1  2  3  4  5 ... 10  Next

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Conten ... 3260643060

This is completely insane!

The Toronto Board of Education has just announced the introduction of an "Afro-Centric" social studies program for black students.

Apparently, there is anecdotal evidence to suggest black students in the city's education system are falling behind other students and it's because they don't have enough "culturally sensitive teaching" in school. Of course, there's no hard evidence to suggest blacks are worse off than other students because it's against board policy to collect statistics based on race.

There you have it again, the big bad white man has forced these poor kids to learn about useless white man's stuff like the history behind Confederation, Canada's involvement in two World Wars, white man's science, white man's math, and English. Of course they're falling behind.

For some reason, the city's Asian and East Indian populations don't seem to have the same problem keeping up though. Nobody seems to have explained why exactly that is the case. After all, wouldn't those kids find the white focused educational curriculum at least as alien as do black youth?

I would argue that those who are promoting this kind of nonsense are the real racists. They are in effect saying that the educational cirriculum that works just fine for everybody else is too difficult for black youth. What kind of message does that send?

An example of the new Afrocentric curriculum even includes this little gem. A math program that uses statistics on police racial profiling of blacks as a teaching tool. Talk about fucking propaganda!

I'm sure teaching black kids from a young age to resent and mistrust the city's police will get them off to a really good start in life.

Ridiculous.

   

If there are enough Black students in Toronto to justify having a course that teaches them about the history of Black people, then I'm all for it.

   

There certainly seems to be enough Caucasians in the education system, why not design a curriculum around them? I suppose in the case of history you could certainly argue that it is largely ‘euro or ‘whitecentric’ but to do otherwise would deny the inescapable conclusion that Christian Caucasians played the overwhelmingly dominate role in defining and building the country of Canada. Contributions by blacks, Asians or others should be integrated and met with the same lackadaisical attitude we attribute to the Irish (Scottish etc) heritage that pepper the footnotes of the accomplishments and biographies of great Canadians.

   

Out here on the wet coast, they are seriously discussing letting the first nations run their own school system, with a manditory criteria from the BC gov. It's a huge can of worms but if it gets FN kids into the real world, I'd be all for it. Provided that it's not a boondoggle.

Considering we send money to freakshows like the Bountiful community, it's hard to slight the natives.

I do not think the TO. black (mostly Jamaca or Somolia?) has the same problems but as long as they come out with a normal schooling and get into the real world, it's got to be better than what's happening now. I doubt it's going to work with them though.
Mark me down a an open minded cynic.

   

We already do. We call it "the curriculum".



But the fact is that people of other races, religions and ethnicities played their role. Ignoring them and the role they played doesn't do us any good -- it's ignoring a considerable portion of history.



Some people may not want to learn about it, due to lack of interest, and (arguably) a lack of need-to-know. But the beauty of this idea is that "fringe history" (which, in a sense, is what we're talking about) exists between the cracks of "regular history". There is no way that black students could learn black history without also learning about history in general.

So, in conclusion, I think it's all around a good thing.

   

I seriously would debate the historical contributions of non-whites is "ignored". Recorded history in Canada of any real significance is generally attributed to Caucasians as they held the combination of being the overwhelming majority and the instigators of most historical points of interest. Though it would be an injustice to dismiss the contribution of other groups, I feel this is adequately addressed within the current academic framework.



I certainly hope you will seriously reconsider what you are advocating. This type of dogmatist ideology is what led the RCMP to change from the pedantic to subjacent testing claiming natives and immigrants were culturally impeded in their ability to learn and as such, unable to compete with Caucasians. This will only further denigrate any hopes Canada ever has of becoming a nation instead of a country.

Additionally, fringe history tends to evolve into revisionist history. Lets us recoqnise what is significant rather than have the trivial be superimposed for the sake of political correctness.



And instructing students in the vernacular of eubonics never achieved the results you are similarly advocating. No society can be equal unless it begins with its education system. Leave the “cracks” to the punctilious that practice their craft out of love rather than politics.

