Black History Month

[DC]

I recently learnt that it's Black History Month in the US, and that the UK also has a Black History Month (October). Am I the only one who thinks that it's quite racist?

[Opinionated]

Please explain why you think that. Every history lesson for the other eleven months of the year is predominently "white" history, this is just a way of reminding that there's always another story to tell.

[JacquesMagique]

I see where you are coming from DFSG but as OP puts out, most history which is studied is white history.

[DC]

Then shouldn't the solution be to simply put 'Black History' into the normal curriculum, instead of devoting a whole month focused on it. And in both America and the UK, teaching history will always contain more about whites and their endeavours than about blacks, simply because whites have made a greater historical impact.

[DTE]

I recently learnt that it's Black History Month in the US, and that the UK also has a Black History Month (October). Am I the only one who thinks that it's quite racist?

No. But you should be. What do you know about Chinese History? I know next to nothing. Maybe in the future we could have Chinese History month in order to better educate people such as myself. Thats not racist. Its called progress.

[DC]

No. But you should be. What do you know about Chinese History? I know next to nothing. Maybe in the future we could have Chinese History month in order to better educate people such as myself. Thats not racist. Its called progress.

Yes, and we could also have a white history month, a Japanese history month, an Eskimo history month, etc etc. Except then we'll run out of months very quickly. Or we could just do what we do for all races apart from blacks and not divvy up history curriculum focus according to race, and just teach it according to the disgression of the curriculum officers and education department.

[DTE]

As fair as I know, black history month has no official impact on the national curriculum as taught in schools. Its a public awareness venture and teaching that takes place during the month is solely down to the teachers or schools involved. Why not have other months devoted to other cultures in this way? I see no problem with it at all. Such strong opposition to initatives like this is born out of other motives if you ask me.

[DC]

As fair as I know, black history month has no official impact on the national curriculum as taught in schools. Its a public awareness venture and teaching that takes place during the month is solely down to the teachers or schools involved. Why not have other months devoted to other cultures in this way? I see no problem with it at all. Such strong opposition to initatives like this is born out of other motives if you ask me.

Nevertheless, it's an expected change in schools, to focus on Black history and arts for that month, rather than normal curriculum. The reason there's strong opposition to this is because it's racist, it promotes one race and culture over all others. And as I said, it's simply unreasonable to suggest promoting one culture each month.

[DougieG]

Nevertheless, it's an expected change in schools, to focus on Black history and arts for that month, rather than normal curriculum. The reason there's strong opposition to this is because it's racist, it promotes one race and culture over all others. And as I said, it's simply unreasonable to suggest promoting one culture each month.

So stop teaching white history too, because it's racist to 'promote one race'?

[Opinionated]

Bloody hell you bunch of women!
It's not like everything in school stops for a whole month and the whole curriculum becomes devoted to solely black issues. What happens is that an emphasis is put on an aspect of an already planned lesson progression so they might look at the experience of black immigrants into the uk during the fifties as a look at rebuilding postwar Britain for one lesson, meanwhile in English the school might introduce To Kill A Mockingbird or Othello.
Interesting Doc should mention China - in the run up to the new year I spent hours of fun making Tiger masks and paper lanterns, but every child now knows where china is on the map and that not everyone has the same calender as us. In an increasingly global economy it is important that children grow up to understand and empathise with alternate cultures/histories if they are to compete.

[Streetwalker]

Eskimo history month, .

First lesson of the month,Often regarded as Eskimos the Inuit people would rather be called Inuits
Second Lesson . Its cold
Third Lesson , What do you want for dinner, Clubbed seal pup or fish ?
Forth lesson.What is an Ig ?
Fith lesson Its still bloddy cold

Back on topic,black History month the socialists attempt to re-write the very history the are so keen to promote.The appologetic lefties will do their annual "Im ashamed of my ancestors " routine to the applause of the "racism out of kindergarden" executive committee and finnish with a fine rendition of "Free Nelson Mandella" sung by the Outreach workers choir (vacancies for baratones ).

The truth of the matter is Blacks,think its a big joke too . Let the socially inept have their moment of whatever it is they get off on ,they will soon be returning under the stones from whence they came

[DougieG]

Back on topic,black History month the socialists attempt to re-write the very history the are so keen to promote.

Oh? What in particular has been re-written? I'm looking for facts and significant events. Disputes among academics, who generally fight like cats over whether something happened three days sooner than recorded let alone a significant event being edited.

The appologetic lefties will do their annual "Im ashamed of my ancestors " routine

Not especially. In three hundred years people will look back and laugh at the current right wing who think monarchy is a good idea, that it's OK to be racist without realising it and that nationalism is the way forward. To be ashamed of your ancestors is to deny that the zeitgeist of ideas and attitudes was fundamentally different.

to the applause of the "racism out of kindergarden" executive committee and finnish with a fine rendition of "Free Nelson Mandella" sung by the Outreach workers choir (vacancies for baratones ).

Actually tenor is usually the part that is lacking. It's quite common to have about 5 tenors in a choir of 60. That aside, do you really think apartheid was good and Mandela should have been kept locked up?

