http://www.library.umass.edu/spcoll/dubois/?page_id=861
QuoteW.E.B. Du Bois
Du Bois was born in the small New England village of Great Barrington, Massachusetts, three years after the end of the Civil War. Unlike most black Americans, his family had not just emerged from slavery. His great-grandfather had fought in the American Revolution, and the Burghardts had been an accepted part of the community for generations. Yet from his earliest years Du Bois was aware of differences that set him apart from his Yankee neighbors. In addition to the austere hymns of his village Congregational Church, Du Bois learned the songs of a much more ancient tradition from his grandmother. Passed from generation to generation, their original meanings long forgotten, the songs of Africa were sung around the fire in Du Bois' boyhood home. Thus, from the beginning, Du Bois was aware of an earlier tradition that set him apart from his New England community – a distant past shrouded in mystery, in sharp contrast to the detailed chronicle of Western Civilization that he learned at school.Du Bois' father left home soon after Du Bois was born. The youngster was raised largely by his mother, who imparted to her child the sense of a special destiny. She encouraged his studies and his adherence to the Victorian virtues and pieties characteristic of rural New England in the 19th century. Du Bois in turn gravely accepted a sense of duty toward his mother that transcended all other loyalties.
Du Bois excelled at school and outshone his white contemporaries. While in high school he worked as a correspondent for New York newspapers and became something of a prodigy in the eyes of the community. As he reached adolescence he began to become aware of the subtle social boundaries which he was expected to observe. This made him all the more determined to force the community to recognize his academic achievements.
Du Bois was clearly a young man of promise. The influential members of his community recognized this and quietly decided his future. Great Barrington, like most of New England, still glowed with the embers of the abolitionist fires that had only recently been dampened with the ending of the Reconstruction in the South. Together with the missionary inclinations of the Congregationalist Church, these sensibilities manifested themselves in the community's attitude towards Du Bois, who presented them with an opportunity to perform an act of Christian duty toward a promising example of what they considered to be the less fortunate races of the world.
Du Bois had always wanted to go to Harvard and he was initially disappointed when he learned that it had been arranged that he attend Fisk University in Nashville. But the experience changed his life. It helped to clarify his identity and pointed him in the direction of his life's work. When Du Bois left for Fisk in the fall of 1885, it was the last time he would call Great Barrington his home. His mother had died during that summer and Du Bois entered a world that he would claim for his own. Du Bois arrived in Nashville a serious, contemplative, self-conscious young man with habits and attitudes formed by a boyhood in Victorian New England. At Fisk he encountered sons and daughters of former slaves who had borne the mark of oppression but had nourished a rich cultural and spiritual tradition that Du Bois recognized as his own. Du Bois also encountered the White South. The achievements of Reconstruction were being destroyed by the white politicians and businessmen who had gained political control. Blacks were being terrorized at the polls and were being driven back into the economic status that differed from institutional slavery in little but name. Du Bois saw the suffering and the dignity of rural blacks when he taught school during the summers in the East Tennessee countryside, and he resolved that in some way his life would be dedicated to a struggle against racial and economic oppression. He was determined to continue his education and his perseverance was rewarded when he was offered a scholarship to study at Harvard University.
Du Bois' life was a struggle of warring ideas and ideals. He entered Harvard during its golden age and studied with William James and Albert Bushnell Hart. It was a progressive era and Du Bois was smitten with the ideal of science – an objective truth that could dispel once and for all the irrational prejudices and ignorance that stood in the way of a just social order. He brought back the German scientific ideal from the University of Berlin and was one of the first to initiate scientific sociological study in the United States. For years he labored at Atlanta University and created landmarks in the scientific study of race relations. Yet a shadow fell over his work as he saw the nation retreating into barbarism. Repressive segregation laws, lynching, and terror were on the increase despite the march of science. Du Bois' faith in the detached role of the scientist was shaken, and with the Atlanta Riot of 1906 Du Bois with his "Litany at Atlanta" passionately sounded a challenge to those forces of repression and destruction. At a time when Booker T. Washington counseled acceptance of the social order, Du Bois sounded a call to arms and with the founding of the Niagara Movement and later the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People entered a new phase of his life. He became an impassioned champion of direct assault on the legal, political, and economic system that thrived on the exploitation of the poor and the powerless. As he began to point out the connections between the plight of Afro- Americans and those who suffered under colonial rule in other areas of the world, his struggle assumed international proportions. The Pan-African Movement that flowered in the years after World War I was the beginning of the creation of a third world consciousness.
