Civil Rights Added to Schools’ Curriculum

This is great news! Congrats to Glisson and the William Winter Institute! Our students deserve more knowledge about that incredible time and our local leaders.

Thanks for the story, Ward and Ronni M for the post. This is GREAT news! It's about time for someone to formally tell MS's civil Rights History. I hope that this pilot will develop into a totally integrated history for all students.

This is good news because I spent high school pretty much protesting being forced to read white supremacy Literature, American history and Mississippi history. I always said somebody besides white folks made significant contributions to America, the world and Mississippi. I knew this even before I saw so much proof to support my theory. I knew that many of the slow white kids I went to school with wouldn't be doing anything beyond trying to ink out a living, God bless them. I also knew they weren't the exception to the rule I was led to believe.

I often wondered back then how nothing but good things were said about white folks while I rarely saw anything good done by them as it involved me and my kind. Before long, I said "It's some bullcrap going on somewhere" and as a result of and protest thereby " I refuse to believe anything said about them unless I could verify it independently of whites."

As I know full well now, school officials were perfectly willing to mis-educate and deceive me while at the same time sparring the feelings of whites concerning their horrible history. I wish I could attend some of the classes now to watch the white-washing of the history of the Civil Rights movement. I bet there will still be an effort even in 2009 to spare the feelings of whites with no regards to teaching black kids the total truth concerning what happened to their ancestors or forerunners.

Walt, it's people like you who set race relations back decades.

Iron, Walt is speaking the truth. The truth doesn't set race relations back. Whitewashing it does.

I was mis-educated, too, Walt. They tried to teach me that I'm better than you are. Fortunately, I didn't believe them.

And I don't believe the "whole truth" will be taught, either. Betcha there won't be a lot about the Citizens Council and the Sovereignty Commission, for instance, or Ronald Reagan's (and Haley Barbour's) southern race strategy to get votes.

But something is better than nothing.

I'm just going to say this: teach all of history, not a certain interpretation of it. Revisionism is evil.

Ironghost,

All history being taught is an interpretation, whether it is "whitewashed", "revisionist", or "populitst", it's all interpreted from primary source documents. So, the question for history educators is how to teach students about the historical process and learn to analyze trends, data, and cause-effect, among other things.

To add civil rights to the state curriculum is a great step, but the true impact will be felt as communities embrace this opportunity to dialog and reconcile their histories and relationships broken because of them.

That would be great, if they take this chance to write history accurately and neutrally. My big worry is that it'll be written to satisfy people like Walt, who seem to want revenge rather than harmony. When you start writing it with that in mind, you'll never get the results you want. History must never be written to prove a point.

I have observed that it is often people who haven't lived the experience of being female or black who are the most likely to dismiss the concerns of these historically oppressed groups and be vocal about telling everyone else to "move on" and "get over it."

I really don't see Walt as wanting revenge. Walt wants there to be a fair shake for contributions from black people, not a punishing view, but a more accurate and truthful view of the contributions of African-Americans to the history of our state. It reminds me of being told in music school that there were no compositions by women in the 18th century. Not true, as it turns out. I wanted that to change, but not because I wanted revenge. No - I wanted the contributions of women to be represented in the curriculum.

Also, I tend to think all history is written to prove a point. There is no way to be truly objective - a bias will always show. To me the task is to be upfront and clear about your bias or your goal in writing history or curriculum.

Walt doesn't want revenge. He never has. I know him and have had him in my classes. He wants the rest of us, especially those of us who are white, to look at the past with open eyes, and he helps make that happen (even though he, like you Ironghost and me and about everyone else here) goes too sometimes. He didn't above, though. He's right.

And there is *nothing* about his posts that call for revisionism; I can't always say the same for yours, Ironghost. You don't wear the blinders many wear, but you too have them.

And of course history should prove a point. Many points. Factual points. And it should uncover the actual revisionism -- in this fact, all the whitewashed crap we white people were raised on that make the very people who have inflicted the most violence in this country as a race turn around and blame the victims for being wounded and taught by white people's violent habits.

That ain't revisionism, baby.

