History Education - Black History Month

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm in my early 40s, which means I went to school in the 80s/90s. I wasn't a slacker, I paid attention, I took US History AP, and I apologize to my history teachers if I'm incorrect, but I'm pretty darn certain I am not.

I do not recall learning about the Tulsa Massacre (white people might want to call it a riot to provide cover to make people think the 'blacks were the ones mobbing it around), Juneteenth (I'm just learning that that is a thing),

Is it just me or was US history back then: Colonies / Revolution / Andrew Jackson / Civil War / Reconstruction / Native American Massacres / Spanish American War / WWI / Great Depression / WWII / Civil Rights Movement / Little Caesar's Bigfoot Pizza.

Relative to African American History, there seems to be a notable gap between Reconstruction and MLK and Malcolm X. And when I say MLK and Malcolm X, really that is it. Medger Evers? WTF was he? Why do I need to watch movies to learn about who Evers was (and keep in mind, I'm not aware of a movie about Evers, just the really long time it took to get justice for his Assassination) and the women in Hidden Figures. Yeah, we hear about Rosa Parks, but nothing actually about Rosa Parks.

Yes, today is an odd time. We have more information available at our finger tips, it can become impossible to learn anything. Everything is the tip of the iceberg. But in the 80s/90s, didn't we know these historical things? We learned about the Nat Turner massacre. But not Tulsa or what, a dozen plus others. And we aren't talking about three guys dragging an African American behind their truck to death. We are talking premeditated mass murder by mobs.

Naw! Why teach that? I have no idea what is taught today.

It gets frustrating. I grew up in a very white area, but pretty liberal (South Shore Massachusetts). And the education wasn't bad. It was very good. But I feel that a big problem our nation has is that we have a massive disparity in racial knowledge. Some of which is likely intended, other of which is inertial. There is a lot of history to teach. We certainly didn't learn a lot about labor history in school either. Yeah, you hear about the AFL turn AFL-CIO and the Triangle Fire, but not much else (yeah, so much for the liberal indoctrination right?).

If more people knew this stuff, it might help provide a greater context to our own scars, and finally provide a knife to the throat of white exceptionalism. People sitting back in their arm chairs mocking how primitive the black rioting is. A lot of the crimes against blacks has often been put at the foot of "racists" and the "KKK", but when you really look at the history, it was white people, maybe not every one, but it wasn't contained in this beautifully obfuscated box which allows people to say 'well that was just the bad ones'.

What say the others? What do you know? What did you not know? What did you feel terrible not knowing already?

 

[Politesse]

You're not wrong. It varies by region, too; My partner and I have often compared notes, as fellow history enthusiasts who grew up in very different social environments. He's from a white enclave in the Detroit metro, and his experiences of this resemble yours I think. These parts of history weren't covered in any meaningful sense. Things weren't a lot better in supposedly liberal California, though. We had Black History month, and I remember spending a lot of time on the Underground Railroad, Martin Luther King, and George Washington Carver. The "acceptable" black heroes, in short. At least they were covered, though, and I learned a lot more through a series of annual public lectures at the community college nearby. My parents took me every year, so I was able to hear Yolanda and Coretta Scott King, Maya Angelou, and Julian Bond speak. I learned so much more from those encounters than from my schooling, that I get to worrying about kids who are now growing up in a world where so many of those people have passed on.

On the other hand, I remember openly prejudicial things being taught about Malcolm X, the various race riots, etc. There was definitely a "Good N***, Bad N****" dynamic still at play in the curriculum. I also came away with the impression, partly enabled by the mostly Mexican and White neighborhood I grew up in, that Black Civil Rights were done deal, solved long ago and no longer a troubling issue for the nation. This despite the fact that the Rodney King incident happened right in the middle of my childhood years. but you know, that wasn't discussed in school either. Nothing after the Civil Rights Act was discussed. So I guess we were supposed to believe that this one piece of legislation ended racism for good.

