NationStates Jolt Archive

Many western education systems (Particually Britian and to the best of my knowledge, America) have a problem with what is termed "Black history". The problem being that because the vast majority of the history curriculum centres on the histories of western nations and western peoples the Afro-Carrabian and Asian students often lack any figures to identify with and so often become disinterested because they see it not relating to them. To combat this, the British education system (I would imagine there is an American and continental European equivilent) introduced "Black History Month" which is useually September/October time where major black figures in history are examined and praised for what they did. However this has not solved the problem, and here is why I believe why. This initive attempts to solve the specific problem with a specific solution. It emphasises the problem as being different by needing to create a difftrent special month to deal with it. That just further rams home that "Black history" is somehow diffrent and needs special attention. Also this month only uses black figures which have made great contributions to white history, such as Martin Luther King. It ignores "Black History" in its own right, and ignores anchient empires and cultures such as the Ghana kingdom or the Mali Empire. It seems that in order to make something valuable of themselves, Black figures must impact White history and not their own. Two problems need to be solved if this situation needs to be resolved. One is that Black history needs to become an intigrated part of the national curiculum and the other is that African history needs to be taught in its own right. Not just figures that impacted greatly on White histroy and culture but African kingdoms and wars that had nothing to do with White people, but just their own countries. In the same way the hundrud years war is white history unto itself, so the rise of the Mali Empire is Black history unto itslef.

We had to learn about Mali, Ghana, the Zulu and all the rest. None of it was interesting or impressive to anyone, nor would it be to me if I were black, I'm sure. I don't understand how you can call MLK someone who affected "white history" as opposed to the tribal leaders of Ghana... if gaining equality for blacks isn't significant to black history first and foremost, I'm not sure what is..

We had to learn about Mali, Ghana, the Zulu and all the rest. None of it was interesting or impressive to anyone, nor would it be to me if I were black, I'm sure. I don't understand how you can call MLK someone who affected "white history" as opposed to the tribal leaders of Ghana... if gaining equality for blacks isn't significant to black history first and foremost, I'm not sure what is..

Let me ask you this though, in what country was MLK? America. It affected the AMERICAN law system, altering white history. It had a profound affect for Black people and it is a part of black history, but the Zulu and Mali and Ghana are more important because they are part of the Black original culture and homeland. Sondjita is important to black history as Henry the Seventh (no not Eighth, Henry the Seventh was far more clever and intersting) was to white history.

Let me ask you this though, in what country was MLK? America. It affected the AMERICAN law system, altering white history. It had a profound affect for Black people and it is a part of black history, but the Zulu and Mali and Ghana are more important because they are part of the Black original culture and homeland. Sondjita is important to black history as Henry the Seventh (no not Eighth, Henry the Seventh was far more clever and intersting) was to white history.

I have no objection to any history being taught, I love history. However, a lot of this boils down to what interests you. If you are interested in African history than it is important that you study and learn it. But, if you are interested only in European history then you need only study that African history which is related to European history. I don't see any reason to force people to study a history they may not be interested in learning.

Let me ask you this though, in what country was MLK? America. It affected the AMERICAN law system, altering white history. It had a profound affect for Black people and it is a part of black history, but the Zulu and Mali and Ghana are more important because they are part of the Black original culture and homeland. Sondjita is important to black history as Henry the Seventh (no not Eighth, Henry the Seventh was far more clever and intersting) was to white history.

I don't understand why you'd want to sever an ethnic group from a nation's identity simply because the majority or founders or whomever were, in this case, white. Most white people are newer immigrants to the U.S. than the average black person, and there's no reason blacks shouldn't be interested about how their people have come from servitude to some degree of power over the last 200+ years. Most black people I know could give a shit less about what some tribe did in Ghana a thousand years ago, what their pottery was like or how they made drums. Most of them don't know where or when they were brought over from Africa, or from what region. Some 70%+ U.S. blacks have some white ancestry anyway, according to genetic studies.. I don't see how we need to categorize our classes to ease some mythical insecurity minorities supposedly have toward not learning about where their ancestors came from several hundred years ago..

Another example of political correctness only achieving racism. There is of course all the obvious racist things about a “Black History Month” which i wont even bother to point out. Then there's the hidden insult to non-white students... See, all that American and European history does apply to them. They are not living in Africa or Asia. By creating something like this they are implying that they devalue their own society's history simply because most of the figureheads are white. Simply put, the creation of Black History Month implies that black students are racists. The fact that the NAACP constantly encourages young blacks to be racist is another matter altogether.

EDIT: the Pope up there is very nearly stating what i'm trying to get at.