Skip to main content

Philly schools to require African history class

PHILADELPHIA, Philadelphia (AP) -- City high school students will be required to take a class in African and African American history to graduate, a move that education experts believe is unique in the nation.

The requirement in the 185,000-student district, which is about two-thirds black, begins with September's freshman class, The Philadelphia Inquirer reported Thursday.

The yearlong course covers subjects including classical African civilizations, civil rights and black nationalism, said Gregory Thornton, the district's chief academic officer. The other social studies requirements are American history, geography and world history.

Michael Casserly, executive director of the Council of the Great City Schools, an advocacy group for big city school districts, said Philadelphia appeared to be in the forefront with such a requirement.

"Courses on the subjects are offered as electives in other cities," he said.

Some parents opposed requiring the course, including Miriam Foltz, president of the Home and School Association at Baldi Middle School.

"There are other races in this city," said Foltz, who is white. "There are other cultures that will be very offended by this. How can you just mandate a course like this?"

While acknowledging it would be better to have courses adequately reflecting all cultures, district officials said African and African American history had been neglected too long.

"We have a whole continent that has been absent from most of our textbooks," said Paul Vallas, the district's chief executive officer.
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

quote:
The requirement in the 185,000-student district, which is about two-thirds black...

..."There are other races in this city," said Foltz, who is white. "There are other cultures that will be very offended by this. How can you just mandate a course like this?"


Whatever happened to MAJORITY RULE? lol

It kills me how everything African-Americans set out to do is suppose to be tailored around what "other cultures" (read: mostly Whites) get offended by. I marvel (not!) at how the Anger, Ire and Indignation of "other cultures" are always promoted in a way that is suppose to be (apparently) more 'saintly', just and worthy of consideration when, by definition, Black Anger and Indignation are demonized and demoted to a level below everyone else's. I mean, I don't see anyone White, e.g., pronouncing how things must be done as to not rouse the anger, offense or Indignation of African-Americans.

Anyway... this is really pretty bizarre.
quote:
"The other social studies requirements are American history, geography and world history."
So, considering the demographics, exactly who is being left out or otherwise not convered... adequately?

I mean, is the offense really about being "left out" or is it about the insertion of ostensibly Black and African History being told by Black/African People?

The latter seems true. But that comes as no surprise. Now where was this Foltz character when it came to complaining about the Lack Of Diversity and "cultures very offened" before the new African History proposal?

Typical...
"There are other races in this city," said Foltz, who is white. "There are other cultures that will be very offended by this. How can you just mandate a course like this?"---article

My response is along the same line.

All of those 'offended cultures' are identified as ancestral nationalities excepting 'Hispanic.'

By the way, 'Hispanic' is not a culture.

Hispanic is a category used as a catch-all for people of nations which have Spanish, and/or Portugese as their primary language.

I say, 'Do it!!'

We, African American-Americans, are challenged for every thing we try to do to get recognition in the institutions and systems of our society.

When there is success, the project is burdened down with all kinds of add-ons of others which ends up marginalizing, and often obscuring, the original intent.

American History is mandatory in public schools in Pennsylvania. That history contains as little as possible of the history of African American for all the reasons offered in that article.

The history of African America is marginalized.

AND...is not offered as a history of a people, but rather as the history of the experience of slavery, Jim Crow, and civil rights.

That is NOT the same thing.


PEACE

Jim Chester
quote:
Originally posted by Nmaginate:
quote:
The requirement in the 185,000-student district, which is about two-thirds black...

..."There are other races in this city," said Foltz, who is white. "There are other cultures that will be very offended by this. How can you just mandate a course like this?"


