Well, that’s a start. 
Biggirl:
Victor status when talking abount winning WWII or the Cold War or the Civil War in defeating slavery perhaps, but for example “this isn’t our land, we stole it from the Indians” is a common phrase, but “that was a long time ago, let’s put the past behind us” we say with a shrug. As for “backwards looking” I don’t mean when talking about history, I mean in defining one’s place in society. Whites say, “We’re going to colonize Mars”, blacks say, “We’re former slaves”. (that’s a gross oversimplification, but you see my point)
Monstro:
That’s called being subjective. Be objective. I don’t give a rip about my ancestors, let alone someone who just happens to be the same race as me. There’s only one of “us”.
[/quote]
I was told by my classmates that European history is the most important because it explains our present-day laws and form of government. (emphasis mine)
[/quote]
Explain how this isn’t true. They’re not biased if it is. Were you studying black history in school or weren’t you? The issue is whether schools and the media are addressing black history adequately, not what your obnoxious classmates think.
Tomndebb, some of the items on your list are of only mid-level significance and some have indeed been dealt with on TV (outside of BHM). Specific instances of racial injustice 1870-1950 may be given short shrift, but after a while we get the point and they become redundant.
Athelas:
Your rant was not very helpful, but if you’re still in school, perhaps you can summarize how much emphasis is given to various aspects of American history these days.
I don’t think I was being non-objective just for wanting to delve a little further into the history of my ancestors, just like I don’t think it’s wrong for a woman to identify more strongly with Abigal Adams than John Adams or a American to be drawn more strongly to American history than Australian history. People are attracted to history for a lot of reasons. Our personalities and identities often guide us to the questions that interest us. Why is this a bad thing?
They were biased. First of all, European “culture” has never existed in a vacuum. Non-Western, non-European civilizations have contributed to world history. Second of all, just because a culture hasn’t contributed to American civilization doesn’t make it unworthy of study. America is great, but it ain’t the end-all, be-all of all that should be studied.
I had never studied black history until college. Before that, the sum-total of my non-European-related history came in February, when we made poems about Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks. World history was a joke; the class actually should have been called “European History: Featuring Two Paragraphs about Asia, a Paragraph about South America, and a Sentence about Africa”. On teacher-parent night, my father remarked to the history teacher that none of the posters on the classroom walls reflected African or South American cultures. She just shrugged.
The classmates that I was talking about earlier thought this kind of slant was OK. Strangely, the three or four black students in the class agreed that it wasn’t. I want to know why do you think the black students were biased in their reactions but the white students weren’t?
I’d be really curious as to which item on my list (besides the integrated Navy) was less important than the role that most history books give to Paul Revere or Buffalo Bill Cody.
They are only redundant if the meaning got through. It is not a matter that “bad things happened to black people.” The issue is that the particular situations in which much of the black community finds itself today (some of it including self-defeating attitudes) is a direct result of specific actions with specific consequences. Those issues are not addressed in the history texts of middle or high school courses. On the other hand, most such texts do give a half or a quarter of a page to Revere and Cody.