If White Americans want a White History Month, who's stopping you?

[coreymb16]

I always read on other opinion sites like Yahoo Answers etc. about how come there's is no White History Month but there is a Black History Month, Hispanic Heritage Month, Irish Heritage Month etc.. Who is stopping any of you that inquired it to create one. I'm black and I wouldn't care if they had a White History Month or a European Heritage Month. I'm sure some Americans from different ethnics would play the race card but that is just what those few are doing, playing the race card (I think a very few of whites not the majority). Whites have a 70% majority of USA. In the 1980's a White President (Ronald Reagan) and a disproportionate of White Congress vote to enact a Nationwide acknowledgment of Black History. So if a very small number of Whites want a White History Month (I think majority of whites don't really care and I think a majority of Blacks would care either) than go ahead. I think one of the reason Black History Month was created is because we are one of the minorities in the US and we wanted to show the rest of Americans what Blacks have contributed to America. I live in Louisiana and I'm 21 and I when I was in High School, I just remember learning more and more about other Blacks who contributed to America besides MLK, Rosa Parks, MalX, and others in the 1960's. So I think it is important to learn Black History and White History and Latino History. I think if we learn from each other's cultures, we gain much more perspective from one another. It is just my opinion and welcome yours. Thanks.

 

[gkokujin]

*facepalm*

 

[Thundercrack85]

The idea of races (not even races, people with a certain skin color, really) having individual months really sounds ass backwards to me. Silly at best, offensive at worst. I would never ask for a history month.

 

[Victarion]

You sir are racist for excluding my people.

 

[8wid]

I think all of these ridiculous history themed months need to be scrapped and the government stop handing out funding for their activities in public school. Let the history books and teachers do their jobs!

 

[Hobgoblin]

White people do have a history: its called history. I was a history major in college and the subjects we covered almost exclusively dealt with Caucasians. Its not to say that non-whites didnt participate or contribute to this nation, just that when we study history in a classroom, it tends to focus on white people. So the idea of a "white history month" seems silly and redundant to me.

That said, there were classes offered that dealt with African, Latin American, Asian and Indian history.

 

[dodgers2213]

this assumes that white people are all the same, when in actuality "white" is a stupid over generalizing term

 

[dnno1]

I always read on other opinion sites like Yahoo Answers etc. about how come there's is no White History Month but there is a Black History Month, Hispanic Heritage Month, Irish Heritage Month etc.. Who is stopping any of you that inquired it to create one. I'm black and I wouldn't care if they had a White History Month or a European Heritage Month. I'm sure some Americans from different ethnics would play the race card but that is just what those few are doing, playing the race card (I think a very few of whites not the majority). Whites have a 70% majority of USA. In the 1980's a White President (Ronald Reagan) and a disproportionate of White Congress vote to enact a Nationwide acknowledgment of Black History. So if a very small number of Whites want a White History Month (I think majority of whites don't really care and I think a majority of Blacks would care either) than go ahead. I think one of the reason Black History Month was created is because we are one of the minorities in the US and we wanted to show the rest of Americans what Blacks have contributed to America. I live in Louisiana and I'm 21 and I when I was in High School, I just remember learning more and more about other Blacks who contributed to America besides MLK, Rosa Parks, MalX, and others in the 1960's. So I think it is important to learn Black History and White History and Latino History. I think if we learn from each other's cultures, we gain much more perspective from one another. It is just my opinion and welcome yours. Thanks.

Ummm. Irish people are mostly white.

 

[dnno1]

You sir are racist for excluding my people.

Wooden alligators?

 

[chaseter]

Ummm. Irish people are mostly white.

Gingers...they are red folk.

 

[Hobgoblin]

this assumes that white people are all the same, when in actuality "white" is a stupid over generalizing term

Ok, fine. "European Americans."

 

[dodgers2213]

which European ethnic group? Italians? Spaniards? Portuguese? French? Danish? etc etc etc

 

[Thundercrack85]

It's an idiotic concept.

 

[Hobgoblin]

which European ethnic group? Italians? Spaniards? Portuguese? French? Danish? etc etc etc

Like I said, it was silly and redundant.

 

[Midnyte_Sun]

Italians and other Meditereneans should be excluded because they are technically brown people with white admixture.

The only whites should be Northen European. Danes, Norwegians, Scott, Irish, Swedes, Dutch, Anglo Saxons, some Finns, ethnic Germans, ethnic French, Castillian Spanish who have northen ancestry, Basques, etc. The rest of the "whites" are mutts.

 

[Kelly]

I think all of these ridiculous history themed months need to be scrapped and the government stop handing out funding for their activities in public school. Let the history books and teachers do their jobs!

Amen, thank you......

AND, having all of these days out of school is ridiculous as well, Columbus Day, MLK Day, President's Day..... One of the problems with our education system is how few days our kids spend in school. If you look at the countries ahead of us, they are averaging around 220 school days per year. We are at 180, and in most districts 177 because they sign a waiver that gives teachers 10 professional development days rather than 7, and takes 3 days away from the students instructional days. Ridiculously stupid....

 

[Papa G]

White people do have a history: its called history. I was a history major in college and the subjects we covered almost exclusively dealt with Caucasians. Its not to say that non-whites didnt participate or contribute to this nation, just that when we study history in a classroom, it tends to focus on white people. So the idea of a "white history month" seems silly and redundant to me.

That said, there were classes offered that dealt with African, Latin American, Asian and Indian history.

Very true...I'm an anthropology major and I definitely see what you're saying. It sounds offensive, but even though there are tons of history and social sciences classes about other cultures in US colleges, history can always be seen from a western perspective because of the significance of imperialism. It's really an issue of resources and geography and not any issue of race that explains why one population will develop faster than another. And it sounds dark, but when societies grow to the size of ancient Rome, Teotihuacan in Mexico, or the modern US or China, other cultures will be influenced by yours and history will place an emphasis on your culture for a certain period in time. Basically: One thing that's constant in the history of many nations is the west messing with other people.

 

[04nbod]

White people do have a history: its called history. I was a history major in college and the subjects we covered almost exclusively dealt with Caucasians. Its not to say that non-whites didnt participate or contribute to this nation, just that when we study history in a classroom, it tends to focus on white people. So the idea of a "white history month" seems silly and redundant to me.

That said, there were classes offered that dealt with African, Latin American, Asian and Indian history.

Every country bases their history syllabus on their own history with units on a few other key world topics. The US history is mostly about the white people in power at the time. Same in the UK where the history syllabus starts really young with the key ancient civilisations, Rome, Greece, Scandinavia(vikings) and Egypt, then some local history. When you get to secondary school history goes

12 yo- UK Middle Ages / The Crusades
13 yo- Tudors and Stuarts (inc. Cromwell's Civil War and Republic) / Napoleonic Wars
14 yo- UK Industrial Revolution / World War One
15 yo- UK Between the World Wars /Germany's Weimar Republic
16 yo- UK Post World War 2 / Cold War

 

[chamber-music]

The reason they have Black History Month or Hispanic History and so on month is because in History classes those races histories and cultures were traditionally underrepresented in the education system.

If ethnic minorites were better represented in school syllabus and culture as a whole they wouldn't need to designate special months to them.

 

[chamber-music]

Every country bases their history syllabus on their own history with units on a few other key world topics. The US history is mostly about the white people in power at the time. Same in the UK where the history syllabus starts really young with the key ancient civilisations, Rome, Greece, Scandinavia(vikings) and Egypt, then some local history. When you get to secondary school history goes

12 yo- UK Middle Ages / The Crusades
13 yo- Tudors and Stuarts (inc. Cromwell's Civil War and Republic) / Napoleonic Wars
14 yo- UK Industrial Revolution / World War One
15 yo- UK Between the World Wars /Germany's Weimar Republic
16 yo- UK Post World War 2 / Cold War

Britian has a large and long history and what we get taught in school doesn't cover much.

Things like the American Revolution, Britains involvement in Ireland, Wars with the Dutch and so on don't even make the education shortlist since they try and focus on the things that have the most relavance to Britain in the long term.

 

[04nbod]

Britian has a large and long history and what we get taught in school doesn't cover much.

Things like the American Revolution, Britains involvement in Ireland, Wars with the Dutch and so on don't even make the education shortlist since they try and focus on the things that have the most relavance to Britain in the long term.

Ireland is a part of the A Level syllabus along with every tedious piece of parliamentary politics for 100 years.

The American Revolution isn't really important in our history. If it were the start of the Empire's decline then yes but it wasn't even close. All the specifics I know about it comes from QI, British public opinion was against it, they had trouble finding British soldiers who would fight 'British' Americans and so they hired Germans.

 

[chamber-music]

Ireland is a part of the A Level syllabus along with every tedious piece of parliamentary politics for 100 years.

The American Revolution isn't really important in our history. If it were the start of the Empire's decline then yes but it wasn't even close. All the specifics I know about it comes from QI, British public opinion was against it, they had trouble finding British soldiers who would fight 'British' Americans and so they hired Germans.

I was agreeing with you by the way t:.

I don't remember them teaching about Ireland in A Level when I was at school but they change syllabus all the time

 

[Thundercrack85]

If you think the American Revolution wasn't an important part of British history, you really need to revaluate your view of history. Not just in the short run (Britain losing its oldest and most populous colonies, and having to shift its colonial focus to Asia), but also in the long run, with America replacing Britain as the world's foremost global power.

 

[Hobgoblin]

If you think the American Revolution wasn't an important part of British history, you really need to revaluate your view of history. Not just in the short run (Britain losing its oldest and most populous colonies, and having to shift its colonial focus to Asia), but also in the long run, with America replacing Britain as the world's foremost global power.

Actually, Britain gained it most populous colony by far in India during the Seven Years War/French and Indian War/Great War for Empire. That was in the 1750's.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Actually, Britain gained it most populous colony by far in India during the Seven Years War/French and Indian War/Great War for Empire. That was in the 1750's.

Most populous in having colonists, not conquered people. During company rule in India, there were actually very few British nationals living in India. Tens of thousands at most (and only a few thousand lived there permanently). While millions lived in the Americas.