Du Bois' style of leadership was intensely personal. He sought no mass following like Marcus Garvey, and the fierceness and unyielding determination with which he fought for his ideals alienated many who counseled less direct means of achieving limited political goals.
In the years after World War II the desperate struggles that Du Bois had waged came together in a vision that was to challenge many of the assumptions of his contemporaries. He had fought for many progressive causes but saw them consumed by a cold war mentality that silenced rational debate.
As he became more of an international figure, Du Bois was accepted less and less by his contemporaries at home. Yet when he left America to become a citizen of Ghana in 1961, he did not do so as a rejection of his countrymen. Returning to the land of his forefathers marked a resolution of many conflicts with which Du Bois had struggled all his life.
Du Bois' mature vision was a reconciliation of the "sense of double consciousness"- the "two warring ideals" of being both black and an American – that he had written about fifty years earlier. He came to accept struggle and conflict as essential elements of life, but he continued to believe in the inevitable progress of the human race – that out of individual struggles against a divided self and political struggles of the oppressed against their oppressors, a broader and fuller human life would emerge that would benefit all of mankind.
After a lifetime of struggle, Du Bois' last statement to the world was one of hope and confidence in the ability of human beings to shape their own destinies. "One thing alone I charge you," he wrote:
QuoteAs you live, believe in Life! Always human beings will live and progress to greater, broader and fuller life. The only possible death is to lose belief in this truth simply because the Great End comes slowly, because time is long.
Love Du Bois. I was always curious about his strange rivalry with Booker T Washington. I know Washington disagreed loudly with Du Bois publicly but privately donated lots of money to Du Bois' causes. Very odd.
I proposed Whitey McWhiteson in my office give a speech on black history month after he wanted us to have a cake for Lincoln's b-day next week.
Why is there no White History Month? :mad:
Quote from: sbr on February 08, 2013, 09:40:35 AM
Why is there no White History Month? :mad:
We have 12 of them. I think they have something like this in some other country though 'Imperialist dog history month' or something in China maybe.
What are you talking about, we ignore history 12 months a year.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 08, 2013, 09:52:11 AM
What are you talking about, we ignore history 12 months a year.
And this is the month we ignore black history. But we ignore white history all 12 months.
Quote from: Valmy on February 08, 2013, 09:52:59 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 08, 2013, 09:52:11 AM
What are you talking about, we ignore history 12 months a year.
And this is the month we ignore black history. But we ignore white history all 12 months.
black history month: short on days; long on guilt.
White whine had a great collection of people complaining about no white history month. One even awkwardly complained that there was no native american or jewish history months...
http://whitewhine.com/post/42283594602/why-isnt-there-a-white-history-month
Meh they already have crap like 'Scottish American Heritage day' and other garbage everybody ignores like we do Black History month. I bet if you added up all those days you would at least get a few weeks :P
Quote from: sbr on February 08, 2013, 09:40:35 AM
Why is there no White History Month? :mad:
Every month is white history month. The history of civilization is the history of whites. Is it really such a struggle for one month of the year to pretend to care about the lives of men like Dubois, Booker T Washington and Martin Luther King?
Quote from: sbr on February 08, 2013, 09:40:35 AM
Why is there no White History Month? :mad:
They should have Spic History Month, though, considering that they're close to (or already have?) overtaken Blacks as largest ethnic minority.
