T Nation

Democrats Favorite Word is Hate

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
You’re talking about slavery, the Civil War, Reconstruction, Jim Crow, and then the Civil Rights movements. You don’t think there’s enough information there to fill a semester? Of course there is. You can design an entire class around the relationship between Dr. King and the SNCC and you still wouldn’t have enough time to get through it all.[/quote]

That’s American history. those things kinda evolved both black and white people. Those issues are as much white history ass black.[/quote]

This is a soundbite and a platitude. Of course white and black history are intertwined. All history is intertwined, all developments across time and space have come and gone together and not one of them has done so without being inextricably tethered to its antecedents and consequences.

But this isn’t an argument against black history courses, is it? Curricula are built in spite of, not as a reflection of, this truth. I actually don’t believe that you’re arguing against history courses designed specifically around black history. Are you? And if so, know that you are by extension arguing against ANY kind of history course designed specifically around ANY subject.

As an aside, have you taken a college-level history course? Because once you get past general requirements and into upper-division classes, material is FAR more specified than “the Civil Rights movement.”

Again, to take issue with a course about Jim Crow is to ignore the realities of higher education and course specialization. That the criticisms are always launched in the direction of black history rather than that of any other subject does not reflect well upon the critics.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
You’re talking about slavery, the Civil War, Reconstruction, Jim Crow, and then the Civil Rights movements. You don’t think there’s enough information there to fill a semester? Of course there is. You can design an entire class around the relationship between Dr. King and the SNCC and you still wouldn’t have enough time to get through it all.[/quote]

That’s American history. those things kinda evolved both black and white people. Those issues are as much white history ass black.[/quote]

? That might be true is slavery were some small blurb in this country’s history…but it isn’t. It was the foundation of the economy and basis of cultural influence that still is felt today in small degrees.

I would say yes, focusing on that alone is worth a course in college.

Why wouldn’t you?[/quote]

Read what I wrote. I never said it isn’t worth studying. I think it’s very worth it. I think if you went and seriously looked back at some of it, you might learn some things. It just isn’t specifically black history. You don’t have black slaves without white slave owners. There’s no Jim crow without white southern Dems. There is no emancipation proclamation without hundreds of thousands of white northerners dieing. There is no underground railroad without white southerners risking their lives. There aren’t as many lynchings without the white KKK. The civil rights movement is honestly more about white culture and how it changed (was forced to change) than it is about black culture. I find it offensive that things my ancestors may have been a big part of and something that shaped the country I call home isn’t included as part of “my” history.[/quote]

OK, I see the point you’re making.

It is pretty trivial though, and it’s largely about semantics. When we say black history, we are obviously not talking about an area of study that doesn’t include a single white subject. It just isn’t feasible to call it “history of issues involving black people as they fit into the larger context of a predominantly white society.”

[quote]smh23 wrote:

That the criticisms are always launched in the direction of black history rather than that of any other subject does not reflect well upon the critics.[/quote]

Yep.

It’s like they don’t see it. Screaming out that black history month is the only one like it just shows some strange bias and ignorance to the world today.

Why is no one complaining about these?

http://asianpacificheritage.gov/

Why do they lie like these don’t exist?

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
You’re talking about slavery, the Civil War, Reconstruction, Jim Crow, and then the Civil Rights movements. You don’t think there’s enough information there to fill a semester? Of course there is. You can design an entire class around the relationship between Dr. King and the SNCC and you still wouldn’t have enough time to get through it all.[/quote]

That’s American history. those things kinda evolved both black and white people. Those issues are as much white history ass black.[/quote]

? That might be true is slavery were some small blurb in this country’s history…but it isn’t. It was the foundation of the economy and basis of cultural influence that still is felt today in small degrees.

I would say yes, focusing on that alone is worth a course in college.