The truth of the matter is Blacks,think its a big joke too . Let the socially inept have their moment of whatever it is they get off on ,they will soon be returning under the stones from whence they came

Do they? Who? When you say 'socially inept' what do you mean? Generally I find racists/nationalists/political extremists of any description pretty socially inept.

[DTE]

Back on topic,black History month the socialists attempt to re-write the very history the are so keen to promote.The appologetic lefties will do their annual "Im ashamed of my ancestors " routine to the applause of the "racism out of kindergarden" executive committee and finnish with a fine rendition of "Free Nelson Mandella" sung by the Outreach workers choir (vacancies for baratones ).

Back on topic, black history month the nationalists attempt to keep the current order in place (or ideally revert back a century or so) by discrediting an idea that's sole purpose is to increase education, for some reason they feel threatened by this. The rabid righties will do their almost daily "Thank God for the Old Ways" routine, greated with raptuous applause by the "man down the pub" and finish with a chorus line of "Rule Brittania" (performed in blackface) while the Royal family look on and plan their next skiing holiday (still looking for servants BTW, ask at reception)

[DC]

So stop teaching white history too, because it's racist to 'promote one race'?

Well nobody teaches 'white' history do they? They teach history, and the fact that those who have often made the strongest impact in UK history were white. But the issue is that nobody makes a big deal over that, but they do about Black History, it has a whole month designated to it. My question is why not stop focusing on one race (and being racist) and just fold black history into the normal History curriculum.

As for OP's points it seems she just wants more studies of other cultures, and in primary school holidays or events are especially good times to start a particular study, the Chinese new year for example, but that doesn't mean there should be a month denoted to one race, or that be an annual occasion. And in America Black History month does seem to affect the average school routine more than in the UK.

[pauli007001]

Black History month is racist on two counts.
1/ because there is no white history month to give balance.
2/because them racist honkeys lumbered the poor oppressed Blacks with the shortest month, why not July????????

[pauli007001]

Oh? What in particular has been re-written? I'm looking for facts and significant events. Disputes among academics, who generally fight like cats over whether something happened three days sooner than recorded let alone a significant event being edited.



Not especially. In three hundred years people will look back and laugh at the current right wing who think monarchy is a good idea, that it's OK to be racist without realising it and that nationalism is the way forward. To be ashamed of your ancestors is to deny that the zeitgeist of ideas and attitudes was fundamentally different.



Actually tenor is usually the part that is lacking. It's quite common to have about 5 tenors in a choir of 60. That aside, do you really think apartheid was good and Mandela should have been kept locked up?



Do they? Who? When you say 'socially inept' what do you mean? Generally I find racists/nationalists/political extremists of any description pretty socially inept.

What has been re written?
recently the BBC offered a series that portrayed Friar Tuck as Black man, is this a fact?

What is wrong with being a Nationalist? How is it a bad thing? Offer proof that in 300 years people will react this way, either that or admit to making things up.

Aparthied was Bad, mandella should have been executed according to SA law at the time of his conviction for bombings and killings.However as i oppose the death penalty i believe that the murderer Nelson Mandella should have remained in prison for life, as should all murderers.

So you believe that racists and Nationalists are the same?
Political extremists are socially Inept?
I agree on the second count, the MCB, as political extremists are indeed socially inept, they cannot see how their support for violent terror in order to meet their political goals is offensive to the average Brit, what ever their race or faith.

I think that answers all your questions.

[pauli007001]

Black history month is retarded and racist, i see no asian History month, brown history month, Irish history month, Italian History month, outermongoliannosefluteplayers history month, that is mega racist in my mind.To single out and put on a pedestal one selected group is divisive, then again to divide is the first part of socialist tactics, the second part reads "and conquor"

[DTE]

Pauli the only thing I agree with in your last 2 posts/rants is the current fascination of ignoring race in BBC period dramas like Robin Hood and Merlin (ha, Merlin, period drama? well..whatever). Even in Costner's Robin Hood mention is made of Morgan Freeman being a black man. Ignoring race in historical settings does no favours to anyone, and I'm not suggesting it needs heavy handed attention, but acknowledging it would be a start.

As for the rest? Tin foil hat wearing claptrap at its finest. Black History month is a symbolic gesture towards the last hundred years of education where no history of Africa was taught anywhere. Its one month, taught only lightly, and over here in the UK its October, not Feb, and so is actually the longest month of the year.

Arguing black history month is racist is like arguing that honouring the Suffragette movement is sexist.

[pauli007001]

Pauli the only thing I agree with in your last 2 posts/rants is the current fascination of ignoring race in BBC period dramas like Robin Hood and Merlin (ha, Merlin, period drama? well..whatever). Even in Costner's Robin Hood mention is made of Morgan Freeman being a black man. Ignoring race in historical settings does no favours to anyone, and I'm not suggesting it needs heavy handed attention, but acknowledging it would be a start.

