Black focused school approved in Toronto

[Kralizec]

http://www.thestar.com/article/297001

Some bits:


"Opening one school does not address the problem across the system ... (where) a significant number of students of African descent are not doing well in our schools," said board superintendent Christopher Usih, one of the report's authors.

"We have a responsibility to address the needs across the system. We see the Africentric school request as part of a bigger (plan) ... to effectively close the gap."

Children at the camp learn about African achievements – including the fact Africa had a university long before Europe – as well as read African-Canadian authors and study math using the numerical patterns of royal "kente" cloth from Ghana.

"It's not a segregated school. Anyone can attend," she said. "It's become a racial issue. It's become divisive."

Right, I predict that lots of non-black Canadians are going to send their kids to a school where they focus on teaching about how great African civilizations like Timbuktu, Nubia or ancient Zimbabwe were and where they stress that at the same time Europeans were scratching their backends with sticks. I have no idea how, but I'm sure that learning about obscure civilizations on a continent that even most black kids have never visited is going a long way to improve education.

Anybody else think this is a bad idea?

[Husar]

Well, that's certainly going to close the gap, they can get the same degree by knowing everything about africa instead of mathematics, won't only close the gap, will also help them at university or in their job. I guess there's a bit more to it though but whatever, if they think that's a good idea, let them waste their money on it.

[HoreTore]

Bah, we can't all be economists, someone's got to be in the social and history jobs too.

[Fragony]

If they want it fine, as long as it's on top of the school material that is already there and they make the same exams. Schools in general could give african history some more attention imho.

[Mooks]

If they want it fine, as long as it's on top of the school material that is already there and they make the same exams. Schools in general could give african history some more attention imho.

Schools should give more attention to every culture outside europe. Im in world history 2 right now, and after this I will take a american history. Maybe 1/20th of my textbook covers asia/mayans incans and aztecs, the rest is european.

[Mikeus Caesar]

But haven't you all heard - Europe is the only continent, other continents just sat around empty until Europeans colonized them.

Despite my above argument, i disagree with this school, and other schools like it (islamic schools and such) on the basis that they do nothing to help the social integration of other cultures.

[Vladimir]

I wonder if they distinguish between Northern and Sub-Sahara Africa.

[KukriKhan]

...they were following school board policy for establishing alternative schools that's been in place for more than 40 years.

If the board has already implemented them for First Nations people and gays and lesbians, then why not blacks, Wilson asked...

Seems like they already had a policy in place, and this is just an extension of it.

It sounds "Canadian" to me, as distinct from America's "melting pot" theory. Seems to work for them, so far.

And, as holybandit points out, World Civ courses could do with some more info about the other continents, too.

[Husar]

And, as holybandit points out, World Civ courses could do with some more info about the other continents, too.
Yes, but why make a special school for it instead of extending the courses offered at other schools?
And why did we do the french revolution three times and the american and russian revolutions never?!? :wall:

[KukriKhan]

Yes, but why make a special school for it instead of extending the courses offered at other schools?
And why did we do the french revolution three times and the american and russian revolutions never?!? :wall:

Point(s) taken. That would be my approach, too.

But I'm not a Canadian school policy-setter.

[lars573]

I wonder if they distinguish between Northern and Sub-Sahara Africa.
More than likely they follow that Afro-centric history "theory". IE Hannibal Barca was black, Cleopatra and her ancestor Ptolemy Soter were black. ALL Egyptian Pharaohs were black. Meaning that description is irrelavent.

I can see the logic of teaching children of African decent the history of African peoples. The problem is how much is catering too much to minorities.

[Crazed Rabbit]

study math using the numerical patterns of royal "kente" cloth from Ghana.

Wow. That's going to be useful in the real world.

CR

[Quirinus]

How stupid. While it doesn't smack of malevolent intent, the proposal is silly and condescending to blacks. It would be like giving Hispanic Americans special courses that focus on Spanish history.