Why wouldn’t you?[/quote]

Read what I wrote. I never said it isn’t worth studying. I think it’s very worth it. I think if you went and seriously looked back at some of it, you might learn some things. It just isn’t specifically black history. You don’t have black slaves without white slave owners. There’s no Jim crow without white southern Dems. There is no emancipation proclamation without hundreds of thousands of white northerners dieing. There is no underground railroad without white southerners risking their lives. There aren’t as many lynchings without the white KKK. The civil rights movement is honestly more about white culture and how it changed (was forced to change) than it is about black culture. I find it offensive that things my ancestors may have been a big part of and something that shaped the country I call home isn’t included as part of “my” history.[/quote]

OK, I see the point you’re making.

It is pretty trivial though, and it’s largely about semantics. When we say black history, we are obviously not talking about an area of study that doesn’t include a single white subject. It just isn’t feasible to call it “history of issues involving black people as they fit into the larger context of a predominantly white society.”[/quote]

Why not the subject of slavery, or civil right’s, or specific parts of civil rights?

For example I just read a biography of Malcom X. But I don’t consider it black history, it was the story of malcom x. Not the story of a part of black history.

Semantics, yes, but most racism today is about semantics. I don’t lose sleep over it, but I call it like I see it.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Why is no one complaining about these?

http://asianpacificheritage.gov/

Why do they lie like these don’t exist?[/quote]

Oh, we had Hispanic week or something like that. Usually at least one day of the week was cut short so we could watch our fellow Hispanic students, and the smattering of whites enamored with the culture, demonstrate and encourage us into traditional dances, sample foods, listen to authentic music, and to view fellow students in historical/cultural dress. Of course we’d, black and white, hit up the food and sneak off to the parking lot to make our early escape.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Why is no one complaining about these?

http://asianpacificheritage.gov/

Why do they lie like these don’t exist?[/quote]

Oh, we had Hispanic week or something like. Usually at least one day of the week was cut short so we could watch our fellow Hispanic students, and the smattering of whites enamored with the culture, demonstrate and encourage us in traditional dances, sample foods, listen to authentic music, and to view fellow students in historical/cultural dress. Of course we’d, black and white, hit up the food and sneak off to the parking lot to make our early escape.[/quote]

Apparently, judging by the OP…this experience should have scarred you for life.

Based on this alone, you should not be successful in life.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Why not the subject of slavery, or civil right’s, or specific parts of civil rights?

For example I just read a biography of Malcom X. But I don’t consider it black history, it was the story of malcom x. Not the story of a part of black history.

Semantics, yes, but most racism today is about semantics. I don’t lose sleep over it, but I call it like I see it.[/quote]

We agree for the most part.

As I’ve said, these things simply demand (often arbitrary) categorization in a university setting. The designation “black history” is simply too obvious and sensible to be ignored or eschewed.

But, in terms of a more general way of thinking about these things, you’re right. Dr. King was a champion of human rights and is therefore as important to me as to anyone else in this country. He achieved justice for blacks, but those black were Americans. So he achieved justice for Americans. For people. I’m a person, I’m an American. Why should I care that they were black and I am white, when I don’t care that I am left-handed and most of them were probably right-handed?

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

That the criticisms are always launched in the direction of black history rather than that of any other subject does not reflect well upon the critics.[/quote]

Yep.

It’s like they don’t see it. Screaming out that black history month is the only one like it just shows some strange bias and ignorance to the world today.[/quote]

I see that DD isn’t coming from this particular (shady) corner, but I detect a hint of it in the OP.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Why is no one complaining about these?

http://asianpacificheritage.gov/

Why do they lie like these don’t exist?[/quote]

Oh, we had Hispanic week or something like that. Usually at least one day of the week was cut short so we could watch our fellow Hispanic students, and the smattering of whites enamored with the culture, demonstrate and encourage us into traditional dances, sample foods, listen to authentic music, and to view fellow students in historical/cultural dress. Of course we’d, black and white, hit up the food and sneak off to the parking lot to make our early escape.[/quote]

I was going to say, it’s worth it just for the food.

Anyways, in my experience, if you want to minimize racism (since it’ll always exist), forget the names of traditional garb and dance that’ll be forgotten within a hour. Take a field trip to a pediatric ICU.

FWIW,

the biography of Malcolm X is simply a fantastic book, regardless of the race component. I work in a large urban public school district, where I think a lot of kids should read that. Unfortunately, literacy is not very strong in our schools.