Of course, not all white people believe that way, and many are very ashamed and are trying to make up for it. But not talking the truth does nothing to change anything -- just perpetuate the backward blame. And that keeps our state on the bottom.

Also, I want to say that I see this as a positive step forward to give the young people of MS this information.

Just to piggy-back on the comments from Walt, Ladd, I too, can relate to the mis-information and half-truths. Contrary to Ironghost's comments, race relations will not be set back: Race relations will move forward, eventually benefiting all involved.

"Revisionist" is an inappropriate concept to be used for the almost total omission by the dominate group about the life, behaviors, racial discord, contributions, and other events about MS's two races, blacks and whites.

I shall never forget the day that my father bought us a set of The World Book Encyclopedia (1956). I couldn't wait to look up the names of the famous black people I had learned about through my grand-parents and parent oral stories. To my disappointment, there was one page in the N-whatever, for Negroes. Listed were: Jackie Robinson, George Washington Carver and Booker T. Washington. That's IT. Negroes were said to be a happy people who loved to sing and dance. There was no mention of slavery or the genesis of where we came from, where we were delivered and under what conditions.

This is the diaglog that we must engage. This is not a step backward but, a step in a forward direction.

Funny how any mention of giving an accurate account of history is a "setback" to some. But for those same people, they can not get enough of "confederate" this or that. Those same people do not see "Confederate Memorial" Day or the many other observances as a setback. They are proud of the history, but ashamed at the same time.

I had the same experience as justjess growing up. I could name every "Negro" in my American History book. You would have thought that only about 10 African Americans had done anything worth mentioning. Anytime you mention "civil rights" some folks get uneasy. But if this was a story about the heroics of some members of the Confederacy, I bet the people uneasy about "civil rights" or that think it is a setback would be supportive.

On a (somewhat) different note, at least Obama is bringing the scared white morons out of the closet so we all know exactly who they are.

What stupid fool could even think Obama "hates white people." How do idiots like this get on national television?

Folks, I remember studying "manifest destiny" in history class as if it were a good thing.

Ironghost:

You do not want a neutral account of history, you want a sanitized account of history. A neutral account would merely be recounting things that happenned. Mississippi history requires no slant because the truth is ugly enough. A lot of you only want to tell certain aspects of Mississippi/American history, but all of it matters. Accurately telling history puts present day in proper perspective. For instance, "illegal immigration" does not seem as ugly a thing when you look at how this nation was founded. Nobody that got off the Mayflower went through immigration. Same goes for Mississippi history. Knowing all of Mississippi history goes a long way in understanding why the state lags so far behind today. In an effort to keep a group of people back, Mississippians succeeded in keeping the entire state back.

Ladd:

Millions of people subscribe to that kind of thinking everyday. You can see them a mile away. Take local or national talk radio, the only racism they can see are things that black people do that they can use to say is offensive to whites. Never the other way around. It all is an attempt to capture that "angry" white voter. Limbaugh has a extensive record of perpetuating that sort of thing. But what makes his listeners angry are those "uppidity" guys like Obama. The guys that have the nerve not to know his place. Most of those guys that claim to admit racism exist only see it from one direction, black toward white. Take the entire WJNT or SuperTalk lineup and they look at things one way. They think anything that highlights the truth about race relations is bad because it makes whites look bad. A lot of them care more about the truth making them look bad than all the folks telling lies to cover up the truth. They would rather be lied to than told the truth. Reminds me of Reagan saying the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts were "humiliating" to the South. To him, those Acts were more humiliating than the actions that required the need for such things to be inacted.

Well said, Goldenae.

I had to go study "black history" to fill in the basic factual gaps in my knowledge. Sadly, "black history" can also be defined as "history that (many) white people don't want to remember."

This is going to be taught in high school, this isn't going to be an in-depth analysis of history. They will teach the names,dates,a little info,give them a test, and move on to the next era. Just just like all things in high school history classes.

Bubba T,

I can assure you that if any teacher thinks that a few names and dates will suffice for the types of expectations entailed in the state approved and mandated framework, then they will be really inhibiting the success of their students in taking the madatory state test in US history required for graduation.

