So there's no difference between "black history" and "white history" then?Ill let some one else explain.
I mean using the examples of the World Wars.. they featured people from multiple ethnicities from literally all over the world. So that's not "black history" is it?
I mean, if you even tried to separate the various historical events into "black history" and "white history", you wouldn't be able to do so, would you?
So "black history" is really just history, yes?
Really what good does it do to, for example, separate the accounts and experiences of black servicement from their white comrades in arms? To present them as "different" histories?
Why does that make sense unless your goal is separation, appartheid, and trying to bait one side against the other? That isn't ending racism, that's just trying to reinforce the idea that, even when black people and white people have shared experiences, they must be kept separate and distinct.
Your group isn't ending racism... it's teaching that white people and black people cannot share a common history - they must be separate. It's fairly disgusting.
e: Nobody was ever stopping history being taught that featured black people.
What is new (and dangerous) is the idea that "black history" was being suppressed and that "white history" was exclusively taught. And that now this forbidden "black history" is being demanded as means to end the oppression of the white man and his white history.
Again, it's the politics of division masquerading as enlightened "anti-racist" movements.
Last edited: