Parents: White Teacher Should Not Teach Black History

First, they do not have comparable incomes and I showed you this. While black and white women are somewhat comparable (which might be due to there being three times more black single working moms than white single working moms) there was a huge gap between white and black men. Secondly, I recall the thread well and I showed you that the rates of both white and black 2 parent families have been decreasing at similar rates for as long as those stats have been kept and that in recent years the rate of decline in 2 parent white families has actually outpaced the decline in 2 parent black families. The fact that black 2 parent families in the early 1900's were three times less that of whites is absolutely attributable to race and slavery in this country. It defies logic to say that the low number of black 2 parent families today is not due to racism. I also showed you the vast discrepancies in wealth between white and black households along with how the salary gap has remained constant for the last 35 years despite the civil rights movement. This was also the thread where you claimed that slaves and their descendants did not have their culture stripped from them and that culture has no bearing on a person's success or failure in life. I definitely remember that thread. If I could dig it up I would.

 

krosfyah,

First of all, there have been some african-americans that have agreed that it is no big deal...are you suggesting that they are being insensitive. Second, this is a high school. Since when have the nuances of anything been taught in high school? High school history is comprised of "x happened in year y because conditions z existed." Third, I am pretty sure that anyone who wants to teach african american history would be interested in it and have something emotionally invested, meaning that they could do it justice. Fourth, again, this is not about teaching "the black experience" in the US, it is about teaching the history and accomplishments of a group of particular Americans. Fifth, your logic could be considered the ever-dreaded slippery slope...ie - "black people cannot teach general american history because they don't know what it is like to be the oppressive whitey" etc..

Yawn. Nevermind.

 

my point wasn't to discuss the old thread...sorry. my point was only to state that the premise of mcwhorter's book was not to statistically dismiss racism like you seemed to imply. my point was to say that this point he makes takes up a very very very small part of the book and to dismiss a book based on one point is senseless. that's all i really wanted to get across but did it kind of poorly.

 

No, I'm suggesting that many of the comments made here are insensitive. One person made references to being a decendant of a slave owner and a Nazi. Most weren't so extreme but many people were rather dismissive rather than arguing a real point. If you were not doing so, then I'm not directing this comment to you.

Is that your argument? That's the way it has always been so there is no need to change? That was the same argument that slave owners made of why we shouldn't abolish slavery itself.

Passionate teachers are sorely needed today and our children suffer because of it.

There truth to this but one should be very careful taking this assumption as a valid statement. I'm sure we don't need to go into how many times out of 100 this logic will fail in our society.

But I will also admit that just because you are black doesn't mean you are a good teacher of the subject. Applicants need to be properly screened.

You can't seperate them like that. They are fundamentally connected...literally. To seperate it means you dehumanize it (which is why so many people hate most history subjects) and it loses meaning. History is the human experience so to dehumanize it is tragic. This is why Hollywood movies about historical subjects are more interesting because they do a good job of connecting the audience with not only the context of the historical event but also the people involved. It's a much better story and captures peoples imagination. (Note: Hollywood too often misrepresents facts but I'm only illustrating the point).

Wrong. Blacks are Americans too. Isn't that the whole point of abolishing slavery in the first place?

I understand your point...you just mistated it. Let me help you. It's like saying a Floridian couldn't teach Texas History.

Here's the difference. African American history is almost a misnomer. The American black experience is a very real topic in today's society. It is very much alive today because the people directly affected and their immediate children are still alive. Also, given the horrific nature is why I beleive this issue presses so many hot bottons. Texas history doesn't really raise up to that criteria. The difining characterisitics of Texas history is well within the past. We don't have people walking around today that were directly influenced by the Texas revolution. Also, it was simply a war where both sides had guns and armies over land disputes.

I'm sure Native American's would want one of their own teaching history for their children. I also can't imaging an American teaching a German history class IN GERMANY. Same for Japanese...or any other country. It's only natural.

If somebody else should teach the class, they better prove to be passionate and credentialed or there credibility will be low. You shouldn't just drop somebody in that slot because of availability.



