Some Public schools are concieously emphasizing civil rights over other history - Page 2

^^ that too. Civil Rights is an easy 'modern' piece of history to study that no one can really get mad at you for. can you even imagine trying to teach Roe v. Wade? or about Lilly Ledbetter? Anita Hill? basically anything about vaginas? impossible. when a social studies teacher at my school tried to talk about something more recent, there was international outrage. why risk your neck? Civil Rights is easy, safe, and teachable. Who is going to complain about their kids learning about a whole people's struggle for freedom from systemic oppression, violence and discrimination in their own country? i mean, besides Beancounter?


eta: In Arizona you're not even allowed to discuss Mexican/Latino history because it's going to stir up some crazy anti white hysteria where all the brown people rise up and kill all the old white people. so perhaps it's not "emphasizing one part of history over the other" but more of "this is what i'm ALLOWED to teach."

Beancounter, there's no such word as, concieously. Do you mean, consciously?

We're talking about the U.S.A., right?

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is the most recent major statement and reaffirmation of liberty in our nation's history, as important as suffrage, emancipation, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence. It's not just about blacks, but about all people, women and men, in this country. I was raised prior to its enactment and I can tell you, the changes it made in American life are profound and for the better. Its importance should not be down-played. LBJ (even though he signed it,) Vietnam and Watergate are insignificant in comparison, and Martin Luther King, Jr. very much deserves to stand right beside G. Washington and A. Lincoln.

I don't really see much of a difference.

The average American, including one from an older generation of a "golden era of education", is still clueless about our history, especially our Colonial. Sure, you could ask these individuals who they thought were the most important founding fathers but if you asked them why they were important, what these individuals actually did for the Colonies and the United States, most of them wouldn't have a clue. In fact, I bet a huge chunk of their answers would be something like, "They signed the declaration of independence/wrote the constitution/fought in the War of Independence" but beyond that they'd probably be ignorant.

While I think that history is important to know, I think it's equally important to learn about the Civil Rights Movement because it is not only an issue closer to us in terms of time but it focuses on issues that we are still dealing with now and impacts the daily lives of Americans, including school children, every day. We are still dealing with the effects of institutionalized and internalized racism but we aren't that concerned about oppression from the Queen of England, are we?


I'm really not sure what you mean by this.... How does one paint a minority group in a positive light in the educational system? Are you suggesting that the school is discussing more of the good things blacks have done or accomplished in history and not enough of the bad things they have? That seems like a bit of a crazy suggestion.

And I think what others can understandably see as racist in this comment is your implication what is being taught about Civil Rights in your schools could possibly constitute a reflection on the whole of the population as if they were all homogenous.

We aren't dealing with oppression from the King of England anymore (it was King George the colonialists fought against, not a Queen). But we still are dealing with the questions of taxation, of the role of government, national security from threats foreign & domestic, and how to protect the freedoms and rights of individuals.

Perhaps you should have paid more attention in history class.

Actually, I know it was King George. I was referring to Queen Elizabeth II since if we were still concerned about oppression from England, we would be railing against her, wouldn't we? I was speaking in the present tense, after all. Perhaps you should have paid more attention in grammar class.

But you do make a fair point about the other bits that's why I said it was equally important to learn about Civil Rights, not more important.

*sticks nerd hat on*

I suspect you missed another error. It's "King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland", not "King of England" at that time. Also, to engage in even more quibbling: Considering the monarchy is more or less a figurehead, wouldn't we be rallying against the prime minister? It's not like we'd actually start rallying against Queen Elizabeth if we were complaining about oppression from Canada, would we? Even though she is technically the monarch of Canada and shows up on the loonie. So we should rant against whats-his-name. (Okay, UKers, you can hate me, I forgot the name of your PM. I remember the name of the guy before him though!)

But you made the allegation about what was being taught, making the leap from their knowledge to an allegation about the curriculum without actually knowing what was in it. What you should have said is what you just said, that you found it odd that they knew more about the Civil Rights movement than earlier American history.