Welcome to the age of postmodern liberal arts professors. The accomplishments of, and social interaction between, blacks would be studied in a classic 1960’s history methodology, “social history”. Postmodernism has ushered in “cultural history”, which is more concerned with seeing how people reacted to perceptions, rather than how they reacted to real people and real events. So you ended up studying how whites reacted to their perceptions of black people, even if/when those perceptions didn’t actually describe a real black person anywhere in existence.
There’s nothing wron wth Black History or Black Studies per se, but I believe that historical events need to be placed in their proper perspective. A student should maintain some distance from the subject matter and not look for him- or herself and reasons to get angry all over again. Surely a black kid and his white classmate have more in common with each other that they do with slaves and slave holders respectively.
I frequently hear blacks use phrases like “Whites (or whatever) have a history of…” such-and-such. I think blacks tend to be too backwards-looking in their obession with history in defining things. Soppose I had a jar of vinegar and then dumped a box of baking soda into it. You could say that “the jar has a history of being full of venegar”, but that’s a very inaccurate picture of of the current situation because it ignores the recent changes that have taken place.
My question about “whiteness studies” is, does it acknowledge the fact that most whites these days have been brought up to be non-racicst? It seems like racism is often treated as something in the air rather than something that certain individuals are guilty of while everyone else is innocent. We often hear about how blacks “are treated” without making any attempt to distinguish those who are treating them that way from those who are not.
Monstro:
The difference is that the entire class (and the entire surrounding community) is either part of the group being studied or foreign to the group being studied, as opposed to the class being bitterly divided by their personal recations to the subject matter.
If it’s being looked at objectively then that’s fine.
I was under the impression that black history was indeed about indenty to many blacks.
Oh yeah? Well I do know nothing about whiteness studies. 
So in this instance, it would seem that monstro’s claim is that her experience is generally valid. At least as valid as the several counter-examples already listed.
And I found it surprising that a entire semester’s study of a separate field of history yielded no more than that.
I hope you will forgive me if I disbelieve that anyone on earth can become an expert on the entire field of US history by reading on the toilet for a couple of weeks. If you are that much of a genius, you are wasting your time on the SDMB when you should be out inventing cold fusion or something.
On the other hand, I might believe that you could become an expert on black history in a couple of weeks. Is it really as superficial as you seem to imply?
My whole point was that I have not made a special study of black history, and yet it apparently seems to you that I have as much knowledge of the field as those who studied it in college.
It doesn’t seem to me that I do. I doubt that I am all that much smarter than you, monstro. Why then would I gain the same insights in the ordinary course of my reading as you did in a college level course?
Your guess would be wrong. Neither Claude Brown, Frederick Douglass, nor Malcolm X majored in black studies (Brown went to law school, Malcolm X did his reading in prison, and his owner’s wife taught Douglass to read - after that, he was an auto-didact). I learned about Abraham Lincoln from a book my great-aunt gave me when I was twelve. Most of the rest of what I know came from ordinary history classes.
No, not fundamentally different at all. Although the more narrowly specialized an area of history is, the more narrow its insights will tend to be. IMO.
If you are arguing that black studies are as valuable as a close reading of New Jersey state history would be, I will grant you the point. But not many people are all that interested in New Jersey, and I am not sure why they should be.
I will ask you a question in return. What did you find valuable about your black studies course? Was there more to it than polemics, trivialities, and things you could have gotten elsewhere?
Did you cover one of the most eloquent speeches in American history? Because if you did, keep in mind that it came from someone who never spent a day in a black studies course in her life. And still she spoke the truth.
Regards,
Shodan
Generally nothing, Shodan. You’re putting words in my mouth.
Notice that I said my experiences is NO LESS VALID than yours. In other words, I believe your counter-examples have no more weight than my experience as a student. Just as I don’t think your examples lend any credence to december’s generalization, I don’t think my positive experience can be used as a generalization for all black studies courses. So my point was that my gun is just as big as yours when it comes to evidence.
So I was supposed to give you an exhaustive list of things I learned from a class I took six years ago? And if I can’t, then it means the class was worthless? Aren’t you acting just a little smug?
I can’t tell you what I learned from calc I. I suppose that means calculus is worthless too. :rolleyes:
So what, Shodan? I learned a good deal about evolution on my own, but that doesn’t mean that evolution as a separate field of study is “less valuable”. I learned a lot on my own and learned even more when I took a class. I wouldn’t trade either form of education.
We’re simply matching anecdotes with anecdotes. I didn’t learn about Jefferson’s Notes on Virginia until I took black history; you probably learned about it in high school. You read about Abraham Lincoln’s views towards blacks on your own; it took an instructor to reveal this knowledge to me. But why is my experience an anomaly and yours isn’t? Why do I get the feeling that you expect for me to lower my head in shame because I actually had to take a class to learn something new?
I never said that black studies is necessary for the works of Claude Brown or Malcolm X or Whomever You Want To Name to survive through the generations. In fact, in my earlier post I said that I’m sure an eager person can learn black history on their own, if they have the resources. But I still assert I can also learn US history on my own. I can learn physics on my own. I can learn chemistry on my own. That doesn’t mean that my ass couldn’t gain something new in these subjects by sitting in a classroom.