Again, if I'm paying for a language class out of my pocket, I want to learn from a native speaker. It's the best investment of my money so I can learn the nuances of the language and apply what I've learned BETTER. Why hold my child's education to a lower standard?

 

Ok here is what is wrong with everything you say. You are implying that someone who simply knows thru experience will always make a better teacher. I am saying that is wrong. Why? Because that person is not automatically born a good teacher. My girlfriend is a native Spanish speaker but she is freaking terrible at teaching me Spanish. (I hope she doesn't see that...lol) If Richard Simmons knew how to ride a bike and was great at it and knew how to teach it well then I'm sure I would be happy with him teaching me. You are assuming Richard Simmons can't do it because he is all queeny, but that doesn't mean he may not know the subject extremely well. An openly gay man would be fine to have as a wedding counselor just as long as he knew about relationships. A marriage is still a relationship between two people.

Finally, I know I am probably proving you right in your eyes, but why is it so hard for a white person to understand what a black person goes through? Could someone of any other race besides white understand it? What aspects could a white person not understand? My African-American studies professor was black and she was a pretty bad teacher of the subject. My old, white, gay male American history professor did a pretty amazing job of expressing the treatment of blacks in America. I feel like I have a pretty decent understanding of what it feels like to be singled out since I did go through some pretty bad things if that's the aspect you feel white people can't understand. I don't know...what exactly can't white people get? There are lots of universal things in life that people from completely different cultures can use so they can understand how others feel. What nuances are so hard for someone who studies and lives to subject to understand? Is there one you can give? I'm not trying to pick at you I'm seriously asking for an example so I can understand what you mean.

I dunno...maybe I am only proving you right, but I think you are a dead wrong and you assume that just because someone has lived it then they are going to be a good teacher of it.

 

Slave owners didn't want to abolish slavery because they didn't want to lose their way of life. They wanted it because they needed it. They didn't simply want to keep it for the simple reason there was no reason to change. They had to have it.

First, you don't need to understand nuances of a language if you are just starting to learn it. The nuances come much later. You can still be passionate and knowledgable about black history and not have lived as a black person. Maybe if this was a graduate studies course on black culture then you'd have a point, but it's not.

 

I appreciate your thoughtful response. I made a rash statement in my first post. All responses don't prove I'm right. But outwardly insensitive and dismissive comments sure would. You made an argument and properly supported it.

You are absolutely correct and I was modifying my previous post to add just that verbiage at you were posting.

Just because I speak spanish doesn't mean I can teach.

But if you have two TEACHERS (which means they both went through the application process and are credentialed), as in this situation, then the school should do everything possible to put the black teacher in place.

If I want to learn how to be a mechanic. Among other things, I'm going to look for two things. Are they in fact a mechanic and for how long?

I want to learn from the best. I don't want to learn from somebody who just learned themselves. I want somebody with...drumroll please...experience. Why would I hold my child's education to a lessor standard.

So let me tie this analogy up. If I am teaching African American history, I want to ensure that they infact CAN teach. Secondly, I want somebody who is experienced. Everything else being equal, experience is ALWAYS is preferable.

Why is that a hard concept? It is standard practice in the business world when you hire employees.

I'm a computer consultant professionally. I have never been to an introductory client meeting where the client didn't ask if I had direct experience in their particular industry. Technically a computer is a computer right? If I can fix one here I can fix one anywhere? Why is it important for them if I know anything about their business...afterall, I'm a credentialed technician. It is important because context is ALWAYS important.

 

Among a zillion other excused, they still used the argument that slavery has always been like that so why should they change?

Nevermind that it was deeprooted in pure hatred.

Oh, and they didn't "have to have it."

You don't "need" it but right from the beginning you are missing a critical element. If you have ever taken a language class from a native speaker you may understand. They have pride in their language and take every opportunity to teach you culture and history along with the "basics." That provides a much richer learning environment and makes it easier for students to understand the importance. It is that rich learning environment that is what seperates it.

Can you have that rich environment without a native speaker (or an African American). I beleive you can...but it is much more rare.

In this case from Ohio, the school has a choice between a white and a black. It does seem rather shamless to pull the black teacher (who taught the subject for 7 years already) because of a scheduling conflict.

 

Sorry...I was trying to state it from their perspective. Not trying to say they actually needed it. Slave owners thought if slavery wasn't expanding then it was dying. They needed it to keep growing and stay alive for their way of life to continue. They didn't just hold onto it because there was no reason to change, at least that was by no means a significant argument for keeping it.

Also, it was rooted from dehumanizing not really hatred. Africans weren't enslaved because whites hated them. They were enslaved because they were the only availible source of humans that could be used without the moral hangups because black people were viewed as less than human. Other races were seen as not as good as whites, but blacks were simply not considered human by the church so they could be enslaved. It also didn't hurt that there was a history of slave trading in Africa.

 

touche. That statement was too strong.

Restated: Outwardly insensitive and dismissive posts are evidence of the fear that many blacks hold. Many of the comments in this thread by naysayers only bolster the feelings of why many blacks want to be taught by blacks.

If you didn't make such a comment, then this isn't directed at you.

If you disagree with my opinions, that is fine as long as you are not dismissive and support your opinions with a logical argument.

The anonymity of the Internet reveals what many blacks feel. Many whites in America treat you like equals face-to-face. A forum such as this illustrates very clearly that there is still a heavy racist element in America. Millions of whites are NOT racist. But millions are. And when they both smile at you and shake your hand, which one is which?

Sometimes the only way to know for sure is put a person in a completely fabricated situation that forces them to chose between a black and a white...or let them post on the Internet.

 

Also, I agree with what you are saying about the teachers. I think it is best to hire a black person to teach black history in America if there are 2 equal candidates up for the job. But at the same time I don't think it is best to hire even a marginally lesser teacher just because they are black and have the experience of being black. I mean my African history professor, who is Nigerian and regarded as one of the best African history scholars in the world, stated he was only still at UT because of one other professor in African history. That other professor is a white American. My prof also never even mentioned race or nationality as a limiting factor in someone's ability to understand or teach African history. You can start from a place completely outside of the culture and grow to love it and understand as well as someone who grew up in it. He never referred to his collegues based on race or stated they could never understand what it is like to be Nigerian or ever fully understand Nigeria's problems because they are white and American. I really don't think African-American history is any different or a special exception to this.

 

Precisly, we can agree on something. But this still doesn't change the simple fact that slavery was justified, at times, by using precedent as an argument. Maybe they needed it for economic survival but one of the MANY justifications used was "it always has so it should continue."

But this is off topic for why I raised this point. Rumbaud said that high school history has always been faceless so why change now? My point is that is a silly and baseless argument. I think you are agreeing with that premise.

How is this not hatred?

I think I understand your point but you are splitting hairs.

 

krosfyah,

Most of my comments were in jest, however my main point stands that ultimately resides in my dislike for any kind of limits placed on education. If a white person wants to teach african american history, I will be inclined to let him/her and allow teaching record to dictate whether it is a good idea. A good, informed teacher is a good informed teacher and can provide a great benefit.

Now, having said that, of course a white person does not know what it is like to grow up and live black in the US, but that should not exclude him/her from teaching nor does it mean a huge portion of the curriculum would be negated. Guess what, there are books/memoirs written by many that give first hand accounts and the teacher can supplement with that, or something similar.

Teaching is not about telling the truth and giving the student everything they need to know - it is only about pointing the students in the right direction, after which the student can do their real learning on their own. Middle School, High School, college, graduate school - it is all the same.

By the way, I guess I was mostly surprised and took the joking tone I did because this thread has actually been rather racially tame in comparisons to others that have been on this bbs.

 

I think one of my old profs explained it best. It would be like hating your dishwasher or oven. The slaves were viewed as not human. You can't hate something that isn't human.

 

You should have seen the thread about a guy who attempted to jump the great wall of china on a bicycle. All the comments in this thread were in good fun. The worst one was probably mine when I questioned the appropriateness of the word "progress" in the organization's title. That was a little mean, but I truly believe segregation is a negative policy, and that's what the group is preaching, to a significant degree. So that's my opinion.

Look, krosfyah, I'm not black, but I'm a teacher. As *many* have posted from *many* different backgrounds, the passion and competance of a teacher are the ultimate qualifications for a rigorous education. I appreciate your preference for, say, a native speaker of Spanish, but don't hold everyone else to that subjective standard. I would prefer the Spanish teacher about whom I'd heard the most sterling personal recommendations. I don't want to find a person from Egypt to teach me astronomy, I don't want to find a person from Greece to teach me geometry, and I don't want to limit myself to German jews to teach me general relativity. I just want well-informed and passionate teachers. And I would want the same for my children.

I am 1/16 Native American, 3/16 French (cajun), 1/4 Irish, 1/4 Scot, 1/8 Italian, and 1/8 unknown. Federally, I qualify as a native, even though I have never declared this status. What history would I be qualified to teach? 1/16 of a term here, 1/4 of a semester there. Or would you let me teach a course that perfectly combined these ratios? I guess the unknown part would be tricky. Maybe we could just have 1 out of every 8 minutes of classtime just be devoted to complete silence.

I appreciate the subjective passion of your argument, and I sympathize with it to a degree, but it logically leads to madness. As Mrs. B-Bob said when I told her about this story, "well, humans should clearly not be allowed to teach human history."

You and I are not qualified to draw the exact line where cultural sensitivity should begin and end when it comes to hard and fast educational race laws concerning instruction, so we have two choices. Don't mandate who can teach what, or have human history taught by dolphins. Even they would probably focus on the history of human sailing and fishing.

 

It's not hatred. It's ignorance more than anything else.


History IS about telling a story. I think the arguement that a black person could tell the story better is not necessarily true. The point of history is that it is in the past. Most Americans (black or white) have not lived through the majority of US History. The black person had to learn the history just as the white person did. Neither man/woman lived through all of it.

Why is a black perspective on black history more important than a white perspective? A person's perspective is just that. By now, most children are growing up more racially aware. The black perspective on slavery and Civil Rights are not as foreign as they were 20 or 30 years ago.

And what if the black candidate had just moved here from Africa or the Carribbean? And what if the white person's ancestors had helped in the Undergroud Railroad? A white person is not automatically going to be an elitist and the black person will not automatically be sympathetic to the plight.

If this were a class on Black Political Thought or something similar, I think that the race would be more important. This is where the opinions and experiences should really shine through. Not in a basic high school history class.

I have heard US History referred to (in joking among students) as "white history" since there is no such thing and as a parallel to black history. If a black person were teaching a regular US History, would one get the same education? Does a black person know more about the Revolution than a white person? I don't know. I don't really care. I want the best. Should an English person teach the class? I mean, they were there too, right? If they are teaching the facts and the cirriculum, that's what's important.

 

Hey legendary21, why don't you start a generic thread on how life is really like for the typical Swede. I don't think many of us have actually been there. I'm curious. Is it like Gemany where I've been? I saw virtually no poverty in the parts I was at.

 

What's the frequency, Kenneth? I said, WHAT'S THE FREQUENCY KENNETH! ...

 

Splitting hairs.

My dishwasher doesn't bleed or cry outloud when I kick it.

Although I do. I just kicked my chair and it hurts like crap! Now I hate that damn chair.

You pose a chicken before the egg argument. Did the hatred conceive the inhumane treatment or did the inhumanity conceive the hatred? The net effect is the same.

 

Just to correct something in this thread.

Slavery was a result of economics, the hatred is a result of slavery, meaning that slaves were taken for pure economic reasons and the attitudes towards blacks came when people began to question the morality of the institution. The negative stereotypes came about to justify continuing the institution, not in the beginning.