Oni_eyes

Yeah, I saw that nonsense about how Ukraine shouldn't have started the war after being invaded.

Whew, I was worried there for a sec

Wait, did German media fall for an Onion story or did he actually say that shit?

While this is true, African American history is American history but has parts that are heavily overlooked or ignored by standard curriculum. So we're not even getting full American history, especially bits that provide valuable context on a demographic that is overlooked and was actively involved in almost all of the mainstream American history. How is it advantageous not to be taught all of your counties history unless it is to allow for overlooking or continuing on prejudiced ideals?

You could have also used the non pretentious third person "People"

Again, how was I cherry picking? The class taught? We now have offering for african-american studies but that's not incorporated into the main history class which then leaves it to a teacher by teacher basis rather than a standard like European/American history.
I would still argue the majority get the standard based curriculum (which does not include African American history).

I could also argue that you're cherry picking with your personal experience, especially since I have experience teaching in multiple districts in one of the main textbook states.

Where did I ignore the painful parts?

The problem being that it's not cherry picking. That's what current black history taught in schools is. Cherry picked of slavery and Civil rights without any of the actual improvements made by black people. Not having the other half of context is what makes it easy for a lot of racists to dismiss black people as uneducated or unwilling to work, because even the racist probably doesn't know all the history.

I'm saying non cherry picked history slaps more than biased history. You're saying I'm focusing only on the good stuff but much like the purpose behind black history month it's because we do not get any of that in history class.
Gotta take the good with the bad instead of just the bad. (Which is what I said but you flipped it to cherry picking because.... I'm not sure since I clearly included slavery in that comment as the bit we learned about and then gave context of the cool stuff we didn't learn)

A lot of "black history" that is taught is just slavery and some of civil rights, the rest of it (like black wall street, the legislations of early black representatives, the inventions and cultural development from a mixed background to more of a regional blend) isn't commonly taught in school and a lot of it is pretty cool.

We have voip, super soakers, and a ridiculous number or uses for peanuts thanks to black history just to scratch the surface.

That slaps right? Getting to know all the good and the bad instead of just the bad and a smattering of civil rights?

Are you having a stroke or are you being serious?

To be clear, at no point have I advocated violence. I have pointed out why some people may be moved to violence in response to non physical kinds of violence that do not provoke consequences Then said it was semantics between a murderer and a person who kills by policy, which would reason that it should result in harsher penalties for the people who kill by policy.

All that to prevent more abused people taking power into their own hands.

Again, at no point did I advocate for violence or terrorism. Please learn to read.

I sound like a domestic terrorist for articulating that physical violence isn't that far off from economic or social violence and that the failure to enforce penalties against them will lead to people lashing out as we have seen multiple times historically? And that we should have a discussion about that to avoid people continuing to stew in poor conditions that ultimately lead to someone lashing out? You sound like an apologist and someone who is unconcerned with the general welfare of their fellow man.