Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have kids ranging in age from 26 down to 8, and I've definitely seen a change in what is being taught; for the better, I'd say. We haven't seen much of the white privilege rhetoric personally, but we have a friend who feels her children are seeing it.
From your perspective, does it seem that lately there has been a shift? Not so much in what we are teaching our children, as how? In a few of the media articles I've read, it's not enough any more to teach our collective history as it actually occurred. To me, there's a perception that educators are telling white children that they're... almost 'bad', if you will - because of that history. But as I said above, we haven't directly seen it, which is the reason for asking what you think.
On this, I have two children, one in high school and one in elementary. They attend the district that I attended as a child.
I do think that history is being taught "differently." Primarily I see this due to it not being so based upon a Eurocentric view of the world, in regards to world history and also in regards to American history, there is more of an effort to teach history from all demographics of America.
For instance, my kid last year in 8th grade social studies, did a chapter of study about WW2. In his study of WW2 they spoke of the war from all fronts from the beginnings in Europe, Japan imperialism, Japanese aggression in the war and they also discussed the effect of the war on African colonies (something I never learned about it school). They went in depth on the atrocities committed by the Japanese against China and SE Asian countries (something I never learned about in school). They covered the Australian involvement in the war (something I never learned about in school). They covered America in the war and the racial aspects that occured in the US on account of the War (the initial "March on Washington" that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph - this was something that I never learned about in school either). They discussed the Native American involvement in the war, the balloon attacks by Japan against the West Coast. Just lots and lots more about the war than I learned in school. I felt it was more of a very wide ranging lesson versus just being American-centric. Looking back, in lessons of WW2 in middle and high school I basically learned - Europe was fighting Hitler and Mussolini and Japan joined with the "bad guys" then they bombed Pearl Harbor. So America declared war on all those countries then fought a war to save the world and the Jews from being murdered and it ended with "the bomb" because the Japanese were tough and were never going to give up without the bomb.
My kid got a VERY in depth lesson compared to what I learned. He also learned a lot about Stalin and Russia's involvement in the war and how many atrocities they had in the war. They learned a lot about the Holocaust and how the Jews were treated along with the experimentation they endured and about the fact that the Jews weren't the only group targeted for eradication in Europe.
So I think today, a good school/curriculum will try to cover more views of an historical event versus what I had as a kid. And I'm not even that old lol (late 30s).
I think that due to the fact that in regards to American history and the history of colonialism, that MORE of the store is being told, that some white parents get defensive about it, because it is "different" from what they learned in that the colonized side or the oppressed group's side is told and the whites/Europeans are always depicted as heroic figures. However, IMO no one is completely heroic. The most universal quality of the human experience IMO is that we are all flawed and we are all filled with a varying amount of "good" and "bad." So breaking the taboo associated, for instance with the "founding fathers" being seen as "all good" and "for liberty" when a lot of them were slave owners who actually did grapple with the fact that they owned people like property, it puts these people (and "people" is the most important thing to focus on IMO) into a greater human perspective. It makes them regular people who were flawed but who did great things. Some people don't want to ever focus on their flaws either individually or culturally as a nation.
ETA: My oldest kid goes to a predominantly white school. I am a member of the PTA and I haven't heard any negative discussions about "white guilt" in the high school. But our area is more moderately political than most IMO. It is one of the reasons I moved back to my hometown. I believe that many uber liberal areas have uber liberal people who are always offended about something and same as the uber conservative areas being offended about things that a normal person wouldn't take offense to lol. Seems to me like you are a normal person who doesn't take offense to Thomas Jefferson or Abe Lincoln not being seen as 100% heroic. Tell those people about both their letters that showed their views regarding the superiority of whites or the need of black Americans to leave the country and go back to Africa and they will lose their ____ and want to shut you up lol. And FWIW, due to me being black, I'll admit that black people do this too about our "black heroes." Especially MLK people don't want to hear about his cheating on his wife. There was a book that came out about Malcolm X being bi-sexual a few years ago and man I thought the black nationalist were going to lose their ____ about that lol. I got in an argument the other day about a famous black photographer - Ernest Withers (a CRM photojournalist) was suspected of being an FBI informant. The person was VERY upset that I would even suggest that given Withers' involvement in photographing the CRM.
