Black history... "MONTH"?

The BBQ Pit
41

Rousseau:

Why are we spending only nine weeks on U.S. history?

The problem, of course, is establishing “relevancy.” Given the current situation in the U.S., what is the general outline of what is being presented?

When the War of 1812 is mentioned, is the time spent discussing naval victories, the burning of Washington, and the Battle of New Orleans? Or is the time spent discussing the establishment of claims to “the West” and the North/South division of the country on ideological lines over the war?

When studying the Civil War, is John Brown treated as a nut? Is time spent discussing the various battles and campaigns? I am fascinated by the strategy and tactics of the armies, but those events have no reason to be included in a too short overview of history. A micro-sized macro view should be limited to causes and effects, not incidental heroism or stupidity. (Nine weeks? Yikes!)

Is the actual history of the Reconstruction taught? Or is the succesfully promulgated myth of incompetent black legislators and draconian Federal oppression either stated or implied?

Sure, everyone is taught that we had slavery in this country. How many students are presented with the 100+ years of denied or reduced education, state-supported terrorism, financial deprivation, and other forms of oppression that followed emancipation?

Then don’t start on it. Quotas are generally a bad thing. On the other hand, the ratio of actual white men who have truly suffered under quotas as opposed to people who have been helped by them is very low. Whatever purpose quotas served has passed and we should move on. Affirmative action is much larger than mere quotas, however, so if you don’t understand that point, the discussion will have more heat than light in any event.

Tom~

42

It absolutely amazes me that someone who didn’t go to a school thinks they can make a judgment like this based on the school offering one course which it cancelled anyway before the year started.

Journalism was, BTW, a common elective in high schools when I was that age.

Another thing is that this school had such a high black enrollment it came under a deseg order a year after I graduated (IIRC, there was something like 200 nonblack students out of 2000), and I honestly can’t remember studying any black history. The only way in which I can recall our school officials recognizing the race of most of their students was by hiring Trouble Funk to play at our prom.

43

Are you implying that he wasn’t?

I’m sorry. In saying “condensing US history into nine weeks” (or something like that), I meant picking out the most “relevant” points, in order to present the most complete view of US history possible in a couple of semesters. If high schools would get coordinated with junior highs, and teach US history chronologically, starting in sixth grade with 1492 or the Mayflower or something, and continuing on through the junior year of high school, where you could deal with recent history, you could double the amount of time spent on teaching US history. As it stands now, you learn about the highlights in junior high (more or less like a long trailer for a summer blockbuster), and then go a little more in depth in high school. The problem then, of course, is kids who switch school systems, or go from public junior highs to private high schools, or something like that.

No, in my experience, the War of 1812 is just mentioned. What’s your point here, anyway?

If by “battles” you mean “Gettysburg,” and by “tactics” you mean “Sherman burning down Georgia,” then yes, time is spent discussing “battles” and “tactics.”

The point that they get across is that there were no black legislators at all, competent or otherwise. And they teach that the Federal government was doing their darndest to help blacks along, but those nasty States of the South were interfering.

Nobody claims that the Emacipation Proclamation was signed, Lee surrendered, and everybody lived happily ever after. They try to get across that blacks were still opressed during Reconstruction, and then they kind of leave them alone until the Civil Rights unit, where they discuss the injustices that more contemporary blacks faced.

True, but then you can’t really say that “no Irish or Hungarian or Spaniard immigrant (or their descendant) is denied a job or a place to live in this country because of skin color.” I don’t claim that reverse discrimination occurs in the same capacity as (for lack of a better term) “forward” discrimination does, but you can’t deny its existence.

“History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it.” -Winston Churchill

44

[temporary thread hijack]

C3 said:

This first-generation American does not feel especially bitter or left-out about anything, but wishes to point out that virtually all “Oktoberfest” celebrations in this country are just excuses to get shit-faced on lots of beer; Oktoberfest no more a cultural event than St. Patrick’s Day is at this point. (However, here in NYC we do have a Steuben Day parade, so I suppose that’s something.)

BTW, ethnically speaking, there are no Yugoslavians, or Czechoslovakians, for that matter… that could be the reason you’re having a tought time finding an appropriate holiday.

[/temporary thread hijack]

45

OK, let’s try again…

…Oktoberfest IS no more a cultural event than St. Patrick’s Day is at this point…

…that could be the reason you’re having a TOUGH time finding an appropriate holiday…

Sheesh, I’d better cut back on the caffeine &read the damn post before I send it.

46

tomndebb

Rousseau

You’ve made my point for me. Every person (reporters, politicians, clergy) who met with John Brown between his capture and execution commented on his clarity of thought and firmness of purpose. They differed as to whether they thought he was an avenging angel or martyr (abolitionists) or a radical threat to society (Governor of Virginia), but no one accused him of insanity until 30 or more years after the Civil War. He was a man who saw (correctly or incorrectly) that the South would not abandon slavery without an armed struggle and was perfectly willing to give his life to begin that struggle.