If someone is upset with the curriculum they are given, in terms of preference or neglect of material…why not simply read up on the issue on your own?

When I was younger I loved history, especially military history. I learned more about historical events, societies, politics etc…from my own reading which was a supplement to the curriculum.

If the OP is referring to K-12 education, there are a lot of variables at stake. These include the level to which one is teaching, the amount of material to cover in depth, etc.

In my AP english classes, yes we had specific reading that were womens lit, and african american lit. Some of them I liked, some of them I didnt. Thats anything though.

Also given my previous example, some of our schools are almost 100% african american. I think its legitimate to see some sense of identification in their curriculum. How does that harm you?

I am also not a “bleeding heart liberal”, or anything close to that sort.

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Pure gold!

Mike Wallace: “How are we going to get rid of racism?”

Morgan Freeman: “Stop talking about it”.
[/quote]

The Op said that “liberals changed history” and implied this was for the worse. I am asking why anyone would take that stance when it is very clear that early history books in this country were extremely biased?

Why would someone so concerned with succeeding in current society be focused on “getting rid of Black History Month” INSTEAD of "getting a more rounded look at history for all people?

I am not “Pro Black history month”. I just don’t see the big issue with it. Some of you are cheering for teams and shit instead of looking at reality.[/quote]

And the reality of it is exactly what Morgan Freeman stated. And that’s why I posted it.

Take a deep breath…

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Pure gold!

Mike Wallace: “How are we going to get rid of racism?”

Morgan Freeman: “Stop talking about it”.
[/quote]

The Op said that “liberals changed history” and implied this was for the worse. I am asking why anyone would take that stance when it is very clear that early history books in this country were extremely biased?

Why would someone so concerned with succeeding in current society be focused on “getting rid of Black History Month” INSTEAD of "getting a more rounded look at history for all people?

I am not “Pro Black history month”. I just don’t see the big issue with it. Some of you are cheering for teams and shit instead of looking at reality.[/quote]

And the reality of it is exactly what Morgan Freeman stated. And that’s why I posted it.

Take a deep breath…[/quote]

No, that was one ACTOR’S opinion…and while I think Freeman is one of the best actors around, I put as much weight into his political opinion as I do Tom Cruises’. You only cheer this on because you think he is agreeing with you.

[quote]666Rich wrote:
FWIW,

the biography of Malcolm X is simply a fantastic book, regardless of the race component. I work in a large urban public school district, where I think a lot of kids should read that. Unfortunately, literacy is not very strong in our schools.

If someone is upset with the curriculum they are given, in terms of preference or neglect of material…why not simply read up on the issue on your own?

When I was younger I loved history, especially military history. I learned more about historical events, societies, politics etc…from my own reading which was a supplement to the curriculum.

If the OP is referring to K-12 education, there are a lot of variables at stake. These include the level to which one is teaching, the amount of material to cover in depth, etc.

In my AP english classes, yes we had specific reading that were womens lit, and african american lit. Some of them I liked, some of them I didnt. Thats anything though.

Also given my previous example, some of our schools are almost 100% african american. I think its legitimate to see some sense of identification in their curriculum. How does that harm you?

I am also not a “bleeding heart liberal”, or anything close to that sort. [/quote]

Well, I know we’ve been doing X-Minority group for Y-period of time for at least 20 years. My question is, what’s the point? Has it helped close the achievement gap? Anyone have anything on this?

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]666Rich wrote:
FWIW,

the biography of Malcolm X is simply a fantastic book, regardless of the race component. I work in a large urban public school district, where I think a lot of kids should read that. Unfortunately, literacy is not very strong in our schools.

If someone is upset with the curriculum they are given, in terms of preference or neglect of material…why not simply read up on the issue on your own?

When I was younger I loved history, especially military history. I learned more about historical events, societies, politics etc…from my own reading which was a supplement to the curriculum.

If the OP is referring to K-12 education, there are a lot of variables at stake. These include the level to which one is teaching, the amount of material to cover in depth, etc.