For example, from the new US history course section on Civil Rights
"Obj. 4d. Evaluate the impact of the Civil Rights Movement in expanding democracy in the United States."

How could you do this by simply listing "names and dates"? You would have to consider what the aims were of civil rights activists, the legal and political challenges that were before them, what it means to "expand democracy" and gauge whether or not the civil rights movement achieved the goal of "expanding democracy".

If done right, these courses could really be revolutionary in Mississippi.

Blackwatch!!!!!

BT - if listing names and dates is the only kind of education you were receiving in high school, then you got what I consider a sub-par education. Too many systems teach that way, without offering students a chance to analyze and really think about what they learn. I loved my undergrad BA experience for this - so many opportunities to learn things that made an impact on my thinking and on my life.

Something is better than nothing. As is, kids really do not get the impression that African Americans significantly contributed to Mississippi or American History. I understand what Bubba T was saying. History below the college level is basically focused on hitting the high points, major events and the essence of an individuals contributions. In depth studies of history are not done on the lower levels. But what has been missing regarding African Americans was basic history which included their contributions both famous and infamous. It is an attempt to "white wash" history.

Izzy- I didn't say that what I was taught in school, I had some of the best history teachers I know.

Names,dates, and little info is what most HS teachers teach from what I have seen, with my girls in school.

My cousin is a history teacher, and is a great teacher, every year when we get my daughters schedules I tell him who their history teacher is and if he said they are good fine, if he says they are not so great I head straight to the office to get their class change to one of the other teachers.

My minor in college was history, my girls hate to ask me a question for their history classes because they say I tell them to much, that they do not need all that for their class. :)

I find it interesting that anytime someone suggests that we teach a more inclusive history words like "Revisionism" or "revenge" are bandied about. Seriously? The history that is currently being taught in most U.S. schools is revisionism at it's finest. Be outraged about that. Race relations are already decades from where they should be because of this elitist world view.

The history being taught now was created by white men to reflect a certain perspective. Period. I don't see very much outrage about it.

I understand that what many people have believed for years is currently being threatened and I certainly understand what a frightening time this is but keeping your eyes closed to reality of the world around you doesn't help anyone, let alone yourself.

The reality of the world we live is that for too long people have ignored and belittled any historical perspective that isn't blue eyed and blond. (Insert your outrage here please.)

That carries over to everything in our lives. Many white folks still don't want to listen to "black" music or stop by a "black" cultural event because it doesn't feel relevant to them. Perhaps this will help create some relevancy.

That's funny, BubbaT, and I get what you are saying. It's just one of my pet peeves, I guess. I always have regarded education as a somewhat sacred and passionate adventure of life, not something to just "get done with." I teach music this way, too. I know that can be an ideal rather than reality, often.

All of you are assuming that none of this is already being taught by teachers who take it upon themselves to cover said material. Way back in the early 80s when I was a student at Callaway, I had a lit teacher who decided to have us read only black authors for the whole semester.

It's hard to understand this if you have "white blindness" or "male blindness", I think. If you have always been represented in books, literature, music, etc. you may never know what it feels like to see a huge library of books, not one of which was written by someone of your color, or gender. It is a feeling unlike any other - very different from seeing yourself reflected in tome after tome after tome. I am glad I studied in communities of learning where I learned to be self-aware and critique the canons of my education as I engaged myself in the process of learning them.

msgrits- as a white male, I disagree with your comments. I love "black" music- Miles Davis, Coltrane, Howlin' Wolf, among many others. Rap, on the other hand, is entirely different, and I have no use for about 99% of it.

Rex ... So?

I don't get your point. The point is that the tastes and biases of white males have for too long determined what we all get to learn about, and often even get access, too.

Put another way: I doubt many people here give a hoot whether or not you have a "use" for rap. Regardless of your (or anyone's) taste for the music, hip-hop is a huge part of American history at this point.

And good for your lit teacher. Sounds like she was trying to balance out all that whiteness however she could. I wonder if you noticed when you only studied white authors or history for an entire semester, or year, or education. Sadly, that's the way it was/is for way too many people.

