OT: No White Teacher For Black History
 

Seeing how my last OT post was so well received, what do you think about this?

I think this is another example of political correctness run amok. What's next, Asian-Americans can't teach Western Civilization?

I think it is a respect thing. I don't think a white teacher teaching African-American history would get as much respect from students and the community as would a black teacher.

As an example, if there was a White history class, would a black teacher get respect in the class?

Its a matter of who people think can provide the best perspective on the subject, and I think people would feel a white teacher would have a slanted perspective on this.

And if it is an Asian-American, then they were probably born in America. I'd have no problem. But would students or parents have the same respect for an Asian to teach American history?

"As an example, if there was a White history class, would a black teacher get respect in the class?"

Do you think there could ever be a white history class? I think it would create an uproar that it was a racist thing, but clearly the above story exhibits no racism.

I wouldn't want to learn US History from a Yugoslavian.

There may be other biases that might conflict with the main theme- USA has never been wrong in 227 years. :D

White history classes already exist under a variety of other names.

I do think it's silly that a qualified white teacher couldn't teach a black history class, but - and this is just my guess - I don't think it's a reach to believe most people who study black history as a specialty are black. Thus, it may well be that the individual black teacher in question has a lot more expertise in the subject.

I believe that is what is taught in most high schools in America.... it just goes by the name "World History." It was certainly the focus of my history education pre-college.

You guys are pissing me off now. "I wouldn't want to learn US History from a Yugoslavian." Why??? Assuming you go back in time since this nationality does not officially exist (check your #^!%$ map), a "Yugoslavian" trained at a known university in the US or in Europe (plus at some Asian ones), would know more US history than 95% of teachers and students. WTF would you pigeonhole a person, black or white, Yugoslavian or not, in thinking they are only capable of learning their own culture or history?? "White History Class"? This includes Lincoln? FDR? JFK?Romans? Hebrews?

Why not? I wouldn't.

So you say that it should be a black teacher because they would be better qualified because they are black. I agree. However, should there be a quota of non black teachers teach this just as there are quotas for other jobs and positions? The NFL cant hire the guy they want even if he is the most qualified for the job without at least interviewing a minority canidate. Look at Detroit. Mooch is the perfect guy for that job and Millin gets whacked for $200000. And we hear people bitch all the time that there arent enough black head coaches. What is enough? Obviously there is a magic nimber that must be reached based solely on race, not necessarily coaching ability. Should the same type of mentality be used in this situation where the qualified teacher cant even be considered?

Bullshit. Complete bullshit. Dont even tell me for one minute that world history is a clever way to say white history. WTF? Where did you go to school?

So you say Joe African-American would respect a white teacher teaching Black history as muc has they would if an African American taught it?

I would best my entire future earnings that there would be more complaints leveled against a white teacher than a black teacher.

Same goes for a person coming from a different country teaching American history.

You can be qualified out the ass, but that doesn't mean the students and parents are going to be able to relate to you. Thats nearly as important in this age as the material being taught.

Western Civilization is certainly all about white history, isn't it?

And that's the problem. Why should relating to a teacher make a damn bit of difference?

Let's revisit the gay high school for a moment. I suppose all the teachers there should be gay as well, right?

Hmm.. in that case, I guess we shouldn't have gay teachers at other public schools, since a vast majority of students can't relate to them.

And I guess white kids shouldn't have a black teacher in "World History", since it's only about white history and the teacher can't relate, right?

well, this is really distressing.

I'm thinking my whole sophomore English class was now a waste, because the teacher of that class was native to Zimbabwe. I should just unlearn all the Shakespeare and stuff she taught us.
And, I took years and years of French - only one of those years was the teacher actually Francophone.

Obviously, my education was wrong.

All teachers should be female, with large breastages and HOT...

Dola


Except for those annoying Egyptians, Mesopotamians, Babylonians, slavery in America, the Civil War, the Jim Crow laws, the Civil Rights movement, etc.

No, I know they wouldnt respect the white teacher as much. All I am saying is that there are bullshit rules in place to boost minorities because they are minorities, which completely goes against the so called american policy of not judging by race, color, or religion. And fine, lets say world history or western civ is a white history class. Should a black teacher not be allowed to teach it?