In my AP english classes, yes we had specific reading that were womens lit, and african american lit. Some of them I liked, some of them I didnt. Thats anything though.

Also given my previous example, some of our schools are almost 100% african american. I think its legitimate to see some sense of identification in their curriculum. How does that harm you?

I am also not a “bleeding heart liberal”, or anything close to that sort. [/quote]

Well, I know we’ve been doing X-Minority group for Y-period of time for at least 20 years. My question is, what’s the point? Has it helped close the achievement gap? Anyone have anything on this?
[/quote]

I would think the large growth in the population of middle and upper middle class black Americans would be the place to look.

Black History Month was an attempt to inform children of the accomplishments of black Americans…in the face of a society that at one time only placed blacks in movies as maids or pure idiots. The desired effects included an increase in self esteem of many of those kids who grew up with no role models who actually looked like them.

Yes,

the problem of inner city education is a socio economic issue. I think in situations like this, kids need a mentor if parents are not available to be one.

As in training, you can get a certain amount out of reading a book, and alot more from someone in person. These kids need role models that they can identify with.

Something like this:
http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/sectionfront/life/ex-con-and-his-champ-create-boxing-gym-to-keep-kids-away-from-crime-407537/

the key point there is that Mr. Chisolm lived a life common in that community. He is now poised to teach others from his mistakes.

These are the type of lessons “outside the curriculum” that I am talking about. Education doesnt begin and end in school. All of life, is an education.

[quote]666Rich wrote:
Yes,

the problem of inner city education is a socio economic issue. I think in situations like this, kids need a mentor if parents are not available to be one.

As in training, you can get a certain amount out of reading a book, and alot more from someone in person. These kids need role models that they can identify with.

Something like this:
http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/sectionfront/life/ex-con-and-his-champ-create-boxing-gym-to-keep-kids-away-from-crime-407537/

the key point there is that Mr. Chisolm lived a life common in that community. He is now poised to teach others from his mistakes.

These are the type of lessons “outside the curriculum” that I am talking about. Education doesnt begin and end in school. All of life, is an education.[/quote]

Good post.

There would be less black doctors if no black kids EVER saw another black doctor.

I am not sure how people can even argue this. Yes, it helps many black poor kids reach for more if they see people who look like them from their own backgrounds who have done so.

Dunno. My school did a good job covering folks like Carver, Tubman, Douglas, and King within the normal course of American History. They simply came up as we covered that part of the timeline. It’s what made the encounter I related so funny at the time. The survey taker seemed surprised I would know who any of these people were. Which didn’t surprise me as he was usually horsing around or sleeping in the classes I had with with him.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
but this struck me as odd considering you claim “liberals” made changes to history as if they were just fine before.
[/quote]

If anyone is changing history, I’d presume it was liberals before and after black history month. Just listening to people I’m around most of the day (liberal Democrats).

I’m almost knocked off my feet every time I hear accusations that Republicans are the party of slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, anti-Civil Rights, KKK, &c. When in fact it was clearly the liberal Democrats who fought for slavery, established Jim Crow and fought for it, fought for segregation (so much so as standing in the school door way until the President called in the military) both in civilian life and military life, fought against the Civil Rights acts until they realized they better jump on the bandwagon because the gig was up, and hold members in their ranks who are Klansman.

I’d say liberals seem to have a firm grasp on changing history if they don’t even recognize themselves being in the ranks with the protagonist behind pretty much every bad policy since the start of this country.[/quote]

Dems can write off their whole sordid history because a couple of them crossed the floor and became Republicans in the 60’s. That’s how it works.[/quote]

Lol, yeah all the one’s that crossed the aisle became conservative (the only guy that I can think of that was a segregationist that came over from the Democrats was Thurman), the so called Southern Strategy is made up of a bunch of segregationist liberal jerks who still hold rank (or died off) in the Democrat party and offices. I mean Fulbright (Clinton’s Mentor whom he hugged at his inauguration address and praised) is example of this nonsense. I’m still waiting for this sensitiveness to the plight of minorities in Al Gore to shun his father Senior in his racists ways.