More local to my area, it is painfully obvious to me now, though I was oblivious to the fact as a child, that Latino history wasn't covered. At all. Not til college, and even then very sparingly. In my unofficially segregated but Hispanic-majority hometown, I went through the entirety of my primary and secondary education without hearing a single word about the history of Mexicans in America after 1848. I remember my mom, who taught choir at the school, causing controversy with the parents once by daring to include a Spanish-language song in one of the choral programs. One song.

Relative to African American History, there seems to be a notable gap between Reconstruction and MLK and Malcolm X. And when I say MLK and Malcolm X, really that is it. Medger Evers? WTF was he? Why do I need to watch movies to learn about who Evers was (and keep in mind, I'm not aware of a movie about Evers, just the really long time it took to get justice for his Assassination) and the women in Hidden Figures. Yeah, we hear about Rosa Parks, but nothing actually about Rosa Parks.

The best known Hollywood film about Medgar Evers is "Ghosts of Mississippi". It is very white-washed, though, and is more about the events that followed his death than his actual accomplishments; a better biopic was produced for PBS in the mid-80's titled "For Us the Living". The more recent film "I am Not Your Negro" draws heavily from James Baldwin's memoirs of the man in its middle segment.

I was surprised to learn, as an adult, that Rosa Parks was an activist. I think when I was a kid, she was somehow portrayed to me as though she was just a normal lady who didn't want to get up because she'd had a long day and was tired. Well, she was tired. But not in that way.

 

[rousseau]

In Ontario students are required to take one history course when they're 15, and most only take that one. For the most part, it's designed to be as inoffensive as possible, and to present a very high-level version of Canadian history without making anybody angry. To me, the problem in large part comes from the fact that parents are very vocal about what their kids are taught, and getting too political in the curriculum will invariably lead to backlash and problems for the administrations of schools. If you tell kids that Canada was built by undermining huge swaths of native populations, you're going to upset a bunch of angry nationalist parents.

But honestly, as someone who's been studying history in his own time from about age 26 to 33, I'm not sure if the history curriculum would make much difference, regardless of how it's built. Most kids in high school are more interested in relationships, alcohol, and getting a passing grade, than enriching their own minds, or learning anything substantive. For most people school is not an enriching experience, it's just something they have no choice but to do. And in adulthood these types of themes - racial, religious etc - although prominent on Freethought forums, are actually a very unimportant part of most people's day to day lives. IOW, people are here to study, find work, start a family, raise a family, retire. Anything that is only tangential to that path - such as a strong understanding of history - will almost always be an after thought.

This is one of the main conclusions I've made from the study of history - people largely weren't built for intellectual pursuits or understanding, they were built to be social, and to have kids. So an idealist can hope that we can educate some of our problems away, but I'm a little more skeptical.

 

[Toni]

I admit that I was never very interested in history. For me, history was presented as more or less a series of wars/battles and because I disliked history I did not take world history so I missed reading about Queen Elizabeth, Queen Victoria, and Cleopatra. The only women I remember being mentioned in my US History classes (really, were there any other history classes? IDK) were Martha Washington, as being wife to Father of Our Country, Dolly Madison for saving something or other from the burning White House, Betsy Ross (of course!) and Carrie Nation. Pocahontas was mentioned as a noble creature who helped white men. So did Sacajawea who, at 16, helped white men 'discover' vast portions of what became the USA. I believe that Eleanor Roosevelt was referred to and one history teacher made the point that the US had actually had a female POTUS in Woodrow Wilson's wife after he suffered a stroke. So we girls could be proud of that! In 7th grade we were required to learn our state's history and I actually learned something about the Native Americans from pre-settler days. It wasn't until our high school history teacher recommended Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee that I had any inkling at all of our treatment of Native Americans.

We learned about the Colonial days, Revolutionary War, Civil War and Reconstruction, WWI, the Great Depression and WWII. The Civil Rights Movement was considered 'controversial' and our teacher valued his job. I lived in a very white town for all except the first two years of my school years. In fact, I did not actually meet anyone who was not born a US citizen until I went to college. Thanks to Facebook, I have to a small extent, caught up again with some friends from high school, a couple of whom it turned out became members of Native American tribes, one holding a fairly high position with the tribe until his death. I had no idea.

