Get Rid Of Black History Month?

[guywithashovel]

As some of you may already know, February is Black History Month. However, this columnist is of the opinion that we should not have this celebration.

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/...lebration.html

Does he raise some good points? His contention is that by celebrating this, we are actually dividing ourselves racially, and that instead we should just honor all people who have contributed to society all the time.

Where I work, we're celebrating Black History Month. In fact, I've been working on a display for the past few days, and on Monday, once of the faculty members is giving a presentation on a black author. On some level, I can see the columnist's points. I don't particularly agree. Rather, I'm saying that I can understand why he came to the conclusion that he came to.

When I think about it, having Black History Month, Women's History Month, and so on serves to remind us of these things. It reminds us of people in these groups who have done great things and who have overcome great obstacles.

Also, if you're in one of the groups that has one of these celebrations, what do you think about it? I'm kind of curious to see what next month (March) is like around work, because it's Women's History Month, and for the most part, the women around here were pretty indifferent to it (or so it seemed).

[Andara Bledin]

He is right, though, that it's a divisive thing, which is counterproductive.

And I also agree that without any context beyond some arbitrary characteristic, we're doing a disservice to the people being studied by indicating that somehow they wouldn't be worthy of studying if they hadn't had some feature that they had no control over.

This is a touchy subject for a lot of people because it's so emotionally charged; some can't approach the issue with any objectivity. Most of the comments on the article show the same lack of reflection and an almost autonomic rejection of the idea.

^-.-^

[Rapscallion]

I think it's the same way I view the Pride marches. It was necessary to raise awareness initially, but now it only serves to show differences. I actually think the areas of the pride marches the media loves to focus on are doing the cause more harm by showing a far more different lifestyle than two blokes living in the same house next door.

I don't think the black history month has taken that route, but I feel there's a huge amount of need for it to have existed, and I agree that it may have to end at some point. The aim should not be to glorify one particular grouping or point them out, but for someone to do a report on a new president and not mention his or her race or gender etc.

Rapscallion

[Ladeeda]

I also see no point in BHM, IF the bits normally reserved for it are taught alongside the standard White Male History we get for the rest of the year. There isn't any reason to segretate the historical contributions of a particular race to one month a year. Just... just freaking teach it when teaching other stuff that happened 'round that time.

[KnitShoni]

I also see no point in BHM, IF the bits normally reserved for it are taught alongside the standard White Male History we get for the rest of the year. There isn't any reason to segretate the historical contributions of a particular race to one month a year. Just... just freaking teach it when teaching other stuff that happened 'round that time.

I agree. I really think, though, that the reason it isn't taught alongside "standard" history is BECAUSE BHM still exists. People figure, well, they have a whole month, why should they be included in the rest of the year?

[Ladeeda]

I agree. I really think, though, that the reason it isn't taught alongside "standard" history is BECAUSE BHM still exists. People figure, well, they have a whole month, why should they be included in the rest of the year?

Probably. If things got integrated, teaching about Harriet Tubman while discussing the Civil War (she was a big contributer), and so on, BHM would become irrelevant, and be shaken off.

As it should be. INTEGRATION!

Incidentally, Badass of the Week has more info about Harriet Tubman than I ever learned in school. That speaks volumes.

[Cats]

The article brings up the points I've been feeling about for over a decade. I too, think it's pointless. If you did something significant that changed the word for the better, it shouldn't matter if you were young, old, black, white, brown, green, werewolf, male, female, gay, straight, Jewish, Muslim, etc. WHATEVER. People who did something great should be celebrated for WHAT they did, not because they were of a specific demographic.

Thankfully, growing up in a mostly-white town, they never pushed this on us, but yeah, in hindsight, I'd be pretty pissed too if they taught us about Famous Amos for Black History Month just because he was black before teaching us about Ghandi (who, by the way, was BARELY touched upon). It was mentioned, and there may be posters around school for awareness, but as far as I can recall, they never made us do any assignments (at home or in school) about any black people who weren't already important and we would eventually learn about for other reasons when it was more relevant (such as MLK and Harriet Tubman).