Whatever happened to MAJORITY RULE? lol

It kills me how everything African-Americans set out to do is suppose to be tailored around what "other cultures" (read: mostly Whites) get offended by. I marvel (not!) at how the Anger, Ire and Indignation of "other cultures" are always promoted in a way that is suppose to be (apparently) more 'saintly', just and worthy of consideration when, by definition, Black Anger and Indignation are demonized and demoted to a level below everyone else's. I mean, I don't see anyone White, e.g., pronouncing how things must be done as to not rouse the anger, offense or Indignation of African-Americans.

Anyway... this is really pretty bizarre.
quote:
"The other social studies requirements are American history, geography and world history."
So, considering the demographics, exactly who is being left out or otherwise not convered... adequately?

I mean, is the offense really about being "left out" or is it about the insertion of ostensibly Black and African History being told by Black/African People?

The latter seems true. But that comes as no surprise. Now where was this Foltz character when it came to complaining about the Lack Of Diversity and "cultures very offened" before the new African History proposal?

Typical...


I don't think African american studies should be mandatory. It should be an elective, for students to choose.

I believe that AFRICAN studies should be mandatory. There is NO reason why a WHOLE CONTINENT should be absent from the text books and class rooms. American schools- and all western schools for that matter need to learn more about other peoples outside the west- this includes Africa. How the hell can shools not teach about the second largest continent on Earth, and the continent that contains 13% of the worlds's population????

Predominately black schools should especially integrate African studies as a mandatory course
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by James Wesley Chester:
"There are other races in this city," said Foltz, who is white. "There are other cultures that will be very offended by this. How can you just mandate a course like this?"---article

[i]My response is along the same line.

All of those 'offended cultures' are identified as ancestral nationalities excepting 'Hispanic.'

By the way, 'Hispanic' is not a culture.

Hispanic is a category used as a catch-all for people of nations which have Spanish, and/or Portugese as their primary language.



Your right. Hispanic is not a culture, and this misconception is a great example of how little exposure in schools to other peoples history does to people...

History text books are now getting more factual, and more diverse. I saw my cousins history text book, and they teach a hell lot more then ever about African-American, Native-American, Hispanic-American, Asian-American,and women history now.

My cousins book also had a little section about west Africa before the slave trade,the kingdoms, and about the culture in west Africa. In addition it talked more about Native American tribes, and culture.

They've also got more politically correct. I can remember his name, but they labeled a black man, a man of african and native american ancestory.

I was glad the schools are starting to teach the truth, and are starting to incorporate all americans into the class rooms...
I don't think African american studies should be mandatory. It should be a choice.

I believe that AFRICAN studies should be mandatory. There is NO reason why a WHOLE CONTINENT should be absent from the text books and class rooms. American schools- and all western schools for that matter need to learn more about other peoples outside the west- this includes Africa.

Predominately black schools should especially integrate African studies as a mandatory course---Sweetwuzzy

I almost agree.

For the public schools:

The reality is that Africa America's history should be the required study. American history without African America's history is a distortion of reality.

Requiring African American history puts reality into the information base of the curriculum.

African study should optional, and should be required only as, but always when European history is required.

History should not be sanitized, or ethnically cleansed.


PEACE

Jim Chester
quote:
Originally posted by James Wesley Chester:
I don't think African american studies should be mandatory. It should be a choice.

I believe that AFRICAN studies should be mandatory. There is NO reason why a WHOLE CONTINENT should be absent from the text books and class rooms. American schools- and all western schools for that matter need to learn more about other peoples outside the west- this includes Africa.

Predominately black schools should especially integrate African studies as a mandatory course---Sweetwuzzy

I almost agree.

For the public schools:

The reality is that Africa America's history should be the required study. American history without African America's history is a distortion of reality.

Requiring African American history puts reality into the information base of the curriculum.

African study should optional, and should be required only as, but always when European history is required.

History should not be sanitized, or ethnically cleansed.


PEACE

Jim Chester


I understand you, but instead of making a separte course for African-Americans, the schools should simply teach more about African-Americans when they are talking about American history, and stop pretending that American history is not dependent upon African-Americans. This is why the African-American couse should simply be integrated into the American history course. If you take blacks out of American history,the US would not be what we know it to be...

