I like this paragraph:
There is black history month, I tell him. We are lucky to still have that. No sign of a Polish history month, a Chinese history fortnight or even a Pakistani history week. But it's stuck, he says. On Mary Seacole, and Martin Luther King.
No there isn't, yet amazingly despite not being given a month dedicated to Chinese role models, British Chinese pupils do extremely well academically and I'm not aware of Polish students doing poorly either. All of which suggests that Black History Month doesn't do much for any black children in terms of improving academic performance. I doubt that "role models" matter that much either. It seems to serve the interests of professional race obsessives instead.
Like Hugh Muir.
But really the big problem with the idea of stuff like Black History Month, is that it seeks to turn history from an inquiry into the past to a tool to promote certain preconceived ideas based purely on the race of the subject.
7 comments:
I guess the advocates of BHM would say that it is as much for the white audience as for the black, and that it’s important to pick on black, rather than any other ethnicity’s history, to correct perceptions of black racial inferiority. Personally I think that’s nonsense, but wouldn’t object quite so much if our own native history were properly taught in schools. According to one survey the view of our educationsists is that Britain, with its ‘morally ambiguous’ history, should no longer be made into an object of school pupils’ affection…
You are probably right about the aim of the event, but it just antagonises most people in my view.
England seems to woirry about paedophils but lets teachers/educationists loose on children with ideas like 'morally ambiguous ' history.
In future times this era with its use of teachers and police to enforce such ideas will be seen the opening bars of the 'Decline and fall of the west'.
http://nicholasstixuncensored.blogspot.com/
But unlike the anonymous Newsmaxer, I went beyond simply pointing out that the morgue figures showed that blacks hadn’t disproportionately died following Katrina, but that whites had, and that the only credible explanation, based on what was known about the anarchy at the time, was that racist blacks were hunting them down and slaughtering them, just as they had sought to slaughter white rescue workers.
Given that supposedly only 10 percent or less of the people left in town were white, and over forty percent of the dead were white, whites were dying at over four times their proportion. And that doesnt even take into consideration that whites were reportedly concentrated in “safer” places. Thus, I am convinced that blacks were on search-and-destroy missions, hunting down and murdering whites.”
After the Louisiana death figures were released, the mainstream media suppressed the story of the issue of the proportion of whites who met their end in New Orleans, and suppressed reporting on pre-Katrina criminality, while uncritically reporting scurrilous black charges of anti-black genocide.
I don't think that the most likely explanation for a statistal disparity in death rates is racist murder gangs on the rampage.
I want to have GInger History Month where we learn all about great readheads from the past. Like WIlliam Rufus and er, er...
PS, 'ginger' is an anagram of 'nigger'.
Erik the Red is another for Ginger Hostory Month.
The anagram just confirms what I have always said, gingers are the new N****rs.
Post a Comment