Black History Month is right around the corner...

[Annata Cannata]

Skyburn

Now you're making the assumption that skin color is the only factor here. Be careful. That's a silly thing to do.
Consider now that far too many (also note, because I know you'll mess this up, I am not stating percentages, and ergo, am not stating "most" or anything like that, I am merely saying an "uncomfortable amount" of) minorities are brought up in areas where the general populace denounce education as being "uncool," and many jobs these days require a decent level of education.

Are you sure its just denouncing education as "uncool"? Are you sure its not just schools in low budget areas that don't properly prepare people for college? Even still, white people with a criminal record are still more likely to get a job over black people without criminal records. I'd say its a case of people always assuming the worse from you because your black.

[black_wing_angel]

Vixianna

black_wing_angel

Riviera de la Mancha

Oidin

Riviera de la Mancha

Plenty of mine have.

In any event, my point is still the same- history texts books do a pretty piss-poor job of conveying minority history.

I have never accused teachers of propagating white superiority propaganda, as that conveys some planning or aforethought of some kind. Its merely what every country does the world over when they talk about history; they glorify the version which paints them as best as possible. In America, part of that is the telling of history from the white majority perspective, as that is who makes up the nation.

Your own language is evidences my point, as you are making a determination, which is ultimately subjective, about who 'impacted history more.' To me, men like Daniel Hale Williams (performed first open heart surgery) are a hell of a lot more important to the majority of American fatties out there than Benjamin Franklin is. Were it not for the 100 dollar bill, most Americans would have next to no idea who he was. That's the whole point I am making; people choose to accentuate parts of history at the cost of others, and the 'others' who bear the cost of that is disproportionally people of color.

The Mythos I am talking about is what you indirectly reference; the idea that white men in America had a greater impact on this countries' history, as if it is a fact. While people are free to argue that point, and indeed, its a strong argument, the mythos is that, as you mentioned, 'its just fact.'

I did enjoy the classic deflection of 'these coloreds are okay with it.'

Of course no teacher expressly cuts curriculum because its done by a person of color. How I long for the days when people were so open about it... (cue Scrubs style flashback) In any event, the same effect is achieved through modern forms of racism; 'Its just a fact that white people influenced history more.' 'George Washington is more "important" to the nation than Eugene Bullard.' Its all a cutesy way of reaching the same result; the suppression of important minority contributions so that others can be accentuated.

History textbooks do a poor job about teaching history in general. They're required to go over 200+ years of history in a 220(?) day academic year. Because of this time constraint they tend to mention people who were involved in a major historical event, such as Paul Tibbets. Or they mention people who were prevalent to a time period; say FDR in the 1930s.

Certainly you could make a case for removing some people well adding others; but your not solving anything by doing so. At the end of the day some people are simply forgettable, such as Henry Dalton, even though they made important contributions to mankind.

I respectfully disagree; I think we would be doing a whole hell of a lot to cut down on the George Washington d**k-riding in exchange for a little more Luis Miramontes (co-inventor of birth control) or Guillermo Gonzalez Camarena (inventor of the color television).

Those aren't exactly super important tidbits of information, outside of the industry they involve, or people studying for Jeopardy.

As a woman, I'd like to say I think the invention of BC pills is equal to the telephone in utility and how it changed the nation.

Like I already said. It's great to inform people when it was invented. It's history class, aftera all.. But we don't need to learn the life story of the person who did it.

[Skyburn]

Annata Cannata

Are you sure its just denouncing education as "uncool"? Are you sure its not just schools in low budget areas that don't properly prepare people for college? Even still, white people with a criminal record are still more likely to get a job over black people without criminal records. I'd say its a case of people always assuming the worse from you because your black.

Hyperboles and single-source blame.
Careful. Silly things, again.

