I agree that Menchu’s book brought attention to the situation for indians in Guatemala, for a time. And then all that attention was diverted to the fact that most of her book, originally presented as an autobigraphy, was not factually accurate. She would’ve done better presenting the from the start as what it is, “a testimonial that mixes my personal testimony and the testimony of what happened in Guatemala”, not and autobiography. Her deception did some real harm to the Indian rights movement in Guatemala.
]
They aren’t?
:eek:
Yes, afrocentrism is different from Menchu getting a Nobel Prize for a purported autobiography that was largely fiction. I mentioned both as examples of things commonly taught in black and other ethnic studies programs, which were disproven.
Ethnic studies in general is a very new field, and suffers both from being new and trendy, and from the difficulty in establishing what is valid and what is not. It is similar to literary criticism, in that there is no agreed-on way to cut out the BS, as there is in the hard sciences. Therefore deconstructionism and similar fads are as difficult to root out from ethnic studies as they are from the latest analysis of the Western literary canon. And therefore, IMO, makes ethnic studies a less challenging and less rewarding and valuable field of study. For an example of why I think so, see my link with the Sokal article.
So the generalizations would be
[ul]
[li]That many common teachings in academia are false. [/li][li]That academics in general make things up, and teach them as if they were true[/li][li]But you are entirely sure that your black studies course did not suffer from the flaw of academics making things up[/li][li]That your experience of a black studies course, although anecdotal, was entirely valid, and [/li][li]This anecdotal experience could be generalized to all black studies courses, and [/li][li]Your anecdotal experience was not subject to rebuttal by anyone who had not taken a black studies course.[/ul][/li]
Possibly not, but none of my cites come from the six o’clock news. If you would rather not discuss my examples because they are widely known, OK, but that is not the same thing as establishing that they are invalid.
My point is that ethnic studies programs are less valuable in many ways than other fields of study, because they lack the self-correcting mechanisms of science, and that the political ideology driving many such programs also interferes with rooting out the nonsense. See my linked article for the threats encountered by Mary Lefkowitz for pointing out an obvious fallacy.
Perhaps a counter-example would be useful. What would you say was an instance of an insight gained from the field of black studies that has informed the world, and that has not been available in any other field of study? IOW, what would you say was the greatest benefit of such programs?
Regards,
Shodan
For me if was that African- Americans weren’t this lazy race of people that did nothing to fight for their freedom, like say the native americans.
i didn’t know until i went to college that African-americans fought in the civil war (let alone in most of our wars), i had always assumed that they stayed in their shacks waiting for the Great White Man to free them.
i didn’t know about the inventors, I assumed that Malcolm X hated all whites, until i understood of his transformation at Mecca. The Civil Rights movement was much more than Dr. King.
The list goes on and on. I learned that everything that i had been taught about America, including the Africans contribution to it, was not only written by the victor, but was often a lie of omission.
Made me a better person and angry that my earlier schooling didnt value the historical truth, over folklore.
But that’s me.
You must have a problem with humanities in general, including theology and philosophy. None of these studies have “self-correcting mechanisms of science” so I guess that means they are less valuable to you too. Is black studies even less valuable than the rest of humanities? Why or why not?
From my black history course:
I learned that had it not been for a few snitching slaves, the slave rebellion planned by Denmark Vesey and Gabriel Prosser would have significantly changed the course of US history.
I learned that Jefferson was a racialist scientist of the most embarrassing form.
I learned that there were slaves who actually liked their enslavement and feared Emancipation. I learned these facts through firsthand accounts, which I never knew existed. Slaves don’t have voices of their own in traditional, mainstream history.
I learned how widespread stereotypes were created AND perpetuated by black Americans. Additionally, I learned how this is not unique to blacks, but other groups–like Jews–have demonstrated the same type of behavior.
Note that I have stated what I learned. I can’t speak for what other people took from this class.
None of these things I learned in my other history courses, though I’m sure if someone wanted to find this stuff out, they could without taking a formalized black history class. But this stuff is interesting!. What’s wrong with studying it? Oh yes, I know! I should be studying about ALL AMERICANS, not just “my” group. I’m always forgetting that college should be about studying what other people want you to learn, and that this stuff should always have “self-correcting mechanisms of science” for it to be valid.