   

The current academic framework simply doesn't teach them about their historical identity.
NOW, if you were to argue that teaching black kids about their identity should be up to their parents, you'd have a workable argument. As it stands, you don't.



Newsflash: Canada is not a "nation". Canada is indeed a "country" -- and there's nothing wrong with that.
The trouble with nation states is that they depend on a dominant ethnic group from which they can derive their identity. Canada, however, is a multicultural country, and cannot afford this luxury.



Not unless some dingwad is going to suggest that the Underground Railroad was secretly run by Nazis.



There's little equality in a system that would force a significant portion of its citizens to learn "our history" and the expense of learning "their history". As long as they're learning something, that's all that really matters.

   

If their historical identity is Canadian then it certainly does.



As it stands you don't? You're starting to sound like DerbyX. Next thing you'll be ending statements with "I'm right you're wrong" or "you've been schooled".

You are obviously aware of the "underground railroad" probably aware of the significance of blacks to Nova Scotia and as an educated Albertan, are certainly aware of the impact of the Oklahoman Blacks. So obviously for their numbers and significance on history they are well represented. Now if you are advocating political correctness then this is another debate altogether.



Newsflash: Contributors continually rip on me because I claim Canada is not a nation. (Though I'd like it to be.) I also clearly state "further denigrate any hopes Canada ever has of becoming a nation". You like to debate linguistic semantics, how exactly did you draw your conclusion that I advocated Canada was currently a nation?



I don't perceive that as a "trouble". It is the tie that binds a people so that they can live together. Some nations have been successful for thousands of years. If Canada does not get its poop in a group I doubt we'll last another century.

Having been to several "multicultural" countries I can attest Canada is not one. We may strive for it ideologically but by and large (and I know you hate it when I use that term), by the third generation you have become the cultural majority.



That's what dingwads do and the educational and government institutions are heavily populated with them. Your faith in their integrity bothers me.



Then that is revisionist right there. History is to be based on fact. When I studied history my professor professed a disdain for literature authored on any country written from the perspective of one of its countrymen. He felt that thrid party analysis was always more appropriate.

I also detest the use of the term us and them in the context of Canadians. The only us and them there are is Canadians and non Canadians.

Also, by your logic science should not be taught to blacks unless it is the parts contributed by black scientists.

   

Bowing to the lowest common.................

   

Good point. There are certain aspects of Canadian history that are clear cut and appropriate for high school students, which is why they are taught. The history of Confederation, the Rebellions of 1837, War of 1812, Riel, Women's Suffrage, etc. These are subjects that are well documented and established.

It's too bad that there aren't more "Canadians of Colour" represented in those periods, but that was the reality at the time. It's not really appropriate to rewrite the past or pay undue attention to relatively obscure events just so they might appeal more to a Canadian student demographic in 2006.

More importantly, starting a curriculum based on fringe subjects like we're speaking about inevitably becomes an opportunity for the politically correct to push their agendas but disguise them as education.

And the forces of evil on this are so brazen they're not even confining their agendas to malleable subjects like history anymore.

These clowns now want to promote their agendas by using subjects like math. One would expect math to be a fairly racially neutral subject. But appraently not, as they want to use "Statistics on Police Racial Profiling" as a subject unit in math.

That's probably the most blatant politicization of an educational cirriculum as I've ever seen.

I'm sorry Patrick, but you can't honestly defend that kind of nonsense.

   

And what is the Canadian historical identity? Is is strictly caucasian? Mostly caucasian? Or, does every different race/ethnicity in Canada, in fact, have a different historical identity?
In fact, they do.



Sorry if you resent being schooled. The simple fact of the matter is you don't have an argument.



I'm not advocating this solely on the based of political correctness. I'm advocating this based on the fact that, in many large urban centers, it is academically feasible.
NOW, that being said, there are many places where such courses are simply not feasible -- for blacks. But, for example, we have many Francophone communities out here in Alberta (Bonnyville, for one), where they could teach a French-Canadianized version of Canadian history. They'd still have to learn about all the important events, but they'd also get an understanding of their ethnic perspective on those events. There are many communities out here where they could teach a Ukrainian-Canadian version of Canadian history. Anywhere where there is a significant demographic of people falling into a certain racial or ethnic group, this is an option that should be available to them.