As for the rest? Tin foil hat wearing claptrap at its finest. Black History month is a symbolic gesture towards the last hundred years of education where no history of Africa was taught anywhere. Its one month, taught only lightly, and over here in the UK its October, not Feb, and so is actually the longest month of the year.

Arguing black history month is racist is like arguing that honouring the Suffragette movement is sexist.

Nice how as always you(as a Nulabite) feel compelled to hurl abusive comments at those who disagree with your party.My posts were posts, nothing else.

As for your comparison with the suffragette movement, that is pure idiocy, the Sufraggetes or women in general do not get a month set aside for the government controlled BBC to put out programmed designed to create anger and Hate for the whites amongst the black community and either guilt or a sense of being on a back foot in the white community, it is a Nulab tactic, designed to influence "minority groups" voting practises.

Blacks, Asians, Moslems, women, Gays, Lesbians, Transgender and so on are all minorities offered specific assistance to "ease their pain" or whatever bull**** buzz word is trendy this week.I could see each special interest group mentioned having a specific month set aside actually, never would we see a white hetrosexual hard working taxpayer history month no would we?
Vote purchasing by Nulab is what this stupid BHM is all about, it is a joke!!

[DougieG]

Nice how as always you(as a Nulabite) feel compelled to hurl abusive comments at those who disagree with your party.My posts were posts, nothing else.

DTE spend most of his time on this forum moaning about Labour. And other right-wing idiots.

[The Untalented Mr Ripley]

I see where you are coming from DFSG but as OP puts out, most history which is studied is white history.

It is hardly surprising that the majority of history studied in this, and most other European countries, is "white"; I would expect the majority of history taught in Israel to relate to Jews, that taught in Arabic countries to relate to Arabs and so on. History tends to be a reflection of / informed by the individual nation's culture and cultural values. Black history month is, in my view, devisive given that it is based on skin colour rather than culture, cultural values or interlinked historical or political events, it also raises the question of why pick on "black" history, why not all other ethnic groups and then where would it all end?

[DC]

Arguing black history month is racist is like arguing that honouring the Suffragette movement is sexist.

Not really, as the suffragette movement was about creating equality between men and women, Black History Month is about elevating one race above others, not equality.

[DougieG]

Not really, as the suffragette movement was about creating equality between men and women, Black History Month is about elevating one race above others, not equality.

Surely doing an entire section of a history course based only around women and their political achievements through the suffragette movement is sexist, then, using that logic.

[Opinionated]

It is hardly surprising that the majority of history studied in this, and most other European countries, is "white"; I would expect the majority of history taught in Israel to relate to Jews, that taught in Arabic countries to relate to Arabs and so on. History tends to be a reflection of / informed by the individual nation's culture and cultural values..

Well of course, those who win the war get to write the history books, traditionally in the Western world of course white men. However what is wrong about devoting a small part of the curriculum to "alternative histories", particularly in America where the black community is big, would you not expect the curriculum to reflect this fact?

Black history month is, in my view, devisive given that it is based on skin colour rather than culture, cultural values or interlinked historical or political events, it also raises the question of why pick on "black" history, why not all other ethnic groups and then where would it all end?

We are essentially talking about a meaningless and tiny victory for a pressure group having a month in name only dedicated to them, it's ridiculous and really not worth the fuss. I want my white child's knowledge of the world to be expanded as much as possible beyond the limited experiences I can provide and if that means that a minority group need to form a pressure group in order to remind curriculum setters they exist (terrible that that's a necessity in my opinion anyway) then so be it, I'm all for it. Why, particularly in history, should he not be taught when learning British history that the empire was built on slavery for example or the role the Gurkha's played during the second world war?
Once again for those of you who aren't grasping this for some reason, the whole curriculum does not change round one minority for a whole month! In fact it doesn't change at all, it is just expanded, and that's a good thing - and yes it should be expanded to include alternative histories the whole academic year, but good luck persuading the anti-pc crowd that education should be about broadening minds and expanding opportunities, not about knowing the dates of each Tudor monarch!
ps there is actually a Chinese history month apparently, and a women's history month, now at 50% of the population surely that's unecessary, by the logic that the curriculum should reflect the majority then shouldn't at least half the academic year be devoted to teaching about suffragettes, Amelia Earhart, Thatcher (shudder) etc.

[Midas]

However what is wrong about devoting a small part of the curriculum to "alternative histories", particularly in America where the black community is big, would you not expect the curriculum to reflect this fact?

Absolutely none at all. The curriculum should reflect all aspects of history, and there's no issue with emphasising certain aspects which are perhaps more important than others. But why call it "A black history month"? As others have pointed out, it's tantamount to saying that black history takes priority when in reality it's just a part. It doesn't need to be called anything.

[pauli007001]

Surely doing an entire section of a history course based only around women and their political achievements through the suffragette movement is sexist, then, using that logic.

It is already done, what has not been done is that an entire month gets put aside and labelled Womans history month and for an entire month the state run TV and news organisation bombards the nation with anti male rhetoric and accusations for things they never did.