[sub]I took a US history class. I took a political science course. These were required and then I had a choice, so I opted for black history. I would have taken more humanities, but I was at an engineering school and we didn’t have very many to pick from. I took black history because I promised my mother I would. I didn’t want to at first because I didn’t want to be “different” (my school was 87% white). But I’m glad I did.[/sub]
Please answer me this, Shodan:
You can learn ecology in a regular biology department. Ecology is biology, after all. They cover the topic in introductory biology text books. However, there are many schools across the country that have an ecology department separate from the biology department. Does that mean that ecology is less valuable than biology since ecology can be taught by biologists? Do you think a cell biologist is going to delve that much in population biology? Ecosystem ecology? What if you want to learn about these things?
If I wanted to learn more about black slaves in the US, why would I expect a professor of European history to faciliate my instruction in this area? Is wanting to learn more about black slaves wrong?
Do you have a problem with Spanish history? How about state history (as required in grammar school in most states)? If not, how are these subjects any different than a black or women’s history class? You’re simply taking a subset of history and focusing on it in more detail. I don’t see how it has to be wrought in politics any more than any other subject in humanities. Why is black history about “identity” but American history–which is full of revisionists and nuts with political axes to grind–isn’t?
Back on the topic…
I don’t know nothing about whiteness studies and I am basically indifferent to it. If people find it interesting, I say let them study it. Perhaps it will help us come closer to understanding ourselves and our history better. And if it doesn’t, it won’t hurt anyone but the people who shelled out tuition money.
With all due respect, if you didn’t learn this until college, you had a pretty piss-poor high school. And middle- and elementary-school, for that matter. I seem to recall learning about the blacks fighting in the civil war since I first heard about the civil war. And any decent non-black studies history class from the relevent time period will also teach you these things. None of the items you mention are things that will not be taught in any halfway-competent standard history class.
Jeff
What? When did you go to high school? And where? I went to a fairly poor high school (not really poor, but not middle class, either) and we learned about all this stuff. We learned about the slave rebellions. We learned about the black Army divisions in the Civil War.
**
**
Again, we had lessons on Garvey and UNIA and Black Star, and we had a few blurbs about some lawsuits in Mississippi brought by black teachers to get equal pay with white teachers back in the late 1940s, as well as King and Malcolm X, etc. We learned about Malcolm X’s transformation, and even had to read his autobiography for the class.
**
If these things had been neglected, then yes, you should be angry. I’m not sure it’s the norm, though. Although, maybe I had an abnormal history class.
I have nothing against black studies. It’s just a specialized version of American history, similar to studying a particular region or a particular Indian tribe or anything else. Not a big deal.
I’m still not sure what “whiteness” studies are.
Shodan, you’re making youself look not-so-bright. Most of those “generalizations” you posted are not generalizations at all. Let’s take a look at your first one, shall we?
.
WTF? Didn’t you learn in school that the presence of qualifiers such as “many” and “some” is kind of incompatible with a generalized statement? For example, me saying that “Some people named Shodan are hell-bent on being argumentative” is quite a different thing than me saying that “People named Shodan are hell-bent on being argumentative.”
Got it?
Italians and the Irish were easily assimilated into American culture. Without an accent or an Irish or Italian-sounding last name, no one would ever know from whence your ancestors came. That predjudice died out quickly because it became hard to know who belonged to those groups which lacked identifiable racial/ethnic features.
The Jews and Japanese have the advantage of some “positive” stereotypes that blacks do not. Asians are considered smart, and Jews are regarded by some as fiscally responsible and hard-working. In some cases, these groups contained strong family networks which could help a person open a shop, or find a good job.
Unfortunately, blacks in America didn’t have many of these advantages.
Perhaps you could read the whole list, and see that the statements are connected to each other.
Notice, for instance, that the next generalization in the list I abstracted from monstro’s post was that “academics in general make things up”. He then went on to assert that none of the things he learned in his black studies course were made up. This was in contrast to what is common in every other course, and he gave no indication as to why his black studies course was unique in being 100% accurate, even though academics (in general) “make things up”.
