The newest blogger, Sara Rosell, of Double Consciousness blogs about Black History Month:
We definitely need to teach what contributions blacks have made, but before we teach about that we need to first talk about what it means for those contributions to be absent when it comes to the teachings of History itself. The problem is that our Anglo-centric educational system boxes “Black History” into a month, separating it from “U.S. History.”
When capitalized, "Sie" is the formal way to address adults of either gender in polite German. I majored in the…
If one assumes that a person is making their money, including enough money to have no incentive to "work", by…
Ob sie wirklich Deutsch spricht. Normalweise, kommt die US Soldaten nicht ins Stadt und spricht nicht so oft mit denn…
As for being a Nazi, ich spreche fliessend deutsch und wohnte in Deutschland fuer drei Jahre mit der americanishe Luftwaffe…
And of course this "incentive" only applies to poor people: Rich people who already have enough to live off of…
On this issue, you should take a look at this link. At least from high-schoolers’ standpoint, US history is not segregated from black history.
Red herring. The presence of Monroe & Winfrey, as well as “famous” (as opposed to “important”, “influential”, “read about/referenced in class”) proves what little/tangential relevance this has to the U.S. history curriculum. Hell, if it was relevant, I’d be quite worried. In addition to that, being forced to omit U.S. presidents — which form the center of pretty much any conventional U.S. history curriculum and would undoubtedly dominate the list otherwise — is a disingenuous and transparent sleight of hand.
Oprah Winfrey is extremely relevant to US history, not so much for the details of her “inspirational life story” as for what it indicates about the surrounding racial and economic contexts.
I think the point of the link, though, was that the cultural environment that kids are growing up in is not nearly as white-male-dominated as it used to be. School is only part of that, of course.
Yes, but how does he explain No. 7: Oprah Winfrey? She has “a kind of symbolic status similar to Benjamin Franklin,” Wineburg says. “These are people who have a kind of popularity and recognition because they’re distinguished in so many venues.”
If the teaching of American history ends up with equating the roles of Oprah Winfrey and Benjamin Franklin, there’s something seriously wrong with the way that American history is being taught. I don’t criticize stating that the success and impact of Oprah Winfrey on popular culture is significant as a symbol of what changes have come in how race and sex are dealt with in our culture, but Benjamin Franklin – the only person to sign the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution and our ambassador to our strongest foreign ally during the Revolutionary War – was far more than a symbol.
I’ve occasionally wondered similar things about BHM. History is generally taught in a fairly linear fashion, and BHM tends to jump around that to a large degree.
I wonder if there’s a real solution. Obviously the BHM things need to be taught, but how to do it best?
We could mandate that these things be taught as part of the traditional linear instruction, couldn’t we? I.e. get the same stuff before the students, and keep it in the mainstream? I’m guessing there’s some reason that that wouldn’t work, but I don’t know what it is…?
School is the very crux of that, because most children have little to no interest in history outside of school. Oprah Winfrey’s success says as much about the surrounding social and economic contexts as Madame CJ Walker’s success said in the early 1900s. One shining star is poor evidence for a cultural revolution/ a plethora of opportunities for anyone willing to work hard, despite a deprived background and being part of a commonly maligned racial group. Her ascension says much more about her perseverance than America’s permissiveness.
“If the teaching of American history ends up with equating the roles of Oprah Winfrey and Benjamin Franklin, there’s something seriously wrong with the way that American history is being taught.”
Exactly, hence the “I’d be worried.” Furthermore, pulling black figures from pop culture and sticking them next to luminaries like Franklin and Edison screams “forced” and strongly implies that black contributions to more “respected” fields like science, mathematics, literature and politics are minimal with no in-depth, complete explanation as to why. Kids can and do pick up on this. Many, many people, young and old, are walking around today with the perception that black Americans have made only meager contributions to society as a group (largely in the realm of entertainment), and this is one of the major reasons why.