The Instigator
trueseeker
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
Mags2
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Should black history be taught in schools

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
trueseeker
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/5/2014 Category: Education
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,209 times Debate No: 66445
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (3)

 

trueseeker

Pro

Many black people have made significant contributions to American history and to world culture. However, the average student who receives a diploma in the United States is not aware of this. The student cannot be aware of this simply because their is no importance associated with historical contributions of black people. I take the position that an understanding of black history is not only important for all races to have, it is a necessity. My opponent will argue that it is not necessary/important for grade school children in the United States to learn about black history. This is not a debate about race. It will be about the educational significance (if any) to understand a history that has been hidden in the American educational system.
Mags2

Con

Black history should not be taught in school, because it would show racism towards that color.There is no denying the contributions and sacrifices black people have made to building society in the countries that celebrate BHM. However, black people are (and have been for a while) subject to exactly the same laws as all other nationalities.
Debate Round No. 1
trueseeker

Pro

Hello Mags2,

My burden is to show that the history of black people is clearly underrepresented in the American School curriculum. My intent is to show that the inclusion of black history into the school curriculum enhances the educational experience and promotes a better appreciation for all who partake in the objective lessons learned throughout the development of this country. You pose an argument that to teach black history in schools (I believe what you are trying to say is that it promotes reverse racism). This statement is unsustainable for the following reasons:

(1) To promote racism, there must be an ideology that includes the elements of prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism against someone of a different race. According to Google's Dictionary, This fact would be based on the belief that one's own race is superior (http://www.google.com...). To correct a system that underrepresents a particular facet of history does not support the superiority of a race of people. In a court of law, does not the defense deserve the same equal treatment as the prosecution. If a defendant loses a case because he did not have the same time allotted to him as the prosecution, he would be entitled to a retrial. If he seeks this retrial, does this mean that the defense is superior, or more deserving or is discriminating against the prosecution, or is he just asking for what is fair? If the answer here is fairness, the argument posed by con is unsustainable.

(2) It is universally agreed that black history is underrepresented in the American school curriculum. Underrepresentation is defined as inadequate representation; to represent in numbers that are disproportionately low (http/dictionary.reference.com). Thomas Jefferson had slaves; George Washington had slaves; why were there people like Fredrick Douglas and Harriet Tubman risking their lives in defense of freedom? Why is the Dred Scott decision such an important Supreme Court case? Black people were actually not considered people but property. Is this important to know? Because of the gaps in how history is presented, Americans of all races believe that black history is only made up of the same 3 or 4 names we always hear (MLK, Rosa Parks, Jackie Robinson). Is this fair? All that I ask is that African American contributions be more adequately represented in the curriculum. Does this support reverse racism???

CON has stated that "there is no denying the contributions and sacrifices black people have made to the building of society". I disagree with this statement. If you keep these contributions hidden, untold and untaught, there is no significant difference between those actions and denial.

CON has stated that black people have been subjected to the exact same laws as other nationalities. I object to this statement on the grounds of relevance. The argument is not about legal discrimination. The argument is about the historical treatment (or lack thereof) of blacks and their experiences in the education curriculum. Conversely, I do agree with CON on one point. Black history is subjected to the same treatment as other nationalities, they are all underrepresented.
Mags2

Con

I do agree with you that black history is underrepresented in schools, but why must it focus on black history? There are many races that have shaped America to what it is. For example, http://en.wikipedia.org...

Different races are just as important to be taught in schools including african american and american
Debate Round No. 2
trueseeker

Pro

That is just my point. American history is not a complete American history until it includes all the events and experiences that make it American history. If you have ever tried to do a chemistry experiment without using all of the chemicals, you would not have the desired reaction. All I propose is that the system be corrected to include all of the elements so that our education system can achieve the desired goal. Today we argue for one aspect of underrepresented history, later we will argue for the equalization of Hispanic history, then on to Native American underrepresented history. Our society should continue on this trend until ALL history is American history. However, we can only argue one history at a time. Today it's black history.
Mags2

Con

If we were to enforce more knowledge of black americans, then there would be more controversy over their history. Evermore, people would want black history to be part of the whole curriculum of school's history, and there would be no American history. When the day comes when black history is more envoy did in teaching, when will other races be involved? It would be just the same as American and African Americans, they all want to be involved in the teachings of scj
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
I heard a black kid say once, If you black folks community is messed up, quit messing it up.You live there, you are the ones messing it up.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
The ONLY reason blacks started voting democrat is because they wanted special civil rights. Martin Luther King wanted constitutional rights.They wanted to put the white man " in his place".There is no restaurant I have been to for the last 40 so years that there has not been segregated. The only place I saw segregation was in jail when I was young.All the blacks sat at a couple of tables while all the whites sat at others.There were a few blacks that sat at the white tables.There were no colored or white signs either.The blacks that sat with whites were not the jive kind is all.