MS grits,

I feel your pain. It is really hard to get some white people to understand how society is structured in such a way (via institutions such as education and the media) to "standardize" white male cultural, political, and economic domination. Something as seemingly innocuous as "Columbus discovered America" has very real consequences in forging a national identity and social norms that could be very damaging to many students.

But, I think what we all must understand is that to combat this, we as a community must be courageous enough to admit shortcomings in our educational institutions and how those shortcomings effect other aspects of our society, mainly politics and interpersonal relations.

Civil rights/human rights education is more than just including black people in narratives, it hits at the very heart of what it means to be a citizen in this country of non-natives. Everyone who is not Native American is a descendant of a non-native. How has this democratic government responded to the various needs of these different peoples? And how has this democratic government grown to understand the very people it is trusted to govern? These types of questions are hit at on the question of civil rights/human rights education.

There is a need for Black studies courses in the state mandated frameworks. But, I dare say that adding civil rights/human rights education is not the same thing.

And Ms. Grits, as a white woman, I agree with every one of your comments. Sadly for Rex, that means his opinion was just cancelled out.

(smile)

There is a need for Black studies courses in the state mandated frameworks. But, I dare say that adding civil rights/human rights education is not the same thing.

Agreed, Blackwatch.

And I fear that it's going to be another way to have "special" curriculum that might not be taken as seriously. What I'd like to see is a true integration of people of color, and our entire history, into our history books and all other classes. (Not to mention media, which still tend to go along with the Black History Month approach to include the stuff they're afraid to incorporate the rest of the year.)

I guess that's why they called that class "Western Civ",Donna. I did, however, like the teacher that had us read a lot of Hemingway better. I guess that's just a "guy" thing.

yes, because no blacks or colored people ever existed in the "Western World", or women for that matter. <sarcasm off>

Reximus, I recommend you read a book called Orientalism by Edward Said. You might like it.

Sigh. No love for _The_People's_History_Of_The_United_States_?

You mean that your (required) Western Civ class had no mention of black people? You think that makes sense, Rex?

You really are proving our point here.

Again, Rex, we're not just talking about what you as a student "liked" or should have. We're talking about what was *required*.

I read the People's History, Pilgrim. Good.

Sadly, it's not just about what they didn't teach us. It's about all the factual lies and distortions they taught us -- that were put there in the first place to serve white supremacist myths. And they brings us back to what Walt was saying.

Maybe, just maybe this place will let me post finally.

Goldenae,

Never assume you know what I want. You don't know me, you've never met me, and at this rate you won't. History is one of the few subjects that didn't bore me to death in school. I know history, I've read books, and I can bore large crowds very easy. I get tired of being lumped in with the racists, as you've alluded. I have no problems with a good history of Mississippi being taught, because it sure as hell isn't going to offend, embarrass or shock me.
What I want taught is what happened. We as a state do not need the blinders our forefathers had, but we need to see it all. We will never get past it if it's not dealt with once and for all.

Iron, it's fair to ask others to not make assumptions about you, but you need to give others the same courtesy.

For instance, you assumed that Walt wanted "revisionist" history taught, leading the rest of us to believe that you think that real civil-rights history that doesn't pull any punches on white supremacy would be "revisionist" in some way. Otherwise, why would you say such a thing? It's not anybody here is calling for "revisionist" history. We've taught it all our lives.

All that said, I know that you have progressive views on race; you've shown it before. That's why your post was so surprising.

I am going to have to disagree with Blackwatch, If you have mandated Black studies courses shouldn't you have mandated courses for Asian, Hispanic,Native Americans, etc. too? Mandated courses for each racial group?

Rex- If your Western Civ class did not mention black people you had a really bad teacher, last time I checked Africa is in the West and there's a whole bunch of black people there and there were some really important ancient civilizations there. :)

Bubba T,
We esentially have mandated courses for Whites, it's called your basic history, civics, and literature courses. Even the courses that do shine a spotlight on the achievements and stories concering minorities, they cast a narative that is white male centered, reflecting the disproportionate dominance of white men in the institutions that make up this country.

So, to mandate a black studies course would only allow for the opportunity for more voices to be understood in the public schools. I wouldn't mind offering courses in other areas too, but considering the racial make up of public schools here, that maybe asking too much.

