Oh, I see. You went straight to hyperbole and I wasn't expecting it. And I really wasn't clear.
Clarification: in my schooling (back at the dawn of time), history was part of "social studies," and was a strange jumble of disparate "facts" that had nothing to do with anything. I can still tell you that the chief export of Bolivia was tin. …
Oh, I see. You went straight to hyperbole and I wasn't expecting it. And I really wasn't clear.
Clarification: in my schooling (back at the dawn of time), history was part of "social studies," and was a strange jumble of disparate "facts" that had nothing to do with anything. I can still tell you that the chief export of Bolivia was tin. I have no context for why this was worth remembering. I don't remember any of the dates, or succession, of English Kings we were expected to memorize to pass tests. When it came to American history, which wasn't taught until high school, it was patently obvious that it was a hagiography, not a history.
When you said (above) "just saying these things happened," I'm thinking, "yes, add these things to the laundry list of stuff to memorize for the test and then forget because there's no context."
I don't see how you could teach about the Tulsa Massacre without bringing up the threat that affluent blacks represented to the white people, and you can't explain why that was a threat without talking about the US history of slavery, the Jim Crow period, and the idea of white privilege, which is the core of what was threatened by affluent (uppity) blacks.
The Tulsa Massacre doesn't make any sense outside the context of Jim Crow, which brings up ALL the barriers placed in the way of black people. You are now talking about systems of oppression, rather than acts of individual racists, and -- if I understand the term -- you are now talking about Critical Race Theory. Not at the graduate level, of course.
Oh, I see. You went straight to hyperbole and I wasn't expecting it. And I really wasn't clear.
Clarification: in my schooling (back at the dawn of time), history was part of "social studies," and was a strange jumble of disparate "facts" that had nothing to do with anything. I can still tell you that the chief export of Bolivia was tin. I have no context for why this was worth remembering. I don't remember any of the dates, or succession, of English Kings we were expected to memorize to pass tests. When it came to American history, which wasn't taught until high school, it was patently obvious that it was a hagiography, not a history.
When you said (above) "just saying these things happened," I'm thinking, "yes, add these things to the laundry list of stuff to memorize for the test and then forget because there's no context."
I don't see how you could teach about the Tulsa Massacre without bringing up the threat that affluent blacks represented to the white people, and you can't explain why that was a threat without talking about the US history of slavery, the Jim Crow period, and the idea of white privilege, which is the core of what was threatened by affluent (uppity) blacks.
The Tulsa Massacre doesn't make any sense outside the context of Jim Crow, which brings up ALL the barriers placed in the way of black people. You are now talking about systems of oppression, rather than acts of individual racists, and -- if I understand the term -- you are now talking about Critical Race Theory. Not at the graduate level, of course.