If there was some sort of name attributed to the 11 months of ‘White history’ that is taught in schools nationwide, would that remove the perceived and alleged double standard of Black History Month?

The so-called debate is tantamount to that of routine. Every February and October (dependent on nation) the same “arguments” spring up as to how Black History Month somehow undermines equality and egalitarianism. Some say the all-too common mantra, “If Whites had a White Scholarship Fund, ‘WET’ or White History Month, riots and marches would be planned and we would be racist”. The more naive-minded say “Why can’t ‘Black History’ be American history”. I’m not going to go at length to show that both arguments are fundamentally flawed (the amount of times I’ve written about this topic is on the verge of a zillion) other than to say that the existence of a would-be “White History Month” is inherently discriminative and redundant as it would be an over-specification for the history that is deemed as default by the education system – to add a proposed “White History Month” is simply to turn the 11 month period of White History taught in schools into a whole year of White History.

Should the “White History” we students are taught in schools have an actual name, wouldn’t that remove the alleged and perceived double standard of “Black History”? I think this case is a simple case of taking things for granted – Take for example the fact that many here in the West use water to indulge in “water fights” and clean windows as if shining them any longer would turn them into diamond-crested national treasures. As opposed to those in the not-so privileged states worldwide who would literally fight to get even a slither of the liquid stuff. Should there be a drought or war that somehow reduces the supply of water in Western states, the propensity to retain one’s water for necessary incidents comes into full swing. Just as how the reduction in water supplies in the listed analogy caused the masses to realize the true value of the water they had (hence retaining more of it), should “White History” actually have a name and definition of such, will the masses awaken to realize the fact of the lengthy time it is taught?

**Disclaimer: This question is not intended as that of “propaganda” – Black History Month does not in any way serve the interests of people of my origin (if anything, demonizes them). This question more so is simply to seek answers.
Clyde N: If history is for all people, as you claim, doesn’t that in itself mean that history should be taught in equal proportions for the betterment of all people? Your argument is inherently conflicting, as it ascertains that resources should be allocated towards the majority and not the minority – didn’t you previously say that “history is for all people”? In fact, that would mean that the history “catered for the majority” (White) can exert supremacy on the minority (non-White), therefore meaning they would have to conform to majorly-held perspective (virtual coercion) which negates the Utopian view that history is “for all people”.