That you have only encountered the myth that he was a nut says much about the quality of the history that has been presented to you.

As to the other points on the various wars, collectively,
-if time is spent discussing Gettysburg or Sherman’s march
-and no time is spent discussing the actual events and ramifications Jim Crow laws, grandfather clauses, lynchings, and riots,
-and the next reference to civil rights is a mention of the Civil Rights movement,
-then the students are going to come away with a feeling that “Lincoln freed the slaves” and “the Civil Rights Act of the 1960’s” gave them the rest of their rights and they are going to go out into the world to look at political issues that involve race totally misinformed of the facts.

If the history courses are abbreviated to the point of missing the causes and consequences of events, then they have no business substituting minor factoids (such as battle descriptions) in place of those causes and effects.

Tom~

47

Hoo boy. Tom is making the points I wanted to much better than me, so I’ll limit myself to two side issues.

Rousseau sez:

My high school did this. And I know it’s standard practice for all high schools in Anne Arundel county in Maryland. (Not sure about other MD counties, though.) 8th grade was, IIRC, the colonies up to the Civil War. In 10th grade, it was the Civil War to current history, unless you took AP History, in which case you relearned the WHOLE thing for the test. Came in on a lot of Saturdays for that class.

And on a personal rant: Fillet said

Okay, then what ethnicity am I? My father’s family is from the former Czechoslovakia. I have family in Prague. My mother’s family is from Yugoslavia. My great-grandfather Mosolovich looked like Milosevich’s twin brother. Don’t tell me there aren’t any of us. So, sir, what the hell ethnicity am I?

48

Most likely, Czech and Serbian.

49

Just to add one more bit to the point Tom made-

Rousseau quoted Tomndebb and responded:

Well, then again your history teachers failed you, because in the Reconstruction era there were black legislators, not only in State governments but also in the US Senate and the House of Representatives. I seem to find that many white Americans falsely assume that the legal and social status of blacks stayed roughly the same from emancipation to the Civil Rights Movements of the 1950s and '60s. The loss of the legal equality gained during Reconstruction was a much slower process than is generally recognized. “Separate but Equal” was not sanctioned by the Supreme Court until 1896. IIRC there was even a congressional district in North Carolina with a majority black electorate until c. 1902. Actually, the Jim Crow structure did not reach its full development until the 1920s.

50

Fillet: I apologize for the subtlety
of my sarcasm. My comment about
Oktoberfest/Yugoslavia was just a
mild jab at the people who were
saying, “Well, where’s MY
celebration?” I really couldn’t give
a rat’s ass that I don’t have my very
own special day or month. As far as
my family tree goes, I only know that
I have some descendents who came from
that part of the world. I also have
descendents who were Scottish (and,
incidentally came to what’s now the
U.S. after escaping slavery in
Barbados, which they were subject to
after being captured in battle with
the English), Germany, Ukraine, and
Native American.

Tom, I think that what this all boils
down to is the woeful lack of time
spent on our kids’ education which
turns into a complete lack of
substance. Public schools, at best, have time to touch on the major events and dates. A really good public school may be able to have a few critical thinking exercises. I think the time for Black History Month has come and gone. It’s now time to improve the overall quality of education.
There are a LOT of issues that are not mentioned in history class. Black contributions to society are just one of them. Even in regards to the major events that kids have always learned about (Revolutionary War, WWII, etc.), only the basics are covered. Just ask most kids about what the issues were in WWI…good luck finding the average person to tell you that.

51

Is BHM a good thing? Maybe… at least it could be. Is it currently a useful thing? Not in the least. If they spent the month focusing somewhat on blacks in history class and left it at that, I could say “Go for it.” However, hanging generic African flags and having hip-hop dance contests does nothing to celebrate black history. Instead, all we see are various schools, businesses and organizations trying to show how PC and culturally aware they are by offering lip service that proves more entertainment and ego pumping for the black community than it does education for the nation as a whole.

BHM could be and should be a good thing; a time of enlightenment about a group that has been repressed in the past and the chance to reflect on what we as a nation have done and what we need to avoid. But as it is, BHM serves no purpose than to further drive the races apart as blacks see BHM as a God given right and whites see it as reverse racism and forced atonement for sins they never committed. Do away with BHM unless it can somehow be salvaged.

“I guess one person can make a difference, although most of the time they probably shouldn’t.”

52

What I meant was when “government” as in public schools celebrates one race over another, it’s racist. As if my own race has no worthwhile history to celebrate. Privately, everybody should celebrate their heritage as much as they can as often as they can. It’s the government endorsement that gives me heartburn.

“Hope is not a method”

53

BHM is racist by its very definition. Sorry, the facts are the facts.

