The Miseducation of the African American II
by How African Americans are kept ignorant of their history.
African Americans do not know their history.
The rebellions, suicides, murder of their captors, are unknown. The vast majority of African American did not know Amistaad until the movie. This chunk of history, which proved Africans were not helpless captives, is not the singular rebellion of Africans in the New World. It may be the first the white world decides to expose this bit of history.
Americans can quote the “Dred Scott” decision made by their Supreme Court; how many know the Amistaad ruling? Where the arguments of John Quincy Adams fully explored slavery and the conditions thereof and that a person has a Right to Use Deadly force to Prevent himself from being enslaved.
Suppression of history, perpetuated by whites, but maintained by blacks, is the core reason for the mental slavery today.
What must be done is not the “Jim Crow” Black studies departments but an inclusion into general history. History, not European/American History named ‘World History’ but history of all nations so Americans, will gain the necessary perspective to live in a “Global Village”.
When one studies history, in this case, African History, pieces “fit”.
The Rwandan genocide, the situation in Darfur, the reaction of South Africans to “strangers”, all have their roots in the past, just as the situation in Bosnia goes back hundreds of years.
When one knows their history events don’t surprise or lead to incorrect assumptions. One of the problems with “Black Studies” is that the only ones in class are Black. Hence the white world can continue in it’s belief that Africans were primitive. Can continue to believe, (as do many Blacks) that the white man went and captured and enslaved Africans who had no culture before that moment.
Too much of history has been left out and recast, to portray the American as some kind of special being with greater compassion, intelligence, bravery, inventiveness, etc. This is excellent to build the chauvinistic mentality of the “Ugly American”.
This, of course leads to the dichotomy of ‘Rambo’ and ‘Reality’.
Groups who have been left out of the text books; i.e. the indigenous people, refugees from oppression; i.e. Jews, and of course Africans, become disconnected.
This feeling of “footnote” might be why Latin Americans have their own television station giving news and information, where the Black Television Station runs one music video after another; making sure the image of Black man as pimp Black woman as whore is perpetuated.
Where there should be news, with a reference to Africa (as the BBC does with it’s special African news program), with a reference to the Black community in America, (more often heard in a Church or a Street corner), and where programs of historical importance, (as done by the History Channel) should be presented, there is nothing but noise.
This is not the fault of the White community. We can not blame others for our failings. We can only look into ourselves and ask why ‘they’, (whomever “they” are) see themselves as having opinions worth stating, and we see ourselves as minstrels.
Liked it
-
-
-
-
Post CommentANDY-N
On September 15, 2008 at 11:42 pm
Nice article.
Although I personally believe on a larger scale that we all should learn about history period. The fact we segregate history is sad and non productive in the end. My history is also yours as yours is also mine. We are and should act like the one race we are, the human race.
a fool
On September 16, 2008 at 4:14 pm
What I find is that America tends to focus only on
American history, and ‘world history’ is Britan,
France, Spain.
History should be taught…”The World at Year 1000″
and every corner of the world covered. History
should move in centuries so that when one reaches
1400s, one understands why Columbus in 1492.
R J Evans
On August 7, 2009 at 3:09 pm
A very well put argument. Contextualising history in terms of centuries may put it very broad brush strokes but would certainly lead to a greater understanding of global issues, which slavery most certainly was and continues to be. For example, in Shakespeare’s time the English did not associate black people in particular with slavery – although they were well aware of it, having only recently thrown off the shackles of serfdom themselves. Shakespeare could not have, would not have written Othello if people generally considered black people to be slaves…. and Othello was certainly no minstrel either! (OK, one small example, I know!). Slavery only became associated with skin colour with the discovery of the New World and the need for abundant and cheap labour.
A. Fool
On August 7, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Teaching history by year forces the entire world to be brought into purview. When Shakespeare wrote there
was no special African slaves; the African prince could,
for example, be a suitor in the Merchant of Venice.
The Barbary pirates captured Europeans as slaves…
the famous Circassian slaves, for example, which
were in many harems.
Because Europe has no need to see themselves as slaves they ignore the aspects which contradicts their idea of ascendency.
There were probably over 1M European slaves in Africa in the 1700s.