I agree that African studies should be mandatory when European studies is mandatory, and vice-versa.
I understand you, but instead of making a separte course for African-Americans, the schools should simply teach more about African-Americans when they are talking about American history, and stop pretending that American history is not dependent upon African-Americans. This is why the African-American couse should simply be integrated into the American history course. If you take blacks out of American history,the US would not be what we know it to be...

I agree that African studies should be mandatory when European studies is mandatory, and vice-versa.---Sweetwuzzy

There was a time when I was in the camp that said 'just include African American history into the existing American history.

I discovered that it doesn't work. A distortion, or bias, gets applied that still leaves the history of African America lacking.

A separate treatment of African American history is necessary to establish its relevance, its significance, as a separate entity, and NOT a comparative entity to America's history.

In time, maybe proper due can be given to each in a single treatment.

That time is not now.


PEACE

Jim Chester
Sweetwuzzy,

I see what you are saying too. And I think ideally, that would be the perfect senario. My only concerns are that I'm not sure African or African American studies could be adequately taught in a general overall American course because you'd have to bring out some awfully ugly European-American history and, I think, delve into the slavery subject much more ... and I'm not sure that would work to improve the race relations in this country. Right now, in most history books, both the European and African American stories are only half told on both sides.

Also on that note, I think it might improve the race relations, as far as Black and Whites are concerned, to have a course study just of our history in which more time is devoted and a better understanding of just who and what we are all about. A conversation needs to be started being had in this country about our role here ... for our children and others because our history is more intertwined in the fabric of the beginning of this country than any other culture.

So, on a note of fairness, I can see just adding African or African American history into the American history course ... however, towards the goal of "evening the playing field" the inaccuracy of American history that has been taught all these centuries needs to be counterbalanced with an African American history that hasn't been taught for nearly as long!
quote:
Originally posted by James Wesley Chester:
I understand you, but instead of making a separte course for African-Americans, the schools should simply teach more about African-Americans when they are talking about American history, and stop pretending that American history is not dependent upon African-Americans. This is why the African-American couse should simply be integrated into the American history course. If you take blacks out of American history,the US would not be what we know it to be...

I agree that African studies should be mandatory when European studies is mandatory, and vice-versa.---Sweetwuzzy

There was a time when I was in the camp that said 'just include African American history into the existing American history.

I discovered that it doesn't work. A distortion, or bias, gets applied that still leaves the history of African America lacking.

A separate treatment of African American history is necessary to establish its relevance, its significance, as a separate entity, and NOT a comparative entity to America's history.

In time, maybe proper due can be given to each in a single treatment.

That time is not now.


PEACE

Jim Chester



I feel as though that segregting American history v.s. African American history, is an attempt to deny that American history is dependent upon African Americans...

Even if there are mandatory African-American courses, school boards would sugar coat it. An African-American course would center around, slavery and jim crow, and whites do not want to show whites in a bad light. So I am not sure as to how successfull an African-American course might be v.s. American history course with a heavy African American presence.


I think it's a great idea anyway, but I think the solution is integrating Afrian american's stories(i.e the truth) into American history courses- no sugar coating at all.
I think it's a great idea anyway, but I think the solution is integrating Afrian american's stories(i.e the truth) into American history courses- no sugar coating at all.---Sweetwuzzy

Our goal is the same.

I'm a 'control freak' concerning our history.

I hope I'm not simply obsessive.

My concern is that once the two are put together there will be 'tug o' war' as to balance. Those witht the power always win.

A free-standing Afrcian American historical base would make that more difficult.

Let's hope.


PEACE

Jim Chester
I found these two related stories while surfing the web! Smile

Philadelphia Mandates African History Class for All High School Students


It's a safe to say that there's not been a period in American history in which blacks have not had a lasting influence. From Benjamin Banneker's involvement in the design plan of Washington, D.C., to the sit-in by North Carolina A&T students at a Woolworth's dining counter that helped usher in the Civil Rights movement, blacks have been more than just mere footnotes in history, yet there's often very little mention of those accomplishments in textbooks throughout the nation's school districts.

However, in Philadelphia, where the nation's founding fathers met to establish a "more perfect union," that's about to change. Starting in September, the School District of Philadelphia will require every high school student to take an African history course.

It's a move that, according to noted historian Charles L. Blockson, is long overdue. "African-American history is American history," he told BlackAmericaWeb.com Thursday.

For years, Blockson has housed his own massive collection of black historical items at Temple University. He has also been a voice amongst many calling for the School District of Philadelphia to initiate a black studies curriculum.

In a city that has one of the largest black populations of any major metropolitan enclave, Blockson said African history courses will now better educate all students of the contributions blacks have made in the building of America and beyond.

"We helped build this country, and we've been amongst the most loyal citizens to America," Blockson said, adding that blacks played a major role in the construction of Independence Hall, the Philadelphia landmark in which the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776. "We're not begging for anything. We just want to be represented."


Black students make up 66 percent of the school district's 185,000 students, with Hispanic, white, and Asian students representing 14.5, 14.2, and 5.3 percent, respectively. Native American students comprise less than one percent of the district's population.

The students have already been able to take an African history elective. Starting with this fall's freshman class, all students must successfully complete an African history course in order to meet the 23.5 credit mandate to earn their high school diploma.

The decision was unanimously approved by the five-member School Reform Commission, which oversees the district. The district will also begin to implement African history in lower grades, ensuring that students as early as kindergarten will learn about black history in ways other than the generic lessons often taught in February to commemorate Black History Month.

One of the textbooks students will use is The African American Odyssey by Darline Hine. Subject matter will delve into classic African civilizations, Africans in colonial America, free black societies and communities, resistance to slavery, African economic empowerment and black nationalism.

Joe Lyons, a spokesman with the School District of Philadelphia, said the curriculum will be a benefit to the education process of all students.

"We feel it's a viable program that will teach the history of a people to the larger population," Lyons said. "[The SRC] felt it was important enough to reach out and have all of our students learn more about this history."

No additional teachers will need to be hired to teach the courses, Lyons said, adding that the teachers will be those who are already in the district's social studies department. Additional professional development training will be conducted this summer to ensure that those teaching African history will be thoroughly prepared, Lyons added.

Despite the fact that no additional funds will be needed to hire staff, there has been some resistance to the new academic curriculum. Miriam Foltz, president of a parent association at one of the district's schools, told the Philadelphia Inquirer it was an "insult" to say that students will not receive their diplomas if they do not take African history. Foltz, who is white, said that other cultures within the city would be offended by the district's intention.

Lyons said he hasn't been aware of much dissension about the plans. School CEO Paul Vallas has said that all things relating to the African diaspora have virtually been absent from textbooks over the years and that the district wants to be "comprehensive" and not just "politically correct."

Blockson said he doesn't want to assume why anyone would object to having all students learn about African history.

"Many people will give you various reasons why they would question this. But, if you love this country, it's only natural that you would want to know about all those who live in it," Blockson said, adding that the courses will not only enhance the education of all students, but will enable black students to gain a greater sense of self-worth.

"You spend years studying about other people's history that you have no direct contact with, like England, the Celts, et cetera. That's good to learn, but we want something to identify with," Blockson said, adding that he hopes other districts in Pennsylvania follow Philadelphia's lead and implement African history mandates. "Learning African history will help black students feel good about their own self and know who they are.