I said that?

Everyone is putting words in my mouth when I didn't use them, I can't be asked to argue on something I never said.

And languages are universal, literature is universal, one could aruge that most forms of history are as well, but national history is less so. The same goes with ethnic or racial history. Would you expect a Jew to teach Palestinian history?

Look, I think it's silly to assume a white person can't teach a black history class, and vice versa (or any race teaching the ethnic history of any other race).

However, there's another way to look at this. And that is that the school is responding to the demands of the parents and students, who are basically its customers. And the customers want the teacher who has taught the class for years to continue. Most organization that know what they are doing try to meet their customers' expectations. Most of the time, schools would get praise for responding positively to the community they serve.

Cam, would you stop stirring up trouble. :D

You're the resident instigator.

I see this more as a specialization issue. Am I qualified to teach all English subjects? Yes. But I teach only Freshman and Sophomores because I have chosen to specialize in those areas. Students who enter my classes know that I have worked with this material, and they are comfortable with me. I don't teach the AP classes (although I'd like to eventually) because I haven't yet sought to work on the material. Is the white teacher qualified? Sure. Has the white teacher specialized in African American history to the extent where the community would be comfortable with it? Depends on the teacher, but I'd say probably not.

Well I have a unique perspective on this subject, so bear with me for the long post here.

I'm a white American male just so you know.

Growing up history soon became my favorite subject and I wanted to be a history teacher when I grew up. I was particularly fascinated by African and Middle Eastern cultures, primarily because we were exposed to so little of it in schools at the time (this is early 80's in New York State by the way) African American history beyond slavery and Martin Luther King was never touched on either, and that intrigued me.

So off I went to college and got a degree in Secondary Ed-Social Studies where I took a lot of classes in Middle Eastern and African history and cultures. Fascinating stuff. When I got to grad school a couple years later, and I finally got to concentrate on African American history and culture. My main thesis advisor was the African-American history professor...and she was a German white woman, complete with accent. Talk about an unexpected experience. But she really knew her stuff.

I got to be her grad assistant my second year there and I assisted with her African American history class. So two white people teaching Black History. Of course we had a number of black students in the class, and no doubt a few were uncomfortable with the situation. I believe one or two students dropped the course, but its been a while and I can't remember. The class went well though, and I think by the end of the semester we had earned their respect.

There background complete. My take on this issue is that I'm bothered that people feel that only a certain nationality is qualified to teach their own history. This is after all history-the majority of teachers teaching African American history today were not alive to personally experience all but the most recent part of it. They get their knowledge from their families in part if they are a black teacher, but in large part by historians and social commentators of the time and the present, who were of all nationalities and colors. None of them have experienced slavery and the racism that exists today is less severe than in any period of African American history-they themselves had little knowledge likely of their own history growing up as it was not a major emphasis in high schools.

Non-black history teachers read those same histories and commentaries and get the same knowledge from them that black history teachers. It may not be the history of their race, but it is the history of the most significant, largest minority in America. That makes them qualified to teach it in my mind-it is after all a part of American history and America is supposed to be one nation united under God right? Non-black teachers don't have quite the emotional connection to black history for sure. But the reason I became interested in African-American history in the first place is because so little of it was taught in my high school, and then when I learned enough of it, I wanted to teach it to others.

In this day and age when efforts to lessen racism are at their strongest, non-blacks wanting to teach african american history ahould be embraced by african americans-as they are truly trying to bridge the gap between the two races. Stories like this only serve to widen the gap a little more. Black people will not lose their sense of self if a white person teaches African American history-both sides can gain an even better sense of each others realities.

There long rambling over-as one who's been there I felt I should add my personal experience. Thanks for bearing with me. :)

There's the rub, you're talking college, this is dealing with high school. People in the general community have a much greater influence over the decisions a school makes. And parents are far more vocal during the high school years than college.

Its not political correctness running amok that keeps a white high school teacher from teaching black history. Its cultural perceptions.