Black history month is a month of accusations and blame and demands for guilt and sorrow on the part of the white community, for things they never did.It is devisive and causes racial tension and any who critisise it are attacked as racist.Teach black history in the schools yes, if it is relevant and true(ok truth under Nulabs educational curriculum, thats a bit of a stretch) and simply done to inform but when after a lesson talking about slavery when a teacher asks all white kids to apologise to all the black kids because of slavery, now that is daft, that is Black History Month. This happened at my Daughters college a few years back, she stood up and said there was no need for anyone to apologise to her, she had never been a slave, nor had any of the kids in her class ever owned slaves, she then went on to ask (as a Mixed race Kid) should her white half apologise to her Black half, it just gets stupider and stupider, most sane people(race irrelivant) would agree, however we note the reaction of those raised on BBC propeganda under the Nulab regime.

[pauli007001]

DTE spend most of his time on this forum moaning about Labour. And other right-wing idiots.

Usually he hurls abuse, but yes he does complain about Labour, most of the Nulabites hate labour, they love only the party, labour and unions dilute that loyalty.

[Opinionated]

Absolutely none at all. The curriculum should reflect all aspects of history, and there's no issue with emphasising certain aspects which are perhaps more important than others. But why call it "A black history month"? As others have pointed out, it's tantamount to saying that black history takes priority when in reality it's just a part. It doesn't need to be called anything.

I don't agree I think it's tantamount to saying (correctly) there is a whole section of history being ignored and we'd like to see it rectified, the least you can do is give it a month to be highlighted. I do hope one day it won't be necessary though.

[DC]

Surely doing an entire section of a history course based only around women and their political achievements through the suffragette movement is sexist, then, using that logic.

What a private institution does with its curriculum is entirely at its own discretion, so it's ok to have a study based on the suffragette movement, it's even ok to have a special courses or studies devoted to one particular culture, for example African AMerican Studies. However it is something else entirely to promote one particular race's history or culture outside of the education, Black history Month isn't just studying black history, it's celebrating it. What's more in studying the suffragette movement, you would stdy the movement itself, women's rights prior to it and literature relating to it. However the Black history month is far more vague in what exactly it's celebrating, apart from black people. Because it not only celebrates the equality achieved, the banning of slavery or other such accomplishments, but rather also celebrates unrelated literature and art simply because it was written or made by a black person.

[DTE]

Nice how as always you(as a Nulabite) feel compelled to hurl abusive comments at those who disagree with your party.My posts were posts, nothing else.

I'm not a NuLabite. I've never voted Labour. And the BBC is not controlled by the government either. Interesting how you writing lies and me dismissing them as claptrap is considered abusive.

Why do people feel so threatened by this? So its 'divisive' and 'racist' to single out a group, race, people, whatever, for a time to educate of their history? Even if that same history is largely ignored the rest of the year and has been for decades?!

Not really, as the suffragette movement was about creating equality between men and women, Black History Month is about elevating one race above others, not equality.

How is it elevating one race above others? Honestly please SOMEONE answer this question...be it DC, Midas, Pauli, Ripley any of you who have a problem with this initiative, PLEASE explain how it 'elevates' one race aginst others! All it does is offer another perspective

[DC]

How is it elevating one race above others? Honestly please SOMEONE answer this question...be it DC, Midas, Pauli, Ripley any of you who have a problem with this initiative, PLEASE explain how it 'elevates' one race aginst others! All it does is offer another perspective

Don't you find it strange that there's very few organisations devoted to 'white' culture? The study and furtherment of white peoples? Yet there are large amounts of such groups devoted to furthering Black and Asian and other ethnic and cultural groups, what's more many of these groups get Government funding. Black History Month is part of that, it is a celebration of the black race and its achievements. Now this is in no way a problem, except that the same celebration of race is not extended to whites, Asians or other groups. Essentially it says 'Black people get a month all for them, but nobody else does' Now you may say that the actual impact on daily life is minimal, and in many cases that may be true, however it is the mere act of designating a month to celebrate a race, not an achievment or particular event, but merely a race, and at the same time not celebrating other races, that says black people are more important than everyone else.

[DougieG]

Don't you find it strange that there's very few organisations devoted to 'white' culture? The study and furtherment of white peoples? Yet there are large amounts of such groups devoted to furthering Black and Asian and other ethnic and cultural groups, what's more many of these groups get Government funding. Black History Month is part of that, it is a celebration of the black race and its achievements. Now this is in no way a problem, except that the same celebration of race is not extended to whites, Asians or other groups. Essentially it says 'Black people get a month all for them, but nobody else does' Now you may say that the actual impact on daily life is minimal, and in many cases that may be true, however it is the mere act of designating a month to celebrate a race, not an achievment or particular event, but merely a race, and at the same time not celebrating other races, that says black people are more important than everyone else.

There's no need! White people have never suffered discrimination and slavery in the West! What on earth would a white interest group do? We already have equal rights (the ECHR and HRA protect EVERYONE from racial discrimination) so what possible function could they have other than elevating white people ABOVE other races? Black people on the other hand still suffer from racism, even if subtle, especially in America. Their groups have a function. White groups would be entirely unnecessary and the reason only racists tend to shout and scream about it is because their only function would be the furtherment of whites ABOVE other races. We don't need a pressure group, we are in the vast majority which is pressure group enough.

