the other) but in the Balkans or anywhere else.
Possibly, and as Africa starts becoming a base for terrorism then we’ll certainly become more interested.
Ya know…If 2/3 of the students were African, you might have a point. In fact, I’d be willing to bet that well over 2/3 of the student body are American. African-American does not = African!!
Also, I note that among the other requirements:
Bolding mine. Last I heard, Africa was technically part of the world, alongside Asia, Europe, Australia, South America, and North America. Since Philly is technically part of the US, US history is required (just as I’d assume Japanese schools have an emphasis on, say,…Japanese history)