Yes; I'm not so dumb as to assume that people aren't without racism. Yes; I am well aware that there are schools with improper funding. Who's fault is that? Are people picketting and rioting in the streets over schools and funding? Is the community getting involved? Do they even care? Are they trying to make a difference or victimizing themselves? While there are people who care, all too often people just fail to hold up their end of Democracy.
Yes, statistics show that blacks are less likely to get jobs than equally convicted white men. However, do look at all the statistics before you start pointing fingers. There's more to it than racism.
At the same time, there are cases where equally acused black men are more likely to get jobs over white men. Again, it's more circumstance. (i.e. White guy looks like a ***** or a country-hick.)
At the same time, there is still more to consider that may be race related. Example: Comprehension of the English Language? Whites are far less likely to start saying stuff like, "How we do," or "What he be," or any of that other ebonics crap. Stuff that doesn't show up on a resume, but does show up in an interview. Who are you going to hire, a guy who can speak the English Language like he's actually passed third grade, or a guy who's got a speech impediment that isn't "historically cultural" at all, it's just a symptom of a failure to learn?
I'm hiring the guy who's able to present himself as useful and intelligent. White or black. If it's a black guy who's well dressed or at least looks like he takes care of himself and can speak intelligently versus a white guy who can't, I'm picking the black guy.

[Michael Noire]

You know i was just looking at that clip. Ironic. Look, the Jews get Hanukkah, the Christians and Euro pagans get Xmas/Yule and Easter/fertility cult holidays, and then the Irish get St Paddys. Blacks get MLK day. Gays could probably get rainbow day or something, but the point is, months need to go. 1 day a year is plenty to celebrate an ethnic group. If you want more days, make a holiday. Just ask the Ramadan kids.

[Annata Cannata]

Skyburn

Annata Cannata

Are you sure its just denouncing education as "uncool"? Are you sure its not just schools in low budget areas that don't properly prepare people for college? Even still, white people with a criminal record are still more likely to get a job over black people without criminal records. I'd say its a case of people always assuming the worse from you because your black.

Hyperboles and single-source blame.
Careful. Silly things, again.

Yes; I'm not so dumb as to assume that people aren't without racism. Yes; I am well aware that there are schools with improper funding. Who's fault is that? Are people picketting and rioting in the streets over schools and funding? Is the community getting involved? Do they even care? Are they trying to make a difference or victimizing themselves? While there are people who care, all too often people just fail to hold up their end of Democracy.
Yes, statistics show that blacks are less likely to get jobs than equally convicted white men. However, do look at all the statistics before you start pointing fingers. There's more to it than racism.
At the same time, there are cases where equally acused black men are more likely to get jobs over white men. Again, it's more circumstance. (i.e. White guy looks like a ***** or a country-hick.)
At the same time, there is still more to consider that may be race related. Example: Comprehension of the English Language? Whites are far less likely to start saying stuff like, "How we do," or "What he be," or any of that other ebonics crap. Stuff that doesn't show up on a resume, but does show up in an interview. Who are you going to hire, a guy who can speak the English Language like he's actually passed third grade, or a guy who's got a speech impediment that isn't "historically cultural" at all, it's just a symptom of a failure to learn?
I'm hiring the guy who's able to present himself as useful and intelligent. White or black. If it's a black guy who's well dressed or at least looks like he takes care of himself and can speak intelligently versus a white guy who can't, I'm picking the black guy.

I found a site:
http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2009/11/14/race-criminal-background-and-employment/
According to that site, black people who have been imprisoned are less likely to get college degrees and whatnot than white people. The unemployment stats show that white people don't have to worry about losing jobs to them (The site is a bit outdated,but nothing has changed). It may have happened a few times, but I don't see it being common enough to call for an end to AA like many want to do. The unemployment gap between races makes me wonder if AA is even effective. It just looks like the white people who whine about AA are just victimizing themselves, because the job outlook is really in their favor.