Last edited by residinghere2007; 09-13-2016 at 11:21 AM..
Multiculturalism is built on white guilt and shaming. It wouldn't exist without it.
I'm sure this is an irrelevant rhetorical comment, given the current state of things, but I have never ever understood the apparent necessity of cutting others down to build oneself up.
If you read a history book written in the United States from the 1950s, on the origins of the Cold War, you’d get a definitive answer on which country was to blame, backed up with extensive evidence to justify its points.
If you picked up a US history book from the late 1960s, the chances are, you’d get a very different view. You’d read of America’s desire to take over economic control of Europe and tie the countries there to the dollar. You’d read of Truman’s aggressiveness at the Potsdam Conference, his use of the atomic bomb (was the second one actually necessary, or was it just a warning to the Soviets?)
By the 1980s and 1990s, the story would be retold again. Historians would point out that the Cold War was inevitable, given the ideological differences that existed between East and West, and it is futile to try to blame one person or even one country in particular. Did the Cold War even start in 1945?
The point is, that our retelling of what happened in the past changes constantly, and this is true with just about every major event in history.
Historians differ not just in terms of their method, but also in terms of their philosophical approach to history.
In my opinion, history shouldn't be a mystery. The purpose of learning history is to make sure the part of the darkness will never repeat, That is it, no more no less. I was born in 1985, and I have read/learned/heard many different versions of ww2. WWII can be generally perceived from the point of view of Russians . ww2 taught differently in different European countries. If you learn history in China, geeze, you will be thinking if you have 1 ounce of Japanese blood in you, you might just as well committing suicide because you have no redeeming quality. (roll eyes) if you learn history in Japan, you would be thinking Japanese are some poor little victims and ww2 never happened or something. (again, roll eyes)
I think part of what is happening is that some whites who are feeling the supposed white guilt are trying too hard to compensate. When I moved to where I live now I had never heard of the small local college and thus knew nothing of it. My life did not intersect with that school at all and over my 1st couple years all I knew was what I saw in the local paper. The photos of kids moving into the dorms were of black kids. The photos of the graduation ceremony were of black kids. Casual photos from around campus or other school events were of black kids. I thought the college was one of those historically black colleges and so it came as a surprise to me when I learned that the school is majority white. I realized that what was happening was that the local paper whose editorials have at times gone down the white guilt road was trying too hard to highlight the black students. In doing so they ignored everyone else at the school to the point that a stranger new to the area like myself thought it was an historically black college. To me a better message would have been showing the full spectrum of students all living and leaning together as a group rather than visually creating the image of a segregated setting.
I do agree that taking pride in one's cultural heritage should not be taken to mean we're not collectively all Americans and proud of it nor should it be taken to mean that we view other cultural heritages as inferior or that there is some inherent conflict with those of different heritage.
On your first paragraph I think it depends on your perspective of the story(ies).
If the media in your area actually were doing a story or series of stories about the black population at the college, I don't think there is anything wrong with that at all. I remember when I lived in GA they did frequent stories about public colleges/universities about how more black students were attending those colleges/universities and they rarely showed any other stories either about those organizations that weren't focused on that particular angle.