"There's a lot of people who have gone to their graves not knowing a lot about African history," Blockson added. "If you don't know who you are or your own history, you're just an educated fool."
Commentary: Philly Schools' Requiring Black History a Boon to Students of Every Race
Date: Sunday, June 12, 2005
By: Deborah Mathis, BlackAmericaWeb.com


Come with me, back to the juncture of the 1960s and 1970s. A time of Afros, daishikis and platform shoes. A time of Gil Scott-Heron, Sly and the Family Stone, and a young sensation named Michael Jackson. A time before black neighborhoods were plagued by drive-by shootings and crack dealers. A time when you hardly ever heard of a young person dying, except by force of drowning, a car accident or a rare, dreaded disease.

It was at the turning point from one decade to the next that we stopped calling ourselves Negroes and adopted "black," though some had to be dragged into the new descriptive kicking and screaming. James Brown's "Say It Loud; I'm Black and I'm Proud" (1969) became the anthem of a new attitude.

Now we demand a chance to do things for ourself
We're tired of beatin' our head against the wall
And workin' for someone else
We're people, we're just like the birds and the bees
We'd rather die on our feet
Than be livin' on our knees
Say it loud, I'm black and I'm proud

By then, "Negro" had come to represent compliance. The new persona –- the Black man, woman, boy and girl -– was a different creature: bold, defiant if need be, and ready to celebrate and uplift the very blackness that had previously been placed as a yoke, wearing us down. Say it loud.

This unofficial declaration of independence, this trumpet of black demands involved more than songs, hairdos and outfits, of course. It also involved more than changing from within. There were new pressures brought to bear upon the larger community –- the whole of America; much of it concentrated in that place that, one way or another, captured us all: the school.


It happened mainly at the college level, but in high schools too, that young, proud black activists –- "militants," according to the wary and confused -– began to insist that educators acknowledge black culture in both school activities and the curricula.

After varying degrees of agitation -– walkouts, takeovers and sometimes by simple petition -- academe began to relent. Black student unions, black culture organizations, black history commemorations began to appear on campuses nationwide. Many still flourish to this day.

But the most significant change was the inclusion of black people in the history books. Until then, the story of slavery had been the only reference to the black experience in the United States in most mainstream texts.

The whole story -– of arts, literature, science, discovery, courage, family, religion -– has yet to be incorporated, but much of the curricula now at least gives a bow to black achievement.

Now comes surprising news from Philadelphia that proves the whirl of activism from 30 years ago has a long shelf life. Beginning with the incoming freshman class in September, the city's public school students will be required to take a class in African and African American history in order to graduate. The course will include African civilization, civil rights and black nationalism.

Previously, black studies per se have been elective or relegated to the protocols of particular degree programs, like a bachelor's in African American Studies. Needless to say, most of the takers have been black students.

What Philadelphia is doing –- actually requiring all students to study our history – is believed to be a first in the nation.

For those who oppose the idea because it sets blacks apart, take heart. This is how true integration occurs: By first recognizing the different experiences and their value, then weaving them into the big quilt of history. Eventually, the edges and seamlines become indistinct and become a part of the tapestry -- inseparable, but necessary.
Great.

Both African and African-American history need to be seperate courses because neither will get a fair shake within World/American history courses...as long as we are oppresssed and live in a Euro-centric/White supremacist run nation/world. African history is almost completely left out of 'World History' a.k.a "the History of Western Civilization", even though most of world's history has occured within the African continent.

For thoughs folk who have a problem with a majority African/Black populous school system learning about their/our history...screw 'um. These folks weren't/aren't complaining when European/White history is all that the focus was/is on.

I still think historical perversions will still occur considering that the educastional system is still so damn institutionally racist and biased. But at least it is a step forward.
You know when my mom and aunts were growing up there was an endless cache of black history being taught at segregated schools. Now what strikes me as odd, is now that we are integrated we must only teach white and world history which continually leaves African and people of African descent out of the picture, EXCEPT when it comes to slavery and turmoil or when it makes European descended people look good. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out. I figured it out during grade school.
I have to agree with Nmaginate's comment on this topic. Just typical.
quote:
Originally posted by Goshtoire:

Public education is theft and an institution of control by the government, they want you to learn what THEY want you to learn so they can better exercise control over you.


