History for Minorities

Post Reply New Topic

I have been reading a book about history and the way it's taught is often sanitized and not accurate. Minority students in particular do not like the required history courses in school and tend to do worse on them than white kids (in the US.)
My question is, how do we approach this subject? Eventually, minorities will increase in their numbers and might not even be minorities any longer so how do you teach about concepts like slavery, genocide and racism without alienating people of color? Right now textbooks are distorted and written to allow people of European ancestry the highest comfort level at the expense of everyone else (I am of European ancestry in case anyone is wondering.)

Do you think, eventually, classes will elevate people of non European ancestry (Africans, Native Americans and Hispanics) and claim they are the true heirs and far better than the colonizing Europeans?

It's already been noted the way history is taught now is rife with untruths, errors, and inaccuracies.

What should be done?

What is ignored was that after the civil war people were awarded 40 acres and a mule in honor of the jubilee but all the land was given back to the big plantation owners

Step 1 would probably be to stop allowing Texas to dictate the content of the textbooks for the entire country.

School vouchers to let parents send their kids to school that they think are best. That is good for autistic kids too as there are autistic-only schools.

In college, I had a "history" professor who taught "history" and not "chronology."

"History" is past events as seen from today's perspective. "Chronology" is the memorization of events, people and dates.

"History" helps us understand the past. "Chronology" simply makes us memorize it.

A problem with many "history" classes is that if there is an agenda behind the textbooks, then you aren't even presenting a factual view of past events.

If minorities don't want to learn history because it does not appeal to them, that's their loss. A lot of people don't care for history class (they find it boring), but dumbing down or changing the material in order to appeal to the student ultimately is a disservice to the student.

I really would not know, how exactly normal history shall be different according to different minorities? In my country you started with the basic development of societies and the early moving of humanity among the globus, which will be for all people the same. If I am african, asian or caucasian, really does not matter for "When did the different kind of humans develop in africa and move on to orient, europe, asia, australia, american continent..." As well that there wont be much differency about objects found, according to certain tribes, and what those objects tell us about he development of human societies. (Development of tool use, hunter weapon = hunter society, field tools = start of agrar society). Then we had the mentioning of the first developed societies, as egyptians and nubia, greek and romans, china, persia, and how their cultures and inventions were spreaded among others...

When it came to "newer" history we focused on the history of the area we are living in, so if you are living in China it would be about history of asian continent, if your african it would be the history of the african continent and when you are american it would be the history of the american continent in my oppinion. And a continent has no colour or race, so from my oppinion, the history of the american continent is everyones history, living on that continent. (I want to focus on, that with history of the american continent, I do mean the time before the white settlers arrival as well. I think the american continent will have existed before Columbus as well. ^^)

My idea for dealing with this is to get away from standardization. Put an emphasis on regional history in a national context. Give an overview that is standard in order to give context but then go into more detail with regional education. Regional emphasis is where the details give greater accuracy and making it regional makes it more relatable for children. Details are necessary for accuracy but you can't teach children everything in detail. Going into detail just for regional history allows for more detail and relevant field trips. This means that children in one part of the country will know more about the Civil War while others in another part know more about the Industrial Revolution while still others know more about migration the West Coast etc. That's non-standard but it allows for the sort of relatable detail that allows for a more nuanced view for children.

I have a special interest in the notion of unbiased views of history.

I had a neighbor who moved to the USA from Mexico as a child. So, he got exposed to 2 different views of the Mexican-American war. In the Mexican version, the Americans are the bad guys. In the American version, the Americans are the heroes.

And, within the USA, you will be taught different versions of the Civil War, depending on the state in which you reside. "Slavery didn't have a damned thing to do with it! Lincoln never freed a single slave! It was all about STATES RIGHTS!! !! Those damned Yankees just wanted to destroy our superior way of life!"