Should schools teach more black history?

Dang. I just joined the discord. I’m under a new name. I am the research toolkit now. I have part of my new name saved in case someone gets confused. Over time I may remove my old name in the attachment in favor of the new one.

i am very sorry but i will not be able to publish my debate before the website is shut down!

take as much time as you need

I will be on it. I’m slow due to some obligations I have with research for the University. I will typically be quicker than the two week span lol! Only time I won’t will be due to vacation lol!

Ok! Look forward to the debate!

ughhh fine... ill be done by tommorow

To determine what is true you have to look at things from different viewpoints. Policy and behavioral science has a lot to it.

why so much

@Self #22
Or maybe a huge chunk of butter that a cracker has been dipped into.
So much history to teach, so little time.

I look forward to reading the debate.

I would love to say something, but will leave it because I know that there will be a lot mentioned in the debate. I think if I put too much in regard to information in the comment section may take away from the debate. I do hope you enjoy the debate though lol!

Wow this debate made me realise I barley learnt about black people

Don't feel a need to respond to all of this, as I know the debate is still ongoing, just some idle thought on my part.
Or any unless you want to of course.

The problem I see is that there are so 'many minorities, ought every minority have a month?
Or a large focus on X individuals from X minority who have succeeded?
Again, lot of minorities.

I can appreciate people of X group taking a focus on their particular history and accomplishments.
. . . And I 'can see an argument in educating ignorant individuals who think X people are incapable of accomplishments, even though education, wealth and opportunity play such vital roles.
But I also think America's history is 'full of mistaken thinking and errors, that we can now see in hindsight.
I don't remember school or history class all that well, from my 'memory, it 'was pretty shallow. I wouldn't say 'whitewashed, but butter scraped over too much bread.
. . .

Skimming over what I've already read in that book I mentioned,
I found it interesting after the Revolution how laws on Manumissions and Entail and Primogeniture changed,
Manumissions changing to state law and the view that one ought be able to do as they like with their property, increasing State Rights Ideals in southern states.

Entail and Primogeniture, allowing for slavery to spread south and west easier.

Hudgins v. Wrights,
Judge St. George Tucker

I know people argue against the slippery slope in regards of laws, but so 'much of history and law 'is the slippery slope to my view.
Sure there are huge revolutions sometimes, but even those are made of many small parts coming together, many small steps until the destination is arrived at.

The book also talked about of the bad conditions of slaves, and events they endured, blacks serving in the military both Colonial and British, escapes, hypocrisy of slave owners, how vital the system was to the South.
. . .

I do think there is a difference in outcome, based in how information is received.

Theoreticals don't impact as much as experience, maybe.

Some people argue against 'style in debate, but style impacts how something is received.
Nixon vs Kennedy, radio vs tv, though one 'could argue different types of people listened to the radio than people who watched TV.
It's why Pro Life individuals wish for people to view ultrasound of their fetus before choosing abortion,

Course some people argue such can be badgering, fine line, or a spectrum maybe.

While one side of convincing is to fully expose one to a view,
Another is to sanitize and view dispassionately.
Weirdly, I think 'either can lead to atrocity.

Slaves as an example, by style and exposure, one can fire up a panicked fear crazed mob,
By Sanitization and Rational Self interest, one can ignore the suffering of others and focus on supposed necessity.

(For Wylted) I will hold off on replies to this forum simply because I am debating. If you want a message box discussion or a debate I am willing to go through with it. I simply don’t want to ruin the debate by debating in the comment section as well over my own debate. Hope all is well and I hope your day goes well lol!

That is real interesting. I will add it to my bookshelf at some point. Some good reads as well would be Carter G Woodson’s book “the mis-education of the negro”, and WEB Dubois book called “Soul of Black Folk”. A more modern scholar I love is Jarvis Givens. He I’ve read a lot of his work, but my favorite book of his so far is called school clothes. Thanks for giving me a new book to read lol!