[pauli007001]

I see where you are coming from DFSG but as OP puts out, most history which is studied is white history.

Is it?

At High school( in the UK) i studied History, in the first couple of years it was Romans and the feudal system which were topics pertaining to the nation we lived in, not specifically white( as you and others have claimed the UK has always had Immigrants so this is both Black and white history) Unless you are saying that in Roman times and during the Middle ages moving into the modern ERA that Historical subjects in the UK were only white subjects????
We learned about Jethero Tull and his Horse hoeing husbandry, the Kings and queens, political trends, social and economic history of the Industrial Revolution, the empire, several wars, the great depression, US, China, India and all manner of other historical subjects, if all were White history than you are basically underpinning the BNPs claim that British History is white history, Is that it?
Historically Blacks are not a part of the UK?

You Racist you!!!

[DougieG]

Is it?

At High school( in the UK) i studied History, in the first couple of years it was Romans and the feudal system which were topics pertaining to the nation we lived in, not specifically white( as you and others have claimed the UK has always had Immigrants so this is both Black and white history) Unless you are saying that in Roman times and during the Middle ages moving into the modern ERA that Historical subjects in the UK were only white subjects????
We learned about Jethero Tull and his Horse hoeing husbandry, the Kings and queens, political trends, social and economic history of the Industrial Revolution, the empire, several wars, the great depression, US, China, India and all manner of other historical subjects, if all were White history than you are basically underpinning the BNPs claim that British History is white history, Is that it?
Historically Blacks are not a part of the UK?

You Racist you!!!

Can you name 5 major black characters in European history between 0CE and 1900CE? It's not racist to point that out, just racist to suggest that this is because black people are stupid or whatever. If you looked at the history of China or Africa there wouldn't be many significant white people in them. Naturally there aren't going to be many major black people in European history because the continent was vastly white.

I can think of one - Septimus Severus. And possibly Jesus although it's unlikely.

[pauli007001]

There's no need! White people have never suffered discrimination and slavery in the West! What on earth would a white interest group do? We already have equal rights (the ECHR and HRA protect EVERYONE from racial discrimination) so what possible function could they have other than elevating white people ABOVE other races? Black people on the other hand still suffer from racism, even if subtle, especially in America. Their groups have a function. White groups would be entirely unnecessary and the reason only racists tend to shout and scream about it is because their only function would be the furtherment of whites ABOVE other races. We don't need a pressure group, we are in the vast majority which is pressure group enough.

Name me one Black person alive today who was subjected to slavery by western whites.Name also one white person alive today who is involved in this trade?

Explain the relevance of what happened 200 years ago to why a selected group should be raised on a pedestal and offered privilage abouve all others in this allegedly equal society?

Blacks are just as likely as whites to be racist Dougie and as for vast majority?????
Who is this WE??I aint a part of a WE or an US or a them, they are divisive terms invented by social engineering whack jobs belonging to socialist organisations.

[DC]

Can you name 5 major black characters in European history between 0CE and 1900CE? It's not racist to point that out, just racist to suggest that this is because black people are stupid or whatever. If you looked at the history of China or Africa there wouldn't be many significant white people in them. Naturally there aren't going to be many major black people in European history because the continent was vastly white.

I can think of one - Septimus Severus. And possibly Jesus although it's unlikely.

I fail to see why we should then focus on Black people for a month. Also Septimus, while born in Lybia, was in fact white.

[Midas]

How is it elevating one race above others? Honestly please SOMEONE answer this question...be it DC, Midas, Pauli, Ripley any of you who have a problem with this initiative, PLEASE explain how it 'elevates' one race aginst others! All it does is offer another perspective

No problem with initiatives at all, but is "Black History Month" going to be followed by "Spanish History Month" or by "Italian History Month" or by "White History Month"? I guarantee not. It's not so much the fact that the curriculum focuses on one particular topic for a period of time, that's right and proper, but it's the way that this has been done with all the attendant national, indeed international, publicity surrounding it that's wrong. That's what's made this into a political issue and has made it seem that "Black History" is far more important than other forms of history. It wouldn't surprise me one little bit to find out that one or other of the plethora of black political pressure groups was behind this 'initiative'.

[Opinionated]

No problem with initiatives at all, but is "Black History Month" going to be followed by "Spanish History Month" or by "Italian History Month" or by "White History Month"? I guarantee not.

OK one step at a time for me because I'm not sure where we part company on this. Do you accept that there is no need in this country for a white history month? That (particular the history that the ahem older members of the forum, including myself) were taught was from dusty old text books written by white men, therefore it would reflect their perspective? Unless you were lucky enough to have a progressive teacher or two (girls school, the odd rad. fem. teacher - explains a lot doesn't it )? I imagine in Spain there's no need for a Spanish history month and likewise Italy; however I would be very annoyed if, in secondary schools here, Italian and Spanish history wasn't at least touched on in the context of 20th century history and the aftermath of the second world war!