Yes, the U.S. has an ugly past, in which white males dominated the power structure. Let’s acknowledge that, instead of this revisionist history shit that devotes as much print in history books to George Washington Carver as it does George Washington. (I can remember in my early years of high school reading an entire unit on Caesar Chavez and even then thinking to myself, “OK, this guy clearly did some good things, but why is this section as long as the one we just did on Vietnam?” The answer is obvious: Chavez was the token Hispanic ham-handedly crammed into the U.S. history textbook.

Racism was bad in our slavery era, and it’s bad now. How can our government in one breath proclaim that we have learned the lessons of that ugly part of our history, then in their next breath promote one racial group at the exclusion of others? Is it morally wrong, or is it OK sometimes and not others, depending on your color?

Take the money being wasted on feel-good political correctness such as BHM and devote it not to giving one racial group advantages over another, but to cracking down on actual racism in workplace opportunities and elsewhere in society.

And another thing … do you ever notice how infrequently the achievements of black leaders celebrated in BHM are placed in the context of American society as a whole? It always seems to be about what they did to advance the cause of blacks. Again, if white historical leaders were celebrated in that way, the outcry would be deafening.

“You should tell the truth, expose the lies and live in the moment.” - Bill Hicks

54

Spike Lee remarked something to the effect of When they said they were giving black folks a month, you just knew it would be February.

55

I live in Flint, MI. Black History Month is a sort of big deal here, since this city is about 70% black.

Since the city has such a large black population, celebration of black history goes on pretty much all the time.

I am not bothered by this. I didn’t grow up in Flint. I graduated from a high school that had, at the time I graduated, precisely four black students, out of 1200. I didn’t learn diddly about black history when I was in school. Oh sure, every so often someone would mention Carver, Tubman, Parks, and King Jr., but that’s about it.

It’s not rammed down our throats here, because it’s part of everyday culture. Fine with me. Flint may be economically depressed, but it is extremely culturally diverse, and they all get celebrated here. It’s pretty neat sometimes.

One thing that does bother me about BHM is the fact that half the stuff I learn during BHM is stuff I didn’t learn in school. Why wasn’t this stuff part of my regular curriculum? Maybe my school was too white? I just remember being so honked off after I saw Amistad last year, because Inever learned about it in school. That was a hugely important event in history. Not just black history, either.

Changing my sig, because Wally said to, and I really like Wally, and I’ll do anything he says, anytime he says to.

56

As a white man, I’m ashamed (though I can’t say surprised) by the number of whiners posting here.

You guys just don’t get it, do you? Never have; never will.

Sad.

57

Jomolungma: please add more substance to your opinion…elaborate, or else you’re wasting your time typing.

Your statements so far,
"aha, playing the poor aggrieved white person having to struggle through a whole month.
I’m not buying.

Get over it."

and

“As a white man, I’m ashamed (though I can’t say surprised) by the number of whiners posting here.
You guys just don’t get it, do you? Never have; never will.”

have added nothing to what has so far been a very un-Pit like discussion. The basic premise of almost every post in here has been that 1) Black history is something valuable that everyone should learn but that 2) it may not be taught as effectively as it could be in the context of BHM and 3) it should not be the only minority culture/history that is taught.
Is that not PC enough for you? Good Lord, you’d think that every post in here was a racist slam. Exactly what is it that nobody’s getting? Do you have some sort of experience with Black History Month that you’d like to share that shows the real value of the celebration? Do you think that the people who think black history should be taught more effectively in the regular school curriculum are wrong? Is it racist for people to think that way? Do you think that people who played minor roles in history should be given equal “airtime” as people who played major roles simply because they are of a minority race in America? What is your basis for thinking that?
If you have something worthwhile to say, say it…I’m sure you could add to all of our perspectives and could possibly change the way some people are thinking. Just calling people whiners, though, is pointless.

58

I’m not at all questioning the validity of this statement, but can we define “Reconstruction era?” Does anybody know when the first black Congressman was elected?

“History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it.” -Winston Churchill

59

Falcon said:

Hey Falcon, get a grip. I said that ethnically speaking, there are no Czechslovakians or Yugoslavians because the nations of Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia were only created in the aftermath of WWI.

ruadh was right about your relatives in Prague - they mostly likely are Czechs (as opposed to Slovaks or one of the ethnic minorities in the area). It is quite possible that your Yugoslav relatives are Serbian, but not necessarily - the Balkans are a mish-mash, ethnically. My own father was born in Vojvodina, an autonomous region currently under Serbian control, but ethnically he is German and Hungarian.

Check out these maps of the distribution of ethnic majorities in the Balkans and the former Yugoslavia. You might also try reading a little history about Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia before you get all indignant.

BTW, I appreciate the formal ring of your challenge (“So, sir, what the hell…”), but you’ve got the gender wrong.

60

C3 - point understood. I wasn’t in the appropriate frame of mind to appreciate subtleties on Saturday.