Or is that covered by 5 May?
Neil, it's a struggle to pretend to care for an hour, much less a month.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 08, 2013, 11:00:28 AM
Neil, it's a struggle to pretend to care for an hour, much less a month.
Do you guys have roving bands of history enforcers down there? I would think that Berkut would have mentioned that during his liberty harangues.
Really, what's required of you is pretty slim. All you have to do is not shout 'nigger' at the top of your lungs when someone mentions a historical black guy. If you can manage that, you've done your part. It's more a thing for black folks than white ones.
:lol:
Quote from: Syt on February 08, 2013, 10:58:55 AM
Quote from: sbr on February 08, 2013, 09:40:35 AM
Why is there no White History Month? :mad:
They should have Spic History Month, though, considering that they're close to (or already have?) overtaken Blacks as largest ethnic minority.
Or is that covered by 5 May?
:rolleyes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Hispanic_Heritage_Month
Oddly though they just get a 30 day window and not an actual month.
Quote from: Neil on February 08, 2013, 11:06:25 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 08, 2013, 11:00:28 AM
Neil, it's a struggle to pretend to care for an hour, much less a month.
Do you guys have roving bands of history enforcers down there? I would think that Berkut would have mentioned that during his liberty harangues.
Really, what's required of you is pretty slim. All you have to do is not shout 'nigger' at the top of your lungs when someone mentions a historical black guy. If you can manage that, you've done your part. It's more a thing for black folks than white ones.
Indeed.
Agree w/ Neil's post.
The only real burden I've experienced from Black History Month is the little snippets on public television.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 08, 2013, 11:19:52 AM
Agree w/ Neil's post.
The only real burden I've experienced from Black History Month is the little snippets on public television.
And really I enjoy it. African American history is pretty interesting with lots of colorful and important people and high drama. Things like Asian American history are just things like 'blah blah was the first Asian American Congressman' yawnsville.
Quote from: Valmy on February 08, 2013, 11:22:30 AM
And really I enjoy it. African American history is pretty interesting with lots of colorful and important people and high drama.
It's a suckfest. :P
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 08, 2013, 11:25:41 AM
It's a suckfest. :P
Are you kidding? Stephen Douglas is so cool it really should just be his month :P
Quote from: Valmy on February 08, 2013, 11:26:22 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 08, 2013, 11:25:41 AM
It's a suckfest. :P
Are you kidding? Stephen Douglas is so cool it really should just be his month :P
Weren't you just going on about how every month was white history month and now you're trying to steal this one. Tsk, tsk.
Quote from: Valmy on February 08, 2013, 11:26:22 AM
Are you kidding? Stephen Douglas is so cool it really should just be his month :P
A little. There are some cool stories out there. Booker T. Washington's story is totally cool.
But I've definitely heard the Crispus Attucks story WAY to many times.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 08, 2013, 11:30:21 AM
Weren't you just going on about how every month was white history month and now you're trying to steal this one. Tsk, tsk.
Hey! I contributed to the Richard III thread!
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 08, 2013, 11:31:53 AM
Quote from: Valmy on February 08, 2013, 11:26:22 AM
Are you kidding? Stephen Douglas is so cool it really should just be his month :P
A little. There are some cool stories out there. Booker T. Washington's story is totally cool.
But I've definitely heard the Crispus Attucks story WAY to many times.
I figured you would like Booker T, I think his ideas were spot on even if he did not have the entire solution and he was autocratic and controlling. He gets attacked by black leaders today alot though for what I think are unfair reasons. 'Accommodationist'....meh, ridiculous.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 08, 2013, 11:31:53 AM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on February 08, 2013, 11:22:30 AMAfrican American history is pretty interesting with lots of colorful [...] people
Indeed it is.
Quote from: Syt on February 08, 2013, 12:15:03 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 08, 2013, 11:22:30 AMAfrican American history is pretty interesting with lots of colorful [...] people
Indeed it is.