Let me get this straight. A white teacher that teaches Black History wouldn't be respected by the black students. So we ignore the problem of the students not respecting the teacher and just replace that teacher with a black teacher. Instead of letting the white teacher teach the subject and maybe those black students would see that it's possible for a white person to understand the black culture.

Isn't that just fueling the problem and the perception that there is some huge barrier between the races?

In college, we accept an American teaching a class about ancient African history, or Middle East history and so forth. An international professor from Asia is welcome to teach a class in American History if that is a speciality, and so forth. Professors easily teach classes about subject in hich they are experts but not in the category.

I wouldn't want my Terrorism teacher to be a terrorist now, would you? Criminology might not be best taught by a hardened criminal. Same with my Nature of Evil class. Etc. Why is hostory suddenly different in high schools? Let's treat it like we treat subjects in college - io you are qualifed to teach on it, then you are qualified to teach on it, end of story.

-Anxiety

I'm not saying its not. I'm saying this is not a PC issue as was stated in the original post. Its a cultural perception issue.

And I would say more complaints would come from the parents than from the students, agreed?

We treat it differently because high school is different from college. There were teachers in my school who taught math one year, history the next, and gym the next. I don't see that going on in college.

But part of being a professor is being qualified to teach that particular class. The coach of the forensics program is usually going to teach interpersonal communication. Not news reporting, even though they are both in the Communications Department. In the education department, professors specialize in specific areas: management, design, planning, child psychology, etc. In the Math department, the calculus expert isn't normally going to be slumming it in Pre-Algebra.

I wouldn't go as far to call an American history class a "white history" class, but there's an awful bias in American history accepted curriculums and textbooks. I'd noticed this while I was taking a highschool AP American History class, and then reading the book "Lies my Teacher Told Me" by James Loewen fleshed out many arguments I'd wondered about.

There is such a spin to create heroes in American history classes that it's not even actually history. How many teachers will talk about Woodrow Wilson's blatant racism? U.S. involvement in the Russian Revolution? Not only Columbus' brutality, but the extent of his brutality. Not many.

But there are plenty who will tell you how great a man Wilson was, how groundbreaking Columbus was, how bad those nasty Reds were in Russia.

~rpi-fan

Among many, many, other things.

Easy Mac,

Would you define "cultural perception" as opposed to "political correctness"? I'm not sure there's much of a difference between the two, and even if there is, I'd say our cultural perception is a direct result of nonsensical political correctness like this situation.

This is the post I definately agree with most! Last I checked- anyone that isn't a Native American had to have ancestors hop on a boat over here at some point.



And this is the post I agree with secnd most. Tho, a bit more tongue-in-cheek :D

SI

:mad: GRRRRRRRR :mad:

WHO GIVES A FLYING F&@* ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE KIDS WOULD NATURALLY "RESPECT" THE TEACHER??? Again, I'm gonna go back to what Daddy always told me. "Son, I don't care whether you like her or not, but that teacher has got something that YOU need to get, and you need to get it from her." Period. If people instilled that attitude into their kids, this utter bulls$@$ about being "comfortable" would go away like it needs to. The teacher has the knowledge. The student needs it. End of story.

I was taught Spanish for three years by a white American. Guess she wasn't qualified. French was also taught at my high school by a white American.

I took a Poly-Sci class in college taught by a black woman. They weren't allowed to participate in the political process at all until 1920, and the political process is still white male dominated. Guess she wasn't qualified.

At the Middle School around here, Georgia History is taught by a native of Tennessee who has only lived here one year. Reckon she should be out of a job.

I had a woman as my precalculus teacher in high school. Now, EVERYONE knows that women aren't as good at higher mathematics, right? Guess she had no business teaching that class.



Gimme a break.

--Ben

This is my favorite part of article for two reasons:

1.) The "lifestyle" requirement Ms. Cameron applies may be one of the common issue among those deserting (blacks). My experience is that people with direct involvement with a chunk of history are not very objective.