We esentially have mandated courses for Whites, it's called your basic history, civics, and literature courses.

Absolutely true.

The problem is that so much history is missing from what we're already taught.

Ironghost:

I did not make an assumption about you at all, I commented on talking about "teach all of history, not a certain interpretation of it. Revisionism is evil." Revisionism is what we have now, you were taking an opposing view as if trying to add in some "black history" would revise history in a way that slanted it. What could anyone say about slavery, 1960s etc. that was not true? Lol. That is the shameful part of it. Just about any terrible, disgusting thing I can think of actually happenned. There is no room or need to slant anything. If a history book said Ross Barnett was a racist, would that be slanted or true? IF history gave an accurate portrayal of alot of these characters maybe some folks would not be thinking they are heros today and honoring them by naming things after them. I never lumped you in with racist. But I will say that if you think that telling the truth is slanted, then you should think about how you perceive the truth.

Often time, focus needs to be put on something that was excluded. If in doing something I have an unequal result, how can the solution to it be equal? If you give more attention to one area, in order to fix the problem, you have to focus on the neglected area. The majority often overlooks the fact that everything is catered to their perspective. Take the election of 2008. It became such a big deal about whether white people would vote for a black candidate. But blacks vote for white candidates all of the time, that is the norm. The abnormal is a majority of whites voting for a black candidate. Why is that? That is because our entire society is catered toward the majority. We are conditioned to think in certain ways. Most standards are greated from what the majority wants. Things outside of that are looked at as "foreign". That is how we can get images of Jesus that do not look anything like a person born in His region of the world would look like. Everything becomes the interpretation of the people telling the story. That is the sort of distortion that we are are accustomed to that Ironghost should be concerned about.

Does anyone here think that they way history has been taught in MS has anything to do with the flag vote of 2001 turning out the way it did? Or the proliferation of confederate memorials (Statues, streets, commemorative days, and school mascots) that predominate in MS?

Just curious.

Blackwatch:

Of course it does. How else could you convince people that racist were heroes? What was cute about the Civil War? Why would people that opposed Civil Rights be cool? One reason is a fundamental difference between people that have been in an oppressed group and those that have been in the oppressing group. Things I have done to you do not seem as bad to me as things you have done to me. Everybody gets Nazi associations and the bad image they represent, but everybody does not get the same negative feelings about the Confederacy.

Of course, Blackwatch. It's remarkable to me how many white people in Mississippi (not to mention some people of color) do not understand what the Rebel flag really symbolized, which got worse and worse over the years. By the 1960s, it was a pure symbol of racial hatred, regardless to any better meaning some people might have had for it in the past.

But people don't know what they don't know. That's why unrevisionist education is vital. Don't pull punches; allow Mississippians to understand our full history. Then fewer of us white folk will go around talking about other races being violent -- because we'll realize just who established the violent bar.

Not to mention the economic and other lessons that await in knowing the unexpurgated truth.

Blackwatch, That's kind of a chicken and egg question. The people who would "white wash" history would vote no on changing the flag and vice versa.

But the proliferation of confederate memorials is not really that surprising with Mississippi being one of the Confederate States and all. We shouldn't pretend that isn't the history of Mississippi anymore than we should pretend that African-American's or Women played no part in it.

If the course is going to be called American History it should be the objective history of our country not any group's subjective view.

P.S. About the flag... The flag of Mississippi should represent ALL Mississippians. It doesn't. It should be changed.

I think that the flag vote of 2001 turned out the way it did because of black voter apathy. Most black folks will tell you in a New York second that they will not carry or display a confederate flag and if a business displays one, they will avoid it like the plague. Inspite of how passonate we are about the flag, it did not carry enough people to the polls.

My personal opinion is that there should never have been a vote on the confederate flag. The South loss the war: The flag went with their defeat. The confederate flag had not be ratified; therefore, it should have been placed in a museum with other Civil War artifacts.

I should not have to come into the State agency I work for and walk under the flag that enslaved and often murdered my people, seperated our families and continued a history of cruel and unhumane treatment that fed into a system of racism, segregation, unfair hiring practices and an educational system that was SEPERATE and UNEQUAL.