...they were following school board policy for establishing alternative schools that's been in place for more than 40 years.

If the board has already implemented them for First Nations people and gays and lesbians, then why not blacks, Wilson asked...
Why do homosexuals need alternative schools? They say that as if it was the most natural thing in the world to do.

[Kralizec]

But haven't you all heard - Europe is the only continent, other continents just sat around empty until Europeans colonized them.

I never said that I think kids should only learn European history. It should be a ballanced package about influential events and occurrences throughout history, and Africa shouldn't be left out entirely. But frankly, what came out of Africa the last 2,000 years that justifies making it the primary focus, putting it ahead of Egypt, the near East, China and Europe?

They complain that normal schools have a white/European bias. While I think it's important that history classes also show what happened elsewhere in the world there's no denying that for the last 1,000 years at least European powers, and from some point on the Americas, were a whole lot more influential than sub-Saharan Africa. History isn't just written by, but also dictated to a large degree by the "victors".

Additionally I have a hard time figuring out why so many black Americans (including Canadians) still feel connected to Africa even though the skin color is about all they have in common with their ancestors who got shipped over.

[ajaxfetish]

I agree that the world outside Europe should receive a more proportionate level of time and study in school courses. I do not think separate schools to cater to African history are the answer (will they give adequate time to Asian history? Native American history? etc.?). I do not think teaching false information is the answer. The part about the first university worries me. Are they talking about Alexandria? While a center of learning, I don't believe it was a 'university' per se, and it was the product of Hellenic culture after that part of Africa was invaded by outsiders. I agree with Vlad's worry that there will be no distinction between northern and sub-saharan Africa. While it is right to recognize the achievements of northern Africans as 'African achievements,' there is a great danger of tying the whole thing into modern western race relations. When people take things out of context, misinformation results, and that usually fails to make people smarter.

Ajax

[drone]

Are they going to teach how Africans sold other Africans to the Europeans for slavery?

When I was subjected to history in school, it rarely went any farther back than Columbus and most of it was US oriented. We didn't even cover the Greeks or Romans. They do need to teach a more varied curriculum, but it's a tradeoff between limited class time and infinite subject matter. Where do you start, what do you focus on?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

This whole issue in Toronto, especially in the Jane & Finch region, is a problem. I don't think a new education system is going to fix it. Toronto needs more police there, needs more community centres in the region, and needs to actively break down the local gangs. I'm not sure this is the right place to start.

[Kralizec]

And why did we do the french revolution three times and the american and russian revolutions never?!? :wall:

It was the other way around for me. I know that I've had the Russian revolution at least two times when I was in high school, the French and Americans only briefly (or at least so I remember)
Neither do I recall being tought at all about Greece or Rome- if I had followed the high school program in wich you had to take Greek or Latin I would have, but you think that any pupil would get at least some education about antiquity.
Strangely they apparently felt that while Greek or Roman history was inconsequential, Chinese history was important enough for pupils having to memorize the names of all the different dynasties and to have a basic understanding of what confucianism and taoism are about :inquisitive:

[Zim]

Interesting. When I was in high school, we covered almost all of those things, mostly in World History classes but also in some of the Social Studies classes we had to take. We sacrificed a lot of detail to cover so much, though.


It was the other way around for me. I know that I've had the Russian revolution at least two times when I was in high school, the French and Americans only briefly (or at least so I remember)
Neither do I recall being tought at all about Greece or Rome- if I had followed the high school program in wich you had to take Greek or Latin I would have, but you think that any pupil would get at least some education about antiquity.
Strangely they apparently felt that while Greek or Roman history was inconsequential, Chinese history was important enough for pupils having to memorize the names of all the different dynasties and to have a basic understanding of what confucianism and taoism are about :inquisitive:

[RabidGibbon]

To my mind it sounds like the 'school' described in the opening post would be better off as a module at a university course.

However, to lay a tree trunk across the railway track of this thread, I'd like to address Fenrings point that he cant understand why Black Americans identify themselves with Africa, even though most of the have never been to Africa. It is my understanding that their are relatively sizeable communites in the United States that dont identify themselves as United Statesians.

For example the Irish American community, the Italian American Community, the Hispanic community. None of these peoples were transported to the new world by force (be it by "Africans" or "Europeans"). As you may have noticed I include both Africans and Europeans in parantheses because their both rather wide reaching terms. However the "African American" Community is unique in its identity because whilst all these other communites travelled to America seeking opportunity there situation was rather the reverse, they were transported to America to provide (Economic) advantage to others.

If the African American community now finds itself in an economically unfavourable situation their is one very easy conclusion to draw, even though other theories may hold more weight amongst the prevailing intellectual climate. (I make no attempt here to claim any theory for African American poverty holds any more weight than any other - its a topic I know next to nothing about).

Anyway the topic that really interests me here is the study of history. I note many people have argued against the Pharoahs of Ancient Egypt being black, and creating a distinction between sub-saharan and regular Africa. It seems that people would prefer that the pharoahs of Egypt were Semitic peoples (As Hannibal certainly was, Carthage after all was a colony of the Phoenicians, however it is certain that the hard core of his troops were Libiyans) but it seems to me that the Egyptians were not lacking in stonecraft, and many of their statues (man I'm treading lightly here) show essentially southern African features in their statues of Pharoahs, and we do read that Saladin instigated a great massacre of "Nubians" in Egypt following his ascension to power (Although - disclaimer - thse were almost certainly the millitary element recruited by the Fatmid dynasty, but my point is that the Fatmid dynasty must have replaced the roman Empire, which replaced the Ptolemaic dynasty which replaced the Persian Satrapies, yet Egypt in the 12th century still had a significant relationship with "black" Africa.

It seems to me that if I had to choose one way or the other that the ancient Pharoahs of Egypt were either "African" or "Semetic" I'd go for African.

[ajaxfetish]

I don't think you're going to find any intellectual who'll argue with you that there were no Africans with sub-saharan features in ancient Egypt, or that none of these had positions of power, including pharaohs. The art and statuary clearly contradict such an argument, as you've pointed out. However, the vast majority of human representations in ancient Egyptian art have more semitic features.

Suggesting you'd have to choose one way or the other is a false dilemma. Both physiologies were present, but the sub-saharan variety would seem to have been in the minority. Furthermore, the culture of Ptolemaic Egypt was not brought from sub-saharan Africa, but by Hellenic conquerors.

Ajax

[Big_John]

I don't think you're going to find any intellectual who'll argue with you that there were no Africans with sub-saharan features in ancient Egypt, or that none of these had positions of power, including pharaohs. The art and statuary clearly contradict such an argument, as you've pointed out. However, the vast majority of human representations in ancient Egyptian art have more semitic features.

Suggesting you'd have to choose one way or the other is a false dilemma. Both physiologies were present, but the sub-saharan variety would seem to have been in the minority. Furthermore, the culture of Ptolemaic Egypt was not brought from sub-saharan Africa, but by Hellenic conquerors.

Ajaximo, it makes more sense to apply neither terminology to the ancient egyptians, and instead discuss them as an essentially indigineous culture type, at least on equal footing with sub-saharan africans and semites. distinct cultures existed in the upper and lower nile valley as far back as 10,000 years ago, and there is a cultural continuity between those peoples and pharaonic egypt.

a major civilization at a geographical crossroads is obviously going to have a fairly complex demographic history. the ptolemies imported not only greeks, but galatians and palestinian jews in large numbers, for example. even before that, i'm sure the region was ethnically complex.

it makes more sense to me to simply speak of the "egyptian" culture instead of trying to tie it to broad "african" or "semitic" groups. iirc, this is how the ancient egyptians viewed themselves, btw. not that that's any sort of argument.. just an interesting note.

