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.