Shock and Awe said:
You know what everyone loves? A good old gripe thread. Somewhere to go and complain about whatever is pertinent to the topic at hand, and today that topic is Universities/Colleges/Higher Education in general. Now, why do I bring up this oft repeated thread? Simple; I have a gripe that must be griped here!
I've attended two different colleges in my two semesters of higher education; a military and civilian institution(I am still in ROTC in the latter if anyone finds that relevant) and have taken two history courses in those two semesters(valve life). The first was quite standard and exactly what I expected. The second; not so much. Its a course that covers American History past 1865 and from the way my professor teaches it I could swear I was in an African American studies class. Literally half or more of nearly every class dealt specifically with African American issues and history.
Now I am not gonna sit here and say they aren't important; they are immensely so. However, its a real negative when it is focused on so much that it leaves out a lot of other important parts of history. Westward expansion? Touched on. Asian and European immigration? Only when it was directly related to African Americans. The only non-African American history subject that were covered at any length were Populism and Women's Rights movement, and the latter only for about 40 minutes in one class. I am not even going to mention the immense bias in the lectures.
So two things, is this kind of thing normal? What are some of your gripes about higher education?
Well, part of the issue is that when it comes to things like "American History" which I assume is what your discussing there isn't a whole lot of history to really talk about. In the 200 years+ that the US has been around Blacks were slaves for most of it, so didn't really achieve much. Even later you consider most of the "noteworthy" black achievements have been in sports and entertainment, exceptions like George Washington Carver (whose research lead to things like Linolium and Plastics), do indeed exist, but they tend to represent a great exception. This kind of thing is exactly why guys like Bill Cosby have had their controversial rants (he has a PHD in Children's Education) about Black culture and blacks not embracing the opportunities they are given, being more likely to destroy computers and textbooks than actually use them, due to education being seen as "selling out". The whole "get rich or die trying" attitude that pretty much glamourizes either being in the top 1% or on the bottom trying to grab a place in the top 1% outside of society. The idea that becoming education and fitting into society where you will probably go no where special (like most people) is often argued as a form of slavery. It being more noble to "git rich or die trying" and wind up face down in a ghetto with a gun in your hand and drugs in your pocket rather than getting educated and wind up working for someone else for the rest of your life (like most people) it's from those educated masses that you see the really exceptional people that shape history eventually spring... and as of yet, we haven't seen as many as we should because of black culture. That said people are pretty much going to be talking about George Washington Carver, and Barak Obama (love him or hate him) pretty much as long as people keep talking. Still through a lot of the formative years of the country blacks were slaves or a forced underclass, until the civil rights movement (which of course makes history) and then as I'm pointing out, that victory has been heavily squandered. You should probably read Bill Cosby's stuff on education and black America, I don't agree with him on a lot of things, but these points are really brilliant and he articulates it far better than me.
When it comes to other minorities, there is the issue of numbers, and of course pre-civil liberties oppression and bigotry. As a result you had tons of people coming in from Asia working on railroads and such, but they didn't make much of a mark on US history because that's all they really did, largely because that's all our society let them do for a long time, there isn't a whole lot to go on about, unless again, your bringing up athletes and entertainers, who don't really have much historical relevance outside of a civil rights context (ie being famous or rich at a time when few minorities were, and sticking out for that reason).
Consider it a good thing that in a few centuries things will probably be different, but right now, well... it's just the way things are. There are a number of cases that can be brought up, but most of the big factoids like "A black who was educated and worked as a Navigator" and things like that are again mostly just signifigant because the person was black, since that was a job other people were doing. So it tends to fold into civil liberties.
HOWEVER one important thing to consider is that when you go into WORLD history things are far different. Most of the great civilizations of the ancient world weren't white, after all human civilization sprung up around the fertile Crescent region with dark and dusky skinned peoples. Babylon, Egypt, Rome, Greece, Persia... that was what the world revolved around. Us white guys spend thousands of years as the slaves and barbarians, we were the Goths, Gauls, and other savage tribes of history, pretty much the dudes that got their butts kicked by the roman legions and dragged off in chains, or abducted and frog marched to Egypt to build their monuments and stuff. As a lot of people will point out there was civilization in The Middle East, Mediterrenean and parts of Asia, while us "whites" that later came to dominate after the fall of Rome were literally wearing skins and hiding in caves.
Some people take comfort when they consider that point, others do not.
At any rate that's how I see things.
I'll also say that depending on your university you might simply bring up things you believe might be relevant. If you think a particular historical person relevant to the area is being discussed, by all means, bring it up. Understand though that when it comes to the sweep of history how fast someone can run, jump, swim, play sports, or sing, dance, or act is usually not relevant. In these kinds of classes the focus tends to be less on that kind of culture and more on generals, politicians, and policy makers, and how what one nation did influenced others. In Napolean's France for example there were probably people in France who were outside the norm and did some amazing things, however when it comes to history and how the world was shaped the focus is going to be on Napolean's campaigns, his relation to the French Government (exiled, comes back to conquer it again), and eventual defeat by Wellington. Especially when you consider that these events largely influenced what happened elsewhere in the world. For example all the wars The British Empire was fighting was why it lost control of The American colonies, which became the USA, largely due to arrogance. Had Britan for example decided to play nice with America politically and give a lot more say in government those resources would have been on the side of The Empire directly... and well... I'm rambling. The point is there is a reason why people focus on that kind of stuff in a class which might also be what your talking about. Largely history classes focus on where the world was largely shaped, whether it was around the Fertile Crescent in the ancient world, or later on throughout Europe and The Americas.
) so I'm actually doing 3 XD . However, I was just simplifying for someone who evidentially hadn't heard of the system, but wanted it.