It's not so much the fact that the curriculum focuses on one particular topic for a period of time, that's right and proper, but it's the way that this has been done with all the attendant national, indeed international, publicity surrounding it that's wrong.
That's what's made this into a political issue and has made it seem that "Black History" is far more important than other forms of history.

Why is it wrong? Surely the fact it's just one month a year reflects the fact that the powers that be believe it needs confining and is therefore not of equal value?

It wouldn't surprise me one little bit to find out that one or other of the plethora of black political pressure groups was behind this 'initiative'.

Well of course it is, there's no conspiracy here, this is something (like women's history) which has had to be campaigned for! Why do you, someone who advocates the "sheeple" getting informed and active, disaprove so much of pressure groups, this is about redressing a balance, nothing more.

[Midas]

OK one step at a time for me because I'm not sure where we part company on this. Do you accept that there is no need in this country for a white history month?

I was using "White History Month" more as an illustration, my main point being that I see no need whatsoever, in a country which is supposed to espouse 'equality', to heavily promote what I, and apparently quite a lot of other people, see as inequality, the very public elevation of one race over another.

Why do you, someone who advocates the "sheeple" getting informed and active, disaprove so much of pressure groups, this is about redressing a balance, nothing more.

You could use that argument ad infinitum though; 'A' does 'X', 'B' complains about it and wants redress, 'A' then goes on to say 'B' should forget it, it's all in the past, so 'B' starts to get uppity about it..... Surely the time's long passed when different racial pressure groups should, or should even be allowed to, pressure parts of the community into promoting themselves as being worthy of 'special inclusion' in this way? We're all supposed to be equal in the eyes of the law; this simply emphasises the opposite.

[DC]

Black History Month publically celebrates the history, arts and achievements of one race, however this celebration of race is not extended to others, because for some reason it is presumed they don't deserve it. Ergo, it is racist, and nobody can deny that.
Now some people are arguing whether the prevelance of white history, literature and arts in both the media and education justifies having a month designated for blacks exclusively, of course it doesn't.

In the media, while still arguably has a white focus, this is primarily because the majority of those within the media, both on screen and off, are white. This is changing, and there is nothing stopping blacks, or any other minority, from working in and even dominating the media industry. They no longer face the challenges they once did. There is no reason why Blacks cannot play a larger role in the media should they wish to and so change the focus of the media to a more multicultural lineup. A second thing to think about in this regard is the focus on white content, the reason for this is obvious, whites are the majority, private tv networks and even the BBC strive to appeal to the widest possible audience, ergo they do have more white orientated programming. Is there a problem with this? Apparently not, as many on this forum were fine with St George (?) offering bank accounts especially designed for Muslims, so why shouldn't TV networks offer programming especially targeting whites?

In education, there really isn't any argument for accusing history, arts and literature teachers of racism by having most of their studies about or created by whites. Whites have made the most significant impact on History in the UK, ergo they feature far more in History than Blacks do, and we should not be skewing History to create a 'black perspective' when for the most part there really isn't one. In regards to the arts, again, the same rules apply. The majority of classical pieces which are studied are created by or about white people. Again because they are the majority in Europe and America, where most English language art comes from, as well as featuring cultural and philosophical understandings that would be familiar to most students. Quite simply even when we teach art and lietrature, just like History, it's relative. We teach more about European arts rather than Chinese because it's both relative to the national identity and the philosophical and cultural concerns are familiar to the students. In China they teach most about Chinese art and literature, in India it's mostly Indian, in Russia it's mostly Russian, that;s the way things are. Do we need to widen the scope of our studies to include more varied culture? Sure, but that's no reason to devote, name and publicise an entire month to one race, that doesn't just encourage a focus on that race, but celebrates that race over all others.

Can we progress to include a Black perspective within our education system and media? Sure. But that must not come at a cost to the students or national identity, nor must it be racist.

[DougieG]

Black History Month publically celebrates the history, arts and achievements of one race, however this celebration of race is not extended to others, because for some reason it is presumed they don't deserve it. Ergo, it is racist, and nobody can deny that.
Now some people are arguing whether the prevelance of white history, literature and arts in both the media and education justifies having a month designated for blacks exclusively, of course it doesn't.

In the media, while still arguably has a white focus, this is primarily because the majority of those within the media, both on screen and off, are white. This is changing, and there is nothing stopping blacks, or any other minority, from working in and even dominating the media industry. They no longer face the challenges they once did. There is no reason why Blacks cannot play a larger role in the media should they wish to and so change the focus of the media to a more multicultural lineup. A second thing to think about in this regard is the focus on white content, the reason for this is obvious, whites are the majority, private tv networks and even the BBC strive to appeal to the widest possible audience, ergo they do have more white orientated programming. Is there a problem with this? Apparently not, as many on this forum were fine with St George (?) offering bank accounts especially designed for Muslims, so why shouldn't TV networks offer programming especially targeting whites?

