nc

You forget that we already talked about that... when I was in school we studied Asia at length.

So what happened? Did you just forget?

Look. It is not anti's fault that she was only offered a Eurocentric curriculum, it wasn't even her teachers fault or their teachers fault. You cannot know what you do not know. Anti's problem is that she gets all cagey defending it. Once you know something you cannot unknow it. She knows, but she still supports colonization and antiquated notions. Just a modern day colonizer spitting out the same nonsense the Europeans spit when defining Africa as the "Dark Continent". Word for word.

And there are so, so many great authors of different races and genders and backgrounds�

If you're willing to read them, of course.

" Can they include them because they're great authors, though, instead of making it about race?"

The point antithesis is that yes, they are great authors, but great authors of color are underrepresented in school curriculums. I don't understand why it's problematic to point that out?

This is really a heartbreaking thread to read.

Maybe the thread itself is supposed to answer the question posted on the title�?

Israel was not organically a Jewish country. The Jews from Egypt invaded Israel and killed all the organical people. Men, women, children and their goats. They keep the young virgins for themselves.

I feel like I get very very very little world history in high school. Lots of north Carolina history in middle school. Lots of US history and WWII in high school and that was about it.

There is a running narrative in Jewish history that everyone picked on them. Even today, most people believe it is the Palestinians who are the aggressor. The true history of the Jewish people is one of aggression. They believe it is their God given right to rule over the world and have bullied others until the others become tire of it. Then they are put in their places and whine for hundreds of years about how they were picked on. It is true, Jews were not slaves in Egypt. They were paid soldiers. Mercenaries.

And you can go back to what you posted regarding what you were taught about 1492. The beginning of American time.

When I was a kid learning about Egypt they taught us about the slavery of Jews. Boy did I feel stupid when I found out that was a Hollywood movie myth.

When it comes to the teaching of history, those writings like the ones monks made in the 10th century or whenever else are good to have but it's not the only way we learn about history.

And what we were both taught about the Middle Ages was clearly Eurocentric. Lots of writing from the other side, but we never got to learn about that.

lol auto correct is killing me Zora Neale Hurston no Zoroastrian

So what should be eliminated from the curriculum, and what should be the replacement? Do we skip the Middle Ages to focus on 20th century African literature? Doing so eliminates the ability to understand the Biblical impacts on history, is that preferable?

Biblical influence on whose history?

What it comes down to is, we can't teach what we don't have. It's not racist to not teach something that doesn't exist.

This is probably the most insidious comment. Now you have gone from kids not being valued to telling them that their entire history does not even exist! Wow!

Golly, we read Russian Literature in high school. Even in middle school. Who hasn't read Crime and Punishment or complained about the length of War and Peace?

But hill is right, you keep making our point.

"Doing so eliminates the ability to understand the Biblical impacts on history, is that preferable?"

Anti, you are again, making my point for me. You're so bent on ring offended by this you refuse to actually listen.

Also, you're mixing up these different concepts. When I'm talking about literature I'm not referring to written histories. I'm talking about literary works. Novels, poems and plays. Written historical records like the ones monks kept in England are not what I'm referring to. When it comes to the teaching of history, those writings like the ones monks made in the 10th century or whenever else are good to have but it's not the only way we learn about history. Also those texts are written edited and controlled by the powerful people who commissioned them and therefor not really reliable. We use things like archeology and anthropology to learn and understand more about past cultures regardless of wether they have a written record. There is plenty of modern scholarship on ancient cultures and that's what we use to learn about those cultures. No high school students are reading those original manuscripts made by monks in medieval Europe. They aren't necessary to learning about a culture or place.

Also, you keep bringing up the America's and ignoring all the other parts of the world outside of Europe that had written languages earlier. Asia and the middle east have plenty of early source materials. There is information to be taught if we wanted to teach it.

As for actual literature, maybe instead of reading Great expectations for the 100000th year in a row, they could teach Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe or Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison? Maybe instead or three plays Shakespeare they could teach one or two in a semester and make room for a novel by Zoroastrian Neil Hurston?

Why do you reckon that is the only literature we have? Is it the veil?

Maybe because those folks' history and culture are not worth learning about?