This followed a statement that monstro made that “everything” that december posted on the SDMB was made up. I listed a few examples showing that not everything december posted was made up - for instance, several ideas taught in black studies courses are blatant fiction. Counter-examples are used to refute blanket statements - the idea that no black studies course ever contains something that was “made up” is refuted by the counter-examples of Greeks stealing ideas from libraries that didn’t exist during their lifetimes, Rigoberto Menchu putting imaginary episodes in what was supposed to be a factual autobiography, and so on.
If you state a generality, and then make a statement contradicting that generality, you need to show why the generality doesn’t apply in that case. So if you said, “Shodan is argumentative in his posts”, and then followed up by saying, “Shodan’s last post was not at all argumentative”, you would need to justify the exception. Similarly, if you said, “Academics make things up, and many things commonly taught are actually wrong”, and then followed up by saying, “The academics who taught my black studies course did not make any of it up, and everything that is commonly taught in black studies courses is completely correct”, you would need to justify the exception.
Especially if there had just been posted several examples of things taught in black studies courses that were obviously wrong.
monstro - I will have to second what ElJeffe and Neurotik said about the deficiencies of high school history in the background of someone who made it to college before they understood that eighteenth-century politicians like Jefferson did not share modern ideas on the inherent equality of the races. Read some of the things that Abraham Lincoln said about the positions of blacks and whites in the order of creation. If all that you gained from your black studies course was the knowledge that we have come a long way in our thinking since the 1850s, perhaps you spent a lot of money and effort for very little.
As I have said, I have never taken a black studies course, but The Autobiography of Malcolm X was required reading in my high school English course, and I read Frederick Douglass’ autobiography on my own. I learned about people like Marcus Garvey and Father Divine because I read Claude Brown’s Manchild in the Promised Land (a work I highly recommend), and he mentioned Father Divine. I don’t think my understanding of black history is as lacking as it might be in other cases.
I never specifically made an effort to learn about American black history or black culture, but omnivorous tastes in reading can inform a person apart from such an effort. Which may explain why I found myself explaining who Adam Clayton Powell was to a friend in college. A black friend.
Perhaps I went to better schools than you did. On the other hand, I expect I am a bit older than you, and therefore this kind of information has been available for longer than you might have expected.
Regards,
Shodan
**
Neurotik and ElJeffe**, you do know that every community has it’s own standards of what to teach. Unfortunately “black” interests wasn’t one of them and i would imagine in parts of this country, that still holds true.
I went to school in the sixties early seventies and while the ‘movement’ was going on, a good many people did their best to ignore it. I don’t think that my experience was as unique, as you make it out to be.
Today of course, you have a significant number or non-white educators or white educators who have and respect other cultures and who are willing to call Lincoln what he was. In 1960, Lincoln was still the ‘saviour’ of the slaves and Jefferson was too good to touch a black woman…
But I guess other posters will have to add their experiences to add some depth.
I went to a religious school until high school and yes my high school was considered one of the worst in the city. My parents stuggled to have me sent to another, but we were zoned. It was no more than a warehouse. i can only imagine the nightmare that it is now.
Shodan, you have realize that your experience is subjective. You’re desire to read, lead you into a certain direction. However, I’ve been to friend’s homes who have no books of substance. They rely on the school’s, for better or worst to ‘fill in the gaps’. If their kids don’t have an understanding of the African American or even Jewish experience whose fault or responsibility is that?
But, is there enough time to tell all about Lincoln or Jefferson in a grade school or high school history class? There seems to be alot of educators, who want to preserve the images of these men and the only way to do it, is to leave out the roles Blacks played besides slaves.
First of all, I agree with Even Sven (talk about a sentence from science fiction!) that “whiteness studies” fulfill a useful role in teaching students, but especially white students about the ubiquity of white privilege in our society. White people have advantages that our black citizens can do not share, for example being able to walk into a nice hotel or down a street in a good neighborhood without being harassed, not being redlined for a bank loan and the like. Just because I’m a conservative does mean I’m blind to the realities of life in America.
