Racism

addictedsevenfold.:

This goes back to the whole Black History Month thing; I personally think that schools shouldn't spend so much time going over one race and not the other in that kind of way. I mean, history is history, it doesn't have a color to it. I mean, we learn about mostly white guys when we learn about the Revolution, but that doesn't make that class racist or sexist, it just makes it a class focusing on the big details of that time period. I just get annoyed when people expect the amount of white guys discussed to be equal to the amount of -insert race here- guys to be discussed. I mean, if we're talking about atomic theory, we shouldn't have to also bring up a black guy or a chinese guy or something just because Dalton's white. Maybe that's just me, but it really gets on my nerves.

The problem is how you define "the big details of that time period". It's pretty self-evident that when white guys study history (and until the last 60-70 years white guys were the only people studying history), they're more often than not mostly interested in what white guys did in the past, but that doesn't make the things that white guys did inherently important or representative of what everybody did. White guy history ignores what happened to more than half of the population (women + non-white people) so from a mathematical point of view it can never be an accurate portrayal of the past - which is what, in my opinion, history classes should be all about.

addictedsevenfold.:

This goes back to the whole Black History Month thing; I personally think that schools shouldn't spend so much time going over one race and not the other in that kind of way. I mean, history is history, it doesn't have a color to it. I mean, we learn about mostly white guys when we learn about the Revolution, but that doesn't make that class racist or sexist, it just makes it a class focusing on the big details of that time period. I just get annoyed when people expect the amount of white guys discussed to be equal to the amount of -insert race here- guys to be discussed. I mean, if we're talking about atomic theory, we shouldn't have to also bring up a black guy or a chinese guy or something just because Dalton's white. Maybe that's just me, but it really gets on my nerves.

Wait, what?

One month of "black" history...which is disproportionate to the however many months of "white" history? And you're on the "side" of the "white" history?

There are thousands of years of history, is it not appropriate to describe all aspects of it?

Temporal duplication matrix.

kafka.:

The problem is how you define "the big details of that time period". It's pretty self-evident that when white guys study history (and until the last 60-70 years white guys were the only people studying history), they're more often than not mostly interested in what white guys did in the past, but that doesn't make the things that white guys did inherently important or representative of what everybody did. White guy history ignores what happened to more than half of the population (women + non-white people) so from a mathematical point of view it can never be an accurate portrayal of the past - which is what, in my opinion, history classes should be all about.

I hear what your saying, and, mathematically, I agree; that's why there are classes specifically on Ethiopian History and Tibetan History, and so on and so on. They might not be mandatory, and they might only be offered in postsecondary schools, but they are offered, and they do portray that segment of history.

About the "big details of the time period" comment, though, I think I might have been misunderstood. I mean, specifically looking at the syllabus of a class and what they are focusing on, the big details that go into those units. I was really commenting on how I know so many people who have said things like "We only talked about white guys in that entire unit!" and then I have to sit there and remind them that "hey, it was a unit specifically on early atomic theory" or "hey, we were only looking at the founding fathers and the articles of confederation." You see why in those situations it isn't that white guys were being systematically highlighted, but that the topic simply happened to involve white guys?

Don't get me wrong, I completely understand that the reason a lot of the concepts we study were created by white guys is because other populations were being oppressed, but I just don't see how that changes the facts. I'm sorry a black guy didn't invent that; but we're learning about it because of the invention, not because the guy was white. I mean, I'm Irish, and we never learn a damn thing in the general history classes about the Irish, or about things invented by the Irish. But I understand that that's just what we're studying, and I don't expect to learn about an Irish invention for ever English invention. Or even every hundred English inventions.

The Master.:

Wait, what?

One month of "black" history...which is disproportionate to the however many months of "white" history? And you're on the "side" of the "white" history?

There are thousands of years of history, is it not appropriate to describe all aspects of it?

No, you missed my point. I'm trying to say that there shouldn't be a "black history month" because there shouldn't be a concept of "black history" versus "white history" (especially if we're not even going to mention all of the other races in this whole fairness thing). History should just be history. I think that the idea of "black history month" actually segregates the history even more.