Back in HS in the mid 80 my Senior history teacher was very active in the Anti-War movements of the late 60s/early 70s. Her ability to teach about period from '64 to '75 was so tainted by her personal life that the class stopped being history and started to become an autobiography. Luckily, that was at the end of the quarter, so we only got to spend a couple of days on the period. In my opinion, the students were better off learning nothing that her slanted mess.

--

This isn't to say that blacks shouldn't teach black history, just that this should not "the" factor. There may very well be factors that indicate black students respond better to black teachers (on average).

2.) The Jamaican part cracks me up.

Isn't that EVERY history class except African American history?

no, and that is a pretty idiotic point of view.

Thank you, Fritz! I was kindof silently getting tired of the three or four comments like that and you decided to speak up before I did

But I'll still go on a mini-rant. Calling the English, Germans, French, Italians, and Russians all the same people is just kindof ignorant. Ask the Germans and French how well they like each other. How about the Greeks and Turks? Russia and their kindship with pretty much all of Europe?

EDIT: I slipped up. Noble_Platypus also pointed this out.

SI

Ah, I don't mind being a heavy from time to time.

----
Many history classes are billed as "Western Civilization" and follow the dominant trends in civilization up until America comes onto the scene, and then it becomes much more focused on us with a little on western Europe.

The theme used is one of passing the torch. Egyptians to Greeks to Romans to Western Europeans to America. Historians are drawing a path.

Cultures from Asia, Africa, Eastern Europe, and the America's just aren't on that path.

I don't think this makes things about "white history."

By heavy you mean a whiny, immature freak right?

To suggest that the bulk of history taught in the United States is not focused on the doings of Europeans and their descendants shows a complete lack of any knowledge about the topic whatsoever. To call someone an idiot for speaking a truth that makes you unforfortable shows a lack of maturity rarely reached on even this board.

did that make you feel good?

This relates to one of the big debates in my field, should whites direct plays written by blacks. Its been going on for years and can get really heated.

I'm assuming this is Oberlin, OH right? If that's the case this makes perfect sense. Oberlin has a long history, dating back to the underground railroad, of being a racially mixed and shall I say sensitive place. You can't take te local history out of this.

Again I'll ask the question. If that's the case, then isn't it culturally insensitive to have someone other than a Caucasian teach a history class? After all, they're not a part of that culture, so how can they truly relate to the students?

Are you serious? Good lord. Whatever happened to a melting pot, all of us learning from those who are different from us?

"diversity"

Oberlin, Yellow Springs... lots of touchy places in Ohio.

I had no problem learning American History post Civil War from a man who was African and had a heavy Zimbabwean accent. He was an interesting guy.

I also had no problem learning the nuances of Latin American political history from a white-bread Northeastern Catholic who could speak Spanish faster than I can think in English.

I agree with SkyDog on this one.

Hugs? :D

Reminds me of part of a Chris Rock routine, where he talks about taking a Black History class, goes something like:

"Who was the woman who refused to give up her seat on the bus?"

"Are you sure it was a woman? Well let's see, it can't be Martin Luther King....is it Martina Luther King?"

Jesus Christ, this crap is making me crazy.

This is a racist decision. Bottom line.

But it's totally acceptable to be racist against whites.

If it was totally acceptable, it wouldn't be news.

Reminds me of the big contovercy a few years ago with the play "Miss Saigon". Basically, the lead is a Vietnamese character but was played to critical acclaim in London by Jonathan Pryce - white guy.

When the musical was going to be brought over to Broadway there was an outcry of controvercy because Jonathan Pryce was to play the lead here as well. Protests started because supposedly it was "racist" to cast a white man in that role.

Of course, at the same time there were groups lobbying for "non-traditional" casting (to urge directors to cast minorities in roles that are written as white characters). For instance, at the same time the controvercy about "Miss Saigon" was going on Robert Guilloume (Benson - black guy) was playing the Phantom in the Phantom of the Opera.

Both are correct. As a historian, I try to read and understand as much as possible about a time period or event, so it's natural for me to see both sides. History for being what it is, can easily be exclusionary. The Soviets did this for generations, as well as the Japanese. Even in the US, if you pick and choose, US History can be all about white history or black history or women history or gay history or whatever - it's not that hard to do given the immense complexity of history.