[Fragony]

There was a nubian period in egypt, that's why there are pharaoh's with both semetic and black features.

[ajaxfetish]

Well put, BJ. I was hesitant to use the word 'Semitic,' but couldn't think of a better term off the top of my head.

Ajax

[Big_John]

There was a nubian period in egypt, that's why there are pharaoh's with both semetic and black features.this is a pretty open question, really. culturally, the early (pre-dynastic) egyptians were materially very similar to nubians. though late pre-dynastic egyptian material culture appears to show some mesopotamian influences, iirc. there were certainly "black" pharaohs, as you mention, the 25th dynasty was a succession of nubian rulers, but the "native" egyptians, seemed to see themselves as distinct from everyone else, nubians and semites included.

much later, ancient writers (greeks and romans) sometimes referred to native egyptians as 'black' like the nearby 'aethiopians' (nubians of modern-day sudan, mostly), but sometimes referred to them as being physically distinct from aethiopians, lighter-skinned and straighter-haired. and, these descriptions came after thousands of years of dynastic egyptian development and identity (with the occasional invasion by nubians, assyrians, and persians...). so, what we need is some egyptologists in this thread. :egypt:





but back to the subject at hand, afrocentrism, like any centrism, is simply an attempt to balance a perceived inequity using an 'equal and opposite force', essentially (critics often see it as fighting racism with racism). i can see how one could disagree with the premise of inequity, or the mechanisms of the 're-centering', but this is hardly any kind of novel concept. so questions like
Anybody else think this is a bad idea?seem a bit old-fashioned. i mean, this isn't the first minority-focused school in canada, is it?


and one answer to this question
But frankly, what came out of Africa the last 2,000 years that justifies making it the primary focus, putting it ahead of Egypt, the near East, China and Europe?is simply "black people". i.e., africans and their descendants (the idea, again, being that their achievements and contributions to the modern world are generally under-appreciated by the predominant educational systems).

[Kralizec]

but back to the subject at hand, afrocentrism, like any centrism, is simply an attempt to balance a perceived inequity using an 'equal and opposite force', essentially (critics often see it as fighting racism with racism). i can see how one could disagree with the premise of inequity, or the mechanisms of the 're-centering', but this is hardly any kind of novel concept. so questions likeseem a bit old-fashioned. i mean, this isn't the first minority-focused school in canada, is it?

I'm not a fan of minority-focused schools in general, anyway. If Africa isn't getting the attention it deserves in classes of public schools (and who gets to determine that?) you should work on that, instead of adding to the existing problem by making it racially symetric.



and one answer to this questionis simply "black people". i.e., africans and their descendants (the idea, again, being that their achievements and contributions to the modern world are generally under-appreciated by the predominant educational systems).

That's a good argument for more African history in schools, but not one for letting it dominate an entire curriculum. There are certain things that everybody should know when they graduate from high school, if these black kids learn all that then no problem (except the issue of this being a de facto segregated school) but I can't help but wonder why they didn't chose to provide extension courses instead :shrug:

[Big_John]

I'm not a fan of minority-focused schools in general, anyway. If Africa isn't getting the attention it deserves in classes of public schools (and who gets to determine that?) you should work on that, instead of adding to the existing problem by making it racially symetric.

That's a good argument for more African history in schools, but not one for letting it dominate an entire curriculum. There are certain things that everybody should know when they graduate from high school, if these black kids learn all that then no problem (except the issue of this being a de facto segregated school) but I can't help but wonder why they didn't chose to provide extension courses instead :shrug:i imagine there are practical and philosophical reasons why minority schools would be employed instead of extension courses. minorities (or at least the groups organizing these types of schools) may believe that the public school system is fundamentally flawed in some way. there concerns about allocation of funds or administration of curricula. there may also be funding available for minority-focused schools above and beyond that allocated for extension in public schools (via NGOs or government programs).