Weren't/aren't you pursuing a law enforcement career? If so, wouldn't you just be a pawn of the machine?
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
Weren't/aren't you pursuing a law enforcement career? If so, wouldn't you just be a pawn of the machine?


Was, I've gone through some changes, I could never bring myself to execute laws which are in violation of individual's rights. I am in Army ROTC now and I have no qualms with fighting those who would violate the sovereignty of the individual, which is the vast majority of people on this earth, so I should be ok no matter what Wars I must fight in.
quote:
I could never bring myself to execute laws which are in violation of individual's rights. I am in Army ROTC now


Aren't "individual rights" pretty much non-existent in the Army? If your concern is for the soverignty of the individual, it seems your major gripe would be with your employer, known for quickly squashing out any semblance of individual thought. What has your experience been like so far (if you don't mind answering)? Have you gone through Basic Brainwashing Training? (kidding) Razz

I'm certainly in favor of any additional African History courses. My only concern would be that it's a bit of preaching to the choir and not to those that really NEED it. Hopefully, this kind of initiative will spread nationwide.
Goshtoire,

I actuaslly agree with your statement about public education...but let me get this straight...

You could never bring yourself to execute laws which are in violation of individual's rights intranationally...But you have no qualms about being possible cannon fodder for illigal imperialist oil wars for corporate profit internationally?

Isn't that a possible move in the wrong direction?
Frenchy, upon joining the Army part of the contract is surrendering most of your rights. I have no problem with the giving up of rights as part of a contract, the individual may do with their rights as they please, it is only when outside forces violate rights without consent that I have a problem. The contract that I have not yet entered into with the Army is very much mutually beneficial. My value is to the training and experience, the money and benefits are of inferior importance.

The squashing of rights that the Army/Military does is through the consent of the serviceman/woman.

ROTC is much different than the training Enlisted recieve. ROTC is split up into 4 years, it works very much like a College class, in fact that is what it is, simply a class that demands a lot more of your time than the others. You attend ROTC for 4 years, which is how long most people are in college, you attend them simultaneously. Each year is different, the 1st year is a basic orientation into the program, basic rifle marksmanship, military etiquette, values (Which I guess is where part of the brainwashing takes place), team work, physical fitness, tactics, land navigation, etc... First years or MS-1's are essentially the Cadet-Privates of the ROTC Battalion, the MS-2's which I will be in the fall are essentially the Cadet-Corporals, they take on leadership responsibility of very small groups called fire teams roughly 2-4 people, it is essentially a honing and mastering of the skills you learned last year, and preparation for greater leadership responsibility. MS-3's are Cadet-Sergeants, they do a lot of teaching to the lower ranked cadets, and command them in Squads and Platoons, Squad is around 8, Platoon up to 30. Their year is preparing themselves for a Leadership Camp they will go to after the completion of their 3rd year. So, they take a lot of command responsibility in battle simulations and training. It is probably the most difficult year. If the MS-3 passes the Leadership Camp, which is like a very short version of Boot Camp for Officers to be, then they go on to become MS-4's. MS-4's are Cadet-Officers, Cadet-Lieutenants all the way up to Cadet-Colonels. They run the Battalion, do almost as much administrative and paper work as the real Officers and NCO's that head the ROTC program. They do a lot of training of the MS-3's, determine much of what the Battalion does as whole, and just prepare for real Army life. When the MS-4's year is over, they apply to several branches of the Army, Infantry, Armor, Aviation, whatever... Based on their grades, performance in Leadership, performance in ROTC in general, and physical fitness test scores is what determines where they will be. Once it their branch is chosen, they go off for more intensive and specificied Officer training along with any other additional training needed for work in that branch, and they come in as a 2nd Lieutenant, a commissioned Officer. By the 3rd year a Cadet is generally contracted with the Army, they MUST complete ROTC, serve 4 years active, and 4 years inactive, that is a contracted Cadet's obligation, I am not yet contracted, I still have the option to quit. If you do not complete ROTC because you failed and you're contracted, than you are enlisted and sent to Boot Camp.