I think what some are reacting to here (including me) is the continued tearing down of historical figures. We cannot celebrate the awesome acheivements of the Founding Fathers (or whatever you want to call them) because they were white. Or admire the incredible courage of Columbus because of his brutality. Or the profound vision of MLK because he had affairs. Or on and on. I abhor this. Take history as on its own with all of its complexity, both the good and the bad. It is how we learn about today and tomorrow.

I think this is similar to the ebonics debate where in order to teach certain kids, you have to talk down at their "language". Having a black only teach black history will shortchange the student's education if it becomes exclusionary. This would be similar to a KKK sympathizer teaching Civil War and Reconstruction history. Both happens but can we still tolerate being exclusionary about history or do we tolerate certain exlusiveness but not others?

Just rambling again.

What a joke; yet another example of the double standard that is 'political correctness'.

I first read about this issue from a differnet source. There were a couple quotes in there that didn't quite sit well with me. Most notably the very last one.

http://www.newsnet5.com/news/2360897/detail.html

FYI - for you lazy bums who won't read TargetPractice's link.

Here's the quote:

Phyllis Yarber Hogan, a member of the Oberlin Black Alliance for Progress, said a white teacher wouldn't be well-suited to teaching students about subjects like slavery.

"When you talk about slavery, students need to understand it is not our fault," she said. "Our ancestors did nothing wrong to be enslaved.

"How do you work through that when the person teaching it is the same type of person who did the enslaving?"

That is the silliest, most bizarre point of view I've seen in a while.

Well, there goes her credibility out the window.

Wow, considering you read this board, that is one hell of a statement.

I didn't define "a while", now did I. ;)

Dola--

That's the silliest, most bizarre point of view I've seen since, "I will come back stronger and more powerful than ever."

Wrong. A few of my ancestors ran several Underground Railroad wayhouses in Central New York where the next stop was Canada. Going back to the 1790 Census, not a single direct ancestor ever owned slaves or had black servants. You condemn me because of my race? How about condeming the many blacks in Africa that profitably ran the "gathering" outfits of future slaves? Or perhaps you conveniently ignore the millions of current black slaves that are being held in bondage by other blacks in Sahara and Sub-Sahara Africa? And you wonder why there are still racial tensions???

and sadly, that is the point of view I'd say most of America holds, which I've been trying to point out. That's the "respect" I talked about. Note that people have glossed over the importance of parents through this long thread. Their the ones in an uproar. Surely SD, you're not blind to the fact that in the South, if a high school hired a white man to teach black history, people in the town would voice their opposition. And same if there were a "white" history class, and a black man was hired to teach that.

And Cam, comments such as these ladies is the distinction I have been trying to make between culture and politics. This seems to deal with how a culture percieves their shared history, and how an "outsider" couldn't understand it. I don't feel that culture stems from politics, but rather politics stems from culture.

Oh so this person is saying that blacks shouldn't teach this course. After all must of the actual enslaving was done by members of waring tribes in Africa to get rid of their enemies. Or perhaps this person is referring to the African-Americans who emigrated to Liberia and virtually enslaved the native populace there.

While I am normally on the side of diversity, for all the resons pointed out in this tread, this sort of PCness makes me so incredibly sad.

So???

No, there would be a racial uproar as soon as the "white history class" was announced. It wouldn't matter who was teaching it.

Dola---

The one word answer was to make a point. Sure they'd complain, but that doesn't make them right. If we're going to cowtow to every whiny complainer in this country, we'll never get anything done.

Easy,

Shouldn't we try and correct a cultural bias that is obviously incorrect?

Yes, but one of the prevailing sentiments these days seems to be 'two wrongs make a right'.

...or what about this? SWMBO's ancestors owned slaves. Plenty of 'em. In Charleston. (True Southerners will understand the significance of this next statement.) Her maiden name is Ravenel. Does that make HER responsible for slavery??? :rolleyes:





Actually, this brings up a rather humorous situation that we have whenever the ridiculous discussion of reparations comes up. Would we have to pay 'em, or get 'em??? ;)

Yeah Cam I'm serious. I generally disagree with those who would want only blacks to direct black plays. Their view is that to drect you need an understanding of the culture and non-blacks can never truly understand what it means to be black. While I agree that I don't know what its like to be raised in Harlem, for example, my range of life experiences is really pretty narrow. I didn't fight in Korea, so does that mean I shouldn't have done my oral history performance? Imagination and research have to play a part.