And I said that I didn't think we should spend so much time on one race and not the other in that kind of way, not that a month would be too much time spent on the history of one race. I don't view the other eleven months as "white history months" so why should we view one as "black history month"?

addictedsevenfold.:

I hear what your saying, and, mathematically, I agree; that's why there are classes specifically on Ethiopian History and Tibetan History, and so on and so on. They might not be mandatory, and they might only be offered in postsecondary schools, but they are offered, and they do portray that segment of history.

Where are they offered? I have been unable to find any British universities -let's ignore for a moment the fact that Black History Month is organized by schools not universities so we were talking about (secondary) schools - which offer courses on Ethiopian history specifically, not even SOAS (School of Oriental and African Studies - which tends to be regarded as the leading education institution for African studies) offers anything so specific in their African studies programme (source).

Quote

About the "big details of the time period" comment, though, I think I might have been misunderstood. I mean, specifically looking at the syllabus of a class and what they are focusing on, the big details that go into those units. I was really commenting on how I know so many people who have said things like "We only talked about white guys in that entire unit!" and then I have to sit there and remind them that "hey, it was a unit specifically on early atomic theory" or "hey, we were only looking at the founding fathers and the articles of confederation." You see why in those situations it isn't that white guys were being systematically highlighted, but that the topic simply happened to involve white guys?

But if every topic "simply happens" to involve exclusively white guys it's obvious that something is being systematically highlighted.

Quote

Don't get me wrong, I completely understand that the reason a lot of the concepts we study were created by white guys is because other populations were being oppressed, but I just don't see how that changes the facts. I'm sorry a black guy didn't invent that; but we're learning about it because of the invention, not because the guy was white. I mean, I'm Irish, and we never learn a damn thing in the general history classes about the Irish, or about things invented by the Irish. But I understand that that's just what we're studying, and I don't expect to learn about an Irish invention for ever English invention. Or even every hundred English inventions.

What kind of history course you do if all you learn about are inventions? History of science is indeed quite interesting, but in all secondary school history curricula I've seen it only plays a very minor part.

Quote

I don't view the other eleven months as "white history months" so why should we view one as "black history month"?

Of course you don't view the other eleven months as white history months, you're white for you white history is just history - doesn't mean that it's "just history" from an objective, truly "colour blind" perspective.

History is history, and in school they're teaching us what's relevant.

I find nothing more racist than putting a race label on history. The Holocaust isn't Jewish history, it's history. Chairman Mao isn't North Korean history, he's part of history. The genocide in Rwanda isn't Black history, it's history.

If your curriculum is so skewed that you don't learn about things which are relevant to history as a whole because they're about black people, there's a bigger issue, and one which shouldn't be given a cop-out because Black history month exists.

lovecraft:

I find nothing more racist than putting a race label on history. The Holocaust isn't Jewish history, it's history. Chairman Mao isn't North Korean history, he's part of history. The genocide in Rwanda isn't Black history, it's history.

I don't understand your disdain for classification/specialization. That's like saying a book isn't a thriller, it's just fiction. A label just makes something more specific and orderly. One of my history professors for a world history class specialized in French history, simply because that was what he was interested in and that's where his research took him, not because of racism towards every other group.

When you learn about history as a whole and try and include every single thing, you get a very diluted and watered-down version, because it's impossible to teach or learn or know everything. That's why specialization exists in college, for practicality's sake.

lovecraft, I agree, 100%.

kafka.:

Where are they offered? I have been unable to find any British universities -let's ignore for a moment the fact that Black History Month is organized by schools not universities so we were talking about (secondary) schools - which offer courses on Ethiopian history specifically, not even SOAS (School of Oriental and African Studies - which tends to be regarded as the leading education institution for African studies) offers anything so specific in their African studies programme (source).

I wouldn't know where to tell you that you could find any fact within the United Kingdom. And I wouldn't even know specifically what colleges offer any specific course, because oftentimes you cannot find them without an actual course catalog. I'm not saying that many schools offer a degree in Ethiopian studies or anything, but the course itself most certainly exists in many places, perhaps largely in Ethiopia -- I don't know.

Quote

But if every topic "simply happens" to involve exclusively white guys it's obvious that something is being systematically highlighted.

That would be true, but the fact is that far from every topic involves exclusively white guys. It's a rare day when you don't learn a thing about anyone but white guys. Hell, in my classes it seems like they go out of the way when determining the curriculum to include extra things about non-white guys. We spent an entire week talking just about Douglass in both my Literature class and History class, and I don't think we even devoted an entire week to George Washington or Abraham Lincoln.

Quote

What kind of history course you do if all you learn about are inventions? History of science is indeed quite interesting, but in all secondary school history curricula I've seen it only plays a very minor part.

I was broadening the scope past just history courses. History is covered in all classes, really, so mentioning what you'd learn in a science course seemed fitting. Plus, even in general history courses, a lot of the things highlighted are major inventions that fit in the time period, so that definitely contributes to the "mostly white guys that schools talk about".

Quote

Of course you don't view the other eleven months as white history months, you're white for you white history is just history - doesn't mean that it's "just history" from an objective, truly "colour blind" perspective.

Do not make assumptions about my background or the way I see things. You do not know what other nationalities I am besides Irish, and so you have no reason to sit there assuming that I am only white. And to lump every white nationality together and act as if all of our history is the same is most certainly not correct. Roman history is not mine. French history is not mine. The American Revolution, colonial days, use of slavery, and anything up through the twentieth century is not in any way mine. We don't learn about my history in schools, but you don't see me begging to have an "Irish History Month" to make up for all the atrocious things committed against my people. Because I understand that even if it's not "my" history, it is, because it's the history of this planet and this species that we all belong to. Because history is color blind.

I'd also like to point out that those other eleven months we talk about all races all of the time. There's rarely a unit when only white guys are mention, unless it is in one of those science courses that are only talking about inventions. We learn about all cultures, beyond just white and black, because there are a hell of a lot more than just two.

Honestly, I don't see why "Black History Month" isn't considered offensive to everyone, regardless of race. Sudanese History most certainly is not the same as Jamaican History, nor is it even the same as Rwandan History. Why should they be lumped together under the title of "black history"?

lovecraft:

History is history, and in school they're teaching us what's relevant.

I find nothing more racist than putting a race label on history. The Holocaust isn't Jewish history, it's history. Chairman Mao isn't North Korean history, he's part of history. The genocide in Rwanda isn't Black history, it's history.

If your curriculum is so skewed that you don't learn about things which are relevant to history as a whole because they're about black people, there's a bigger issue, and one which shouldn't be given a cop-out because Black history month exists.

And nothing seems more racist to me than saying that events which don't affect white Westerners are non-history, somehow outside time and reality. The Holocaust, Mao or the Rwanda genocide directly implicated white Westerners - that's why they're regarded as "important" and "relevant", but when equally horrifyingly violent events happen without affecting white Westerners, they're not considered part of "history" - which makes it very easy for their perpetrators to deny them. Over 3 million Ukrainians died in 1933 because of what Ukrainians call Holodomor (literally killing by/through hunger) - a famine carefully orchestrated by the Soviet authorities. Why do we not know about this? Because it's not really history, it happened in Ukraine and didn't affect the West.

--

Quote

I wouldn't know where to tell you that you could find any fact within the United Kingdom. And I wouldn't even know specifically what colleges offer any specific course, because oftentimes you cannot find them without an actual course catalog. I'm not saying that many schools offer a degree in Ethiopian studies or anything, but the course itself most certainly exists in many places, perhaps largely in Ethiopia -- I don't know.

The SOAS website linked the course catalogue in PDF and you can search through UCAS for all degree programmes offered in the UK - you'll find nothing. "It has to exist because I would really like for it to exist" isn't really much of an argument.

Quote

That would be true, but the fact is that far from every topic involves exclusively white guys. It's a rare day when you don't learn a thing about anyone but white guys. Hell, in my classes it seems like they go out of the way when determining the curriculum to include extra things about non-white guys. We spent an entire week talking just about Douglass in both my Literature class and History class, and I don't think we even devoted an entire week to George Washington or Abraham Lincoln.

And beside Frederick Douglass, what other American POC did you learn about?

Quote

I was broadening the scope past just history courses. History is covered in all classes, really, so mentioning what you'd learn in a science course seemed fitting. Plus, even in general history courses, a lot of the things highlighted are major inventions that fit in the time period, so that definitely contributes to the "mostly white guys that schools talk about".

