If there was a name for the "White history" taught in schools, would that remove the perceived double standard?

Question

If there was some sort of name attributed to the 11 months of 'White history' that is taught in schools nationwide, would that remove the perceived and alleged double standard of Black History Month? 

The so-called debate is tantamount to that of routine. Every February and October (dependent on nation) the same "arguments" spring up as to how Black History Month somehow undermines equality and egalitarianism. Some say the all-too common mantra, "If Whites had a White Scholarship Fund, 'WET' or White History Month, riots and marches would be planned and we would be racist". The more naive-minded say "Why can't 'Black History' be American history". I'm not going to go at length to show that both arguments are fundamentally flawed (the amount of times I've written about this topic is on the verge of a zillion) other than to say that the existence of a would-be "White History Month" is inherently discriminative and redundant as it would be an over-specification for the history that is deemed as default by the education system - to add a proposed "White History Month" is simply to turn the 11 month period of White History taught in schools into a whole year of White History. 

Should the "White History" we students are taught in schools have an actual name, wouldn't that remove the alleged and perceived double standard of "Black History"? I think this case is a simple case of taking things for granted - Take for example the fact that many here in the West use water to indulge in "water fights" and clean windows as if shining them any longer would turn them into diamond-crested national treasures. As opposed to those in the not-so privileged states worldwide who would literally fight to get even a slither of the liquid stuff. Should there be a drought or war that somehow reduces the supply of water in Western states, the propensity to retain one's water for necessary incidents comes into full swing. Just as how the reduction in water supplies in the listed analogy caused the masses to realize the true value of the water they had (hence retaining more of it), should "White History" actually have a name and definition of such, will the masses awaken to realize the fact of the lengthy time it is taught? 

**Disclaimer: This question is not intended as that of "propaganda" - Black History Month does not in any way serve the interests of people of my origin (if anything, demonizes them). This question more so is simply to seek answers.

Qwerty™ · Accepted Answer

You are ace, dude.  

And no, I don't think if white history had a name it would please anyone.  I'd actually think they'd feel betrayed after that because then they wouldn't have anything to whine about anymore.  Nothing's worse than a whiny person admitting that they have certain privileges that they have taken for granted all their lives.

First answerer missed the point entirely.  Read the post before you answer.

Anonymous · Answer

I know you are British, Martian (it's all too obvious) and to be truthful I don't think we should have black history month here.

In America yes, but as usual Britain MUST copy the US with whatever it does. We don't have the same history here so it's not right to endorse something that doesn't really apply.

In the UK we have really only had black people here since the 1960's and asian people (as they are called on here) only quite recently. We don't have any other history really, except white history.

I'm taking history for GSCE (a bad decision I know but I wasn't going to do food tech) and we learn British history (HINT: because we are in Britain) including the slave trade and all that. And if I was in Italy or China or wherever I'd expect to learn their history

Why can't america teach all american history and not gloss over on certain parts? Then there would be no need for all these months and perhaps we could be at peace and eat some cheesecake.

King of londoN: you got quite heated there. Whoo

Anonymous · Answer

School administrators are becoming increasingly pressured to insure that all instructional time is indeed filled with instruction. When a teacher chooses to take the class on a field trip, he/she must complete some rather lengthy forms describing in great detail the purpose of the trip. The instructional standards and objectives must be well defined. Now that the schools are under fire for just about every thing they do, perhaps this teacher wants to make sure that parents are aware of the educational value. Or maybe she has had her fill of all this ridiculous paperwork and is just being a smarta**!

Clyde N · Answer

History is for all peoples-to isolate one specific group really is racist.No one ethnicity has a monopoly on history-if you divide it by nations, then it stands to reason that since the the US is 70% White and  70% of the Blacks have White ancestry, it is  logical to reason that most US history will be White history, then other ethnicities follow suite. In the past, Black history got little promotion, but that has changed.If the Statistics were Black,than US history would reflect Black history over White history. FACTS, not racism.Those whom do not learn ALL history, are doomed to repeat it.

Anonymous · Answer

Who are the majority the Blacks, and the minority the Whites.
  It is the other way around , or the tables have turned, more Black people than White people. 
  And mixed peoples as well.
 The Black issue is talking about the ones that have the money and the others that don't.

Olu · Answer

In the U.S. its technically called African American history month, but people just call it black history month. I dont believe there is a such thing as white history, "white" seems too broad in scope.

EDIT: Im curious to know why you think black history month, demonizes people from Africa..

LAURATWE · Answer

BOTTOM LINE TO RACISM IS NOT KNOWING THE REAL HISTORY FACTS.....ONE STATEMENT HERE....THE AFRICANS GOVERNMENT SOLD THEIR PEOPLE TO COME HERE AND SLAVE...TO BE HONEST THE WHITES THAT BOUGHT THE SLAVE WERE WEALTHY AMERICANS...AND THE PERSON BEING SLAVED WAS GENERALLY WELL TOOKING CARE OF. LOOK AT AFRICA NOW! CAN U IMAGINE IT THEN AND WAS IT BETTER FOR THEM COMING HERE BECAUSE THEIR GOVERNMENT WERE RICH AND DIDN'T GIVE A CRAP ABOUT THOSE PEOPLE UNLESS THEY SERVED A CERTAIN TRIBE

ramarro smith shadow · Answer

Now IF there were anything at all that was titled " White " (College fund, College, Caucus, Institution of any type...etc.) they would have the NAACP and any other civil rights Yahoo's all over them, but there can be, and IS everything from soup to nuts that is BLACK ONLY, so Absolutely right there is a clear double standard.

SiLlY kAt · Answer

i fully agree with your disclaimer. it applies to me too.

i do think that people should just THINK about what they learn in their history classes (well in the USA and UK anyway) and they will realise that it is basically european (white) history.

i have never understood why some people cannot work this out on their own.

rhino · Answer

i agree with qwerty

Trending News

If there was a name for the "White history" taught in schools, would that remove the perceived double standard?

11 Answers