I grew up in Vicksburg, MS. There is a yearly expose' of the re-inactment of the Civil War. You would not believe the time/money/energy that is put into the festivities. You would be led to believe that Grant was the Biggest Loser and that Lee and his army were still fighting to keep the status quo'.

Y'all wouldn't believe a Mississippi history book I read in the Natchez library recently. I believe I was taught from the book. It was one of the most racist things I've ever seen. I have sections copied from it somewhere.

Reading it as an adult, though, did make me understand how woefully inadequate much of our education has been -- and why so many white people in our state are simply clueless about our real history. That's why it's staggering to hear people say "all that's in the past," so stop talking about race.

Bullshit. History is history. You can't just pick out the parts that make you comfortable.

And a real Mississippi history lesson would also teach about the lengths some people, such as my friend Charles Evers, went to back in the day to get African Americans to go along with boycotts. Not to mention the fact that the Movement was not all non-violent in the state, and how the Deacons of Defense helped end Jim Crow here.

White bigots aren't the only ones who whitewash our history, even though they've had most of the power to so far.

Justjess:

I grew up in Natchez and I know exactly what you mean. Living in a place like that, you can actually get the impression that slavery was kinda cool. They definately do not make the connecion between being on the wrong side of history and the Confederacy.

I think that the flag vote of 2001 turned out the way it did because of black voter apathy.

I think that's true in part. But I also believe it was because some well-meaning people turned it into a "good for business" issue, without doing straight talk about what the flag really stood for. I sure wish we had been publishing then; we might not have changed the outcome, but a lot more people would have gotten the reason we need to change it straight there the eyes, instead of the watered-down, scared way that media reported it then.

Hell, when we launched, much of our readership didn't know what a damn "Dixiecrat" was or why what Trent Lott said at Strom's birthday celebration was so abhorrent. They had no context to place anything in, so it became a "Krazy Klucker in the Korner" approach, which is pretty much all The Clarion-Ledger has ever done on race issues and cold cases. No real stories, no context, no effort to show the massive conspiracy that just about every white person in the state was involved in, in one way or another.

It's time to tell it straight. Which, of course, we try to do.

I can't tell you how many people in Natchez have told me that they were glad the Klan violence was worse in other counties and towns.

Meantime, that was pretty much the epicenter for the worst Klan Violence in the country, and the most violent Klan factions.

It's pretty easy to figure out the areas that were the most dug in on "the race question": they were areas that got the richest from slavery and where white people had the most to lose, and those attitudes continued throughout Jim Crow.

Meet Natchez area. And the worse side of greed and human nature.

WMartin said,

"But the proliferation of confederate memorials is not really that surprising with Mississippi being one of the Confederate States and all. We shouldn't pretend that isn't the history of Mississippi anymore than we should pretend that African-American's or Women played no part in it."

It's one thing to document history, as all events that were pertinent to the development of the state should be documented, preserved and taught to everyone. But to commemorate the Confederacy with a state flag, school mascots and memorial days is not about documenting history, it is about celebrating ideas and values represented by the objects, events and people being comemmorated. For all of the contributions of SNCC, COFO, CORE, and SCLC made to the development of this state, we don't see a flag, a street, or statues on State grounds commemorating the Neshoba 3, the Deacons of Defense, etc. To conflate Robert E. Lee and Dr. King Day is not about documentation of history, it is a commentary about ideas and values of each person, and equates their significance. Any critical thinker would see the grave injustice of that.

I think that with a more complete and analytical understanding of history and social relationships, these things would not be celebrated by much of the citizenry and leadership of this state.
,

Agreed, Blackwatch.

And just in case anyone in confused about why Mississippi was part of the Confederacy, here's how our Articles of Secession began:

A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery—the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove. [...]

Click to read the whole, ugly thing.

BTW, anyone know that Mississippi Magazine doesn't allow the use of "Civil War"? It's the "War Between the States" when mentioned in the magazine.

"War of Northern Aggression"

Historical truth sure does seem to quiet some folks and run others away from the discussion.

Indeed, Goldenae. The room often goes quiet when I link to the Articles of Secession.

