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

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.
Most people would say sometrime between the early and mid 20th century was when the United States became the worlds biggest global superpower.

The British Empire peaked in the victorian era that was when it held sway over about 458 million people, one-fifth of the world's population at the time,and covered more than 33,700,000 km2 (13,012,000 sq mi), almost a quarter of the Earth's total land area.
 
The American Revolution in terms of British history is a relatively minor event. Britain was far stronger in the late 19th Century than it was in the late 18th Century. That America would later go on to be the world's superpower had nothing to do with the collapse of the British Empire. They were independent events.
 
That's some minor event then, losing New England (and Florida), and millions of colonists. Though I never said that the American Empire caused the downfall of the British Empire (at least not in the 20th century), but the American Empire did arise out of the British Empire. Albeit it fairly slowly. Also should mention something about Canada probably, though that's more 1812.
 
If we are talking Canada, then the American Revolution is a huge part of their history. Not only did they successfully prevent an American invasion in 1775, but after the war nearly 50,000 United Empire Loyalist refugees fled to Canada fearing persecution by the new American government. They became the backbone of Ontario's population (which was mostly backwoods and Indians at the time) and it is the reason Canada became Anglo dominated outside of Quebec.
 
Whenever anybody talks about race it never seems to stay on logic. The conversation always devolves into name calling, strawman arguments, and other ******** emotions.
 
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.

I don't think you can correlate the war of Independance with the fall of Britain as a super power. You just can't, they are too far apart. Britain was once part of the Roman Empire, but you can't tie that to the rise of the British Empire. The rise of America as a superpower doesn't take effect until the 20th century and is solidified by scientific advancement, sheer population tax and the impact of the world wars on Europe. The British Empire was just outdated in the end, the treatment of natives was reviled by the British people, it was an antiquated way of consolidating power and control of the sea meant nothing now the world could fly.

America was nothing compared to India, the crown jewel of the Empire that provided us with massive wealth. And the scramble for Africa would add more people to the British rule as Britain took a carving knife to the African continent compared to the colonies. The empire wasn't even at its height nevermind its demise.

The War of Independance was a short term blow and a short sighted, unpopular war in the first place and cannot be credited in any way with what America would become of itself 200 years later. In fact, that is an arrogant idea, that their dominance was because we lost one war in the 1700s.

All in all, its not that big a point in British history compared to others.The Suez crisis is more important than the War of Independance. Its like the Korean War of a country that has been in several of them with bigger ones on the horizon.
 
Last edited:
I am not correlating America's rise with Britain's fall (though it certainly set them back in the 18th century). However, calling the loss of your oldest and most populated colonies (in terms of actual citizens as opposed to conquered people) a minor event is just not accurate. There's a reason tens of thousands died trying to take it back.

Look at the colonial legacy. How many people of English descent live in India today? Less than a small town in New Hampshire. You can't lose New England and call it small change. Especially when that loss gives rise to an empire that goes on to dwarf your own. And it also did something to Canada... made them into a country... sorta, they didn't make that official until a while later.

It deserves a chapter. They've written a few thousand books on it I think.
 
I am not correlating America's rise with Britain's fall (though it certainly set them back in the 18th century). However, calling the loss of your oldest and most populated colonies (in terms of actual citizens as opposed to conquered people) a minor event is just not accurate. There's a reason tens of thousands died trying to take it back.

It was certainly important to the British government at the time. I'm not denying that. But we have the benefit of knowing what happens afterwards. It wasn't the beginning of the decline of the British Empire or anything like, in fact the opposite was true. The Empire went on to bigger things afterwards and even ten years after the Treaty of Paris she was as strong as she ever was up to that point. That's what we mean when we say it was a minor setback. It doesn't help that it occurred right smack in between the more important Seven Years and Napoleonic Wars.

Look at the colonial legacy. How many people of English descent live in India today? Less than a small town in New Hampshire. You can't lose New England and call it small change. Especially when that loss gives rise to an empire that goes on to dwarf your own. And it also did something to Canada... made them into a country... sorta, they didn't make that official until a while later.

It deserves a chapter. They've written a few thousand books on it I think.

Yeah, of course. It was an extremely important war in American and Canadian history. We are just talking about from a British historical perspective. It was more important for France than for Britain. In France it was an important part of the build up to the French Revolution.
 
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.

You never said that. :oldrazz:
 
I am not correlating America's rise with Britain's fall (though it certainly set them back in the 18th century). However, calling the loss of your oldest and most populated colonies (in terms of actual citizens as opposed to conquered people) a minor event is just not accurate. There's a reason tens of thousands died trying to take it back.

Look at the colonial legacy. How many people of English descent live in India today? Less than a small town in New Hampshire. You can't lose New England and call it small change. Especially when that loss gives rise to an empire that goes on to dwarf your own. And it also did something to Canada... made them into a country... sorta, they didn't make that official until a while later.

It deserves a chapter. They've written a few thousand books on it I think.
Its estimated that there are atleast 80,000 Anglo-Indians living in India today but in truth its probably alot more. The amount of interracial relationships between British men and Indian women over the centuries is surprisingly high.

The colonial legacy in India is huge as well. Despite all the awful stuff that went down under the British Empire there was some positive stuff. The introducition of a legal system, building railways, modern cities, eduction systems and so on.
 
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.

Thank you. Exactly.

People who say Black History Month is racist are really clueless. We wouldn't need to have a Black History Month or a Hispanic History Month if the rest of our study of history wasn't so white and Anglo-centric. It's ridiculous how little attention is paid in our history books to pre-Columbian history involving Indigenous Americans, to the history of Spaniards in North America in the Southwest(you know, the Southwest DID have people there before white Anglo-Americans showed up :whatever:), to the history of African-Americans and African history(which since U.S. history covers European history as a part of our history because so many Americans immigrated from Europe, the same should apply with African history) etc.
 
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.

There is no such thing as race from a biological point of view. It's a construction of culture, history, geography, community etc.
 
Thank you. Exactly.

People who say Black History Month is racist are really clueless. We wouldn't need to have a Black History Month or a Hispanic History Month if the rest of our study of history wasn't so white and Anglo-centric. It's ridiculous how little attention is paid in our history books to pre-Columbian history involving Indigenous Americans, to the history of Spaniards in North America in the Southwest(you know, the Southwest DID have people there before white Anglo-Americans showed up :whatever:), to the history of African-Americans and African history(which since U.S. history covers European history as a part of our history because so many Americans immigrated from Europe, the same should apply with African history) etc.

This. There's no white history month simply because Caucasians are the majority. We learb about them automatically everyday.
 
Thank you. Exactly.

People who say Black History Month is racist are really clueless. We wouldn't need to have a Black History Month or a Hispanic History Month if the rest of our study of history wasn't so white and Anglo-centric. It's ridiculous how little attention is paid in our history books to pre-Columbian history involving Indigenous Americans, to the history of Spaniards in North America in the Southwest(you know, the Southwest DID have people there before white Anglo-Americans showed up :whatever:), to the history of African-Americans and African history(which since U.S. history covers European history as a part of our history because so many Americans immigrated from Europe, the same should apply with African history) etc.

To start with the Indigenous Americans didn't have a written language (outside of Mesoamerica anyways which is irrelevant in the history of the US) so we don't know what happened. We have scraps from archeology and what the Europeans wrote about them, but that's about it. We know more about single years in the Middle Ages or single days in the 19th Century than we do of the more than 15,000 years of pre-Columbian history in the United States.

As for the Spanish in the Southwest (and Florida), it is because they had nothing to do with what eventually became the United States. They merely occupied land that would later be incorporated into the US. The political entity that would eventually become the United States started at Jamestown in 1607 which is why the focus is on it. Being from Florida, the Spanish are definitely talked about there because it is a big part of the history of Florida. I imagine the same is true with the French in Ohio, the Dutch in New York, etc. But for the United States as a whole, of course it is going to be focused on the English, because the United States is an English country.
 
Last edited:
I can't believe nobody's posted this Onion article yet!

White History Year Resumes

March 5, 2003

WASHINGTON, DC—With Black History Month over, U.S. citizens are putting aside thoughts of Harriet Tubman and George Washington Carver to resume the traditional observation of White History Year.

onion_news344_jpg_250x1000_q85.jpg

A stamp honoring European-American aviation pioneer Charles Lindbergh is unveiled as part of White History Year celebrations.


White History Year, which runs annually from Jan. 1 through Dec. 31, with a 28-day break for Black History Month in February, is dedicated to the recognition of European-Americans' contributions to American politics and culture.

"Frederick Douglass and Martin Luther King Jr. are all well and good," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist at a banquet celebrating the arrival of White History Year, "but now is the time to reflect on the accomplishments of such whites as Babe Ruth, Alexander Graham Bell, and Presidents Washington through Bush. Let's use these next 11 months to remember the other American history."

"Whites have contributed so much to this country," Frist continued. "Did you, for example, know that a white man, Jonas Salk, discovered the cure for polio? It's true."

From now until Feb. 1, 2004, educators will eschew discussions of Rosa Parks in favor of Andrew Carnegie, Neil Armstrong, and Tim Allen. Schools nationwide will shelve African-American history pamphlets in favor of such Caucasiacentric materials as the Macmillan & Rowe American History Textbook New Revised Standard Edition and Encyclopedia Britannica.

Scholars say there is a remarkable wealth of documented white history to explore.

"There's so much more white history out there than you might imagine," said Dr. James Corman, a Princeton University history professor. "America's publishing houses, newspapers, movie studios, magazines, and radio stations have kept remarkably thorough records of white Americans' accomplishments."

White History Year will also be commemorated on television, with various networks airing special programming recognizing whites' contributions to society. The History Channel will set aside the Tuskegee Airmen documentaries that have dominated its schedule throughout February, instead presenting programs on Chuck Yeager, the white man who broke the sound barrier, and Paul Revere, a key white figure in the nation's fight for independence from England. A&E's Biography will spotlight such white luminaries as Johnny Unitas, Mae West, and Edward R. Murrow. Between prime-time programs, NBC will air White History Minute segments hosted by white actress Bernadette Peters.

Americans of every color will set aside their differences to celebrate White History Year.

"I think it's good to give people a closer look at a culture they usually don't even think about," said Gary, IN, realtor Willie Anderson, a respected member of the city's black community. "I mean, it's right in front of you every day. It's such a huge part of your life. You're surrounded by it from the day you're born until the day you die, so it's easy to take for granted that you already know just about everything there is to know about it."

Added Anderson: "Do you realize that Henry Ford, a white man, invented the 'assembly line,' a mass-production technique that revolutionized industry around the world? They had something about it on TV again last night."

This
is why there's no White History Month. Kudos to the other posters who explained it in more serious terms.
 
To start with the Indigenous Americans didn't have a written language (outside of Mesoamerica anyways which is irrelevant in the history of the US) so we don't know what happened. We have scraps from archeology and what the Europeans wrote about them, but that's about it. We know more about single years in the Middle Ages or single days in the 19th Century than we do of the more than 15,000 years of pre-Columbian history in the United States.

As for the Spanish in the Southwest (and Florida), it is because they had nothing to do with what eventually became the United States. They merely occupied land that would later be incorporated into the US. The political entity that would eventually become the United States started at Jamestown in 1607 which is why the focus is on it. Being from Florida, the Spanish are definitely talked about there because it is a big part of the history of Florida. I imagine the same is true with the French in Ohio, the Dutch in New York, etc. But for the United States as a whole, of course it is going to be focused on the English, because the United States is an English country.


I am stunned that you have the audacity to defend the white, Anglo-centric view of history that is taught in this country.
 
He's not defending, but explaining what people learn in different parts of the country
 
He's not defending, but explaining what people learn in different parts of the country

He's presenting the view that our history is white, Anglo-centric because that's simply how history is, sorry colored folks.

I think it's bull. I'm from Texas and all we learn about in so far as Spanish and Mexican Texas is what pertains to the Texicans(white American settlers) coming here and the Texas "revolution". We don't learn anything in depth about pre-American Texas.
 
It's not inaccurate to say that the modern United States is an evolution of New England. Though obviously, it got more complex along the way, and influenced by other cultures.
 
It's not inaccurate to say that the modern United States is an evolution of New England. Though obviously, it got more complex along the way, and influenced by other cultures.

WAY more complex. I'm sorry but I don't agree with the idea that we are essentially "an English country". I think that Spanish American history is still American history, regardless of the fact that the Southwest and Florida were not yet part of the political entity known as the United States. He didn't even address the issue of African/African-American history. We often touch upon European history in our U.S. history classes as a background to American history(the Magna Carta and such). Why is that not done with Africa? Why does our history not go into any kind of detail about how Africans and African culture influenced the South?

Also, the lack of written history with most Indigenous Americans is a piss poor excuse to eschew the teaching of pre-Columbian history. What a cop out.
 
I really think that everyone should read, "A People's History of the United States" by Howard Zinn. It really makes you realize how over simplified, childish and whitewashed American history is in the way it's been traditionally taught in American schools.
 
WAY more complex. I'm sorry but I don't agree with the idea that we are essentially "an English country". I think that Spanish American history is still American history, regardless of the fact that the Southwest and Florida were not yet part of the political entity known as the United States. He didn't even address the issue of African/African-American history. We often touch upon European history in our U.S. history classes as a background to American history(the Magna Carta and such). Why is that not done with Africa? Why does our history not go into any kind of detail about how Africans and African culture influenced the South?

Also, the lack of written history with most Indigenous Americans is a piss poor excuse to eschew the teaching of pre-Columbian history. What a cop out.

I think it may be better defined as "US History". American has become synonymous with the United States. Many of those groups weren't even considered citizens of the United States until relatively recently (Indian Americans, African Americans, etc) and as a result, played a relatively small role shaping the modern state, being disenfranchised.
 
WAY more complex. I'm sorry but I don't agree with the idea that we are essentially "an English country". I think that Spanish American history is still American history, regardless of the fact that the Southwest and Florida were not yet part of the political entity known as the United States. He didn't even address the issue of African/African-American history. We often touch upon European history in our U.S. history classes as a background to American history(the Magna Carta and such). Why is that not done with Africa? Why does our history not go into any kind of detail about how Africans and African culture influenced the South?

Also, the lack of written history with most Indigenous Americans is a piss poor excuse to eschew the teaching of pre-Columbian history. What a cop out.

I don't think it is a cop-out to say we don't really know what was going on much of the time. Since we've been discussing English history, it is the same situation as with pre-Roman Britain. We have at best a vague idea of what was going on so there isn't much to teach.

As for stuff like Magna Carta, that goes back to the United States coming out of being an English colony. Until 1776, English history and American history is the same thing, which is why it takes precedent. African history doesn't get taught for the same reason Russian or Japanese or Irish history doesn't get taught. Unless it directly interacts with English history (such as the slave trade in Africa's case), it isn't really relevant aside from the heritage of specific immigrants. As for African-American history, which is different, it does get taught. But the truth of the matter is that history is driven forward by the people in charge most of the time and for most of the history of the United States, African-Americans were marginalized due to racism so their impact outside of slavery, the Civil War & Reconstruction and the post-Civil Rights era is somewhat limited. It is the same with any other country. How often do you hear about what the peasants did? Unless they were rioting, not much. This is true no matter what you country's history you are talking about (Egypt, Greece, Rome, England, China, etc.). Pre-Civil Rights, blacks simply weren't allowed to be in power in the US. To suggest otherwise is just historical revisionism.
 
I don't think it is a cop-out to say we don't really know what was going on much of the time. Since we've been discussing English history, it is the same situation as with pre-Roman Britain. We have at best a vague idea of what was going on so there isn't much to teach.

As for stuff like Magna Carta, that goes back to the United States coming out of being an English colony. Until 1776, English history and American history is the same thing, which is why it takes precedent. African history doesn't get taught for the same reason Russian or Japanese or Irish history doesn't get taught. Unless it directly interacts with English history (such as the slave trade in Africa's case), it isn't really relevant aside from the heritage of specific immigrants. As for African-American history, which is different, it does get taught. But the truth of the matter is that history is driven forward by the people in charge most of the time and for most of the history of the United States, African-Americans were marginalized due to racism so their impact outside of slavery, the Civil War & Reconstruction and the post-Civil Rights era is somewhat limited. It is the same with any other country. How often do you hear about what the peasants did? Unless they were rioting, not much. This is true no matter what you country's history you are talking about (Egypt, Greece, Rome, England, China, etc.). Pre-Civil Rights, blacks simply weren't allowed to be in power in the US. To suggest otherwise is just historical revisionism.


Just because black people weren't in power doesn't mean they didn't have a HUGE impact on American history. They did.

You, my friend, really need to read A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn. I believe your entire philosophy that history should only be taught from the point of view of those in charge is erroneous and elitist. Not that you yourself are elitist it is simply the way we've been brainwashed to view history.

A People's History is written from the point of view of the common man, the common immigrant, the common slave and it is brilliant. There is so much of American history we are not taught that is very relevant.

" How often do you hear about what the peasants did? Unless they were rioting, not much."

And that is a lot of the problem with how history is taught.^

Read Zinn's book. The "peasants" did riot in this country and they rioted a lot. It's incredible the amount of struggle and sacrifice working people in this country went through in the late 19th/early 20th century. There was also a lot insurrections in the pre-Revolution South. Black slaves and white sharecroppers/indentured servants revolting against the Plantation owners together. We never hear about any of that.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"