Second, I hope Holmes here can explain this sentence:
Are you saying that Native Americans did not resist the invasion of their lands? I will wait for your reply before going further.
Third, I think Shodan and Monstro are talking at cross purposes. It seems to me that Shodan is merely pointing out logical inconsistencies in Monstro’s arguemtns, but he is not arguing against the utility of black studies.
IMO, black studies is a very interesting subdiscipline in history, and I see no reason for history majors not to specialize in a fascinating subject. African-American history certainly provides for a host of stimulating courses at the upper undergraduate annd graduate levels. OTOH, one should not let ahistorical bias lead one to form conclusions that lead to ignorant statements like this
Lincoln was a great man and the liberator of the slaves. True, his original war aims had nothing to do with slavery, and he would have kept slavery legal if it meant the preservation of the Union. True, also, that Lincoln, like most educated men of his time who had read natural history, believed that blacks occupied a lower rung from whites in the Great Chain of Being. But he also opposed slavery as a moral blot on our nation, and he was rightly regarded in his day as being the best white friend the black man had ever known.
One wonders if there is not a double standard employed here. Does Holmes believe that Martin Luther King’s moral failings obscure his achievements, as he seems to believe about Lincoln and Jefferson?
Nope, the opposite. Sentence should have read: “For me if was that African- Americans weren’t this lazy race of people that did nothing to fight for their freedom, like say the native americans did” Although, i though my meaning was clear.
Why the knee-jerk? I don’t think I mentioned that Jefferson’s and Lincoln’s failings obscure their achievements, but it would have been nice to learn what Lincoln and Jefferson really felt about the Africans, when I was being told how great they were to them.
And please, enough with the cliche litmus test of using Dr. King’s failings to prove some sort of intellectual dishonesty.
There’s a big difference between having affairs and even ‘borrowing’ work, than believing that an entire group of people are inferior, which despite Lincoln’s being, “the greatest friend to the black man” you yourself acknowlegde this, and to excuse this belief because ‘most’ people did, is unacceptable.
What I find funny is that you admit that Lincoln would have kept slavery if it would keep the Union intact, yet in the same sentence, you claim that he considered it a moral blot. With friends like him, the black man didn’t need any enemies.
How about this: Mr X believes that child laws should exist. Mr. X is also a child molester and routinely has sex with children. Mr. X gets child labour laws passed saving the lives of millions of children.
Do you consider Mr. X the greatest friend to children? At what point does personal failings overshadow public success?
How does adultery compare with slavery? Do you think they are on a equal scale in the failings department?
Merely because a post contradicts yours does not mean that is is some sort of, as you put it, “knee-jerk” reactionary post. Don’t do that again.
Nonsense. You used the failings of Lincoln and Jefferson to judge them as wholly evil, yuet you ignore the failings of MLK, agreat man who was also a plagiarist and an adulterer.
And I’m not excusing Lincoln’s beliefs on blacj inferiority, but pointing out that he was a man of his time. You cannot condemn a 19th-century man for not having a 21st-century perspective on race relations. MKL had no such excuse, for as I understand it, plagiarism and adultery were not commonly accepted behaviors in mid-20th cnetury America.
All you are showing is that you do not comprehend the degree to which Lincoln was willing to sacrifice his personal beliefs in order to achieve a greater goal.
Lincoln never owned slaves, so your attempt at argument by analogy fails. Lincoln’s chief aim was to preserve the integrity of the Union, and if that meant maintaining slavery, he was willing to make that compromise. He was certainly unwilling to decree the end of slavery if that also meant the end of the nation.
One thing is certain from your posts, you were telling the truth when you said your high school was one of the worst in your city, for you are sorely uneducated in history.
Why don’t you show me where I judged them as “wholly” evil? I don’t see anything…I guess you’re jumping to a conclusion and that in my book is a “knee-jerk” reaction.
**
Accepted? Matter of opinion, but it happens everyday and further my point was how does one judge one human failing against another? Something that you haven’t answered.
**
In his 1860 inaugural address, he said: “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.” Two years later, President Lincoln wrote: “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union (Letter to Horace Greeley, August 22, 1862).” And in 1858 Lincoln had written: “I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people. There is a physical difference between the white and black races, which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.”