[Vixianna]

black_wing_angel

Vixianna

black_wing_angel

Riviera de la Mancha

Oidin

Riviera de la Mancha

Plenty of mine have.
In any event, my point is still the same- history texts books do a pretty piss-poor job of conveying minority history.
I have never accused teachers of propagating white superiority propaganda, as that conveys some planning or aforethought of some kind. Its merely what every country does the world over when they talk about history; they glorify the version which paints them as best as possible. In America, part of that is the telling of history from the white majority perspective, as that is who makes up the nation.
Your own language is evidences my point, as you are making a determination, which is ultimately subjective, about who 'impacted history more.' To me, men like Daniel Hale Williams (performed first open heart surgery) are a hell of a lot more important to the majority of American fatties out there than Benjamin Franklin is. Were it not for the 100 dollar bill, most Americans would have next to no idea who he was. That's the whole point I am making; people choose to accentuate parts of history at the cost of others, and the 'others' who bear the cost of that is disproportionally people of color.
The Mythos I am talking about is what you indirectly reference; the idea that white men in America had a greater impact on this countries' history, as if it is a fact. While people are free to argue that point, and indeed, its a strong argument, the mythos is that, as you mentioned, 'its just fact.'
I did enjoy the classic deflection of 'these coloreds are okay with it.'
Of course no teacher expressly cuts curriculum because its done by a person of color. How I long for the days when people were so open about it... (cue Scrubs style flashback) In any event, the same effect is achieved through modern forms of racism; 'Its just a fact that white people influenced history more.' 'George Washington is more "important" to the nation than Eugene Bullard.' Its all a cutesy way of reaching the same result; the suppression of important minority contributions so that others can be accentuated.

History textbooks do a poor job about teaching history in general. They're required to go over 200+ years of history in a 220(?) day academic year. Because of this time constraint they tend to mention people who were involved in a major historical event, such as Paul Tibbets. Or they mention people who were prevalent to a time period; say FDR in the 1930s.
Certainly you could make a case for removing some people well adding others; but your not solving anything by doing so. At the end of the day some people are simply forgettable, such as Henry Dalton, even though they made important contributions to mankind.

I respectfully disagree; I think we would be doing a whole hell of a lot to cut down on the George Washington d**k-riding in exchange for a little more Luis Miramontes (co-inventor of birth control) or Guillermo Gonzalez Camarena (inventor of the color television).

Those aren't exactly super important tidbits of information, outside of the industry they involve, or people studying for Jeopardy.

As a woman, I'd like to say I think the invention of BC pills is equal to the telephone in utility and how it changed the nation.

Like I already said. It's great to inform people when it was invented. It's history class, aftera all.. But we don't need to learn the life story of the person who did it.

We don't learn the life story of Alexander Gram Bell, but you do know his flippin name. Is learning his name too much to ask?

[black_wing_angel]

Vixianna

black_wing_angel

Vixianna

black_wing_angel

Riviera de la Mancha

I respectfully disagree; I think we would be doing a whole hell of a lot to cut down on the George Washington d**k-riding in exchange for a little more Luis Miramontes (co-inventor of birth control) or Guillermo Gonzalez Camarena (inventor of the color television).

Those aren't exactly super important tidbits of information, outside of the industry they involve, or people studying for Jeopardy.

As a woman, I'd like to say I think the invention of BC pills is equal to the telephone in utility and how it changed the nation.

Like I already said. It's great to inform people when it was invented. It's history class, aftera all.. But we don't need to learn the life story of the person who did it.

We don't learn the life story of Alexander Gram Bell, but you do know his flippin name. Is learning his name too much to ask?

It's widely unnecessary, aside from "trivial knowledge" that can be looked up on wikipedia if anyone actually cared to know.

[Vixianna]

black_wing_angel

Vixianna

black_wing_angel

Vixianna

black_wing_angel

Riviera de la Mancha

I respectfully disagree; I think we would be doing a whole hell of a lot to cut down on the George Washington d**k-riding in exchange for a little more Luis Miramontes (co-inventor of birth control) or Guillermo Gonzalez Camarena (inventor of the color television).

Those aren't exactly super important tidbits of information, outside of the industry they involve, or people studying for Jeopardy.

As a woman, I'd like to say I think the invention of BC pills is equal to the telephone in utility and how it changed the nation.

Like I already said. It's great to inform people when it was invented. It's history class, aftera all.. But we don't need to learn the life story of the person who did it.

We don't learn the life story of Alexander Gram Bell, but you do know his flippin name. Is learning his name too much to ask?

It's widely unnecessary, aside from "trivial knowledge" that can be looked up on wikipedia if anyone actually cared to know.