History is just interesting random trivia in science courses and inventions are rarely more than interesting random trivia in history classes - it's not at all a broadening of scope, it's an extremely narrow subject and quite marginal to most history taught in schools.

Quote

Do not make assumptions about my background or the way I see things. You do not know what other nationalities I am besides Irish, and so you have no reason to sit there assuming that I am only white. And to lump every white nationality together and act as if all of our history is the same is most certainly not correct. Roman history is not mine. French history is not mine. The American Revolution, colonial days, use of slavery, and anything up through the twentieth century is not in any way mine. We don't learn about my history in schools, but you don't see me begging to have an "Irish History Month" to make up for all the atrocious things committed against my people. Because I understand that even if it's not "my" history, it is, because it's the history of this planet and this species that we all belong to. Because history is color blind.

But it is really your history, it's the history of the "Western civilization" - as a white Westerner (Irish or not) you and your ancestors have claimed the history of the whole white West as your own.

Quote

I'd also like to point out that those other eleven months we talk about all races all of the time. There's rarely a unit when only white guys are mention, unless it is in one of those science courses that are only talking about inventions. We learn about all cultures, beyond just white and black, because there are a hell of a lot more than just two.

This is so vague and insubstantial, I can't even argue against it.

Quote

Honestly, I don't see why "Black History Month" isn't considered offensive to everyone, regardless of race. Sudanese History most certainly is not the same as Jamaican History, nor is it even the same as Rwandan History. Why should they be lumped together under the title of "black history"?

Actually, you're wrong, the history of post-colonial states is mostly the same because states did not exist in Africa or in the Caribbean Islands before the arrival of Europeans.

kafka.:

And nothing seems more racist to me than saying that events which don't affect white Westerners are non-history, somehow outside time and reality. The Holocaust, Mao or the Rwanda genocide directly implicated white Westerners - that's why they're regarded as "important" and "relevant", but when equally horrifyingly violent events happen without affecting white Westerners, they're not considered part of "history" - which makes it very easy for their perpetrators to deny them. Over 3 million Ukrainians died in 1933 because of what Ukrainians call Holodomor (literally killing by/through hunger) - a famine carefully orchestrated by the Soviet authorities. Why do we not know about this? Because it's not really history, it happened in Ukraine and didn't affect the West.

You know what else we don't learn about? The genocide of millions of Irishmen by the British that is often blamed on a single blight of potatoes. That's equally horrifying, especially because of the fact that no one seems to know it was a genocide. But wait, that's pretty Western history, and that's also pretty white. It's not just non-white, non-western history that doesn't get mentioned at times.

addictedsevenfold.:

You know what else we don't learn about? The genocide of millions of Irishmen by the British that is often blamed on a single blight of potatoes. That's equally horrifying, especially because of the fact that no one seems to know it was a genocide. But wait, that's pretty Western history, and that's also pretty white. It's not just non-white, non-western history that doesn't get mentioned at times.

But the Irish Famine is actually very widely studied - not as a genocide because it wasn't a genocide (genocide needs the intention to exterminate completely a racial/social/ethnic/etc group which is absent in the case of the Irish Famine, the English didn't cause the famine with the purpose of kill off all the Irish) - but I went to school in Transylvania of all places and even we learned about it.

kafka.:

But the Irish Famine is actually very widely studied - not as a genocide because it wasn't a genocide (genocide needs the intention to exterminate completely a racial/social/ethnic/etc group which is absent in the case of the Irish Famine, the English didn't cause the famine with the purpose of kill off all the Irish) - but I went to school in Transylvania of all places and even we learned about it.

Respectfully, you are very much wrong. The potato blight was not caused by the British, yes, but the starvation of millions systematically was. The nation produced more than enough food to feed three times its population, but the food was taken by armed soldiers and shipped to England, with an intent to wipe out at least a portion of the population. Tell me that isn't genocide. Do a bit of research on it; colleges are starting to include it in their genocide classes, but anyone who doesn't take those specific genocide courses in a postsecondary school never seem to hear the truth about it.

-----

kafka.:

The SOAS website linked the course catalogue in PDF and you can search through UCAS for all degree programmes offered in the UK - you'll find nothing. "It has to exist because I would really like for it to exist" isn't really much of an argument.

