Lewisburg, Pa.

Mr Younge wants to distinguish "history" from "mythology." But the traces of myth can be found throughout his text.

Younge is correct that a historical understanding requires an understanding of complexity and contradiction. Yes, the Europeans who settled in the Americas brought both constitutional democracy and the mass murder of natives. Yes, white history in America ought to include not only Abe LIncoln but also Mr. Blake and the accusers of Emmett Till.

And (this is the part Mr. Younge leaves aside) African history ought to deal with both the suffering of the Middle Passage and the participation of Africans in the slave trade of their own people.

And black history in America ought to include not only Martin LUther King Jr. but also AL Sharpton and Tawana Brawley and everyone involved in the Duke lacrosse 'rape' scandal.

If, that is, it's really history we want, and not just a new mythology.

Alexander Riley
02/27/2007 @ 01:18am

Saint Cloud,

Gary Younge gives a superb analysis, the best I have seen. I hope that history teachers will carry this one-page article into their classrooms to help students understand how history gets converted into ideology. Here is the basic technique as Younge describes it:

"That's because so much of Black History Month takes place in the passive voice. Leaders "get assassinated," patrons "are refused" service, women "are ejected" from public transport. So the objects of racism are many but the subjects few. In removing the instigators, the historians remove the agency and, in the final reckoning, the historical responsibility."

So my challenge for history teachers and their students: drop the passive voice in describing settlement, slavery, and segregation. Name the white criminals who still run the country. Racism is not abstract; it is the daily activity of whites going about business as usual. Will they thank you for saying so? Ideology is their avoidance.

Here I publicly thank Gary Younge.

Alan Downes
02/26/2007 @ 04:20am

Los Angeles,

Thank you for the insightful article. Being born in a town that felt the need to lynch African-Americans and run them out of town always provides a reason for me to question history.

This article (to me) helped in trying to question as to why we, as a human race, continue to perpetuate methods of power and control over other human beings.

Now that we are recognizing all different reasons as to why our society is the way it is, I am grateful the internet has come along to allow better access to information.

Let's just hope we can improve on not finding the need to claim one is more accurate than the other.

Ms. Mutt
Peoples College of Law
02/25/2007 @ 4:35pm

Sacramento,

Kudos to Mr. Younge for his well-written article!

One thought, though, as a Jew, I am proud of the moral stand that lead Goodman and Schwerner to the South, and take issue with Mr. Younge's defining Goodman and Schwerner as "white." I have never thought of myself as "white." "White" people generally don't accept me and mine as 100 percent white, and I'm not sure I'm too sad about that.

Goodman and Schwerner were certainly not considered white by the bigots who murdered them--how much shall we wager that some anti-Jewish slurs were thrown at them before they were slaughtered?

Dr. David Zuckerman
02/24/2007 @ 2:43pm

Hackensack, N.J.

Gary Younge would have served his purpose better if he had a proper understanding of the origins and purpose of Black History Month. His statement:

"Setting aside twenty-eight days for African-American history is insufficient, problematic and deserves our support for the same reason that affirmative action is insufficient, problematic and deserves our support."

demonstrates a misunderstanding of BHM and its purpose.

Mr. Younge along with far too many people--such as and unfortuntely Morgan Freeman--seem to forget that Carter G. Woodson's Black History Week was made into a month-long celebration as a special anniversary exception. Anyone familiar with Dr. Woodson's works would know that he meant for BHW and BHM to be a time of focus no different than national holidays, and not a sole time to reflect on black history. It is because of the failure to understand this that people still insist on the whole "28 days" argument.

February was never meant to be the be-all and end-all of black history and therefore BHM's existence is in fact adequate for what it was intended to be. It is the failure and inadequacy of the rest of society that chooses to marginalize black history the rest of the year.

Sondjata K. Olatunji
The Olatunji Foundation
02/23/2007 @ 1:16pm

Atlanta,

Mr. Younge's article resonates with something I've been "preaching" for awhile. That is, for every pivotal event in African American History (for this conversation the Civil Rights Era of the 1950 & 60s) as it relates to confrontational engagement with White Americans--the learning public is only given the perspective from the AA.

I do agree that has been the correct approach to date, but I think the time is right to interview (where possible) those that were actively in opposition to the advancement of AA. In lieu of always hearing from the lesser known participants that were beaten, spat upon, cursed at the lunch counter, bus station, going to school, Selma's bridge, etc...; let's research and hear from some of the lesser known assailants in these incidents. A "Where Are They Know" segment, if you will.

As the learning public is only privy to documentries, and rehashed stories from the victims of these brutal attacks, and where it has lead them, I think it would be very informative and educational in understanding all sides of these very historical events.

For example, the young man who poured milk, flour, and then commenced to punch and kick the young man trying to be served a meal, where is he now? Is he my insurance agent, my banker, my lawyer, my commissioner? What are his thoughts now, as it relates to race relations? Is he remorseful for his participation?

Ricky Martin
02/23/2007 @ 09:49am

Lodi, Calif.

Mr. Ruci said, "Acutally there is a white history. It is called Western Civilization--you know, the civilization that gave to the world concepts such as democracy, republic, citizenship, human rights, the greatest writers, painters, musicians, and scientific minds. or Microsoft, IBM, Siemens, BMW, Boeing."

I think this statement is problematic. Democracy is hardly exclusive to Western civilization, for example. Forms of democracy have been practiced in Africa, Native America, and Australia as well as Europe, in some cases even during the period when Europe still considered Athenian democracy a failure and feudalism a successful practice.

