Black History Month 2013

[Eddie Teach]

You'd think Star Spangled fucktards would want to know about it as much as the Founding White Fathers,

Pretty difficult to pretend to care about them either. 

[merithyn]

Booker T. Washington's story is totally cool.

Indeed.  His and many other black historical figures' stories are cool.  But having a black history month always just seemed a bit silly to me.

It would. Your history isn't ignored in classrooms 95% of the time, so the idea of having a full month dedicated to anyone's history would seem rather silly, I would guess. Nonetheless, to those whose past has been largely ignored, I'm sure it's nice and refreshing to see it given some importance.

[Admiral Yi]

I'm thinking Speesh' history is ignored in classrooms 100% of the time.  So is mine.

[CountDeMoney]

I'm thinking Speesh' history is ignored in classrooms 100% of the time.

No, pretty sure the Klan is covered in Reconstruction.

So is mine.

IIRC, Asian immigration patterns are usually covered in AP 20th Century History.

[Admiral Yi]

he he 

At least you didn't have to drag out the primer gray Camaro (RIP).

The point is the objective of Black History Month, which as Meri pointed out is to make blacks feel better about themselves (in the hope they will commit fewer crimes), is not the same as the objective of history as a whole.  There are historically significant blacks, and there is history for black people.

[garbon]

I'm thinking Speesh' history is ignored in classrooms 100% of the time.  So is mine.

What are you considering to be D's history?

[Admiral Yi]

What are you considering to be D's history?

He was born a poor white child with a gigantic forehead in West Virginia.  He married an Argentinian woman who was able to overlook his deformity for the sake of a Green Card.  The end.

[garbon]

he he 

At least you didn't have to drag out the primer gray Camaro (RIP).

The point is the objective of Black History Month, which as Meri pointed out is to make blacks feel better about themselves (in the hope they will commit fewer crimes), is not the same as the objective of history as a whole.  There are historically significant blacks, and there is history for black people.

Is that really the point of black history month (/and any of the similar months - Jewish History month because of roving Jewish hoodlums?

African-Americans have long been a part of the nation and yet all too often apart from a little bit about slaves around ACW and then the civil rights era, little is covered.  I'm sure there are probably some interesing Korean-American stories but I'm not sure I'd say that such is as deeply interwoven in the history of America.

Incidentally there is an Asian Pacific Heritage Month. Actually wiki says it is now named "Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month."

[garbon]

What are you considering to be D's history?

He was born a poor white child with a gigantic forehead in West Virginia.  He married an Argentinian woman who was able to overlook his deformity for the sake of a Green Card.  The end.

We definitely hear about poor white people in the past as well as West Virginia. I'm unaware if there is a sizable contingent of that combination married to Argentinian women to justify mentioning them.

[Admiral Yi]

African-Americans have long been a part of the nation and yet all too often apart from a little bit about slaves around ACW and then the civil rights era, little is covered.

What of historical significance was not covered by traditional history?

[Neil]

I'm thinking Speesh' history is ignored in classrooms 100% of the time.

No, pretty sure the Klan is covered in Reconstruction.

So is mine.

IIRC, Asian immigration patterns are usually covered in AP 20th Century History.

If that's your threshold, then black people get covered in units about the Civil War and the Civil Rights era.  So they're good and you can stop whining.

[Valmy]

African-Americans have long been a part of the nation and yet all too often apart from a little bit about slaves around ACW and then the civil rights era, little is covered.

What of historical significance was not covered by traditional history?

Well obviously it has all been covered by traditional history.  Not really sure what you are getting at here. 

[Admiral Yi]

African-Americans have long been a part of the nation and yet all too often apart from a little bit about slaves around ACW and then the civil rights era, little is covered.

What of historical significance was not covered by traditional history?

Well obviously it has all been covered by traditional history.  Not really sure what you are getting at here.

Shouldn't this question be directed at grabon?  He's the one claiming little is covered.

[Sheilbh]

African-Americans have long been a part of the nation and yet all too often apart from a little bit about slaves around ACW and then the civil rights era, little is covered.  I'm sure there are probably some interesing Korean-American stories but I'm not sure I'd say that such is as deeply interwoven in the history of America.

Exactly. And the focus of history matters. A traditional history of the civil war is about the white politicians and the hundreds of thousands of predominately white men fighting a war that would, ultimately, end in the abolition of slavery. An African-American perspective on the civil war would focus on, for example, the actual lives under the peculiar institution, the fear of black revolt in the south, the thousands of blacks who fled to the North and those who joined the Union forces. That's worth paying attention to once in a while - especially as a nice counter-point to Lincoln and Django which are out at the minute.

What of historical significance was not covered by traditional history?

Until the sixties, the African-American perspective. They were, like women, often objects in a grander historical narrative rather than actual subjects shaping the past.

[garbon]

African-Americans have long been a part of the nation and yet all too often apart from a little bit about slaves around ACW and then the civil rights era, little is covered.

What of historical significance was not covered by traditional history?

I'd say a lot of the cultural achievements made by African-Americans in the early part of the 20th century. Apart from George Washington Carver, there's typically little to know talk of things African-Americans helped invent or outright invented. Similarly with the Harlem Renaissance. If one didn't know better black people are mainly portrayed as doing little but fighting for their own rights.

edit: I think Sheilbh stated things a lot more elegantly than I did.