Black people mentioned: Crispus Attucks, George Washington Carver, W.E.B. Du Bois. Frederick Douglas. Harriet Tubman.

 

[Worldtraveller]

It's very regional. Since I grew up in the military, I had a fantastic World History class, taught by a full professor. A lot of stuff is necessarily skipped or glossed over when talking about the entire world (or at least western civilization).

Unfortunately, I moved my junior year back to the US, and had a horrible US history teacher (probably the worst teacher I had in HS). We barely got through the revolution, and even a lot of that was glossed over.

My senior year, I moved to AZ, and taking AZ history was quite a bit better, and included a lot of the oppression of the US on the local Native American tribes. My AZ history prof was Dinae (commonly called Navajo) and was quite explicit about just how badly the tribes continue to be treated by the US.

Another fairly significant historical event that almost no one knows about: the bible riots (1840s). I read about those only about 10 years ago, around the time I discovered IIDB.

 

[ruby sparks]

The same issue raised by the OP applies very much to Britain. Perhaps not as much as it used to when I was at school, but I’d guess it persists.

Briefly speaking the gist of it was that the British empire was the greatest gift ever made to the rest of the world. Apart from a few token misdemeanours.

Britain’s role in the slave trade was especially underplayed if not indeed whitewashed. Ditto treatment of black people generally. That narrative is currently coming apart at the seams, especially in the wake of what’s happening in the US. Statues of ‘heroes’ are having unpleasant graffiti added to them and so on.

Given their shared history (of empire and colonialism and exploitation) I’d guess something similar went on in most western countries, and there has most likely been a similar trend for any country that ever succeeded similarly. Or even if it didn’t but there was a hegemony writing the history.

By contrast, Irish history taught in Ireland almost certainly overplayed the ‘oppressed Irish victimhood’ thing. I went to school in both Ireland (primary school) and Britain (secondary school). That was (is) a different sort of hegemony but in essence the same type of thing, just a different type of skew.

Can I just say that if US history classes back then did cover Native American massacres then kudos to it.

Perhaps the difference between that and African American history was that the latter was not done and dusted, was not ‘merely’ history. Was a hot potato.

 

[rousseau]

Briefly speaking the gist of it was that the British empire was the greatest gift ever made to the rest of the world. Apart from a few token misdemeanours.

A year or two ago I came across and bought a 'History of the British Empire' written for Ontario school-age kids (can't recall the grade level) somewhere around the 1920s or 1930s. I'll just say it was quite the read.

 

[ruby sparks]

Briefly speaking the gist of it was that the British empire was the greatest gift ever made to the rest of the world. Apart from a few token misdemeanours.

A year or two ago I came across and bought a 'History of the British Empire' written for Ontario school-age kids (can't recall the grade level) somewhere around the 1920s or 1930s. I'll just say it was quite the read.

I bet it was.

 

[ruby sparks]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thecon...ulum-historian-on-why-this-must-change-105250

”British Empire is still being whitewashed by the school curriculum – historian on why this must change“.

From as recently as 2018.

Not about the US but some of the same points probably pertain. For example the reluctance to tell the warts and all facts for fear that it will make students ashamed of their culture. Whereas this might not be a bad thing, even assuming it happened.

 

[DBT]

Those in power tend to take advantage of their position for their own benefit, be it purse strings or military, regardless of skin colour, religion or ethnicity. It seems to be the human condition.

 

[Politesse]

Can I just say that if US history classes back then did cover Native American massacres then kudos to it.

