Life, sure as hell isn't fair. History is no different. If you're purposefully leaving out people because of their race, that is an issue. But if a group is underrepresented because they don't have as many documented "historical" items then that just is what it is.
I only read the headline and had my thoughts in my head of how Id reply, but Chad hit the head for the most part on what my thougths were.
I, of course, teach history for a living. I have many friends who do the same.
Someone heard something about some folks wanting more black and minority history taught, and LGBTQLMNOP history taught.
Ok. WHAT are we supposed to teach?
Like Chad said, it's not there.
I teach about some blacks who did do significant things in our nation's history, but there just arent that many. SOrry, but that's how it went/goes.
ARe we supposed to dig deep into the same five or six we already highlight? Or start teaching about random folks who barely made a blip on the radar.
And, again, I didnt read it, but are Native Americans part of this group? All this stuff going on about B L M and stuff, but, yet, no talk of the natives who have been crapped on since day one of Europeans arriving in the Western Hemisphere.
It's not about purposely leaving minorities out of history, it's just that the history aint really there.
And there's still a good amount, in my opinion, being taught. Hell, the whole Harlem Renaissance is just black Americas. Then civil rights movement and it's players. Frederick Douglass. Nat Turner. Crispus Atticus (I know Im butchering his name right now, apologies). Harlem Hellfighters. Red Tails. Black Panthers. Obama (well, 'alright, Obama got elected in 08, first non-white elected. He had his ACA, yall know of that? No? Ok, yall heard of Obamacare? Yeah, well, same thing, that's the official name for it. Anyway, lets talk about socialism and how it's NOT Affordable for most of us. My insurance more than doubled due to the 'affordable' care act. Yall ask yalls parents. Moving on)