Suicidesoldier#1
Riviera de la Mancha
Suicidesoldier#1
I think it's silly, and I think we ought to remove it as an official thing because, it's silly.
And racist; we're all people, it's American history, it's world history.
That's all there is to it.
Teach it, talk about it, of course, but to isolate based off of a person's skin color is only going to put a larger wedge in the divide, if anything.
So, let's see what we got;
1.) Its silly because its silly.
2.) Its racist because...?... profit!!!
3.) It will create a wedge, somehow by pointing out what we all can visually realize in a half second if you are not blind.
Another stunning post there friend.
rolleyes
You're isolating people based on arbitrary characteristics when you should be bringing everyone together and saying we're all one.
Increase black studies all year round, incorporate them into regular education, that's the goal. They're people whom have American history and to censor it would be stupid. But when you isolate these factors and separate them from regular education you're doing the exact opposite of the entire intended goal in the first place, which is acknowledging how people are people, and their struggles.
It's as dumb as saying "white history".
"Black history" is everyone's history, we're all people. It's not as only black people are benefiting from George Carver's stuff or from the struggles of our ancestors. It's ridiculous to isolate them based on characteristics that have no value, rather than their merits as people. The only focusing on single individuals based on their "race" is the very problem in the first place.
I'd rather see more HISTORY, potentially with people who are black, in standard education than isolate these people and say it's different from normal history.
That entire train of thought of separating them from, presumably "normal history", is counter productive and, racist. You should isolate their characteristics as people. Not focus on arbitrary qualities.
First off, isolation has been occurring since this nation was founded. People were sectioned off, divided and sub-divided long before I got here, though I am flattered you would think I have such power. No, the 'isolation' that you are referring to is not based on arbitrary things- its based on a shared set of experiences and analytical perspectives that are part and parcel to a shared culture of any people. That the basis for these was something arbitrary like skin tone does not make THOSE experiences arbitrary (like the Zoot Suit riots, formation of the UFW, the "Forever 21" lawsuit, etc.) They happened and their stories and perspectives have worth.
Next, yeah, in fairy pony wonderland that would be awesome if we could fully integrate ethnic historical perspectives into mainstream education the whole year round. Now, show me one district anywhere that's willing to cut out the American mainstream historical folklore in exchange for this, and exactly what they are going to cut. There are just not enough days to do justice to all, and to expect any mainstream culture anywhere to sacrifice its story for the out-group's is a long shot at best. So, if the alternative is being reduced to Ceasar Chavez and maybe Ricky Martin or at least getting a month where its acceptable to go in depth, I sure as Hell ain't choosing the first option.
About the only thing of substance I think you did say was this idea that "people are people" and what makes someone a person does not include their racial skin tone or history attached to that. That is where I think there is a huge divide on this nation and, surprise surprise, its on racial lines. For me, to ask someone to discuss my history, my life experiences without reference to my race would be like talking about Rick Ross without using the word 'fat.' Who I am today is shaped in large part by the history, both culturally and personally, by my ethnicity. Arbitrary as it may be, its existence has substantive affects at all stages of my life. If you ask alot of people of color, you will find that I am not alone in this sentiment.