• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Should Black history be intergrated into regular American history? (1 Viewer)

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
36,705
Reaction score
17,867
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
I thought I would ask you all the question should black American history be intergrated in regular American history text books in of it being just a seperate subject taught once a year?

My opinion is that black American history is American history and therefore should be intergrated into regular American history textbook instead of seperately taught once a year.
 
Yes, I don't know why people divide things into "black history" or "white history", I view it as all human history, you could say I'm color-blind.
 
Comrade Brian said:
Yes, I don't know why people divide things into "black history" or "white history", I view it as all human history, you could say I'm color-blind.

The whole idea of segregating American history just seems to further racism.
 
jamesrage said:
The whole idea of segregating American history just seems to further racism.
Depends on how you look at it. I tend to think of it as an academic concession that the black experience in American history is expansive, unique, and deserves a special educational niche.



 
Tashah said:
Depends on how you look at it. I tend to think of it as an academic concession that the black experience in American history is expansive, unique, and deserves a special educational niche.




Seperating it just seems to send the message to students that if the people in history are not their skin color then it is not important them or it does not apply to them.I think putting George Washington,Feddrick Douglas and so on together in the same book would instill the idea that this is every American's history and not just a particular group's.
 
i think it should be integrated. it was origionally seperated because in many schools it was not being taught. i also think it is kind of like the seperate but equal laws that were in affect before the civil rights acts. also, if there is a black history month, it begs the question why not an asian month or a latino month, or an native american month.
 
jamesrage said:
Seperating it just seems to send the message to students that if the people in history are not their skin color then it is not important them or it does not apply to them.I think putting George Washington,Feddrick Douglas and so on together in the same book would instill the idea that this is every American's history and not just a particular group's.
Hey lol, it wasn't me who insisted on Black History Month. I would suggest that you write the NAACP, JJ's Rainbow Coalition, the Black Congressional Caucus, the American Federation of Teachers, and any other influential persons or groups who pushed this a necessary and redeeming curricula.



 
You know what annoys me, the fact that black history month is the shortest of month of the year. What's up with that?
 
che, personally i dont even see the need for a black history month.
 
Che said:
You know what annoys me, the fact that black history month is the shortest of month of the year. What's up with that?

Why have it only once a year in the shortest month when it could intergrated into regular American history and be taught year round?
 
jamesrage said:
I thought I would ask you all the question should black American history be intergrated in regular American history text books in of it being just a seperate subject taught once a year?

My opinion is that black American history is American history and therefore should be intergrated into regular American history textbook instead of seperately taught once a year.

I think there is some value in isolating a specific group and look at how they both affected and were affected by the larger organization. There's plenty of women's history classes. Nothing wrong with it, just gives us a more in depth understanding.
 
Tashah said:
Depends on how you look at it. I tend to think of it as an academic concession that the black experience in American history is expansive, unique, and deserves a special educational niche.




True, but the same can be said of women's history. I think that in public school, the need for learning the general history is greater than the need for focusing for any time on a group's history. There are plenty of more intensive studies into a particular group when you reach college.
 
jallman said:
True, but the same can be said of women's history. I think that in public school, the need for learning the general history is greater than the need for focusing for any time on a group's history. There are plenty of more intensive studies into a particular group when you reach college.
Although I understand the motivation for a seperate course in black American history, I agree that it sould be wholly integrated (no pun intended) into the general History curricula. The rub here is... this would be the academically correct, but not politically correct. Ironically, it is probably up to the black American community to initiate any reforms and scholastic changes in the general teaching of black American history.



 
Tashah said:
Although I understand the motivation for a seperate course in black American history, I agree that it sould be wholly integrated (no pun intended) into the general History curricula. The rub here is... this would be the academically correct, but not politically correct. Ironically, it is probably up to the black American community to initiate any reforms and scholastic changes in the general teaching of black American history.




I don't understand why it should be integrated. So schools take a day out to discuss black history specifically. So what? Today I learned about the role of foreign direct investement in Brazil's economy. How is that any different? It is isolating one key part of the whole to learn more about both the part and the whole.
 