I have seen similar stories where I live currently. The neighborhood I live in, our local paper about 3-4 years ago did a huge, in depth piece, about "gangs" and all the gangs were black gangs and the series inspired some TV journalist to do a series as well, and they showed the area around my home as if it no longer had any residents other than blacks and gang members or blacks afraid of gang members when that is absolutely not true. I live in a neighborhood that was traditionally a Polish area. People here falsely believe, due to the media perspective that all the Polish people left and have been replaced by poor, dysfunctional blacks lol. I have people of Polish descent on my street who are my neighbors who have lived in the area for 20-50 years. I have hispanic neighbors who have lived here the same amount of time. I have black neighbors who also have lived here the same amount of time. I have white neighbors of German descent who also have lived here the same amount of time. I think in regards to media, we should view all media sources with skepticism and to understand that they are only showing snippets of reality and not the entire reality of a place or institution. I think because I have been on the "other side" of media in that via my volunteer work and my career, I have had to be featured on news programs/in articles that I am VERY suspicious of media in general. All media outlets IMO seem to focus on a story only the angle they want to portray and many times, they will leave out or cut pertinent information gathered via their interviews. I remember once a reporter was upset because in Atlanta, I told them I wasn't afraid of living in my neighborhood. They wanted to speak to someone who was afraid in order to frame my neighborhood in a negative fashion (FWIW, I usually live in lower income neighborhoods even though I can afford not to because it is cheaper to live in these areas and they are not as "unsafe" as people think they are). I wouldn't go along with that so they took a drug addict off the street and fed her some questions about being afraid and put her on the news lol.
And on the gangs mentioned above, I'll note there are gangs near my neighborhood but they are only in 2 apartment complexes and they are nothing like gangs of the past in this area. Gangs have actually severely decreased and this was even slightly mentioned by the news media, but then after saying that they would have a 30 minute special about how "bad" the gangs were, which made people think that gangs are taking over the neighborhood lol.
If you read a history book written in the United States from the 1950s, on the origins of the Cold War, you’d get a definitive answer on which country was to blame, backed up with extensive evidence to justify its points.
If you picked up a US history book from the late 1960s, the chances are, you’d get a very different view. You’d read of America’s desire to take over economic control of Europe and tie the countries there to the dollar. You’d read of Truman’s aggressiveness at the Potsdam Conference, his use of the atomic bomb (was the second one actually necessary, or was it just a warning to the Soviets?)
By the 1980s and 1990s, the story would be retold again. Historians would point out that the Cold War was inevitable, given the ideological differences that existed between East and West, and it is futile to try to blame one person or even one country in particular. Did the Cold War even start in 1945?
The point is, that our retelling of what happened in the past changes constantly, and this is true with just about every major event in history.
Historians differ not just in terms of their method, but also in terms of their philosophical approach to history.
In my opinion, history shouldn't be a mystery. The purpose of learning history is to make sure the part of the darkness will never repeat, That is it, no more no less. I was born in 1985, and I have read/learned/heard many different versions of ww2. WWII can be generally perceived from the point of view of Russians . ww2 taught differently in different European countries. If you learn history in China, geeze, you will be thinking if you have 1 ounce of Japanese blood in you, you might just as well committing suicide because you have no redeeming quality. (roll eyes) if you learn history in Japan, you would be thinking Japanese are some poor little victims and ww2 never happened or something. (again, roll eyes)
So better be fair and balanced.
I agree with the above and lol on the bold. Reminds me of a classmate I had in high school who told me that she was not allowed to buy a Japanese car because her dad (she was Vietnamese) was still mad about what the Japanese did in Vietnam during WW2!!
I think preparing children for the real world is to give them unconditional love.
When they know who they are and they know their worth and value inside of themselves (not because the parents tell them), their foundation is absolutely rock solid. It does not depend on someone saying to them “you are good.” It does not diminish because someone says “you are bad.”
In term of the entire notion of preparing for the ‘real world’. What is the ‘real world’ exactly? I think the definition of what the ‘real world’ is can be vastly different for many people. It depends on their goals, where they live, what their socioeconomic status is amongst other factors. So why are children expected to experience and prepare for the real world – the shape of which is yet to be determined?
Why do so many people hold these expectations of children? Why do some people believe that they are unavoidable realities of life?
In my opinion,
No one can ever be truly prepared for ‘the real world’, just as no one can be truly prepared to be a parent. I want my nephews to gain the skills and sense of self that means that they’re ready for whatever the future holds for them.
that is why I truly believe "free markets" approach when it comes to interpersonal relationships. Live and let live.