In education, there really isn't any argument for accusing history, arts and literature teachers of racism by having most of their studies about or created by whites. Whites have made the most significant impact on History in the UK, ergo they feature far more in History than Blacks do, and we should not be skewing History to create a 'black perspective' when for the most part there really isn't one. In regards to the arts, again, the same rules apply. The majority of classical pieces which are studied are created by or about white people. Again because they are the majority in Europe and America, where most English language art comes from, as well as featuring cultural and philosophical understandings that would be familiar to most students. Quite simply even when we teach art and lietrature, just like History, it's relative. We teach more about European arts rather than Chinese because it's both relative to the national identity and the philosophical and cultural concerns are familiar to the students. In China they teach most about Chinese art and literature, in India it's mostly Indian, in Russia it's mostly Russian, that;s the way things are. Do we need to widen the scope of our studies to include more varied culture? Sure, but that's no reason to devote, name and publicise an entire month to one race, that doesn't just encourage a focus on that race, but celebrates that race over all others.

Can we progress to include a Black perspective within our education system and media? Sure. But that must not come at a cost to the students or national identity, nor must it be racist.

I'm not sure you understand what black history month entails. Teachers don't drop tools and teach nothing but black music in music, nothing but black literature in English and nothing but black history in history. Some merely choose to include some of these materials in one or two lessons over the month. It's not a massive orgy of black propaganda and certainly nothing like the picture that you are painting. Many schools don't even bother with it.

[pauli007001]

I'm not sure you understand what black history month entails. Teachers don't drop tools and teach nothing but black music in music, nothing but black literature in English and nothing but black history in history. Some merely choose to include some of these materials in one or two lessons over the month. It's not a massive orgy of black propaganda and certainly nothing like the picture that you are painting. Many schools don't even bother with it.

Im glad many schools dont bother with it, that is the way it should be for all schools and for society in general, history is history, it dosnt have a colour, it is fact and nothing more and that is what should be taught, facts not colours, teach colours in Art, facts in History and science, opinions in RE and politics, i know a crazy and radical suggestion on my part, teach actual subject matter in the subject rather than politicised opinions and propeganda, me and my crazy ideas, history should be taught in History, crazy!!!!!!Colours taught in Art, my dogs in Devon my ideas make no sense at all, we should however consider banning the subject known as English, the title of the subject itself is racist, fascist and oppressive.

[pauli007001]

Can you name 5 major black characters in European history between 0CE and 1900CE? It's not racist to point that out, just racist to suggest that this is because black people are stupid or whatever. If you looked at the history of China or Africa there wouldn't be many significant white people in them. Naturally there aren't going to be many major black people in European history because the continent was vastly white.

I can think of one - Septimus Severus. And possibly Jesus although it's unlikely.

5 between 0AD and 1900AD sure i can septamus severus, a libiyan who was not black but nor was he white(unless all arabs are white) but how do we know, there are no photos.What we do know is that this man, an African came to the UK to collect slaves to be sold to his Roman masters, he was a callous violent murderous slave trader, considered by Nulab to have been a great person, i guess genocide and slavery are the actions of a great person according to Nulab(great so long as the white race is the target of that genocide).

During the crusades there were hundreds of Black charecters, the saracens for example had many black soldiers in their ranks. King Cetaweyo of the Zulus might be another i could find hundreds more i guess if i wished to, Oh yeah, Jesus, now there was a Black man in that period you mentioned, Jesus came from Galilea, a known settlement for Immigrant Black Jews in the ancient state of Israel.
Yout point is irrelivant, Black history month is about putting one group on a pedestal, it causes Racist feelings amongst blacks and racist feelings amongst whites, that is all it does it has no positive effect on society at all, it is a dangerous experiment that will cause violence one day.

[pauli007001]

Can you name 5 major black characters in European history between 0CE and 1900CE? It's not racist to point that out, just racist to suggest that this is because black people are stupid or whatever. If you looked at the history of China or Africa there wouldn't be many significant white people in them. Naturally there aren't going to be many major black people in European history because the continent was vastly white.

I can think of one - Septimus Severus. And possibly Jesus although it's unlikely.

I can say that most people cant, because the Black race didnt exist in the UK in any relevant number until after 1900, not noticably until after 1945.
I guess for you it is OK to apply greater significance to the historical influence of Blacks on the development of the UK than there actually was in order to uplift one race above another in the UK today, the truth of the matter is unimportant compared with the result of the propeganda, which will as always be the consolidation of the Nulab powerbase.

[DTE]

Don't you find it strange that there's very few organisations devoted to 'white' culture? The study and furtherment of white peoples?
Yet there are large amounts of such groups devoted to furthering Black and Asian and other ethnic and cultural groups, what's more many of these groups get Government funding. Black History Month is part of that, it is a celebration of the black race and its achievements. Now this is in no way a problem, except that the same celebration of race is not extended to whites, Asians or other groups. Essentially it says 'Black people get a month all for them, but nobody else does' Now you may say that the actual impact on daily life is minimal, and in many cases that may be true, however it is the mere act of designating a month to celebrate a race, not an achievment or particular event, but merely a race, and at the same time not celebrating other races, that says black people are more important than everyone else.