Learning the names of people who've invented revolutionary things that have changed the course of history isn't something I'd call "trivial knowledge", and I don't even like history that much.

[black_wing_angel]

Vixianna

black_wing_angel

Vixianna

black_wing_angel

Vixianna

As a woman, I'd like to say I think the invention of BC pills is equal to the telephone in utility and how it changed the nation.

Like I already said. It's great to inform people when it was invented. It's history class, aftera all.. But we don't need to learn the life story of the person who did it.

We don't learn the life story of Alexander Gram Bell, but you do know his flippin name. Is learning his name too much to ask?

It's widely unnecessary, aside from "trivial knowledge" that can be looked up on wikipedia if anyone actually cared to know.

Learning the names of people who've invented revolutionary things that have changed the course of history isn't something I'd call "trivial knowledge", and I don't even like history that much.

What difference is made by knowing the name of the inventor?

The year might be a bit more important, for some reasons, like studying how they developed, and their immediate impact vs their long-term impact. But what is actually gained by knowing who it was that came up with it, aside from studying for Jeopardy?

[Skyburn]

Annata Cannata

Skyburn

Annata Cannata

Are you sure its just denouncing education as "uncool"? Are you sure its not just schools in low budget areas that don't properly prepare people for college? Even still, white people with a criminal record are still more likely to get a job over black people without criminal records. I'd say its a case of people always assuming the worse from you because your black.

Hyperboles and single-source blame.
Careful. Silly things, again.

Yes; I'm not so dumb as to assume that people aren't without racism. Yes; I am well aware that there are schools with improper funding. Who's fault is that? Are people picketting and rioting in the streets over schools and funding? Is the community getting involved? Do they even care? Are they trying to make a difference or victimizing themselves? While there are people who care, all too often people just fail to hold up their end of Democracy.
Yes, statistics show that blacks are less likely to get jobs than equally convicted white men. However, do look at all the statistics before you start pointing fingers. There's more to it than racism.
At the same time, there are cases where equally acused black men are more likely to get jobs over white men. Again, it's more circumstance. (i.e. White guy looks like a ***** or a country-hick.)
At the same time, there is still more to consider that may be race related. Example: Comprehension of the English Language? Whites are far less likely to start saying stuff like, "How we do," or "What he be," or any of that other ebonics crap. Stuff that doesn't show up on a resume, but does show up in an interview. Who are you going to hire, a guy who can speak the English Language like he's actually passed third grade, or a guy who's got a speech impediment that isn't "historically cultural" at all, it's just a symptom of a failure to learn?
I'm hiring the guy who's able to present himself as useful and intelligent. White or black. If it's a black guy who's well dressed or at least looks like he takes care of himself and can speak intelligently versus a white guy who can't, I'm picking the black guy.

I found a site:
http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2009/11/14/race-criminal-background-and-employment/
According to that site, black people who have been imprisoned are less likely to get college degrees and whatnot than white people. The unemployment stats show that white people don't have to worry about losing jobs to them (The site is a bit outdated,but nothing has changed). It may have happened a few times, but I don't see it being common enough to call for an end to AA like many want to do. The unemployment gap between races makes me wonder if AA is even effective. It just looks like the white people who whine about AA are just victimizing themselves, because the job outlook is really in their favor.

Again, I'd look at the stats more closely than just race.

AA is effective... at times. I would also call into question it's effectiveness in the long run. I quite like it's purpose and goals. I just don't think it's the right way to go about it, entirely.
Unfortunately, government groups aren't the ones to take the responsibility for everything that's happening. The people in plight have to be willing to take it upon themselves, and often their own community bears much of the problem.

[washu_2004]

Annata Cannata

Skyburn

Annata Cannata

Are you sure its just denouncing education as "uncool"? Are you sure its not just schools in low budget areas that don't properly prepare people for college? Even still, white people with a criminal record are still more likely to get a job over black people without criminal records. I'd say its a case of people always assuming the worse from you because your black.

Hyperboles and single-source blame.
Careful. Silly things, again.