:rolleyes:
Quote from: Neil on February 08, 2013, 11:06:25 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 08, 2013, 11:00:28 AM
Neil, it's a struggle to pretend to care for an hour, much less a month.
Do you guys have roving bands of history enforcers down there? I would think that Berkut would have mentioned that during his liberty harangues.
Really, what's required of you is pretty slim. All you have to do is not shout 'nigger' at the top of your lungs when someone mentions a historical black guy. If you can manage that, you've done your part. It's more a thing for black folks than white ones.
Well, we just can't have that, now can we? That would be too much to ask.
It is unfortunate that so many Americans would rather ignore Black History Month, considering the sheer wealth of history, art and literature available.
You'd think Star Spangled fucktards would want to know about it as much as the Founding White Fathers, as it's such an integral part of our national history.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 08, 2013, 01:19:38 PM
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. :P
Quote from: derspiess on February 08, 2013, 11:41:14 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 08, 2013, 11:31:53 AM
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.
I'm thinking Speesh' history is ignored in classrooms 100% of the time. So is mine.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 08, 2013, 01:42:19 PM
I'm thinking Speesh' history is ignored in classrooms 100% of the time.
No, pretty sure the Klan is covered in Reconstruction.
QuoteSo is mine.
IIRC, Asian immigration patterns are usually covered in AP 20th Century History.
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 08, 2013, 01:42:19 PM
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?
Quote from: garbon on February 08, 2013, 01:58:05 PM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 08, 2013, 01:57:51 PM
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."
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 08, 2013, 02:00:12 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 08, 2013, 01:58:05 PM
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.
Quote from: garbon on February 08, 2013, 02:01:23 PM
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?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 08, 2013, 01:47:57 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 08, 2013, 01:42:19 PM
I'm thinking Speesh' history is ignored in classrooms 100% of the time.
No, pretty sure the Klan is covered in Reconstruction.
QuoteSo 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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 08, 2013, 02:09:33 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 08, 2013, 02:01:23 PM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on February 08, 2013, 02:15:04 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 08, 2013, 02:09:33 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 08, 2013, 02:01:23 PM
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.
Quote from: garbon on February 08, 2013, 02:01:23 PM
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.
QuoteWhat 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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 08, 2013, 02:09:33 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 08, 2013, 02:01:23 PM
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. :)
Quote from: Valmy on February 08, 2013, 02:15:04 PM
Well obviously it has all been covered by traditional history. Not really sure what you are getting at here.
Bollocks has it. As with all sorts of history - of minorities, of women, of the poor - traditional history wasn't ignored. Whether in its liberal, whiggish perspective of grand men grappling with freedom or a Marxist, materialist analysis the stories, perspectives and histories of many groups weren't seen as that important.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 08, 2013, 02:18:04 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 08, 2013, 02:01:23 PM
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.
QuoteWhat 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.
So true. Reminds me of that book about Virginia Woolf and her servants. Finished that recently and was very interesting thinking about how all those tales are swept under the rug.
Quote from: merithyn on February 08, 2013, 01:36:48 PM
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.
I am not sure how fair that is. Famous black people get highlighted all the time in classrooms, and I distinctly remember references to the Harlem renaissance and the migration north during industrialization and ghettos and when the Portuguese slave ship brought the first black slave to the continental US. Granted they do not teach it well, and few students retain any of it, but it was certainly not ignored 95% of the time. It certainly could be better but so could most history instruction.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 08, 2013, 02:19:51 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 08, 2013, 02:15:04 PM
Well obviously it has all been covered by traditional history. Not really sure what you are getting at here.
Bollocks has it. As with all sorts of history - of minorities, of women, of the poor - traditional history wasn't ignored. Whether in its liberal, whiggish perspective of grand men grappling with freedom or a Marxist, materialist analysis the stories, perspectives and histories of many groups weren't seen as that important.