Um…don’t flatter yourself so much. I’m not impressed by knowledge that I don’t know exists. Anyone can claim they’ve read some books. Anyone can say “oh, I knew that already”. And I have no way of knowing if you know more than me or anyone else who has formally studied black history. (Just in case you haven’t figured it out, I was being sarcastic back there).
Just as you doubt that someone could learn US history through toliet-reading, I have a hard time believing that someone who reads a few books could “know it all” about black history. I don’t think I know it all and I wrote three term papers and read more than a handful of books. I suppose actually taking a class and interacting with a real expert makes one humble.
I don’t know why people study theology, Shodan If they truly received a calling from God to become ministers, they should have the determination to read the Bible on their own and answer their own questions. I learned everything I need to know about theology from my Sunday School classes growing up. Why can’t everyone? If the only message people take from theology courses is “God is good” then I think they’ve wasted a lot of time and money.
See how smug and arrogant that argument sounds?
Shodan, people study what they want to study. There are black studies coures because people are interested in this area. You stopped being interested after you finished reading The Autobiography of Malcolm X (or whatever it was); whereas a couple of books may not quinch the thirst for other people . It’s not just black people who find black history interesting. There were white kids in my black history class and they learned a lot too I’m sure. There are white people who major in African-American studies. This shouldn’t validate anything, but unfortunately it does in some people’s minds.
So I’m mulling this over and I’m not sure I see the problem. Perception is important. So is reality. A good historian should take both into account, not just one or the other. Studies focusing on one or the other aspect are not at odds - They are complementary.
Take The Great Massacre:* And Other Episodes in French Cultural History*:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0394729277/ref=ase_cyberhaven00/102-7904858-7547343
Pretty universally respected as a fascinating insight into French society in a particular period. Useless post-modernism?
- Tamerlane
by Shodan:
That was so weak that I can’t believe you even bothered posting it, unless you are trying to advertise to the world that God neglected to give you reading comprehension skills. Good job, if that was your intent.
And I find it surprising that an intelligent person would actually expect someone to supply an exhaustive list of everything they learned in a class several years ago, even when that information wasn’t what you asked for. Even more astounding is that you would post the above, as if expecting monstro to say “Yes, Shodan, you’re right. All I learned was three or four facts, and that was it. How silly of me to think that my black studies course actually taught me more than that. How silly of me to forget that you have more insight into the coursework I took, miraculously in spite of the fact that you’ve never even taken a course in the subject matter. How silly, indeed.”
Astounding.
I don’t know why people are interested in quantam mechanics or 18th century English literature. Guess that means those subjects are unnecessary and worthless.
I am sure this must have sounded like rebuttal when you posted it. I will only mention that it doesn’t necessarily sound that way from here. 
Speaking of reading comprehension -
I wasn’t asking for an exhaustive list. It was claimed that black studies was a tremendously valuable field of study. I cited a few examples of instances where it was laughably off base, and the argument seemed to have stuck on “my subjective experience of the course is just as valid as yours”. So I asked for some examples, and all that has been forthcoming has been a couple of truisms and the announcement that it was empowering.
Suppose somebody came to you and said, “I just finished the most wonderful course imaginable on Bolivian basket-weaving. It was tremendous! It was life-altering! It changed my entire outlook on life!”
You ask, “What did you learn?”
“Well, I don’t really remember. But it was superb!”
“My sister took that last year at Whatsamatta U. She says the professor taught that Bolivian baskets are used to block the CIA mind control rays.”
“Well, I took the course, and my subjective experience is just as valid as yours.”
And here we are.
I suppose when I start quoting myself, I have nothing further to add to a thread. Thanks for playing.
Regards,
Shodan
Shodan, perhaps you need to read the stuff you write more closely before putting it up to prove a point. Did you catch where you wrote:
Looks like you requested an instance of insight. Looks like monstro went above and beyond that request by providing several instances. Looks like you were right when you said that you have nothing else to add to this thread.
Uncle Cecil, it is taking longer than we thought, isn’t it?
All you got were a couple of truisms and an announcement that it was empowering? From my post?
What could I have said that would have impressed you, thou Great Knowledgable Shodan? Obviously facts weren’t what you were looking for, but I don’t know what else I could have said to convince you that I actually learned something from a class I took while I was in college. It’s a stupid task anyway. Ask anyone what they learned from English 101 and I’m sure the list wouldn’t demonstrate the “tremendous” value of English as a field of study. Hell, I can’t even come up with a list. Guess that means I didn’t learn anything from my English classes.
By the way, I never said anything was “tremendously valuable”. I simply said I learned some stuff in a class–a class I didn’t even want to take in the first place!
Perhaps you should stop quoting yourself and spend more time paying attention to what others have written.
But you’re welcome anyway.
Melanin is a psychoactive substance. Didn’t you read Gravity’s Rainbow? Never heard of Imipolex?
Melanocytes are modified neurocytes and derive from the neural crest.
Double-de-clutchingly
Heel and toe
There goes
Roger Mexico
How can someone object to such an interesting deconstruction? I think debating “whiteness” is harder then debating any other group. It is easy to talk about marked terms (African-American, Gay/Lesbian, etc.) because they are different from the “norm.” What makes this idea provocative is the idea of marking an unmarked term. In return, it changes the perspective of all other special topics. If the study of other groups focuses on how certain groups move from the “norm,” does identification of the norm change how deviations and changes are defined as well? It is this deconstruction that will give a greater apprecation for the other types of study.