Now I can see the argument where racial historians don't want anyone to forget what their race had to go through to get to where it is today ( slavery, genocide, segregation, etc.) but focusing on these things just breeds resentment and holds future generations back from eliminating these past transgressions as factors and truly uniting based on nationality and not race.
Hopefully one day nationality won't be a factor either.
Last edited by Gibberish; 05-12-10 at 12:35 PM.
"Gold gets dug out of the ground in Africa, or someplace. Then we melt it down, dig another hole, bury it again and pay people to stand around guarding it. It has no utility. Anyone watching from Mars would be scratching their head."
- Warren Buffett
When was the last time your kids had to field those kinds of questions? My kids are half white and half Filipino. Both sides of them are equally important.
If you don't that's probably because it is not the American history we want to be teaching. It's impossible to tell American History for the past 150 years without including heavy amounts of Latin American history.
I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK
Do the school's English classes read books by non-white authors? RARELY. Do the school's history classes talk about much apart from Euro history? RARELY. Why is that? Is it because only the accomplishments of white people are important?
I'm honestly getting worried for Arizona.
The idea that put this measure into motion seems to be that ethnic studies promotes a division of ethnicities:
 There *is* a difference in ethnicities and the difference should be understood and accepted, but held only as a generalization. The blacks I grew up with in the rural south share very little ethnic similarities than my black classmates at the University.
 I think it is healthy to discuss the differences between ethnicities.
 The measure goes too far. An ethnic-study can be largely unbiased it requires how the subject is approached.
 I find complete hypocrisy of those in favor of liberties, freedoms, and free markets, but seek to stop the university to be the masters of its education. Universities are designed in a way where if there is a problem in a course, then students will petition against it either thru a direct petition to administration, or by not taking the course.
 If you are going to ban or draw measures against ethnic studies because of bias and possible citations for racism, then why not ban religion studies, or history studies, or language studies, or science studies, or art studies, or music studies? All of these you can denote a division between various subgroups and you can draw negative and prejudicial conclusions.
This is a bit ridiculous.
"I do not underestimate the ability of fanatical groups of terrorists to kill and destroy, but they do not threaten the life of the nation. Whether we would survive Hitler hung in the balance, but there is no doubt that we shall survive al-Qa'ida." -- Lord Hoffmann