The key distinction between African slavery and the Transatlantic Slave Trade is found in the unprecedented scale and characteristics of the forced labor systems involved. Although slavery was a practice that already existed in Africa before European participation, the Transatlantic Slave Trade significantly amplified the extent of forced labor. It also introduced concepts such as chattel slavery and racialized enslavement, which marked a departure from traditional African practices.
When do they study the fact that it was their own ancestors who sold them into slavery. A truly despicable act from which they apparently have not and will not ever recover given their attitude of self pity and undeserved entitlement.
I agree that "discuss[ing] the importance of “affirming spaces,” which are safe places for people to express their identities." is not as important as learning about the local economy. Certainly some of these changes seem nonsensical given limited space in the curriculum.
However, I also wonder how an understanding of “limitations of using European sources to understand the history and culture of Indigenous Nations” is bad. It is commonly accepted that history is written by the winners, and living in America we often see and learn a version of history that is different from how colonized or displaced see it. If (big if) done correctly it can teach students the value of critically examining their sources of information and how they can bias one's world view.
Also, I don't think thinking critically about how western standards and philosophies--which at times have been enduring and malignant--automatically suggests that "America as a deeply oppressive society with very little to recommend it." It seems that we should teach students to both recognize that America is a great nation but one that is far from perfect both historically and in the present day. I don't think this necessitates throwing the baby out with the bath water or not being able to have an honest conversation critiquing America.
Not every item listed in every year's curriculum, as the Post describes it, is bad or suggests that America is deeply oppressive with little to recommend it (though each year's curriculum as a whole does, in my opinion). It's the constant drumbeat of negativity, hostility, and left-wing talking points, coupled with the seeming absence of much that suggests that America is a great nation, that's problematic. The balanced approach you advocate isn't to be found in the new curriculum as described by the Post. The present curriculum, as described in the article, comes closer.
Noting the limitations of using European sources to understand the history and culture of "indigenous nations" is fine, as long as students also appreciate the limitations of using screeds by ideologues from these nations. Frantz Fanon, a favorite of the College Board, comes to mind.
Furthermore, the limitations of European sources should not be overstated. It's been a long time since many of these sources, and many American ones, applauded imperialism or colonialism. Students shouldn't be encouraged to throw out the baby with the bathwater when it comes to non-indigenous sources
You're right that understanding the "limitations of using European sources to understand the history and culture of Indigenous Nations" is a good idea. That isn't the actual problem. The problem is that the standards deemphasize teaching students about their own society -- how their city came to be, and what inventions and ideas contributed to the environment in which they live. American Indians are an extremely small part of this history, and in practice deemphasizing European sources when studying them is part of an agenda of deemphasizing European heritage generally. In principle this particular curricular realignment can be done well, but I do not trust the teachers or designers.
The key distinction between African slavery and the Transatlantic Slave Trade is found in the unprecedented scale and characteristics of the forced labor systems involved. Although slavery was a practice that already existed in Africa before European participation, the Transatlantic Slave Trade significantly amplified the extent of forced labor. It also introduced concepts such as chattel slavery and racialized enslavement, which marked a departure from traditional African practices.
Love the ranking of evils, with public education in third place. Jim Dueholm
When do they study the fact that it was their own ancestors who sold them into slavery. A truly despicable act from which they apparently have not and will not ever recover given their attitude of self pity and undeserved entitlement.
plus
- the majority of African slaves went East over a far longer period
- North Africans conducted slave raids from 700-1800+ against European coasts
I agree that "discuss[ing] the importance of “affirming spaces,” which are safe places for people to express their identities." is not as important as learning about the local economy. Certainly some of these changes seem nonsensical given limited space in the curriculum.
However, I also wonder how an understanding of “limitations of using European sources to understand the history and culture of Indigenous Nations” is bad. It is commonly accepted that history is written by the winners, and living in America we often see and learn a version of history that is different from how colonized or displaced see it. If (big if) done correctly it can teach students the value of critically examining their sources of information and how they can bias one's world view.
Also, I don't think thinking critically about how western standards and philosophies--which at times have been enduring and malignant--automatically suggests that "America as a deeply oppressive society with very little to recommend it." It seems that we should teach students to both recognize that America is a great nation but one that is far from perfect both historically and in the present day. I don't think this necessitates throwing the baby out with the bath water or not being able to have an honest conversation critiquing America.
Thanks for this comment.
Not every item listed in every year's curriculum, as the Post describes it, is bad or suggests that America is deeply oppressive with little to recommend it (though each year's curriculum as a whole does, in my opinion). It's the constant drumbeat of negativity, hostility, and left-wing talking points, coupled with the seeming absence of much that suggests that America is a great nation, that's problematic. The balanced approach you advocate isn't to be found in the new curriculum as described by the Post. The present curriculum, as described in the article, comes closer.
Noting the limitations of using European sources to understand the history and culture of "indigenous nations" is fine, as long as students also appreciate the limitations of using screeds by ideologues from these nations. Frantz Fanon, a favorite of the College Board, comes to mind.
Furthermore, the limitations of European sources should not be overstated. It's been a long time since many of these sources, and many American ones, applauded imperialism or colonialism. Students shouldn't be encouraged to throw out the baby with the bathwater when it comes to non-indigenous sources
You're right that understanding the "limitations of using European sources to understand the history and culture of Indigenous Nations" is a good idea. That isn't the actual problem. The problem is that the standards deemphasize teaching students about their own society -- how their city came to be, and what inventions and ideas contributed to the environment in which they live. American Indians are an extremely small part of this history, and in practice deemphasizing European sources when studying them is part of an agenda of deemphasizing European heritage generally. In principle this particular curricular realignment can be done well, but I do not trust the teachers or designers.