Are we talking ancient historiography here? I am talking about history right now. There is tons and tons of history work in this area.
Quote from: Valmy on February 08, 2013, 11:22:30 AM
African American history is pretty interesting with lots of colorful and important people and high drama.
:rolleyes:
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 08, 2013, 02:19:51 PM
Bollocks has it. As with all sorts of history - of minorities, of women, of the poor - traditional history wasn't ignored. Whether in its liberal, whiggish perspective of grand men grappling with freedom or a Marxist, materialist analysis the stories, perspectives and histories of many groups weren't seen as that important.
And perspectives and histories of every group is by definition important?
Quote from: Valmy on February 08, 2013, 02:24:29 PM
Are we talking ancient historiography here? I am talking about history right now. There is tons and tons of history work in this area.
No, I mean traditional narrative history (and Marxist histories). There's been a lot of progress in the last 40-50 years in things like social history, micro-history and in using the sources we have for the perspective of historically 'silent' groups. But I still think we're a long way from seeing these stories as being of historical actors rather than just acted upon.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 08, 2013, 02:18:04 PM
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.
These things are all covered by any mainstream Civil War thing you will pick up, unless they are dealing with strictly military affairs or something. Ken Burns documentary from 20+ years ago covered it, granted with some outdated info.
QuoteUntil the sixties, the African-American perspective. They were, like women, often objects in a grander historical narrative rather than actual subjects shaping the past.
Ok when I think of traditional history I am thinking of the history establishment, the narrative you will get if you watch the History TV shows, or get a popular history book. Not what was being said 50 years ago or more.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 08, 2013, 02:26:32 PM
And perspectives and histories of every group is by definition important?
Do you read history because it's important or because it's interesting?
But yeah I think every perspective and history is important because it expands our knowledge and understanding of the past. Your point seems to me a bit like 'what's the point of pure science?' I also think it's important for that group in question and for the greater group, such as a nation, that it's part of.
Quote from: Valmy on February 08, 2013, 02:30:16 PM
These things are all covered by any mainstream Civil War thing you will pick up, unless they are dealing with strictly military affairs or something. Ken Burns documentary from 20+ years ago covered it, granted with some outdated info. How traditional are we talking about here?
They're now covered - because of the change in historiography in the 60s and 70s. It's developed subsequently. But the truth is that I think they're seen as relatively peripheral to the grander narrative - which is why occasionally focusing on that perspective at the expense of the 'story of the civil war' is valuable.
As traditional as 'Battle Cry of Freedom'.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 08, 2013, 02:31:25 PM
Do you read history because it's important or because it's interesting?
But yeah I think every perspective and history is important because it expands our knowledge and understanding of the past. Your point seems to me a bit like 'what's the point of pure science?' I also think it's important for that group in question and for the greater group, such as a nation, that it's part of.
Fair enough. But the real context of this discussion is how one goes about editing down the essentially infinite universe of history to fit an arena with finite time and space dimensions, such as a classroom or a textbook.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 08, 2013, 02:36:11 PM
Fair enough. But the real context of this discussion is how one goes about editing down the essentially infinite universe of history to fit an arena with finite time and space dimensions, such as a classroom or a textbook.
Is it? I thought your point was this :P
QuoteThe 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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 08, 2013, 02:38:34 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 08, 2013, 02:36:11 PM
Fair enough. But the real context of this discussion is how one goes about editing down the essentially infinite universe of history to fit an arena with finite time and space dimensions, such as a classroom or a textbook.
Is it? I thought your point was this :P
QuoteThe 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.
Not inconsistent. Black History Month is intended to focus the national attention, which is finite.
Mulattoes and mestizos tend to be forgotten in these discussions.
Okay, it should represent a pretty big chunk.
