Black History Month 2013

[Sheilbh]

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.

[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.  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.

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.

[Valmy]

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.

[Valmy]

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.

[The Brain]

African American history is pretty interesting with lots of colorful and important people and high drama.   

[Admiral Yi]

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?

[Sheilbh]

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.

[Valmy]

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.

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.

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.

[Sheilbh]

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.

[Sheilbh]

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'.

[Admiral Yi]

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.

[Sheilbh]

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

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.

[Admiral Yi]

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

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.

Not inconsistent.  Black History Month is intended to focus the national attention, which is finite.

[The Brain]

Mulattoes and mestizos tend to be forgotten in these discussions.

[Sheilbh]

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.