THIS is what we're having a state holiday and public memorials to!?!

No, thank you.

Oh, and if these Articles aren't taught in Mississippi history books, then there is some major whitewashing going on.

When a person will not express their beliefs directly or hide their meanings behind things, they know they are wrong. Even here in a forum where people can be annoymous, they are often ashamed to express their heartfelt beliefs. I do not understand how Mississippi can be dominated by a "Confederate", "Dixie", "Rebel" mentality and you can not get a significant number of people to speak up in support.You know something is engrained in a society when people that support it do not have to put much effort into maintaining it.

Goldenae you make me proud to be an Alpha man, too. You're right about Ironghost. But not only does he want a sanitized version of history, he also wants his learning or exposure very much ole styled and status quo. If he had his way, I'd be picking his cotton for him, aided by him placing a foot to by backside morning, noon and dusk, to keep me in line and working hard for his benefit only. My comments can surely draw the ole styled southerners from their mountain of pretense of knowledge, reconstruction and coming of age. I must have some skills. LOL.

Ironghost doesn't know me either but he doesn't have a problem saying I want revenge or that I'm the problem with race relations in Mississippi. I'm not the problem. He is! Is there really any doubt about it? Anyone with a brain bigger than a pea and can see off the end of their nose would know I'm not a dummy nor conformer to ole racist and prejudice ways. I said before that I have studied these ole ways for years. Ironghost and his ilk can't fathom what I know and see so easily and clearly. They're too shallow, stubborn or blind to their ole ways and views to go where I have been.


Donna, Justjess and Blackwatch I love your comments here. Those comments about the Confederate flag not being used as a mere symbol of the past, but a testament to remaining or lingering values, beliefs, prayers, wishes, et al, say it all for me.

Ironghost should thank me for spending so much time trying to remove the permanent blinders from his eyes. Instead of thanking me though, he hates and badmouthed me. I don't mind it though. I expect it. I understand it. I'm trying to keep hope alive.

Indeed Goldenae the undisputed truth runs off the persons who can't imagine living a life based on it. All we need to fight and run off the liars, pretenders, racists and status quo desirees is the truth. They can't handle the truth. They never could and they never will. With all this said I still like the dude a little bit.

"Until the philosopy that one man is superior and another is inferior is finally and permanently discredited and abandoned, I say war," Ironghost.

Not only were the ole teachers and school officials willing to deceive and mis-educate me, they were also perfectly willing to teach me that I had no worth, value and capabilities beyond what they allowed or thought were the truths or limitations for people like me. They told me I couldn't be a doctor or lawyer or other lofty professional or human being solely because they didn't want to see me as such. They also told one of the greatest orators to live that he couldn't be a lawyer or anything beyond a carpenter. So, instead of becoming anything of noble consequence in his early life, he became a pimp, drug dealer and drug user, thereby eventually winding up in prison. Luckily, he met someone there who opened his eyes. I speak of none other than Malcolm Little, aka Malcolm X.

Well said, Walt. Tragic.

That was one of the most powerful parts of "The Autobiography of Malcolm X." I recommend it to everyone to help widen your perspective.

We had Youth Media Project teens talking in the classroom today of much the same thing.

Oh, and I can say one more thing about all those Confederate memorials and the damned holiday: Why in hell would *anyone* want to memorialize the cause laid out in immistakable black and white in those Articles of Secession!?!

That's what the Confederacy was about, people. Don't let 'em try to lie to you anymore.

I'm always amazed at the level of white identity politics it takes to assume that the ugly facts of the past immediately apply to today's white people due to our skin color and, thus, we shouldn't talk about it or learn from it. What a disgusting kind of race solidarity.

I'm happy to say that I don't fall into that trap, and many white people I know don't. We have no reason to feel loyalty to racists and bigots of the past just because we're white. It's kind of a freeing realization. And it should makes it easier to study history.

I truly feel sorry for white people who are so tied to their own race identity that they can't talk about our history. What a special kind of hell.

Walt, you ARE keeping hope alive.