Okay so most of the problem with this black history month is the fact that FOR ONE MONTH OF THE YEAR IN A LIMITED CAPACITY schools teach black culture in history, music, art, maybe literature. So when I was at achool we learnt about

Shakespeare, George Elliot, Charles Dickens, George Orwell, Frank O'Connor (seriously, do not ask),Thomas Hardy, Hockney, Da Vinci, Michaelangelo, The French Impressionists, Mozart, Tchaikovsky and Bach, oh and The Beatles. In history, the 2nd World War, the History of Transport here, the formation of the US, the industrial revolution, the English Civil War and The Tudors. Probably some other stuff as well.

Less black people there than down the local Conservative Club.

How can at most 1/12 of a child's education in culture possibly be tantamount to promoting one race above others?

[Kiwi 1691]

To those who don't approve of Black history month just ignore it.

[DC]

I'm not sure you understand what black history month entails. Teachers don't drop tools and teach nothing but black music in music, nothing but black literature in English and nothing but black history in history. Some merely choose to include some of these materials in one or two lessons over the month. It's not a massive orgy of black propaganda and certainly nothing like the picture that you are painting. Many schools don't even bother with it.

As I said, there is far more focus on it in America. But nevertheless, it's the principle of devoting one month to one race which is wrong.

[DC]

Okay so most of the problem with this black history month is the fact that FOR ONE MONTH OF THE YEAR IN A LIMITED CAPACITY schools teach black culture in history, music, art, maybe literature. So when I was at achool we learnt about

Shakespeare, George Elliot, Charles Dickens, George Orwell, Frank O'Connor (seriously, do not ask),Thomas Hardy, Hockney, Da Vinci, Michaelangelo, The French Impressionists, Mozart, Tchaikovsky and Bach, oh and The Beatles. In history, the 2nd World War, the History of Transport here, the formation of the US, the industrial revolution, the English Civil War and The Tudors. Probably some other stuff as well.

Less black people there than down the local Conservative Club.

How can at most 1/12 of a child's education in culture possibly be tantamount to promoting one race above others?

Because it's a public idea. They have labled Black History Month as a public event, celebrating one race. I assume you were trying to point out that the white focus of our education is in itself, racist, however I have already rebuffed that point.

[pauli007001]

Okay so most of the problem with this black history month is the fact that FOR ONE MONTH OF THE YEAR IN A LIMITED CAPACITY schools teach black culture in history, music, art, maybe literature. So when I was at achool we learnt about

Shakespeare, George Elliot, Charles Dickens, George Orwell, Frank O'Connor (seriously, do not ask),Thomas Hardy, Hockney, Da Vinci, Michaelangelo, The French Impressionists, Mozart, Tchaikovsky and Bach, oh and The Beatles. In history, the 2nd World War, the History of Transport here, the formation of the US, the industrial revolution, the English Civil War and The Tudors. Probably some other stuff as well.

Less black people there than down the local Conservative Club.

How can at most 1/12 of a child's education in culture possibly be tantamount to promoting one race above others?

Its Not 1 12th though is it?
In education facilities there is a distinct prejudice toward the white child, the government itself has admitted this in recent years, they admitted to their guilt at letting white kids down, history is history, colour is colour, hitory should be taught in history classes and colour in Art.
Culture? there is only one culture in the UK and that is the UK culture, the culture that made it a promising destination for immigrants.Those self same immigrants who moved to this better place because the culture of it made it better than their homeland.Their homeland therefore must suck, because of the culture that prevails there, so leave it there or else that culture will make your new home as sucky as the old one, the culture of Immigrants is why immigrants exist, why adopt a culture that causes everyone who subscribes to that culture to leave the place where that culture is practised?????

I dont like my toilet to smell like crap so frm now on i will crap in the kitchen.

[Midas]

Okay so most of the problem with this black history month is the fact that FOR ONE MONTH OF THE YEAR IN A LIMITED CAPACITY schools teach black culture in history, music, art, maybe literature. So when I was at achool we learnt about

Shakespeare, George Elliot, Charles Dickens, George Orwell, Frank O'Connor (seriously, do not ask),Thomas Hardy, Hockney, Da Vinci, Michaelangelo, The French Impressionists, Mozart, Tchaikovsky and Bach, oh and The Beatles. In history, the 2nd World War, the History of Transport here, the formation of the US, the industrial revolution, the English Civil War and The Tudors. Probably some other stuff as well.

Less black people there than down the local Conservative Club.

How can at most 1/12 of a child's education in culture possibly be tantamount to promoting one race above others?

That's comparing chalk and cheese. You didn't have specific and highly publicised months which emphasised the racial nature of those people did you? That's the issue here, not whether black history is as valid as any other kind of history, which of course it is. No one race, regardless of who they are, should receive such undue attention in a society where we're all supposed to be equal and where we're supposed to be colour-blind.