Posted on 06/09/2005 1:59:34 PM PDT by americaprd
That's my problem with these courses. The intention is good but they'll probably read more WEB Du Bois than Booker T.
Unfortunately, I will wager that they will only learn some radical's "politically correct" version of evil stupid whites and noble black geniuses.... I'd bet a hefty sum that this course will grossly distort history and feed the pointless victim mentality of today's left.
I think there is already TOO MUCH black history being taught in our government schools all across the country.
Despite the fact that blacks are only about 12%-14% of the population, black historical (some, HYSTERICAL) figures, have pushed, from our textbooks, great generals, battles, and other happenings in our great history, particularly where the civil war (known where I live as the "War of Northern Aggression") is concerned.
Some black history is fine, but not when their representation and importance in our textbooks FAR OUTWEIGHS their actual percentage of membership and contributions in our society.
The worst thing is that this disproportionate amount of black history being put into our kids history books, requires that other great American heroes, who happen to be mostly white, are jerked out of the books, and our kids are not taught about them in schools we pay for.
It's a sad, maddening, and disgusting situation.
"has captivated students who have taken it, teachers say."
I'm sure they were both thrilled.
The title says it will be required.
Sloppy journalism and editing.
Actually and this may surprise those here who know me as being pretty un-PC about race in general.
I think it's fine to offer it as an elective.
I think it would be doubly fine if the course is candid and truthful.
But...given where it is and who's teaching it...that is doubtful.
Which brings me back to Cyborg's post.
That's not just history...
Hell, in Africa, they are doing all of those things TO THIS DAY.
They will probably also be taught that the Egyptians were Black.
So is Jesus and Santa Claus.
Well they won't like Cleopatra being Greek if that's the case....not to mention the library issue.
How is this bittersweet ? He should take a long hard look at that country and ask himself "Should my family have stayed?"
In Philly, it's probably really ALL-black, but they SAY it's "nearly" all black, because there's one brother that looks like Michael Jackson.
Also, I bet this school USED to be something like, "George Washington High School".
Which is why I wrote about kings with no appreciable effect on this country. I studied lots of them in high school. I love history, so I found it quite interesting, but as I said, if you're going to do that, might as well tell me about some other cool people and places. Basically, we didn't study anything but American and European history, the rest of the world was left out.
Back to slavery?
Actually, I could stand some good reading in black history. Problem is, history books these days have difficulty distinguishing themselves from fiction, and human character does not seem to be getting much better. I hope these classes are not used to foment hatred.
Will that course be taught in English or in Ebonics?
Logically speaking, there is of course as much African history as any other place. The problem, I think, is that there is so little written record. The only parts of Africa with a well-developed historical record are North Africa and Egypt (and perhaps Ethiopia), and those are better-suited, thematically, to a course on Near Eastern or ancient history, because they had relatively little contact with sub-Saharan Africa.
The other problem is that "Africa" is, aside from a geographical definition, a meaningless concept. You could teach the history of the Arab emirates on the Zanzibar Coast, or the history of the Zulus, or the history of Ghana, or the history of Leopold's Congo, but none of these had much to do with *each other*. European history works as a subject because at least, thanks to the Greeks and Romans, there was so much significant interaction between groups. (Note, however, that "European history" classes deal much more with Northern Italy or the Rhine Valley than, say, relatively isolated Latvia or Ireland.)
That said, there's plenty of African history, especially in modern times, which belongs in any world history curriculum. Unfortunately, there are also a farrago of charlatans who are in the business of inventing "African" history from thin air. (See, for instance, Black Athena.) That, I suspect, would have the strongest influence in the Philadelphia course.
I think you're absolutely right... I have an interest in Scottish history disproportionate to its world importance because of my ancestry; it makes sense that other people would have an interest in American black or West African history for similar reasons, and that a school with such an ethnic composition would do well to offer such a course. The question, of course, is whether it's actually a history course, or some kind of Palestinian-style "Grievances 101".
This is America -- it is not Africa! Because America has been great, many are here to celebrate freely and fearlessly their identities and their origins. Because Africa is not and has not been great, many fake Africans are HERE trying their best to create heroic legends that have little or no basis in fact. Enough is enough -- A solid reality alert is called for here!
Heh... kind of reminds me of Irish-Americans' version of Ireland.
What about English-Scottish-Swedish-Americans like me? Would I get my own special 1-year course on Northern European history, even though I don't feel bittersweet that I'm not living in England, Scotland, or Sweden?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.