Yes; I'm not so dumb as to assume that people aren't without racism. Yes; I am well aware that there are schools with improper funding. Who's fault is that? Are people picketting and rioting in the streets over schools and funding? Is the community getting involved? Do they even care? Are they trying to make a difference or victimizing themselves? While there are people who care, all too often people just fail to hold up their end of Democracy.
Yes, statistics show that blacks are less likely to get jobs than equally convicted white men. However, do look at all the statistics before you start pointing fingers. There's more to it than racism.
At the same time, there are cases where equally acused black men are more likely to get jobs over white men. Again, it's more circumstance. (i.e. White guy looks like a ***** or a country-hick.)
At the same time, there is still more to consider that may be race related. Example: Comprehension of the English Language? Whites are far less likely to start saying stuff like, "How we do," or "What he be," or any of that other ebonics crap. Stuff that doesn't show up on a resume, but does show up in an interview. Who are you going to hire, a guy who can speak the English Language like he's actually passed third grade, or a guy who's got a speech impediment that isn't "historically cultural" at all, it's just a symptom of a failure to learn?
I'm hiring the guy who's able to present himself as useful and intelligent. White or black. If it's a black guy who's well dressed or at least looks like he takes care of himself and can speak intelligently versus a white guy who can't, I'm picking the black guy.

I found a site:
http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2009/11/14/race-criminal-background-and-employment/
According to that site, black people who have been imprisoned are less likely to get college degrees and whatnot than white people. The unemployment stats show that white people don't have to worry about losing jobs to them (The site is a bit outdated,but nothing has changed). It may have happened a few times, but I don't see it being common enough to call for an end to AA like many want to do. The unemployment gap between races makes me wonder if AA is even effective. It just looks like the white people who whine about AA are just victimizing themselves, because the job outlook is really in their favor.

Aren't there prison programs that let convicts earn a college degree for free?

link

[Riviera de la Mancha]

Solareflare

Black History Month was didn't use to be a month, it used to be a week, until some black person stated why do us black people only get a week and white people get a whole year. So, black people got a month in February. To me we get a month, instead of a year to ourselves, it seems foolish for black people to clown around and say, "Aw, that's not fair, white people get this and that."
However you don't see the Chinese, Mexicans, and Arabs that lived in America complain about their history and what is reminded. Black people are the only race I know who likes to remind people about their ancestors suffering. However, I don't see no Jews like, "Hey, we should have a month to remind the people that we were killed because of our nationality." Or whatever the reason why Hitler killed them....-_-'

Noe one ethnic group 'complains' about their history. Rather, what the point of the months, and there are indeed other months for different groups, is to provide a nationally recognized time where issues and perspectives which are normally not discussed in schools can be discussed, at least for a time.

However, if we are going to try and call all blacks, as a collective race, a bunch of complainers because they dare to suggest that the US has had policies and periods of time when it wasn't so kind to us darkies, lets be objective...

Try going to any school in LA on Caesar Chavez's day and not see a bunch of latinos and hispanics 'complaining' about American immigration, labor exploitation, etc.

Try going to S.F. and ignore the amount of ads for Asian American film screenings discussing the internment camps during their month.

All groups do something like 'complaining.' So if you are going to try and paint with a broad bush, well, get a bigger one then.

[Fearherloveher]

Annata Cannata

First of all, there are other history months- http://smithsonianeducation.org/heritage_month/
Second of all, the reason there are history months is because thats the only time their history will be taught. Despite what you learn in school there are other Black people that accomplished things besides Martin Luther King Jr. And do we even learn about any specific Native American people besides Pocahontas? The problem is that public school teaches about only one or two token non-white people and call it a day when there is so much more.

My fifth grade teacher didn't even touch black history or any other ethnic minority history accept for when it was in the history book (the section about Pocahantus) and a required reading about Martin Luther King. That. Is. It.

[low iq 111]

BUT IF YOU IGNORE BLACK HISTORY THEN YOU ARE NOT CHECKING YOUR PRIVILEGE AND IGNORING THE OPPRESSION THAT WHITE STILL COMMIT EVERYDAY ON BLACK PEOPLE.