Take a moment and look outside of the UK, will you? I've already said that I don't know about in the UK, just in general. If you only want to focus on the UK, that's fine, but then we can't have a discussion because we're not talking about the same things. And I said specifically not a degree offering, but a specific course. I also said perhaps it was only widely available in Ethiopia. I picked out a random Ethiopian college and searched through their website, and pretty quickly found this page, which shows that there clearly are courses on Ethiopian Colleges. I'd look up possible courses in colleges in the States, but, unfortunately, the majority of colleges there only list degree programs, not full course offerings, unless you're a student or request a mailed catalogue. I'm not going to that effort for that; I've proven the course exists, and that's all I wanted to show.

Quote

And beside Frederick Douglass, what other American POC did you learn about?

Are you serious? I couldn't even begin to list them, nor could I begin to list who we talked about that wasn't a "person of color". We talk about them every unit, and I don't remember them based on what color skin they have, I'm sorry. I brought up Douglass because, like I said, we had a significantly lengthy amount of time spent on him. We also spent several days on BT Washington, on all of the standard civil rights leaders, on those who served in the wars, I literally cannot even list a single percent of the names we discussed. And even with what I just said, that makes it look like we never covered an average "person of color" that isn't as renowned, but we did. We'd mention some white inventors, and we'd mention some non-whites; I don't specifically remember who was who because I don't force that kind of information into my mind, I don't remember people by their skin color, but I do remember always having several different cultures represented in every powerpoint we flipped through.

Quote

History is just interesting random trivia in science courses and inventions are rarely more than interesting random trivia in history classes - it's not at all a broadening of scope, it's an extremely narrow subject and quite marginal to most history taught in schools.

I'm sorry, but I couldn't follow what you were trying to say there.

Quote

But it is really your history, it's the history of the "Western civilization" - as a white Westerner (Irish or not) you and your ancestors have claimed the history of the whole white West as your own.

Either I'm grossly misunderstanding you, or you're trying to tell me that because I'm white and other Westerners are white, our histories are the same. I most certainly have not, and I'm fairly certain that my ancestors have not, ever attempted to claim the "history of the whole white West" as our own. The French Revolution and the Peloponnesian Wars are as much my history as they are those of a woman from Papua New Guinea. I fail to see how my alleged, mind you, skin color changes my connection to any piece of history.

Quote

Actually, you're wrong, the history of post-colonial states is mostly the same because states did not exist in Africa or in the Caribbean Islands before the arrival of Europeans.

You took my statement too literally. But even so, states do not need to exist in order to have different ethnic groups with their own individual histories. Look at Rwanda or India for perfect examples.

kafka.:

And nothing seems more racist to me than saying that events which don't affect white Westerners are non-history, somehow outside time and reality. The Holocaust, Mao or the Rwanda genocide directly implicated white Westerners - that's why they're regarded as "important" and "relevant", but when equally horrifyingly violent events happen without affecting white Westerners, they're not considered part of "history" - which makes it very easy for their perpetrators to deny them. Over 3 million Ukrainians died in 1933 because of what Ukrainians call Holodomor (literally killing by/through hunger) - a famine carefully orchestrated by the Soviet authorities. Why do we not know about this? Because it's not really history, it happened in Ukraine and didn't affect the West.

Because I didn't mention Stalin and the Soviet Union specifically, you think it didn't affect the west or isn't included as part of my definition of "history"?

The reason I mentioned those specific examples is because they're extremely well known, and most strongly affected a group of people defined by race. (Which is not to say I'm ignoring the fact that other races/people died during the holocaust)

The issue is that history classes in American high schools focus on American history. World history is an elective. That's why people who aren't interested in history or the Soviet Union don't know about Holodomor.

And where did I say anything that didn't fall into the category of affecting westerners wasn't history?

World history wasn't an elective in my state (Missouri)... actually in any of the three (Illinois, Tennessee) states I lived. You were required a world history class in middle school and two semesters in high school.

addictedsevenfold.:

Respectfully, you are very much wrong. The potato blight was not caused by the British, yes, but the starvation of millions systematically was. The nation produced more than enough food to feed three times its population, but the food was taken by armed soldiers and shipped to England, with an intent to wipe out at least a portion of the population. Tell me that isn't genocide. Do a bit of research on it; colleges are starting to include it in their genocide classes, but anyone who doesn't take those specific genocide courses in a postsecondary school never seem to hear the truth about it.