I would like to know what voting democrat has done for the black family? Welfare has made it that black men just walk away from their babies and let government pick up the tab. That was a democrat bright idea.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
In modern history.Lets not forget Clarence Thomas, Dr. Ben Carson, Allen West, Sammy Davis JR.

If you want to know how a real man deals with racism, watch the movie " TRACKERS" by Sammy Davis JR.
Posted by trueseeker 2 years ago
trueseeker
Hello Jzyehoshus,

Thank You. YOU have just proved my point. If you ask the average person what black history is, you will get the same answers: Martin Luther King, Jackie Robinson Rosa Parks. Is black history really made up of only 5 people? Aside from these people, no on else of color has made in real contributions to American History? What about Charles Drew, Dred Scott, Thurgood Marshall or leontyne Price. If you have to ask who these people are (and they are significant), then you are not alone. How can students expect to know and appreciate something that is not taught to them. Regarding Cheyennebodie's comments, this is a very interesting analysis of another part of black history. The critical question one must address is why did blacks switch from republican to democrat. If an individual new of black history, he would be able to independently confirm or challenge the accuracy of your statements concerning "freebies". Did blacks own slaves? Maybe they did or maybe they didn't. Only through an understanding of black history can a person speak confidently on this matter and not accept your statements on face value. You may challenge me to do independent study on my own to learn about black history. This is fair. Yet, please realize, I didn't have to do independent study to learn about George Washington, Christopher Columbus and Thomas Jefferson. They were nicely presented to me in grade school. All I propose is that we learn a little bit more on black history than what is meagerly presented. Regarding Imnotacop's comments. I agree with you, I believe that all history should be represented in our educational curriculum. Lastly, regarding Blade-of-Truths comment, I don't think that all people who disagree with the proposed ideas are racists. I just think that the society we live in has not produced a desirable learning environment where education, other than what is taught in the American education system, is appreciated.
Posted by Jzyehoshua 2 years ago
Jzyehoshua
Gallup for example found Martin Luther King Jr. was the second most admired person of the 20th century, which wouldn't make sense if Americans weren't being informed of black contributions in history.

http://www.gallup.com...

There are already plenty of teaching materials on Martin Luther King Jr.

https://www.pinterest.com...

In fact I would be surprised if you could find any mainstream textbook that doesn't mention King and Parks. The claim their contributions aren't mentioned in education seems absurd.
Posted by Jzyehoshua 2 years ago
Jzyehoshua
I disagree with the original assertion that there isn't importance associated with black contributions, I think if you asked most Americans they would know who Martin Luther King Jr. and Jackie Robinson were, probably Rosa Parks also. Pro seems to be claiming this isn't taught and I'm sure most history textbooks do actually mention them.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
How about teaching that almost ALL blacks voted republican till the democrats gave out freebies to them in the 60's.. Then they became wards of the state. Which has been the democrats intent since before the civil war.When a man gets freebies from the state, the state owns them. They just have not figured it out yet.

Teach when the first blacks were elected to congress.And what party.How many blacks owned slaves before the civil war. Teach how black tribes in Africa raided and took prisoners of other blacks and sold them as slaves. I agree, teach black history.
Posted by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
The only people who would argue Con are racists or trolls. I don't think there is any legitimate reason to NOT teach about black people and their history/achievements.
Posted by imnotacop 2 years ago
imnotacop
I have an idea. Let's teach alllll history.
Posted by Mike_10-4 2 years ago
Mike_10-4
American history presented in our government controlled educational system has issues. A good place to start is in the following presentation.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by z1 2 years ago
z1
trueseekerMags2Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
trueseekerMags2Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: pro is only one to use sources, and con weakly refutes pro's arguments. Thus, he losses.
Vote Placed by gomergcc 2 years ago
gomergcc
trueseekerMags2Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con basically agreed with Pro. Cons argument was one of semantics