You just don't get it. You say you want Canada to become a nation, but Canada cannot ever become a nation. That was made impossible the moment that immigrants started arriving... right about the time of colonization.



There's no question that assimilation inevitably occurs. And yet, what people are assimilating into -- what they are becoming here -- is different than any where else in the world.
Multiculturalism, in this note, is not something that simply happens. It has to be maintained. We maintain multiculturalism by doing things such as teaching people about their ethnic/racial history in schools. Naturally, we can only do this where it is practical, and the curriculum of such a course would have to be set by someone who understands what is to be taught (optimally someone from the same background).
In short: it takes work. That is precisely what things such as this "black history" course do.



I have zero faith in dingwads. I have every bit of faith in the ability of regular people to identify them as dingwads, and reject their dingwadish ideas.



These courses would still have to be based on fact. This isn't revisionist history. It's teaching about the things that most conventional history courses ignore because they "aren't important". But many of these things are important to someone, and should be taught to those people it will be important to.



I agree with that in a sense. However, we cannot ignore the simple fact that people are different, on many different accounts. We should embrace and respect these differences, not reject them and pretend they don't exist.



Also, your logic is entirely fucked up. There isn't much of this science black kids could be taught without having to learn the important stuff along with it.
Frankly, science and math are both entirely different matters altogether. Honestly, this was another really stupid argument.




There is an extent to which such things can eventually become nonsense, such as the "statistics of racial profiling" thing in Math. That's utter garbage.
But allowing these kids to learn about black history is simply not the same.
Frankly, your obvious desire to try and divert the discussion into one regarding other school subjects seems like an indicator that you can't defend your views on this quite as well as you would like us to believe.



These are some of the "important stuff" that I've been talking about -- stuff that any Canadian history course (be it a "Black" Canadan history course, or not) simply cannot do without.
But how did these events affect Black people in Canada? That's something that Black kids should be able to learn about.
Or, how about teaching about something that our curriculum currently virtually ignores: Black slavery in Canada (yes, it once existed)?

   

Black afro-centrism has been widely debunked in the USA and I'm really surprised that Canada would embrace this bullshit.

You folks need to dig out the old book, "Not Out of Africa"
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/046509 ... e&n=283155

and give it a read.

Afro-centrism teaches BULLSHIT like that the Egyptians were Negroes when we have physical proof (mummies) that they were Semitic Caucasians.

Afro-centrism teaches that Beethoven was a Negro despite that fact that he wasn't.

Afro-centrism claims that all of the Greek and Roman mathematicians, writers, philosophers, and military leaders stole their great thoughts from the Negroes of sub-Saharan Africa whose empires would've been impressive were it not for the diabolical plans of white people.

Guys, this crap is utter bullshit and anyone who buys into this crap is just a fool.

But anyone who lets this crap get into their schools is also a fool.

We fought this bullshit down here and we won, you need to fight it , too.

   

There was an "Afro-Canadian Studies" class back in high school (which I didn't take, but my siblings did - the large majority of the class wasn't black) but it was just an option people had for their social studies elective.

I doubt it's any less worthwhile than the bunch of bullshit about australopithecus and pyramids that I learned in high school history, so I don't understand the problem. That's assuming non-blacks could take the courses in Toronto, too.

   

Good point. At UC Berkeley and several other politically correct campuses in the USA white and Asian students were either prohibited by policy from attending these classes or they were intimidated into leaving them by the professors and their peers.

This open (and sometimes physically violent) hostility towards whites and Asians did more to end AC studies than did the fact that AC studies are bogus.

   

Well, I certainly wouldn't be supportive of any "Afro-Centric" courses that aren't factually accurate.

   

1  2  3  4  5 ... 10  Next