(For Wylted) Again look at my original claim. It would match with it because black history will show negative aspects in the American history. Prager mentioned that certain teachings of black history is causing contempt towards America. This matches with my original comment and what it was trying to convey. You mentioning the nuance of his wording doesn’t show anything because black history is black history. Prager isn’t an expert so he is going to say things extremely untrue. The word anti-white doesn’t change that actual message because the words match a similar message of what I was trying to convey some conservatives as saying. Again this is proven true based on his own words. You mentioning me citing a reporter instead of his bill doesn’t mean anything. This researcher may not have been publishing a study, but when you go to do work for colleges, your work goes through a process to ensure a certain level of accuracy (Ruel et al., 2017). This means that the material is checked by other researchers to ensure that the information is accurate. Researchers can still come to wrong conclusions, because all people are fallible, but they are checked for accurate citations. This can be backed up by numerous others such as ones from Florida A&M, and colleges that are more historically white. Critical race theory is honestly just touted as bad by Fox News when the actual definition is “an academic and legal framework that explicates racism as structural, institutionalized in the history, systems, and policies of the United States. Critical Race Theory recognizes that racism transcends individual bias and prejudice, it is embedded in legal, social, and educational policies and systems that uphold racial inequality” (Sage pub). If you want to debate racism we can, I can show you how all this is true basically lol! Simply put though my original comment matches similar to Prager and my research in regard to policy still stands and is shown to be the norm in research. You actually have more bias towards publishing works in favor of minority causes, which I can site if you like (To eliminate this being a anti conservative thing. There are such things as conservative researchers. I know you didn’t claim this, but I hear this a lot so I am addressing it beforehand lol).
Refrences
https://researchmethodscommunity.sagepub.com/blog/critical-race-theory-fire-and-dangerous-things

I've gone to the library a couple times this week,
Trying to change my schedule, so I stop staying up all night,
Hopefully it'll stick eventually.
But, the book I picked off the shelf the last couple times has been,
The Internal Enemy Slavery and War in Virginia, 1772-1832 By Alan Taylor

Some of it I know 'roughly, but it 'is interesting to get a more in depth view of the topic.
And it 'does depict a lot of founding Americans ba- honestly, which for them is a bad light.

I 'do think black history should be taught in schools, and not just skipped over when certain time periods and locations of America are being covered.
I also find it interesting politically/legally, how one can see-

Well, I'll say more in an hour or two, I found a part of that book interesting on attempted legislation and then how the legislator changed their stance for political reasons.

The "l" is actually a capital i if that helps tag me, but these are criticisms of the anti white education some schools teach by Dennis Prager not a criticism of teaching black history.

The example of trump was him also targeting the same things and you could have directly linked to his bill with citations but chose to link to a commentator instead. One who is also pushing critical race theory. It's an attack on the narrative of critical race theory and nothing else. Are we trying to highlight the achievements of blacks and the horrors of slavery so they aren't repeated or are we merely trying to brain wash students into becoming a professional victim class?

I agree to an extent. More of what I would get at though is black history isn’t taught enough. Our history is whitewashed, and made to not look as bad in many areas. When you read into it, you actually see that slavery was more harsh than what is described in our textbooks (A good read on this is African American historian Jarvis Givens). I won’t go into too much detail because the debate will cover a lot of this. Many items are glossed over in relation to schooling, which affected opportunities for African Americans. We also typically don’t learn a lot about Carter G Woodson (Created black history month), and WEB Dubios (First African American with a PhD. Woodson is the second and he actually was a slave at first). I would say teaching black history of how individuals defied odds and made something for themselves is important and gives individuals in the minority community hope. I could point out too that it helps us show racial tendencies as well, but I don’t want to go too in detail. I do agree about the black history month to some degree if everything was taught equally. I do hope you enjoy the debate lol!

(For Wylted. Idk why it won’t tag you lol). I will say I paraphrased a bit, but you do get comments very similar to this. I will cite you a few conservative talk show people as an example, and how Trump has tried to minimize black history in schools to make it not look as bad. Idk why you have to have exactly one certain talk show host, but I can add comments of his as well. First off I wouldn’t say I’m liberal or conservative because I really go different ways on different issues. To start, talk show conservatives such as Dennis Prager says that we teach an anti-white history with a quote here “The purpose of all teaching about race in American schools is to engender contempt for America. They are, therefore, "taught" the lies of The New York Times' "1619 Project" — that the United States was founded to preserve and protect slavery — and of such works as Robin DiAngelo's "White Fragility”. (Creators.com). Contempt for America is implying that we are diminishing something within American history against what is taught. There is more to this article, and more to say in response to this article because he does try to defend his claims. I’m not going to argue about his other claims at this time unless you want to be the one who signs the debate thing here lol! Then we can go at it in regard to arguments about how black history is taught. When you actually read though, history is very white washed, and individuals like Trump tried to actually keep it this way. In Trump’s first term he tried to pass the patriot education act, which minimized slavery in to calling slaves just “workers”. (Penne 2020). This actually downplays how harsh slavery actually was (I will make these arguments more in my opening. I would rather not reveal my first moves lol). Again if you want to debate black history accept the debate or I can replicate this debate for you to accept. Either way doesn’t bother me because I love the conversations. Now in regard to what you mention I gave the citations needed for the message I was actually trying to convey. The founding father things was paraphrased because I was relaxing late at night, but conservatives do feel that black history is taught in a way that is against the ideals of America and you have policy makers who make decisions within that same sort of framework (This does make my founding father thing make sense though, because they are touted as the brave individuals who fought for freedom. Claims with racial items hurts this view, and this is without me saying too much negatively. I don’t necessarily dislike the founding fathers, but if you look at how they viewed slaves it was wrong. We can all learn from individuals past mistakes). If we want to move to Ben Shapiro we can, but it isn’t really necessary. Shapiro is more nuanced than prager, and I wouldn’t say he specifically makes these stamens like prager, but he does downplay slavery. An example of this is a speech that he gave titled, America was not built on slavery. You can do what you want with this claim and I could again argue that this isn’t the best claim to make, but I will leave it at that. Shapiro says more things like “But those who are determined to see America’s story as a continuing story of oppression, those determined to paint America’s history as an eternal story of brutality and slavery, rather than as a struggle toward freedom and equal rights in concert with the original founding principles of the country, suggest that slavery remains the defining feature of American life.” (Bu.edu). I would disagree because we can prove racism heavily in our society today, and past issues from slavery impact black people to this day. If you would want to debate if racism affects the U.S. heavily I can do that as well because that is my most debated topic. My point was that their are plenty of politicians that frame talking about black history as being against actual American ideals, which can be seen if you watch numerous people on the right side of the isle. Also I will comment on your other comments that you left about teaching and I do actually enjoy the back and forth (On another thread). I’m just cooking a mean Philly cheesesteak right now lol! It’s just that my point does stand when you view policy and certain talk show people. If you thought I was being specific with my claim I wasn’t. It was just late, and I made a more general statement, which is really still backed up.
Refrences
https://www.creators.com/read/dennis-prager/11/20/what-american-schools-should-teach-about-race-racism-and-slavery
https://news.utexas.edu/2020/10/24/patriotic-education-is-a-whitewashing-of-history/
https://www.bu.edu/articles/2019/ben-shapiro-at-boston-university/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CThe%2520title%2520of%2520the%2520event,a%2520good%2520university%2520is%2520about.%E2%80%9D

History,
I'd imagine is taught, per what one is.
America as an example,

Has a 'clear, recent and documented founding.
Colonization, Rebellion and Independence, Ideals and Values clear spoken and defined (Kind of).

Compare that with someplace such as Britain, France, Germany, Japan.
Is founding their furthest memory of their people, or their 'current regime and people?
I'll assume 'current regime, else American History would focus 'more on times before The War of Independence.
Though I'm sure previous regimes and accomplishments are still important.

Seems hard to 'avoid speaking of Black history, when speaking of America and it's founding,
Not to mention how many 'current laws and policies are effected by it.
So many laws 'carefully worded, during Independence, out of Southern fear of their slaves having some right to liberty.
The Civil War's effects on States Rights, on Birth Citizenship.
Civil Rights Movement, Effect on Class/Caste? in America.
. . .
Not that Blacks are the 'only ones of discussion in all these events, 'nor that their actions as individuals/Vague Group has always been ideal and good.
. . . I don't think teaching black history, or more black history is wrong.
Though I think it might be an error to teach Black History Month or have a class focus a semester or something on Black History.
. . I think I prefer history by time period and location, there are many groups in America, at every point, exerting influence.

It’s changed if you want to do it. Tell me what you think and I can revise if necessary. I am at a conference so I just did this real quick. I’m off now so I should be able to respond quicker lol!

"You get more conservative people who claim that teaching more on the black perspective is wrong because “It is making the founding fathers look bad”.

No you don't get that from conservatives. Show me a single Ben Shapiro segment that says this. He has discussed about every conservative topic so it shouldn't be too hard to get the conservative view from him on this topic somewhere.

Thank you for understanding. <3

I will accept this debate if you change the objective saying something like, should schools teach More black history. other than what you put.
btw I'm half black so I don't want to seem racist or anything.

I guess, sorry.

I think you're taking this too far now.

I am glad I am not black.

Ok. Well carry on lol

I dont care.

I can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic or for real lol! Seen so many interesting people on the internet it becomes difficult at times lol!

Really depends. I could probably change the topic to is history whitewashed or something. This is more though a debate about whether black history should be implemented in schools. If you read a lot of black history you see not much is taught under the black perspective. You get more conservative people who claim that teaching more on the black perspective is wrong because “It is making the founding fathers look bad”. Some people may not quite understand the implications behind actions they do. If this is a crappy title I will revise it to more of a history/policy debate on if history taught in schools is white washed lol! I’ve just heard some conservatives argue against black history being taught in public schools, which was why this was done.

I dont care for black people enough to accept this debate.

isn't it kind of weird if a white person were to join this debate, it would sort of insinuate there racist if they don't want black history to be taught in schools wouldn't it.