The greatest writers, painters, musicians and scientific minds are not all or even a majority white. For example, look at the wide range of Chinese inventions, such as gunpowder. The Egyptians invented paper. Mathematical accomplishments belong as much to the Babylonians, Egyptians, and Arabs as they do to Europe, and the Mayans and Aztecs had a well-developed and advanced system of mathematics and astronomy destroyed by Spanish colonists. They also had an extensive literary history, also destroyed by Spanish colonists.

History's greatest philosphers span Africa, India, Asia, Australia, and Native America as well as Europe. Some of the world's greatest architecture is found in Asia, Africa and the Americas prior to European contact. Nor were whites the only contributors to Western civilization; many European inventions and ideas were actually improvements on items and knowledge traded via the Silk Road from Asia, and later through trade with European colonies worldwide, who had gained the original items and ideas from their indigenous subjects.

Even if none of the above were true, however, this is not a valid refutation of Younge's argument. Younge is not calling to teach just the bad things whites have done in the United States-- which would have been obvious if you had read the commentary. All he is asking is that students are taught all parts of history, even the uncomfortable ones, as they relate to race relations in the U.S.

Kyla Cathey
02/21/2007 @ 6:01pm

Nashville, Tenn.

"Acutally there is a white history. It is called Western Civilization--you know, the civilization that gave to the world concepts such as democracy, republic, citizenship, human rights, the greatest writers, painters, musicians, and scientific minds. or Microsoft, IBM, Siemens, BMW, Boeing."

But you would argue all that was the product of racism, war, and imperialism"

Yes. Yes, I would.

First of all, when the Romans developed democracy, the only ones who were able to enjoy it were the priviliged few, which did not include women, slaves, and the people they conquered as they cut a bloody swath through Europe and northern Africa.

Great writing exists throughout all of civilization. As a matter of fact, the most impressive library ever built was the library of Alexandria in Egypt, rumored to contained all of the knowledge of the known world. Then Caesar showed up and----remember that bloody swath I mentioned?

Also, the oldest pieces of clay pottery were not found in Europe but in what was formally ancient Nubia.

Now, Ervin, what were saying about the "great" history of the White Western civilization?

Angel R. Harris
02/21/2007 @ 2:42pm

Chicago, Ill.

I believe Gary Younge's intentions are good; however, "the new approach" leaves room for the emphasis to again be taken away from the historical black contributors.

Instead, "the new approach" of "white History as it affects African Americans" should be taught in programs and by their parents. White history has always been taught in the classroom, and African Americans had to educate their families at home.

True, the children may not know who James Blake is, but if the only African American pioneer they know about is MLK, then our education system is seriously unbalanced.

I'd rather white boys and girls learn more about the influences of African American people in society than focusing on holding racists accountable for their actions.

Amberly R. Carter
Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc (collegiate member)
02/20/2007 @ 09:21am

Minneapolis, Minn.

I don't think Mr. Thornton understand the article. The reality is America is still a race conscious society. Mr. Younge is simply asking that history be taught not just from the standpoint of those who were oppressed, but also about the oppressors.

American History as taught in schools is far from comprehensive, especially in its critiques of actions and policies that limited freedoms, liberties, and justice for many people in society. That is what Mr. Younge wants, a comprehensive history that doesn't gloss over the darker aspects our shared history.

Josh Kroll
02/17/2007 @ 12:10am

New York City,

"The very notion of black and white history is both a theoretical nonsense and a practical necessity. There is no scientific or biological basis for race. It is a construct to explain the gruesome reality that racism built"

Acutally there is a white history. It is called Western Civilization--you know, the civilization that gave to the world concepts such as democracy, republic, citizenship, human rights, the greatest writers, painters, musicians, and scientific minds. or Microsoft, IBM, Siemens, BMW, Boeing.

But you would argue all that was the product of racism, war, and imperialism

Ervin Ruci
02/16/2007 @ 4:21pm

New York,

Winston Churchill is credited with the observation that " history is written by the victors."

Thank you for a thoughtful, moral and courageous argument, compellingly made, for an American history that is not bowdlerized in favor of the victors.

Harriet A. Washington
02/16/2007 @ 2:59pm

La Jolla, Calif.

The previous letter writer has not only revealed his failure to comprehend the point of the article, but has also managed to contradict himself in just a few sentences. He argues that "[his] generation" has "bent over backwards" to include blacks in a history that he somehow seems to see as the sole province of whites, yet at the end claims that he sees history as all- inclusive. Which is it--historical "facts" (themselves very problematic constructions) point only to white agency in the building of this country (with some sort of "historical welfare" meted out to blacks and other "underserving" groups), or historical "facts" include the valid contributions of everyone, including, yes, nonwhites, in making this country? By the way, how can history itself possibly be the possession of one group to "give" to another?

Patricia Davis
02/16/2007 @ 2:38pm

Reisterstown,

It is a measure of my generation's obsession with race that we would bend over backwards over the years to include blacks in the historical experience, sometimes undeservedly, and STILL Mr Younge entitles his article "White History 101." I've come to the conclusion that The Lousiest Generation will never get over it.

As for Mr. Blake, He was a bus driver: How many white bus drivers of renown besides the fictitious Ralph Kramden do we know? What would the race-obsessed like to do, enshrine Mr. Blake on Mt Rushmore?

I only celebrate American History, and that includes everybody.

Charles H. Thornton
UBP
02/16/2007 @ 10:40am