It's pretty easy to rile you lot up. I don't think this news item is worth the discussion it's warranting here.

I keep saying its not right. But what is going to change by letting a white man teach black history? The people who don't care aren't going to care. The people for it will still be for it. The people against it will still be against it. And don't give me the "race relations" crap, this ins't Rosa Parks sitting on a bus, regardless on how well versed the person may be on the subject. Just save the man and school months of hate mail and bad PTA meetings. They actually had a teacher who taught it before so it shouldn't be a story.

What should be a story is the fact that this came about from what looks like budget cuts. A man could no longer teach in his field b/c to save $$$ they were combining government and econ. Thats teh more newsworthy story, and something the people in the articles should be raising hell about.

Isn't that the point of Affirmative Action? But your against that:p

edit: and this isn't meant as a slam to anyone, but this may have been the most intelligent thing I've posted in this thread. And dammit I was actually planning on staying low for a few weeks and posting dumb stuff for a while (look at my posts yesterday). Stupid 2 am tired posts.

Butter: That's the problem. Some will make it a issue to call attention to it and to perhaps affect change (esp. if this was a local school board agenda item). However, many will just stick their heads in the sand so they can get back to watching a reality show on TV.

My god, and they you two marry???? Think of the children!

1. The important question isn't "what is going to change", but "what is the RIGHT thing to do?"

2. Forcing those who don't like it to deal with it, rather than placating them, would force them to either change their wrong-thinking opinion, or not acquire the knowledge.

I think America has shown they have dificulty acquiring knowledge ;)

But it's not like this is news. How many similar "news" items can you read or see every day, week, month? I'm tired of both sides of this debate, tired of those who feel it necessary to complain every single time they perceive they have been offended, and tired of those who think that everyone should just suck it up. There are real and hurtful instances of bias and racism in this world that need to be fought against, and this particular story is just a big load of crap.

I'll go back to reading my issue of The Economist now. ;)

I think you need more sleep.

Affirmative action rewards someone for the color of their skin. In effect, this IS affirmative action at work.

What I'm for is realizing that having a teacher conduct a course that he's not certified to teach in order to be "culturally sensitive" is wrong. It's wrong to say that a white teacher can't teach black history. It's wrong to say an Asian can't teach Western Civilization.

Segregation is wrong, whether it's self-imposed or not. Racism is wrong, no matter who's on the receiving end. You can't correct a cultural bias by creating another one. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Now go back to bed.

Butter, sorry to have opinions, convictions and to share experiences.

Its nice to see how many people have come out against local control over the past few days!

No, you're actually right. I think that's the first time this month, but hey, good job. :p

Cam,

You said: "Shouldn't we try and correct a cultural bias that is obviously incorrect? "

That is Affirmative Action. The point of AA is to correct any cultural bias that affects the hiring of employees. You already said this is a racial/political issue. I'm not sure how you can argue what you is not the grounds of AA.

That being said. The man is qualified to teach black history, but not government. As I said, the bigger point is the school budget crunch, not this issue.

I think you need to return to bed.

JPhillips, if I understand your post, I think something like this thread serves as an information tool. Some probably had no idea that things like this goes on. So if one feels strongly about either point of view, when something like this comes up in your community, then you would recognize it and perhaps write a letter to the editor, write to your representative or speak up in a school board meeting. If enough people feel the same way, then change can be affected instead of in the hands of a few.

This is why it is important to bring up and discuss any devisive issue, regardless how large or small anyone would think they are.

dola, and uncertified teachers happen everywhere in many different schools. Its not like they're breaking the rules for only this one class. I've known numerous teachers who taught outside of what they studied, while they worked to be certified in that area. Welcome to poor town America.

Wow.