Also, Reximus, I had this thought last night that maybe I can offer to buy you a copy of The Mis-education of Lauryn Hill. Do you know it? It's more hip-hop than rap, and to me represents the best of the genre - social critque in the form of a spoken word piece over great music. This hails back to the griots of West Africa and is a testament to the strength of slaves in resisting the pressure to completely abandon their culture.

I think a lot of commercial rap isn't very interesting or meaningful, and probably gives the genre a bad name.

I will happily meet you at BeBop and get you this disc. It also speaks to the disservice the education system doles out.

Donna- lie about what?

Well then lets make sure that the African American warriors and heroes who volunteered for the Civil War are also mentioned in the teachings, because there were thousands of them. Even into World War II. I have been working on (with no help from any city council member cause I guess they think I'm crazy) a monument or something for the graveyard behind Deuce's place on the frontage road off of I-55. No one knows this, but there is a graveyard there for African American Veterans that has been unkept for YEARS. Some markers date back to the late 19th century and the graves are sunken in. You have to walk through the woods a good ways to even find it. There is not even a road or anything to get there. The irony is that they were buried next to the "trench" where the Union soldiers sat with cannons bombing the Capital. Anyone who wants to go, let me know. It needs to be recognized, just like the unknown civil war grave sites you see everywhere.

Bubba, you may not have, but I grew up being told that the Civil War and the Confederacy was not about slavery. I never believed it, I'm happy to say. But we've had people come on this side saying that, and still others who believe that the Rebel flag is a symbol of honor and that the Confederacy should be honored.

Those are all lies.

One of the most glaring omissions from Mississippi history is the story of Ida B. Wells. Ida B. Wells, an ex-slave and native of Holly Springs, Mississippi was a militant, independent woman long before the 1960's who was one of the founding 40 of the NAACP, led the campaign against lynching and left the south under threat of death. It is an outrage that most Mississippians do not know who she is. She should be as well known as Booker T. Washington or W.E.B. Dubois. I wonder if she is omitted, not only due to her militancy (she urged African Americans to get weapons and defend themselves against racist violence), but also because she was a woman.

It is time to tell these stories. Ida B. Wells, A Sword Among Lions by Paula Giddings should be required reading of any serious student of southern history.

Ladd:

You are right, they claim it was about "States' Rights". They just fail to mention States' Rights to do what. That what was slavery. There are folks that will try to argue that it was not about slavery at all, contrary to every historical fact. Those are the people that take less documented facts of today and try to twist them to mean all sorts of things. Those are the folks scared of this talk of "new" old history.

Yes, Goldenae, I've said many times to the revisionists: "Yes, it was about state's rights to own slaves."

And the southern states were perfectly happy to join another "federal" authority in the Confederacy, as long as it would allow them to keep owning slaves. Not only that, but they couldn't stand it that other states were deciding not to!

Of course, it was about slavery. Slavery was about buying human beings to do free labor so they could make more money and not have to work under that hot sun themselves. Black peoples were then dehumanized and turned into animals in white people's eyes in order to justify the cruelty of slavery, which went beyond anything we can imagine today (including white "masters" raping black women regularly to keep the slave population stocked). Then, in the cruelest twist of irony, the very people doing and justifying those horrible things twisted it around to try to make their victims "violent," "rapists," "lazy" and so on -- the very things they were guilty of themselves.

Those dehumanization myths ("more violent," etc.) persist until today for many people -- especially those who do not know or understand the true history. And the saddest part of all is that the violence that was inflicted on a population for so long, of course, created a violent culture that is hard to reverse (especially when the same stereotypes and, thus, expectations exist, especially for young black men.)

The Articles of Secession explain it very succinctly.

Of course what I'm saying is no surprise to many of you reading this; it sadly may be for others who have been fed a revisionist history.

The good news is that knowledge and understanding of this true history can help us change things for the better together -- but not if we let the white supremacists and southern strategists and dumbass "birthers" get away with trying to continue marketing the same old lies.

The truth will set us all free. Even if it hurts a bit to hear.

Oh, and go Ida B. Wells!

Fowler Park on Lakeland. Not sure of the time, but noon time jumps out.

My last comment supposed to go in Kaze's column as an answer to Rico.

I really would like to go- where do you find out this stuff? Nothing on his web site about it...