What actual proof do you have that this was done with the intention to wipe out the population? I've never been able to find any contemporary documents showing an intention to kill off the population.

Quote

Take a moment and look outside of the UK, will you? I've already said that I don't know about in the UK, just in general. If you only want to focus on the UK, that's fine, but then we can't have a discussion because we're not talking about the same things. And I said specifically not a degree offering, but a specific course. I also said perhaps it was only widely available in Ethiopia. I picked out a random Ethiopian college and searched through their website, and pretty quickly found this page, which shows that there clearly are courses on Ethiopian Colleges. I'd look up possible courses in colleges in the States, but, unfortunately, the majority of colleges there only list degree programs, not full course offerings, unless you're a student or request a mailed catalogue. I'm not going to that effort for that; I've proven the course exists, and that's all I wanted to show.

Why are you talking about what happens in Ethiopia? We weren't talking about how history is taught in Africa, we were talking about how it's taught in the West.

Quote

Are you serious? I couldn't even begin to list them, nor could I begin to list who we talked about that wasn't a "person of color". We talk about them every unit, and I don't remember them based on what color skin they have, I'm sorry. I brought up Douglass because, like I said, we had a significantly lengthy amount of time spent on him. We also spent several days on BT Washington, on all of the standard civil rights leaders, on those who served in the wars, I literally cannot even list a single percent of the names we discussed. And even with what I just said, that makes it look like we never covered an average "person of color" that isn't as renowned, but we did. We'd mention some white inventors, and we'd mention some non-whites; I don't specifically remember who was who because I don't force that kind of information into my mind, I don't remember people by their skin color, but I do remember always having several different cultures represented in every powerpoint we flipped through.

So nobody beside Douglass and BT Washington?

Quote

Either I'm grossly misunderstanding you, or you're trying to tell me that because I'm white and other Westerners are white, our histories are the same. I most certainly have not, and I'm fairly certain that my ancestors have not, ever attempted to claim the "history of the whole white West" as our own. The French Revolution and the Peloponnesian Wars are as much my history as they are those of a woman from Papua New Guinea. I fail to see how my alleged, mind you, skin color changes my connection to any piece of history.

Western countries have seen themselves as a coherent historical entity for hundreds of years - it's why the EU works as well as why European history not Asian history is taught in the primary and secondary schools. The feeling of entitlement and belonging to European culture that white Europeans get is not something that a non-European and/or POC would ever get. Historically, Irish people have claimed that they're part of "Western civilization", for example works by Irish artists and writers are part of the so-called "Western canon" and it's a common enough myth that Irish monasteries played a major role in "saving" Western civilization during the Middle Ages.

Quote

You took my statement too literally. But even so, states do not need to exist in order to have different ethnic groups with their own individual histories. Look at Rwanda or India for perfect examples.

I'm looking at Rwanda and India and I see very many different ethnic groups with different histories - that's precisely the problem, there was no "Rwandan" or "Indian" history before colonialism because there was no such thing as a "Rwandan" or an "Indian", there were only Hutus, Tutsis, Twa, Punjabi, Bengali, etc.

kafka.:

So nobody beside Douglass and BT Washington?

Forget it. I was going to type up a long response to each of your points, but clearly you're not reading a word of what I'm saying. That question right there is complete proof of it. I refuse to have a conversation with someone who won't bother to listen to what I'm saying.

If you want to know the truth of an Gorta Mór, then that's grand, and all you have to do is a small amount of research. If you want to continue believing that a nation producing more than three times the amount of food needed to sustain its population on top of receiving food shipments from others who wanted to help, like the Seminole Indians for instance, had huge numbers of its population starve to death from a single blight of only potatoes, then you go ahead and live in that bliss called ignorance. But I'm not going to do any work for you to just ignore what I'm saying.