So far ROTC is very much like a bizarre family. You may not like your family members, they may not be your friends, you may not even see them very often but on some level you love them nevertheless. The brainwashing that has been going on is not much different from any other group you belong to, you seek to conform to the group's standards and expectations, theirs are just higher, stricter, and done with more pressure then normal. Nevertheless I do love ROTC so far.

Oshun, I do not recognize wars against Governments which do not exist with the consent of their ruled as illegal. I am in the Army, not the Marines, we aren't fodder Wink. No matter the intentions and motivation behind the politicians that send me to War, it is almost guaranteed that I will be fighting enemies of freedom, people who violate the rights of others, or are operating under the command of those who violate the rights of others. Their deaths are justified because they are servants of Tyranny, and though I may be fighting myself for tyranny, it is lesser than that which I am fighting, and the skills and experience that shall be taken away from the Army shall be put to use as Liberty fighting Tyranny rather than Lesser Tyranny fighting Tyranny.
Goshtoire,

You are rationalizing fighting for the 'empire'(Star Wars analogy)... The U.S. sets up dictators in many countries. It only removes the ones that happen to go against U.S. eeconomic policy and/or whose land has natural resources that can be exploited. The days of using the excuse/rationalization that you are 'fighting tyranny', or 'terrorism', or some other noble patriotic lie is over. We know better., Sign up to for imperialist occupation of foregn lands if you wish. but don't act like it has anything to do with fighting the grater evil.
We are not there for self-defense. We are there to bring liberation to a people, we are there to remove a source of great tyranny and evil. Are we also there to increase the stability of the region so as to better secure the oil trade for ourselves? Yes. Is there anything wrong with that? No. Besides, no government to ever stain this earth has respected the rights of people, a soldier currently has no choice but to train and fight for some form of tyranny, what is my other option? The French Foreign Legion? That country is much worse than ours when it comes to respecting and securing liberty.

I have no problem when the U.S. chooses to remove tyranny that also happens to benefit us. Do I wish we would go to war based upon the need of the victims? Yes, but that isn't up to me, and I'll take the other option just fine. By the way, it is not Imperialist Occupation, it is temporary and they shall maintain their independence.
Hopefully, they'll dump some more of those useless math and science courses to make way for African history. The Philly kids need to learn how ancient black Egyptians were flying helicopters over the pyramids (built by ancient black Egyptians) and that an African-American woman invented the hair brush in 1896. Stupid old whitey never figured out how to comb his locks before that.
That half written azz american history bullschit with slavery given a page or two makes these courses necessary...unless you just want to "white"-wash what the hell has really happened....once you look back at what was truly done as opposed to what is told to you.......and the kind of people you are surrounded with (racist azz ibred fools) makes one feel like a dumbazz for ever saying the pledge to the flag as a kid............
quote:
Frown Hopefully, they'll dump some more of those useless math and science courses to make way for African history. Frown
sleep STFU!!! sleep

It always takes somebody STUPID to say something so STUPID and unfounded (let alone illogical):
quote:
"The yearlong course covers subjects including classical African civilizations, civil rights and black nationalism... The other social studies requirements are American history, geography and world history."
Exactly how your types figure African/African-American History will somehow take away from the Math & Science or shouldn't be emphasized is simply ridiculous. There is something being taught in the SOCIAL STUDIES or history area as it is -- classes that are already a part of the curriculum. So, actually, seems like they're going to bump one of those outmolded history or social studies classes (you know, those classes kids take anyways) to make room for it, if anything.

As for Math & Science:NEXT!!!!!!!!!!!

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×