I mean African-Americans represent a significant portion of the US population. The country tore itself apart over slavery. The Great Migration in the late 19th century, Jim Crow and the emergence of African-American culture into the mainstream all seem relatively significant. Arguably the most significant political issue of the 20th century was civil rights. Not to mention that the experience of the crack epidemic, inner-city ghettoisation, crime and institutionalised poverty seems to be different than the mainstream American narrative of the late twentieth century.
Focusing the national attention shouldn't be necessary, but history's still not Whitman-esque enough, in my view, to not need it.
Edit: It should be said I think all of this goes for the UK too, about many groups.
Quote from: The Brain on February 08, 2013, 02:44:58 PM
Mulattoes and mestizos tend to be forgotten in these discussions.
We're a large part of visible black society today - so no worries. :)
Fucking halfbreeds <_<
Quote from: garbon on February 08, 2013, 02:48:42 PM
Quote from: The Brain on February 08, 2013, 02:44:58 PM
Mulattoes and mestizos tend to be forgotten in these discussions.
We're a large part of visible black society today - so no worries. :)
Good. :)
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 08, 2013, 02:33:56 PM
They're now covered - because of the change in historiography in the 60s and 70s. It's developed subsequently. But the truth is that I think they're seen as relatively peripheral to the grander narrative - which is why occasionally focusing on that perspective at the expense of the 'story of the civil war' is valuable.
As traditional as 'Battle Cry of Freedom'
Well of course with the Civil War in particular the reason these reasons were not brought up back in the 60s were the same reasons the war was fought in the first place. The Lost Cause ideology was still very strong.
Now I don't know. It would have to be on hell of a Lettowist telling of the story for black Americans not to be central to the narrative.
Quote from: garbon on February 08, 2013, 02:48:42 PM
Quote from: The Brain on February 08, 2013, 02:44:58 PM
Mulattoes and mestizos tend to be forgotten in these discussions.
We're a large part of visible black society today - so no worries. :)
Well yeah we elected one President.
Quote from: katmai on February 08, 2013, 02:49:31 PM
Fucking halfbreeds <_<
Don't fight the future - embrace it. :)
Quote from: katmai on February 08, 2013, 02:49:31 PM
Fucking halfbreeds <_<
Funny coming from a guy who mein volk would view as a halfbreed himself. :)
Wit. It's wit.
Quote from: Caliga on February 08, 2013, 03:05:20 PM
Funny coming from a guy who mein volk would view as a halfbreed himself. :)
Irony. :bleeding:
Black history is great and all, but does it really take a whole month to talk about the invention of peanut butter?
Quote from: Kleves on February 08, 2013, 05:42:41 PM
Black history is great and all, but does it really take a whole month to talk about the invention of peanut butter?
:lol:
George Washington Carver does indeed sound like a cool guy though.
Quote from: Barrister on February 08, 2013, 05:49:44 PM
Quote from: Kleves on February 08, 2013, 05:42:41 PM
Black history is great and all, but does it really take a whole month to talk about the invention of peanut butter?
:lol:
George Washington Carver does indeed sound like a cool guy though.
He is one of our most illustrious nerds :wub:
Not bad. There were 3 posts in 72 hours before my White History Month comment, then almost 70 in the next 8 hours. :smoke:
Quote from: sbr on February 08, 2013, 06:22:16 PM
Not bad. There were 3 posts in 72 hours before my White History Month comment, then almost 70 in the next 8 hours. :smoke:
Of course, I was the one who bumped the thread. ;)
Quote from: Valmy on February 08, 2013, 02:50:10 PM
Well of course with the Civil War in particular the reason these reasons were not brought up back in the 60s were the same reasons the war was fought in the first place. The Lost Cause ideology was still very strong.
Now I don't know. It would have to be on hell of a Lettowist telling of the story for black Americans not to be central to the narrative.
I'm not so sure about that. From what I understand, the recent Lincoln movie completely ignored the positive impact blacks had in convincing Lincoln and Congress in passing the anti-slavery laws. Frederick Douglas barely came up, though he was an incredibly important voice in the process.