They sure didn't where I grew up, especially in terms of specifics. Like, they would mention the Trail of Tears, but not really explain either why it happened or how bad things actually were. Major massacres like at Sand Creek might get a nod, but it would not be made clear that they were part of a persisting long term pattern of murder and abuses, rather than say, an isolated incident that everyone now regrets. The "Indian Wars" were treated as though they were essentially a single historical event, and one in which both sides were fighting. Mentions of Native polities as independent nations with their own internal politics never occurred, for the most part it was always just "the Native Americans", as though the entire race had a singular experience, language, and culture. If specific groups were of necessity discussed, it was under their "government names" (Sioux, Apache, Navajo) never by the names by which they call themselves.

I definitely never heard a word about the massacres that had occurred in my home state; it was heavily implied that California Indians had "drifted away" to escape the Gold Rush, etc, and were no longer involved in the state history after that point. The creation and dissolution of the rancheria system, the Dawes act, the "apprenticeship acts", the Indian New Deal, MIF and AIM protests, all of that went entirely undiscussed. Even outside of school. Things have (mercifully) changed a little bit in the last five-ten years or so, but when I was growing up, you did not see references to the California Genocide in museums, or on Park Service signage, or other such official public educational venues.

 

[ideologyhunter]

I own a 1964 edition of Mississippi Yesterday and Today, which is the state history text used in Mississippi junior high schools back then. It even has two student signatures on the book plate. Very much what you'd expect (except that it blatantly admits that "Negroes" were by and large barred from voting -- somehow I thought that would be omitted. But no, it's there, and it's justified.) A friend of mine who taught literature at a local college used my copy for a project her class did on propaganda.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Things which happen to those of low socioeconomic status aren't normally part of history other than in the very broad picture.

History is about the actions of the powerful and the actions of those that changed the course of society. Those of low status rarely do either.

 

[bleubird]

https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/a-peoples-history-of-the-united-states-howard-zinn/1117179418

Great book,should be required reading.

 

[Politesse]

https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/a-peoples-history-of-the-united-states-howard-zinn/1117179418

Great book,should be required reading.

That was my textbook for History 102 in my college days. Good times.

 

[Trausti]

 

[Toni]

Things which happen to those of low socioeconomic status aren't normally part of history other than in the very broad picture.

History is about the actions of the powerful and the actions of those that changed the course of society. Those of low status rarely do either.

wow.

 

[barbos]

My American History was limited to Mark Twains "Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn". The best book I ever read as a kid.

 

[ruby sparks]

Can I just say that if US history classes back then did cover Native American massacres then kudos to it.

They sure didn't where I grew up, especially in terms of specifics. Like, they would mention the Trail of Tears, but not really explain either why it happened or how bad things actually were. Major massacres like at Sand Creek might get a nod, but it would not be made clear that they were part of a persisting long term pattern of murder and abuses, rather than say, an isolated incident that everyone now regrets. The "Indian Wars" were treated as though they were essentially a single historical event, and one in which both sides were fighting. Mentions of Native polities as independent nations with their own internal politics never occurred, for the most part it was always just "the Native Americans", as though the entire race had a singular experience, language, and culture. If specific groups were of necessity discussed, it was under their "government names" (Sioux, Apache, Navajo) never by the names by which they call themselves.

I definitely never heard a word about the massacres that had occurred in my home state; it was heavily implied that California Indians had "drifted away" to escape the Gold Rush, etc, and were no longer involved in the state history after that point. The creation and dissolution of the rancheria system, the Dawes act, the "apprenticeship acts", the Indian New Deal, MIF and AIM protests, all of that went entirely undiscussed. Even outside of school. Things have (mercifully) changed a little bit in the last five-ten years or so, but when I was growing up, you did not see references to the California Genocide in museums, or on Park Service signage, or other such official public educational venues.

Yeah. If it was taught, to only teach it that way would be the norm, I guess.

 

[ruby sparks]

I own a 1964 edition of Mississippi Yesterday and Today, which is the state history text used in Mississippi junior high schools back then. It even has two student signatures on the book plate. Very much what you'd expect (except that it blatantly admits that "Negroes" were by and large barred from voting -- somehow I thought that would be omitted. But no, it's there, and it's justified.) A friend of mine who taught literature at a local college used my copy for a project her class did on propaganda.

Propaganda. That’s the word.