The target is on Target again ...

If that’s the case then there is no such thing as black history, or blacks were the winners. This is getting confusing….

 

Great, but you cant really learn or teach just "history" its broken down into smaller fields of inquiry. It might surprise you to learn that white history/whiteness studies is actually a field. Of course you'd probably still get mad at that because it examines things like the construction of white identity and notions of privilege.

Whiteness studies - Wikipedia

 

They are personal massagers. Get it right.

 

Interesting. I didn’t know about any classes in white history. Construction of white identity and privilege does not sound like history to me. That sound like psychotic bitching. But I’m sure black history teaches about the centuries of black violence in Africa, the black genocides, the fact that black people have owned more black slaves than their counterparts in America. I’m sure the syllabus contains the history of white slaves and their treatment by their black masters. Probably a section of reparations for those white folks too. I mean…it’s history, right?

 

Do you think there's a difference between a White historian/politician/person telling of the history and experience of Black people, and a Black person doing the same?

 

You obviously dont understand what black history is, because it focuses on the USA and colonial America, but you could take African history if you want to learn about that stuff, that's a field to! But I have to caution you, none of these courses cater to your niche racial grievances. Or anyone's for that matter.

 

I always make an effort to see both sides, but that doesn't mean I will think both sides have equally compelling points. I know that many people have religious and/or moral objections to LGBT acceptance, so any support for that might be a negative thing to them. I just don't share that view. I also don't see Pride Month as being about grievance politics and don't think it takes away anything from heterosexuals.

 

You wouldn’t see it any other way.

 

I don’t think the color of one’s skin makes any difference on whether somebody is a good historian or not. I understand what you’re trying to imply, but frankly, it’s insulting. Do you think just because a person has black skin that somehow they have better knowledge of what happened in 1850 than somebody with white skin? Is that what you’re really saying?

 

How can you claim you are teaching black history of America if you don’t tell the students the truth? That’s not history, that’s propaganda.

 

Celebrating heritage is fine with me. Using the celebration to denigrate an entire race for perceived wrongs from 200 years ago is just stupid, and it’s boring.

 

First of all, you have no idea what is being taught, you are just airing your grievances here. Second, teaching about slavery in America in the 19th century doesnt require that you have an asterisk that Africans, Romans or whoever practiced slavery unless you view history as a set of grievances against white Americans that must be addressed with counterpoints like its some kind of legal argument, which I assume is how you think history should be taught, which I guess make sense to a lawyer. As you said to me earlier, this aint a court room and neither is a classroom. So I go back to my first point, you have no idea what is being taught.

 

I'm saying that differences among people create differences in perception. Everyone sees through the lens differently.

And yes, I absolutely think a Black narrative and a White one from 1850 would differ. I think White historians frequently omitted important aspects of the Black experience, through ignorance, disinterest, or personal bias.

 

You must be a hoot when you are drunk. I post I have never heard about any school teaching white history. You respond that there is actually white history classes that teach about white identity and white privilege. I respond that those two topics are not history. You then stunningly claim I don’t know what they teach. (Master of the obvious) Do you? Or did you just lie to all of when you told us all what is taught. That doesn’t even qualify as a circular argument…..you are debating yourself, and you are a master at it. And I’m not talking about the Romans. I’m talking about the African slaves brought to America. The overwhelming majority of African slaves were captured and enslaved by black Africans, sold by black Africans, and often purchased by black Africans. To suggest slavery was about race is akin to saying Martin Luther King,Jr is not a PhD because he plagiarized his thesis. I think we can all agree they are both more complicated than that.

 

LOL. You got me on this one. Can you identify any of the current black historians who have personal experience with 1850 slavery? I would like to meet them because I’m sure at their current age they are awesome. If not, can you give some of us an example of historical discrepancies between Black historians and white historians. Give some citations because I will actually read them. I have a minor in history from UF so I feel compelled to use my degree. Thx.

 

How did you learn all that? Just born widdit?

 

Books.

 

BANNED! Too hurtful.

 

And CHICAGO TOO!