Now I do understand why it did come into existance. But now that we have laws against racial discrimination, we don't have a use for it any more, and to me, all it serves is to remind us of how people are different, rather than how we all can function as one together as a society and that any helpful contribution should be celebrated by all and at any time.


I'll be the first to admit, I'm white. I live in a 90% white populated town, and by nature, until I see/hear otherwise, my initial mental image of everyone is that of a white person. When discovering otherwise, I am shocked for a moment, simply because it changes how I imagine what they look like, but it doesn't change my opinion of them AT ALL. When are we FINALLY going to bring MLK's dream to life, and truely start focusing on the content of character, rather than our outer shells?

[Greenday]

Black History Month should be gotten rid of. It's racist.

Women's History Month should be gotten rid of. It's sexist.

There's nothing like fighting for equality like saying, "We can have a special month dedicated to us but not white men!"

In any history course I've taken, black people and women were mentioned when they had a part in history. We talked about Dredd Scott, Harriet Tubman, and Fredrick Douglas. We talked about the Seneca Falls Convention (along with various important women) in dealing with women's rights.

I understand I seem to have gotten a better education than some places now but if schools could be half as decent as the one I was lucky enough to go to, we wouldn't have to waste our time with months like BHM and WHM.

[KnitShoni]

In any history course I've taken, black people and women were mentioned when they had a part in history. We talked about Dredd Scott, Harriet Tubman, and Fredrick Douglas. We talked about the Seneca Falls Convention (along with various important women) in dealing with women's rights.

Thing is, Black people and women had more than just "a part" in history. The reason there is no White history month is because standard history is taught to us as being White male history, with women and other races only having "a part." Black people and women (and any other non-White group) were part of history at times other than slavery, the Civil Rights movement, and the push for women's rights.

[FArchivist]

*reads article*

Oh, sure, it's racially divisive. Never mind that black history pretty much didn't exist in the curriculum of schools until the late 1980s. Never mind that the contributions of African-Americans are constantly and consistently denigrated in most history textbooks still. Never mind that the majority of history as taught in the USA is dominated by Here Is What White Males Did, with maybe a sop or two thrown to the odd woman or minority.

White, (and I would go so far as to say, biased) American history is taught 365 days a year, propagated 365 days a year and celebrated 365 days a year. It is in books, on television and radio, in the movies and other print and electronic media. This has been going on for more than 200 years. At its base has been a white supremacist ideology that both elevated white self-esteem and trivialized, marginalized and/or denigrated the historical and cultural achievements of people of color living in the United States. This racist ideology, masquerading as history, has populated our school curriculums, pervaded our media and poisoned the minds of generations and generations of Americans - black, white, Hispanic, Asian and Native Americans alike.

Now that black history has been integrated in to American history textbooks and classes, some people say, is there a need to have Black History Month celebrations? Aren't such race-focused initiatives divisive? Don't they undermine our attempts to promote racial harmony and goodwill? Wouldn't it be better to just integrate black history in to American history and stop making it a separate thing?

Quiet as it is kept, racially, sexually and class-biased American history still dominates American classrooms, the public media and the public consciousness 365 days a year. The King Birthday Celebrations and Black History Month commemorations are simply momentary reprieves from the year-round diet of misinformation we are all fed about the white American interpretation of the American experience. During the rest of the year, black history is still fighting to correct some of the misinterpretation of black and American history. There is, however, much, much more to be done, and this is why I find the editorial to be nonsensical.

[FArchivist]

And I also agree that without any context beyond some arbitrary characteristic, we're doing a disservice to the people being studied by indicating that somehow they wouldn't be worthy of studying if they hadn't had some feature that they had no control over.

I disagree with this entirely. History is still taught as if it were created from the brains of white men. At least by this method we are able to redress some of that imbalance of the past 200 years or so.

