Thanks for sharing Hans. My father born in 1943 never went to school with blacks. But he always addressed blacks and whites with the same respect in front of me. We took black players to baseball practice and would frequently take them home too. He didn’t use the N word either. Boy did I get a culture shock at middle school though. Every black kid used the N word at my school.
I feel like I'm over-sharing, but I think this is an important discussion and maybe we all learn something by sharing stories. My paternal grandfather used the N word but never at anyone. I look back and would say he was racist, but I think he was genuinely conflicted given how he was probably raised in Mississippi. Later in life, his closest friend was the Black man across the street. I heard him use the word in front of his neighbor one day and wanted to crawl into a hole. Even with some of that evolution, when I was dating a Black girl in law school, my mom was scared about my grandparents might react, and I told her I didn't care. Interestingly enough, I later told that girl after we had broken up that my grandparents never knew. She then conceded that she never told her parents, lol.
So you think people are saying that we shouldn’t teach every single bad thing that happened because of feelings? That’s not at all what is being said… and I think you know that..
Read the thread. Stuff about how we shouldn't be focused on the bad stuff and should just talk about the good white guy that shook Jackie Robinson's hand not the multitude who called him every name in the book because doing so makes them feel more proud and happier.
It’s fascinating stuff for me. It goes both ways I guess… I mean family culture is pretty damned strong. And it shows how complicated this stuff can be. Thank you very much for disclosing.
Except it is. Here is the exact quote: That suggests not teaching this sort of thing in favor of teaching only the stories that he believes are "promoting unity." Which are about his feelings. Ignore the bodies because somebody shook Jackie Robinson's hand. If you want further evidence, look up the "patriotic history" movement.
Well, then I don’t need to worry too much. Society will sort it out. Hopefully they do not choose to ignore these things entirely and instead rely upon historians, educators, and SMEs about what to teach. Gotta consider there will be 100 years more history to teach by then.
And it's not just this thread. It's officially law, with DeSantis's Stop the Wrongs to Our Kids and Employees Act that shields people from from feeling 'discomfort'.
Fair point. Although slavery in US was violent and evil, ocoee is 20th century and might hit closer to home.
OK, let me try again. I said this in a different thread, but I will say it again here. I don't believe in white-washing history. I also don't believe in degrading the country I love. We teach these events because you can say: 1)Here's how far we've come 2)We still have some work to do Teaching this event doesn't have to coincide with "this country is terrible" or whatever. It is simply history. Tilly, as Christians, we can both acknowledge that the Crusades or the Spanish Inquisition happened and acknowledge they were terrible. That isn't a knock on Christians. It's the same thing. Edit: You discuss these things as they come up in history. I wouldn't interject the Crusades into modern US history. I also wouldn't interject these types of events into early US history. I would simply bring them up as they come up. I don't think there is a statute of limitations on teaching history.
Part of the issue is as time passes, parts of history in school gets condensed and specific events become less and less a part of it. From the beginnings of civilization through the Roman empire, dark ages, renaissance, industrial revolution etc. the only thing that gets talked about are the highlights and general events. Specific events should be more focused on a class that only deals with a small portion of time or aspect of civilization. I would have no problem with a high school class that focused solely on Jim Crow of the south as an elective. If enough kids want to take it then fine. If not, then it won't be a class. Same at the University level. If there isn't enough interest then it won't be there.
So you would cut history and government classes at the high school level? Because that's were it belongs and that's where it's taught.
No, we should keep history and government classes (we used to call it civics). I'm just saying that if there is a curriculum that really wants to delve into the specific events, cultural impacts of a very narrow subject, like Jim Crow, then offer it as an elective and kids can choose it if they want. For example, when my oldest got into high school, there was an elective class that studied the Vietnam War. When I was in school, our history classes barely got through WW2. Have another history class that deals with women's rights and suffrage. All good, just as an elective. There isn't enough time to do a general US or world history to delve into specific events.
Easy thing for a white man to say. Racial discrimination still exists today. People are generally more coy about it now, but it is definitely still occurring. The descendants of those whose ancestors were harmed by Jim Crow and slavery still feel the effects today. And people who were alive and discriminated against during Jim Crow are still living today. We can talk about "turn[ing] the corner" once we get serious about addressing these problems, instead of seeking to sweep them under the rug.
I think our last President was elected on a thinly veiled appeal to return to those times and reverse "progress."
