just to add to my previous post, I understand why history is taught the way it is in school because our country is based on western european values, therefore we learn that history that has shaped this country. that only makes sense and I'm not saying that is a bad thing. I'm sure kids in China learn Chinese history. just saying that ther is a lot more to the world.
Yup there is, and that's what college is for if you want to learn more about history of other nations/civilizations.
South Carolina has a very interesting history with regards to its slave population. One of the most fascinating episodes, in my opinion, was the Denmark Vesey conspiracy - where a freedman tried to organize a slave rebellion in Charleston. (Vesey is an interesting guy - he basically bought his freedom by winning the lottery, and was highly critical of any black man who showed deference to a white man - worth reading about). It's not entirely clear of the numbers, but the general consensus among historians is, that if it wasn't for a few turncoat slaves, the rebellion would have been the largest slave rebellion in history. He organized separate groups to attack specific targets, and organized them according to the original African tribe they belonged to! The plot was more elaborate and better planned than many of the battles of the Revoultionary War/1812/etc., could have hoped to be. South Carolina was really a powder keg, for multiple reasons, and the fact that they were the first state to secede from the Union is actually a result of 30 or 40 years of earlier issues....the Nullification Crisis, Vesey Conspiracy, etc.,. An excellent book on the subject is called "Prelude to Civil War : The Nullification Controversy in South Carolina, 1816-1836" by William W. Freehling. Anyone who really wants a great book on the subject of black history should check out Louis Harlan's biography of Booker T. Washington. Harlan found out things about Washington that no one knew, went through reams of his personal papers, and ended up winning the Pulitzer and the Bancroft awards. The second volume may be more interesting - it goes into detail on Washington's war with DuBois and other northern blacks, and explains how Washington often secretly funded test cases that seemed to be the opposite of the views he espoused (no one know about this secret funding until Harlan discovered it during his research). That was a great show - it made me want to get that admixture DNA testing done on myself.
Let's come up with a system where we do learn about one another on a designated basis. I celebrate black history month, but let's lead with equality and stop the stigmatism of negativity on treating people "special". I think focusing on achievements by whites is a good thing, but equally as important as focusing on achievements by hispanics, blacks, asians, Native-American Indians as well. Let's have a crossover month as well and I mean it. Children can often feel out of place when their mother is hispanic, and the father is black for instance. Other examples are abound. My wife is hispanic, and I am half-white, half hispanic in heritage. My children enjoy time with their cousins who are half-hispanic, half-black. Even though my kids are more hispanic than white, they look white (especially the youngest). The cousins look more black, except the youngest who seems more hispanic...confusing, I know. The point is they care and love each other, and I firmly believe spending time to focus on the positive aspects of the other is only a good thing. Nothing "silly" about that.
I don't have a problem with focussing on different groups for different units and history classes. One of the reason why we have black history month etc. Is that their contributions were being ignored. That is true of a lot of groups, because of the Eurocentric approach to history in our education system. So almost every month is white history month. I think our students should all about western European culture, it's contributions and influences. But as PGabriel said, there is a lot more out there. I think we owe it to students to expose them to all as much of it as possible. The example of something being called the dark ages, when it was in fact only dark for Europeans is a great example. It wasn't the dark ages in the Orient, or the empire of the moores. When I first start hearing about these things nobody had ever taught me in school I felt ripped off. I felt like I was denied something that could have been taught to me. I don't care if we label something black history month or hispanic history month, or not. The important thing isn't the label, it is that we teach the knowledge. I think we are in agreement on that, but I might be wrong.
I agree with everything you just said except for one thing and it may be a difference of where we were schooled. The Eurocentric approach has pretty much been in decline (at least through my years in schooling). In fact, much of what I learned was how the Europeans were responsible for every world conflict ever. It's debatable if its true. I think that some schools have tried to overcompensate for the previous approach you mentioned. I will say that it depends entirely on the teachers. Regardless of what they're told to do teachers teach the way they want. The best teacher I had in high school was a World History teacher. I learned more in that one year about history than I had learned for all years up to that point. He was one of the teachers that inspires you to learn outside the classroom. He pulled no punches in class and didn't sugar coat anything for either side which is something I wish all teachers would do.
Most college history/area studies courses can be summed up as follows: It's all America/Europe's fault.
