Well that would be part of it. If they are going to teach this and make it required, it should start from ancient to modern after the classical model. Not all of black history is hacking eachother. There are lots of good things to learn. About the hacking to pieces, focusing on Rwanda and modern day slavery would be very interesting.
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.