Kelzie said:
I don't understand why it should be integrated. So schools take a day out to discuss black history specifically. So what? Today I learned about the role of foreign direct investement in Brazil's economy. How is that any different? It is isolating one key part of the whole to learn more about both the part and the whole.
This discussion is primarily about black American history as it is taught in high school. Rather than a solitary day, the black American history program is a segregated curricula that consumes about a month of the high school history calendar. The question raised here is... should black American history be melded into general American history, or should it continue to be taught as a distinct and seperate sub-section of American history?



 
Kelzie said:
I don't understand why it should be integrated. So schools take a day out to discuss black history specifically. So what? Today I learned about the role of foreign direct investement in Brazil's economy. How is that any different? It is isolating one key part of the whole to learn more about both the part and the whole.


Intergration encourages unity amounst Americans.It teaches that it is not only Americans of African decent's history but it is all our history reguardless of race.Segregating history just sends the message that if you are not this skin color this does not apply to you.
 
Tashah said:
This discussion is primarily about black American history as it is taught in high school. Rather than a solitary day, the black American history program is a segregated curricula that consumes about a month of the high school history calendar. The question raised here is... should black American history be melded into general American history, or should it continue to be taught as a distinct and seperate sub-section of American history?




Psh, I don't buy that for a second. As a recent (well, somewhat) high school graduate, I can not recall spending a month learning black history. We learned about black history, in a addition to the civil war because they are obviously related, but not in February (that is when in it is right?). I don't for a minute believe that any history teacher spends an entire month teaching about black history. We spent barely a month learning about the French Revolution in world history.
 
jamesrage said:
Intergration encourages unity amounst Americans.It teaches that it is not only Americans of African decent's history but it is all our history reguardless of race.Segregating history just sends the message that if you are not this skin color this does not apply to you.

That is not true at all. If an anatomy class spends a week learning about the heart, that in no way gives the impression that the heart is not integrated into the body. "Black history" does not mean teaching about black people in a bubble. That never happened anyway. Like I already said, it is teaching about the black person's impact on America and America's impact on the black society. It gives us a better understanding of the US and black society. What is wrong with that?
 
Kelzie said:
That is not true at all. If an anatomy class spends a week learning about the heart, that in no way gives the impression that the heart is not integrated into the body. "Black history" does not mean teaching about black people in a bubble. That never happened anyway. Like I already said, it is teaching about the black person's impact on America and America's impact on the black society. It gives us a better understanding of the US and black society. What is wrong with that?
The only thing that does is further hey look at what my race did or what your race did to my race.It does not instill a sense of American unity.
 
jamesrage said:
The only thing that does is further hey look at what my race did or what your race did to my race.It does not instill a sense of American unity.

So we should gloss over what happened because it might not instill an sense of American unity? Sorry Charlie, history teaches what happened, not what we wish happened.
 
Kelzie said:
So we should gloss over what happened because it might not instill an sense of American unity? Sorry Charlie, history teaches what happened, not what we wish happened.


I am not arguaing that certian parts should be kept out. I am arguing that history should be taught in chronological order instead of segregated into different catagories.
The United states is one country therefore it's history should be taught to reflect that.
 
jamesrage said:
I am not arguaing that certian parts should be kept out. I am arguing that history should be taught in chronological order instead of segregated into different catagories.
The United states is one country therefore it's history should be taught to reflect that.

Well, sure. I'll agree with that. It's stupid to disrupt your teaching plan to teach black history in say, the middle of what was supposed to be the American Revolution. I see no problem though with teaching black history specifically when a class is learning about the Civil War or the economy of the South.
 
Kelzie said:
Psh, I don't buy that for a second. As a recent (well, somewhat) high school graduate, I can not recall spending a month learning black history.
You're probably right Kelz. I didn't go to high school in the US and don't really know how much school time was devoted to it, only fragmentary pieces of convo I've heard from American pre-Grad students. From what I've heard, it seems that the racial makeup of the school had some influence over how much time was allocated to black American history.



 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom