What truth? Do you go to Africa and expect Chinese history to be part of the core curriculum? Explain why the history of another continent should be taught as a core curriculum in a country where the majority is caucasian.
I can’t wait for what nonsense buzzword(s) in your pitiful bio you’ll accuse me of for asking this question.
If you live in the US where a majority of the population is white, more of the historical figures will be white.
If you live in Japan where the majority is Japanese, you will learn more about Japanese people.
Same with Ethiopia, India, Brazil, Croatia, etc. it isnt any kind of “privilege”. If you want to know more about a different country (yes, country, because we are barely taight anything about European history), you can take a separate class.
You think the average US citizen knows about Irish history? Croatian History? Scottish history? Turkish History? Hungarian History? No. We didnt learn about that in school. It isnt part of the core curriculum like you assume. We learn about what directly led up to the US officially becoming a country and the people who came to it. We didnt learn all of Chinese history, but we did learn a brief history of communist rule and how that led many to immigrate to the US. We learned about the Altlantic slave trade and how that brought over a lot of black people. We learned about the Irish pitato famine (about the only peice of Irish History the average American knows), We learn about religious persecution, we learned about Native americans, the aztecs, the incans, the mayans, but thats about it. We didnt go over complete European, African, Asians, South American history, because we were taking AMERICAN HISTORY.
If you want to learn about the history of an entire race, then yes, take a separate class. That applies to all races.
I live in England. In school I have learnt a lot about the history of the UK. I have never learnt about the history of America in school or college. At all. Why would I have to? I’m not American.
You would probably have to take a *gasp* special class for that. Which so many people fail to understand is completely fair.
It’s almost like you people don’t realize that he is referreing to world history. I can’t believe that you typed all that out and never once realized that. Amazing. If you have ever been to a world history class, which it seems like you haven’t, then you would know that they leave out a ton of information about countries that don’t have a white majority. Making things up to continue your agenda is not a good argument.
World History/Social Studies curriculum also changes depending on the country it is being taught in. Japanese students for instance, focus on Asian History, while covering major events and landmarks. We learn about major things. We dont have time to go into detail about the hostory of each country. We briefly learn about the pharohs and the pyramids. We briefly learn of The Great Wall of China (7 wonders). We briefly get a look at different countries.
If you honestly think that the average person, especially the average American is knowledgable about European countries, you would be mistaken. Do you know detailed Croatian history? Scottish History? How much do you know about Italian hostory past the Potato Famine? Were you taught in detail about Turkish History? History of Iceland? Well you *must* be an expert of Checoslovaquia. I mean all we learn about in school is “white history”, right?
The truth is that we essentially skim over the history of other countries, briefly focusing on major things like landmarks and things we happen to have a lot of facts on, especially things on our home countries. And if you are interested in something you skimmed over, you can learn more about it in detail in a different class. No matter how much you want to, you would never be able to fit an even semi detailed history of every single country and culture into a standard World History class. That doesnt just happen in countries with white majorities. Asian countries do the same thing to other Asian countries. African countries do the same thing to African countries.
And again, the concept of “privilege” is just dripping with double standards and hypocrisies, which only makes the original argument even more laughable.
If you want to stay true to your username, check the notes. Many people from different countries agree. They focus on their own country and region moreso than the rest of the world, and that is perfectly acceptable, if not more beneficial for the education of children living there.
Ok, before I start, I have to ask, why do you type all this information out if you aren’t going to make a good argument? It’s almost like you think that the more you type the better stronger the argument you have. You didn’t even respond to what I said and went off on something completely different.
“World History/Social Studies curriculum also changes depending on the country it is being taught in.”
This is pretty much false, at least for the way that you are using it. World history is world history. It’s the study of the most influential historical events.
“Japanese students for instance, focus on Asian History, while covering major events and landmarks.”
Nope, we are talking about world history, stay on topic.
“We learn about major things. We dont have time to go into detail about the hostory of each country. We briefly learn about the pharohs and the pyramids. We briefly learn of The Great Wall of China (7 wonders). We briefly get a look at different countries.”
And yet none of the world history classes in the US went over the Great Wall of China and barely talk about the pharaohs, but I do remember in mine that we spent over half the class talking about European history. I agree we don’t have time, but we should at least cover things that are non white.
“If you honestly think that the average person, especially the average American is knowledgable about European countries, you would be mistaken.”
Why are you making assumptions about things that I did not even talk about? I know that the average American does not know about European countries since most Americans are stupid compared to other first world countries, but it does not change the fact that it is taught a considerable amount more than any other aspects of history.
“Do you know detailed Croatian history? Scottish History? How much do you know about Italian hostory past the Potato Famine? Were you taught in detail about Turkish History? History of Iceland?
Well you *must* be an expert of Checoslovaquia. I mean all we learn about in school is “white history”, right?
”
Did…did you actually think that this was a good argument? How does this change my argument in the slightest? You are just bringing up very small events to say that world history isn’t mostly about Caucasians.
“The truth is that we essentially skim over the history of other countries, briefly focusing on major things like landmarks and things we happen to have a lot of facts on, especially things on our home countries.”
No shit we skim over these things, but some are taught a lot more than others. Again, we are talking about WORLD HISTORY, not things in their own country.
“And if you are interested in something you skimmed over, you can learn more about it in detail in a different class.”
Yes, thank you for proving the point of this post. They have to learn it as an elective while history teachers just teach major European events in detail.
“No matter how much you want to, you would never be able to fit an even semi detailed history of every single country and culture into a standard World History class.”
No one is asking them to, just don’t completely ignore many important parts of history.
“That doesnt just happen in countries with white majorities. Asian countries do the same thing to other Asian countries. African countries do the same thing to African countries.”
That only happens in that country’s history class. No one is against those classes. Well I’m against the amount that you have to take. I had to take around 4 different US history classes before I got a high school degree while I only had to take one maybe two world history classes. Either way, do not use that as an argument because it is a weak one.
“And again, the concept of “privilege” is just dripping with double standards and hypocrisies, which only makes the original argument even more laughable.”
You might want to reread this, but slowly. Privilege exists because people have double standards and hypocrisies. Just because the argument went over your head does not make it laughable.
“If you want to stay true to your username, check the notes.”
I’ve been staying true this entire time.
“Many people from different countries agree.”
And? What’s your point? I’m sure I can get plenty of others to disagree with you.
“They focus on their own country and region moreso than the rest of the world, and that is perfectly acceptable, if not more beneficial for the education of children living there.”
So you stated this argument again for what? Like the fifth time? This only makes since in classes about that country’s history. You are completely ignoring world history would should be a class that is completely unbiased and include all major events no matter where they took place. I you are saying that kids would benefit from having all of their history classes biased to how it affected their country, then that you anti intellectual. Schools are for knowledge.
I’m not calling you racist, but it seems weird to me that you responded to a reblog from that
90s-trance-appreciation who did state something very racist.
Do not respond just to respond. Only respond if you have a good argument and not for the sake of “winning” or whatever.
It sounds like all you want to do is dismiss with insults. Not really a good tactic.
The funny thing is that you typed out your first paragraph about you assumption about the length of my posts being having something to do with validity, yet after reading your response, it seems you have no ability to reflect on your own actions at all. But whatever.
1. World history curriculums definitely change depending on the country. The World is very large, and what one country wants to prioritize for the teaching of their students is going to doffer from a country on the other sode of the world. They typically single out what is inportant for where they live.
2. “We are talking about world history. Stay on topic.”
It is on topic. Actually read the responses please. I have loved in the US for most of my life and Japan for 4 years now. I introduced another perspective from an entirely dofferent country. A different country with a different racial majority. In a different continent. It is worth you actually listening and paying attention to the fact that the focuses of World History for Japan is going to differ from another country like the US. As a college graduate myself, I actually have friends who ask me to assist them in their college studies, so I can see a different perspective and pass it on.
Instead of passing over it as a way to “win” part of the argument and prove how much smarter and more progressive you think you are, why not actually consider that i may have a perpsective to back up my claim.
3. “And yet none of the World history classes in the US went over the great wall or the pyramids”
First off, who are you to say that “none” of the literal thousands of history classes taught in the US didnt go over these things? It sounds to me like you are assuming your personal education, or more likely what you remember of it, is reflective of the entire country.
Second, they very much did cover them. The Seven Wonders of the World. If anything is to be covered in World Hostory and Social Studies, it’s those. It didnt have to be in depth, but if you werent even informed of how they were built (or that they were built at all), you either had a bad teacher or you werent oaying attention.
“But i do remember half of my class going over European history”
And yet you clearly couldnt answer the questions about the history of various European countries. You likely didnt even really go over *most* of Europe. Which explains your ignorance (neutral version of the word) of European history. You know what is taught about European history? Nazism. Their part in World Wars. A brief history of what lead to Hitler’s rise to power. But dont mistake talking about a few major events to you actually covering the history of most European countries.
4. The point of bringing up European countries is the fact that you and OP seem to think that all we are taught about is Europe. But that clearly isnt true, since the average non-European person, American or not, doesnt know much about the history of any European country. And- i’m going to use that point of view from Living in Japan again- Japanese people arent regularly taught about Europe either. Not in high school or college. Besides the major stuff like world wars and their share of landmarks, the Japanese, like Americans, do not go so in depth into European history to truly call themselves knowledgable without additional classes.
5. See point 4. If we really focus so much on white people on World History, then why cant the average person (who again, you claim mostly only learns about white people) cant tell me even basic botes on the history of various European countries (without simply using the jnternet to check). That’s the point. If you didnt take a European history class, you probably arent knowledgable about European history. An elective class. Which you and OP insist is something only…well every other race has to do.
But that is how it works. Want to really learn about European history? Take a special class for it. African history? Special class. Asian history? Special class.
6. We skim over things because there is so much to cover. As with anything of the sort, we focus on the major things. World Wars, major landmarks, the seven wonders of the world, and the like. And that os perfectly fine. Many of the things that have been properly recorded happen to be in certain countries. Greece, China, Egypt. Places with lots of artifacts, major events and contributions, and enough evidence to back up claims that they did it.
7. You already disproved your own point here. It isnt just Non European countries that have option as electove classes. European hostory os a class too. And clearly people like you could learn plenty from them sonce you clearly werent taught *that* much about European history. Not all European ls are the same. Not all white people are the same. Learning about Greece doesnt mean you are an expert on Europe now.
We teach major events. Not just from Europe. If you actually dont know about at least some major events, civilizations, etc from every continent, then i dont know what to tell you. Pay attention better.
8. You sort of are demanding that. As nice as Indonesia is as a country, I can see why it would be skimmed over in World history. As interesting as Madagascar is, it doesnt necessarily need to be focused on. And that’s okay. And as stated before, of course we look at some events more than others. If we judge by importance and impact, why wouldnt we? We shouldnt cover things based on showing an equal number of things from each country or continent, but by the importance of the individual topic.
People have their own biases. You may think your country’s history is more notable than most purely because you were born there.
9. I brought up other people because the topic is focused on the opinions of others. People in countries where white people arent the majority tend to focus on Asian history. Their priorities on what is important to their specific country may be different.
10. We are no where near every single school in every songle country teaching the exact same curicculum. We arent. Some prioiritize dofferent things. Some prioritize civilizations. Some prioritize the arts. Some prioritize the changing of borders. All important. But by focusing on these things, you are likely to pinpoint on one or two specific areas. Which is fine.
11. The concept of “privilege” is inherently biased. See, everyone has advantages and disadvantages for how they were born. Every single group. This can shift more to one side or the other depending on the time leriod or location, but it is true.
The concept of “privilege” however, made popular by feminist Peggy McIntosh, only cares about certain groups. In McIntosh’s own paper on the subject, she called it “white privilege” that African Americans were more likely to be targetted by police. However, men experience the same issue in higher amoonts. Is it “female privilege” that this happens to men in such high numbers? Not according to Mcintosh, nor to so many self proclaimed “activists”. See, the concept of “privilege” only cares about what one side goes through. As shown with the example above, the issue or inequality itself doesnt matter. The rate at which it happens doesnt matter. According to the concept of “privilege”, female privilege doesnt exist. Black privilege doesnt exist. Despite women having numerous advantages over men (lower sentencing, fewer gendered crime definitions, conscription, government support, public support, etc) “female privilege” isnt an acceptable term. It is not recognized. We have numerous examples of black people attacking, torturing, and even killing white peopel for being white and not being charged with racial hate crimes (despite committing the very definition of the term). That is the literally being goven a lighter sentence for the color of their skin. An inequality. Less justice for white victims. Less punishment for black perpetrators. How about the fact that it is entirely acceptable to generalize men as dangerous for no other reason than that they are men, especially from activists? But not to generalize black people as dangerous for being black? As a black man, people wouldnt dare be verbal about their suspicion of me based on race, but i have had people proudly express that they think i am bad for being male. Which has real world consequences. People humoring this prejudice when deciding to hire a male teacher for teaching or child care, when deciding if a man on trial is guilty, when deciding if someone is committing a criminal act. (Both men and black people lead in volent crimes in their respective groups, so even bringing up crime statistics doesnt disprove the argument). I could argue that it is black privilege to have people openly and eagerly fight to defend you from harmful generalizations while these are encouraged among men. But men arent allowed to be victims according to the concept of privilege. No one can have advantages over them.
The concept of “privilege” is garbage because it is at its core filled with double standards and prejudice. It is unfair at its core. And something that claims to point out unfairness cannot ethically be so openly unfair itself. It essentially encourages discrimination by singling out groups and justifying mistreatment.
As before, i sincerely doubt you will really read and consider my response before responding yourself. But i have hope that you will get over your sense of self satisfaction and superiority to think about dofferent points of view when it comes to these topics. Again, doubting but hoping, despite the biases you have shown even in the notes between your response and this response.
@thatprogressiveguy@cheshireinthemiddle For the sake of the arguments. European here. Can confirm that my history curriculum skimmed over the histories of Africa, America and Asia including only the most important events (almost as if that’s what World History is all about lol). Being from Eastern Europe, we’re actually taught very little of South and Mid Europe histories. Mainly focusing on Eastern and Northern Europe. But first and foremost, focusing on our own country’s history. It’d honestly be dumb as shit to be learning Russian, Croatian or Ukrainian history because why? My country was occupied by Russians, then by Germans, and then again by Russian (and before that by Danish and Swedes)- should I have been taught all of these countries’ histories? Hell no. Why? I know the history of these countries during their occupations but no more than that because why should I? Or should we teach Russian history to everyone in the country just be a quarter of the population is made up of Russians? Of course not. That’d be absurd. Take a special class if you really want to learn that particular history.