I agree with the above and lol on the bold. Reminds me of a classmate I had in high school who told me that she was not allowed to buy a Japanese car because her dad (she was Vietnamese) was still mad about what the Japanese did in Vietnam during WW2!!
Right. On this, sheesh, I dated a white dude from Detroit. His dad loves me but will not allow anybody to park a foreign car in his driveway. I tell him, "buy me a ford, Mr. wood." Then we both laughed. To him, it is all about American pride, jobs, which I can totally understand where he is coming from.
Actually this thread is based on the article in the OP and his/her interpretation of it. Nowhere in the article does the mother say or imply she is teaching her children to be ashamed of being white or guilty about history.
She stated she is ensuring to show them that we live in a multi-cultural world today. Just because you don't ignore non-whites/Europeans doesn't mean that you are teaching your children to be ashamed of being white.
However, you should also look at the OP title. The OP title includes the words "preserving white supremacy."
White supremacy entails that all other non-white/non-European peoples/cultures in our world are inferior to whites/Europeans. It is interesting IMO that the first few pages of the thread and practically the entire thread, no one mentioned the red, bolded words during the discussions. It is like you all are ignoring the most important part of this thread - the fact that the OP is a white supremacist.
The OP has also admitted that he negatively influences his children regarding teaching them to be prejudiced and to blame their hardships in childhood on being white and blonde.
So the question for me (a rationally thinking person, and for those who actually aren't white supremacists, I feel there are about 4 of us who participated in this thread) is do you support the idea that white people are supreme/superior to other people?
The author of the link does not believe that white people are superior to others. I personally do not believe that white people are superior to any other people. I personally believe that we are all human beings and there is no other race other than "human" but that we do have physical differences regarding our appearance and that that in part is based on our inherited physical traits of which we had no choice in the matter.
So do you think that white people are superior to others? The OP does and is exhibiting some faux concern over the author of the link not being a white supremacist or teaching her children that if they have troubles in life it is because they are white.
I may not have called the OP a white supremacist, since that would be against TOS, but I came close, so I'm not sure what you're stating when you say nobody has mentioned the OP is a white supremacist.
And when you ask the question you pose above of the 4 of you who aren't white supremacists, are you stating there are four AA's who participated in the thread that you want to hear from or four people you don't believe are white supremacists who participated in the thread?
The entire premise is what I take issue with when it comes to the article on Huffington Post.
Preserving the innocence of children for as long as possible isn't a privilege and isn't an "act of white supremacy". It's a right of all children to enjoy a sense of innocence, with lessons about the real world filtering in a little at a time as they mature.
That some do not have this advantage, is sad, but doesn't mean we strip that advantage from every child otherwise we're white supremacists. In fact, innocence of children is not a racial issue at all, and making it so sounds racist. It implies that only non-whites are disadvantaged, and that whites are never disadvantaged.
This is as ridiculous as the article posted some months ago where the author implied that reading to our children was wrong because not all families are educated enough to do so, putting our children at an unfair advantage. Gimme a break.
It is our responsibility as parents to provide certain things for our children. Doing our job as a parent doesn't hinder the pool of people who are unable or unwilling to provide for their children, just as ceasing to do our job as good parents doesn't benefit anyone.
The whole thing is based on a false premise. Regardless of race, people do not, and should not, have to lower their standards, or strip their child of innocence, in some bogus attempt to make the world a level playing field.
I may not have called the OP a white supremacist, since that would be against TOS, but I came close, so I'm not sure what you're stating when you say nobody has mentioned the OP is a white supremacist.
And when you ask the question you pose above of the 4 of you who aren't white supremacists, are you stating there are four AA's who participated in the thread that you want to hear from or four people you don't believe are white supremacists who participated in the thread?
The black is what I felt. That of the ones I counted, only 4 (including yourself) were not either white supremacists or excuse makers for the OP white supremacist.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