This is a touchy subject for a lot of people because it's so emotionally charged; some can't approach the issue with any objectivity.

Sure you can speak objectively about it. The history of minorities was ignored for centuries in Western culture. In many ways, it is still ignored and the correction of that will take another few centuries. How do we rebalance the scales? How do we correct the prior injustice? How do we educate people so that they're aware? How do we provide the proper reparations for the harm we caused?

Let's face it; without Black History month, you would have next to no awareness of the contributions of African-Americans in American history. In fact, the textbooks that Texas is proposing to put nationwide today seek to edit out that information.

Most of the comments on the article show the same lack of reflection and an almost autonomic rejection of the idea.

Yes, how dare African-Americans be scandalized by the thought of losing what little they have gained?

When are we FINALLY going to bring MLK's dream to life, and truely start focusing on the content of character, rather than our outer shells?

When we actually eliminate the institutional racism that is still widely prevalent across the USA today.


^-.-^

[Greenday]

Let's face it; without Black History month, you would have next to no awareness of the contributions of African-Americans in American history. In fact, the textbooks that Texas is proposing to put nationwide today seek to edit out that information.

Wow, picking Texas as an example for the whole country. Come on, man.

[FArchivist]

Wow, picking Texas as an example for the whole country. Come on, man.

Fact: School districts in Texas have to buy books from a state-approved list.

Fact: Texas is such an enormous market that textbook publishers will generally do whatever they can to get on that list. Textbooks written and edited to meet Texas standards end up being used in 95% of schools in the USA. Pretty much every textbook in use in a public school is written according to Texas state standards.

Changes that are being made according to the Texas revisions this year, that will be in nearly all textbooks of the USA:
- a belief in America as a nation chosen by God as a beacon to the world, and free enterprise as the cornerstone of liberty and democracy. [1]
- sidelining Thomas Jefferson, who favoured separation of church and state [2]
- introducing a new focus on the "significant contributions to American freedom" of pro-slavery Confederate leaders during the civil war
- that the anti-communist witch-hunt by Senator Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s may have been justified and that the federal government from the 1940s to the 2000s was primarily composed of communist infiltrators
- dropped references to the slave trade in favour of calling it the more innocuous "Atlantic triangular trade" and stating that most blacks came voluntarily to the States
- recasting the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as driven by Islamic fundamentalism instead of by Zionism and the creation of the Israeli state by the USA
- that Native Americans were never persecuted and never forced to go onto reservations, that all such actions were completely voluntary
- that Europeans never came to the USA to conquer and take land; that they were given all land freely by the Native Americans

This is what the Texans have decided your school will be teaching in history. No, you don't get a say; the money for textbooks is in Texas, where they are required to revise them every 10 years. Money talks, everyone else obeys.

---
[1] I'll quote the head of the Texas Education Board, who is an avowed Creationist: "We are fighting for our children's education and our nation's future," Dunbar said. "In Texas we have certain statutory obligations to promote patriotism and to promote the free enterprise system. There seems to have been a move away from a patriotic ideology. There seems to be a denial that this was a nation founded under God. We had to go back and make some corrections."

[2] I'll quote Ms Dunbar again: On the education board, Dunbar backed changes that include teaching the role the "Jewish Ten Commandments" played in "political and legal ideas", and the study of the influence of Moses on the US constitution. Dunbar says these are important steps to overturning what she believes is the myth of a separation between church and state in the US.

[Gravekeeper]

I have to go with FA on this one. As long as textbook content is politically driven ( and largely in the hands of Texas ) I wouldn't be comfortable with doing away with something like Black History Month. I've seen the board in Texas try to "whitewash" history on more than one occasion so far. And I'm sure they'd love to scrub it entirely if they could get away with it.

I don't think the US as a whole is at the point where it can go "Well, fair's fair now. We all good?" just yet.

[Greenday]

So wouldn't the correct action not be to increase differences in races and genders and instead fix the fact that we are getting textbooks from complete morons?