I just have one thought to add to all this - for what it's worth. I think there is a meaningful difference, when dealing with matters of race or anything like it, there's a fundamental difference of defining in terms of "inclusion" and of "exclusion."

To shift gears to something a little less volatile than race in history - how about gender in art? You'll find lots and lots of courses in colleges that focus on the role of women in art history. These are focused classes that discuss people like Mary Cassatt (a fairly minor impressionist who happened to be a woman), Georgia O'Keeffe, Grandma Moses, and a variety of other artists - many of whom are considered by consensus to be lesser figures than contemporary males from their same genre.

For the most part, nobody objects to this. We recognize that there's a role in focusing studies in a broad area onto a specicif subset of that area. You can take a class on the Rococo period, even though nobody considers it to be the greatest period in art history - that's fine. Or, you can focus on women throughout art history - and maybe understand where their contributiosn fit in, and what particular issues they faced in their careers. Fine.

In theory, you could also have an art class focusing on "great men in art history," to the exclusion of any women who would have otherwise have been in a regular curriculum. But - what's the point in an exclusionary approach here? All you do is give a general review of art history (which is 90%+ dominated by men) and skip over a point or two along the way that falls outside the defined scope. Who would bother to do this?



It just seems to me that having a history class that focuses on a particular subset of history or culture makes sense. Maybe it's a focus on the history and culture of the Pacific rim of Asia, maybe it's a class on the history of the African-American culture. Either one makes perfectly good sense to me, from an academic perspective. However, the fact that the African-American study seems to smack of racial issues - we seem to go berserk in treating it with kid gloves, and all the reactionaries look to immediately respond with their mirror-image idea. Why? What's the reason for that?

Does "world history" equal "white history?"

I think there's a valid argument that the typical American version of "world history" may well be biased in favor of focusing on Europe rather than other cultures. I can see why that is so-- the influences from Europe are undeniably the dominant ones in historic and even modern American culture. Not the exclusive ones, but certainly the dominant ones. Is that a fair bias? I don't know... but I can see it's there, I understand why it is, and I can understand why some people might argue that we don't pay due attention to other cultures from Asia, Africa, and elsewhere.


This whole argument gets knotted up pretty easily, as you can see. (I've even lost track of any continuity in this single post)


Back to where I started:

-An "inclusive" class, focusing on one particular area of a subject, seems perfectly fine to me (and most everyone, in most cases)

-An "exclusive" class, focusing on the main area of a subject, to the exclusion of other lesser areas, just comes across as both hurtful and pointless

Easy Mac,

I'll say it again, since you refused to acknowledge what I said. Correcting an incorrect cultural bias by creating another one is wrong. That's affirmative action. Getting rid of racism by putting the shoe on the other foot is wrong.

I have no problem with striving to get rid of racism. What I have a problem with is affirmative action, because it doesn't get rid of any cultural bias. It simply rewards people because of the color of their skin.

I don't know how much clearer I can be on this.

EM, there's a huge difference betweeen this and Affirmative Action. I don't see anywhere in this thread where we are saying that we should mandate a certain number of Black History teachers be white.

There is a very big difference between ALLOWING and MANDATING.

QS, I agree but at the HS level, I do not recall any specialty history courses as one might find in college. Esp. if a HS is small and perhaps underfunded, how can it afford anything but general history topics?

Abcsjrysk: Good point. I don't, though, see a lot of references to "I'll be ready if it happens here". Most people opposed to this believe this district shouldn't be able to do it. If the people in this district are okay with it, isn't that the essence of local control?

I just don't like the mindset of local control=local school boards having the right to make decisions I agree with.

I said the phrase cam used is the purpose behind affirmative action? Can you people not listen anymore?

Cam said about the nedd to let a white guy teach black history:
"Shouldn't we try and correct a cultural bias that is obviously incorrect?"

Affirmative Action: To correct biases that are incorrect. I'm not saying it does that, but this was the point. So that racist employers would not hire only w/in their race. By giving them access to different viewpoints, it would hopefully erase racial biases.

But only in one direction. AA will not prevent a black manager from hiring all blacks.