**
Ouch.
Actually, that’s avery good question, which probably deserves its own thread.
My point, however, is that you cannot condemn historical figures for their failings selectively. If you condemn Lincoln and Jefferson as wholly worthless due to their moral shortcomings, then you must be equally as harsh toward MLK.
I acknowledged that he did not believe in racial equality but that does not detract from his anti-slavery stance. He didn’t believe blacks to be the equals of whites, but that doesn’t mean he advocated their mistreatment either.
by Shodan
I stand by my contention that you are being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative. monstro’s point all along has been that it is wrong to generalize about a whole subject of study based on a few examples of falsity. You choose to overlook that point to argue about whether or not she’s in the position to generalize about the tendency for academics in general to tweak information. At no time has she said that her experience in black studies is typical of what it is across the board. But again, you overlook this to argue about something irrelevant.
Yes, you have shown that some black studies professors have come up with outlandish claims, but for the upteenth time, this does not mean that all courses of black studies are no good. Do you disagree with this? Or do you want to argue some more about what constitutes generalization or not?
Well, I went to the same high school that monstro attended, and I can vouch that very little about the philosophies of Jefferson and other founding fathers regarding race were touched on very little (if at all) in high school. I don’t think we received a particularly crappy education, either. There is simply not enough time to delve in depth in a lot of things; studying black history separately allows a more thorough understanding of issues that are just skimmed over in other history courses. I don’t know too many history or literature classes that have American Slave Narratives on the required reading list. There are not a lot of history classes that explore how science was used to define race in the 18th and 19th, and how slavery shaped race, reenforced stereotypes and misconceptions that allowed the institution to exist in the first place.
I learned about the WW2 War in high school. I also learned about WW2 in college. That doesn’t mean my college experience was a waste of time.
I ask you again, where did i ever say that Jefferson or Lincoln were ‘wholly worthless’? What I did say, is that it would have been better to be told the entire truth about these men, then the ‘folklore’ that you seem intent on preserving.
And I will not consider MLK’s banging broads and stealing words, the same caliber of ‘moral shortcomings’ as writing a document proclaiming that all men are created equal, then owning them. I don’t care what century they were in. I’m sure you know, with you superior high history education, that there were comtempories of Jefferson, who believed that slavery was wrong and didn’t own slaves.
And no I am not saying the MLK was not without sin, nor should he not be looked at without the rose-colored glasses.
**
Beign neglect, is still neglect…but enough with the hijack.
What?
Yes, MLK should be viewed with honesty.
holmes
Well great for you, Shodan! Your education was obviously superb.
But I did not learn these things in high school. Nor did I learn them in college outside of my black history course. My high school was one of the best in my state, and my college is one of the top in the nation. I don’t think my education has been crappy or atypical at all.
When did I ever say anything about us “coming a long way in our thinking” being a message I took from my black history class? You asked for “facts” that I had learned, and I gave them. I almost feel like you didn’t read my post. (I didn’t even mention Abraham Lincoln, for instance).
Perhaps you’ve such an expert on black history that you do not need to take a special course. But it’s arrogant to think that because you don’t need one that others shouldn’t either.
Great. For. You. But…I can self-teach myself just about any subject if I put my mind to it. I can be an expert in US history within a matter of weeks if I put the right books next to my toilet. Given this reality, do you think US history courses are worthless? Or is it just those special “ethnic” courses that raises your ire?
No he isn’t, gobear. Shodan has stated that he doesn’t value black studies as a respectable field. I wouldn’t be arguing with him if this was just about the stupid comment about generalizations.
But he confuses me with one thing. According to Shodan, he is well-read on black history, or at least the important things in black history. But who produces the knowledge that self-taught afrophiles like Shodan devour? Folks who specialize in black studies, is my guess. Is the field is respectable when it isn’t housed in a classroom? Because I don’t see the difference between taking a class on black history and reading a book on black history.
I’m hoping Shodan addresses that question. I also want him to adress an earlier question that he didn’t address: How is the study of black history fundamentally different from the study of colonial US history or New Jersey state history or labor history? Are these “less valuable” too?