What do you guys think, is this likely to be classified as a hate crime? Kansas City Burning of Teen

If you're interested, there's more information (of an opinionated sort) in an article here: http://www.themoralliberal.com/2012/03/07/was-boy-in-k-c-fire-attack-burned-by-his-schools-racist-teaching/

addictedsevenfold.:

I'm trying to say that there shouldn't be a "black history month" because there shouldn't be a concept of "black history" versus "white history"

This is such a strange comment, I've been sitting here for ages trying to think of how to reply to it. :/ The best I can say is: learning history is about learning the differences between peoples and their pasts and how they came to be. History is about learning the movements, ideologies and everything else that shaped the world. Racism and inequality are two of the ideologies that separate people: the native coloured people and the white man coming to take over. Understanding the differences allows for a better understanding of the history. If it's just history, then how can you make the distinctions under such a broad idea? Does that even make sense? I don't even think that was the best I could sum it up as. :/

But like Kurtni said:

Quote

A label just makes something more specific and orderly. One of my history professors for a world history class specialized in French history, simply because that was what he was interested in and that's where his research took him, not because of racism towards every other group.

When you learn about history as a whole and try and include every single thing, you get a very diluted and watered-down version, because it's impossible to teach or learn or know everything. That's why specialization exists in college, for practicality's sake.

addictedsevenfold.:

I think that the idea of "black history month" actually segregates the history even more.

And the 'black' people of American aren't allowed to have a segregated month (though I did see Mick Jagger at the White House with Obama singing the blues in celebration of the month), even though they were segregated from white Americans for a very long time? And don't white people celebrate it anyway? So it's not really segregated apart from it's name...right (which shouldn't even be a problem, because it wasn't exactly a white man's movement was it? though they were involved...but it was mostly a black man's movement)?

addictedsevenfold.:

And I said that I didn't think we should spend so much time on one race and not the other in that kind of way, not that a month would be too much time spent on the history of one race. I don't view the other eleven months as "white history months" so why should we view one as "black history month"?

Okay, here: you said one and the other. If you're saying there's a black history month (one) then surely the eleven following have to be (other) which is white. So you kind of are only acknowledging two races in the world: white and black. So you kinda do view the other eleven as white (seeing as you failed to mention any other race that has a month or such of celebrations). Why should we view one as black history? Can you at least acknowledge the alienation and exploitation they suffered and the strong fight they put up to earn themselves rights in a country that would have no problem treating them like animals (I'm acknowledging the fact the North was a little bit better in their treatment compared to the South, just in case that was going to be brought up)? Why shouldn't you celebrate just a month? It's only 28 days (February right?), that's less days than any other month, so.

I don't know. By saying history is just history...it leaves out all the rest. History is never as simple as that.

lovecraft:

Chairman Mao isn't North Korean history,

...because he's Chinese history/Communist/Socialism history. ;)

Just on the education front: This is a list of all the History papers I got to choose out of for this year. Now, would you rather spend $755.00 learning a general history where there's no distinction of anything because it's all just 'history,' or would you rather specialize for two-three months in a topic so you feel your money was well spent? Because I'm doing three of those papers, and would feel totally ripped off if I sat down and learned 'just history' - which sounds like a brief overview of nothing. Same goes for the 200-level papers. History isn't just history.

[hopefully some of this makes sense and that I didn't completely get the whole wrong end of the stick there!]

lovecraft:

What do you guys think, is this likely to be classified as a hate crime? Kansas City Burning of Teen

If you're interested, there's more information (of an opinionated sort) in an article here: http://www.themoralliberal.com/2012/03/07/was-boy-in-k-c-fire-attack-burned-by-his-schools-racist-teaching/

Burning someone has no economic or monetary gains; I don't see how burning someone can be anything but a hate crime, and on the news coverage they said the boy didn't even know the attackers.

There is a lot of racial tension in KC public schools, and not enough funding to hire staff trained to handle it or money to fund programs to stop it either. In fact, almost 30 public schools were closed last year in KC (half the total schools), which essentially made the entire conflict worse. Students who went to traditionally poor schools may now find themselves in some alien environment where they are ostracized, and students who went to more affluent schools are seeing their dollars stretched and services diminish, and racism can just flourish in an environment like that.

I'm not sure if minors can be charged with hate crimes in Missouri though, so unless they're tried as adults, it probably won't be a hate crime.