This is a little different (perhaps just sugar coated?) than "Isn't [a white history class] EVERY history class except African American history."

[quote]

no, you didn't say that was the "purpose" of affirmative action. You said that WAS affirmative action.

I am for the "purpose" behind affirmative action. I am not for affirmative action.

If you want to go back to your first statement, about correcting an incorrect cultural bias being the "point of affirmative action", I'll agree with that statement. But you also accused me of being "against that", and since I'm assuming you wouldn't call me against equality for all, I took it to mean that, as you later said, affirmative action is correcting an incorrect cultural bias. Sorry for the confusion... but when you made your second statement, that's when you stepped in it.

Ding Ding!

Actually, if someone actually wanted to try this, I'm pretty sure it would. Sadly, I think there is a bias among the white community that would say I don't want to work for all those black people anyway.

[quote]Originally posted by CamEdwards

Quote:

no, you didn't say that was the "purpose" of affirmative action. You said that WAS affirmative action. I am for the "purpose" behind affirmative action. I am not for affirmative action. If you want to go back to your first statement, about correcting an incorrect cultural bias being the "point of affirmative action", I'll agree with that statement. But you also accused me of being "against that", and since I'm assuming you wouldn't call me against equality for all, I took it to mean that, as you later said, affirmative action is correcting an incorrect cultural bias. Sorry for the confusion... but when you made your second statement, that's when you stepped in it.

cool, sorry. I need to work on phrasing better. My bad. Carry on with disagreeing now.

Oh, and I'm not a bleeding heart liberal. I think AA now is the worst thing since crustless bread (trust me, thats bad)

My point is not that there's anythign wrong with teaching "general history," and I certainly understand the situation you describe. But I know from my own experience in such a small, poor, public high school that the version of "world history" I received was predominantly centered on the cultures that arose and grew from Europe. Again - I understand why that is so, but I also recognize that this leaves a lot of history from other parts of the world as a relative afterthought. I understand why it happens, but I recognize that it might not yield the best overall education.

I'd say the first 1/3 of world history was about Mesopotamia/Egypt, next 1/3 about Rome/Greece, next 1/3 about Europe and beyond.

But they HAVE a certified teacher to teach both subjects. It's not like they have no choice.

As I mentioned before, a common method for teaching western civilization is to draw a thread from the cradle of civilization to the current age and our nation. Along that common thread you don't happen to find many "people of color" in dominant or influential roles. You also don't see many people from non dominant locations. When a people are not "peaking" they sort of drift out of the thread (unless they are conflicting with current dominant.) Using this method you don't meet many peoples. You don't meet Africans, Afrikaners, Poles, Moghuls, or Guarani's. But does this make our commonly taught history "white history?" I am not inclined to think so. When a people or a person of any race or ethnicity steps into the thread, they are talked about, at least in my HS classes.

I am not saying this method is perfect, but it is a pretty good way to go. Perhaps there is a better method out there.

The classes I have seen that are "world history" are almost the same as "western civ" with a few chapters slipped in about China, Japan, and India. This is certainly not a comprehensive overview of the history of the world and too disjoined IMHO. It has been while since I have seen a HS textbook, so perhaps this has been improved.

Here it is guys :

If one of your parents is black, you know black history by default.

If both of your parents are non-black, you don't know jack about black history.

So therefore...

If one of your parents was not "Native American", you don't know jack about teaching students anything about them.

If one of your parents was not from Eastern Europe, you damn sure better not be trying to teach people about the history of that area.

Or, if you do try to teach it, you can expect people to file complaints against you and not respect you. What kind of logic is this?

"dola, and uncertified teachers happen everywhere in many different schools. Its not like they're breaking the rules for only this one class. I've known numerous teachers who taught outside of what they studied, while they worked to be certified in that area. Welcome to poor town America."

But with this little thing called no child left behind coming to power within educational systems this is no longer ok. The school may have been trying to address this issue. We currently have two teachers in our school who will be out of a job soon because they are teaching classes that they are not fully accredited for. With NCLB these type of situations are supposed to cease, no matter school size, budgetary concers, etc.