This article got me thinking is it really necessary to have a history month dedicated to a specific skin color? Isn't drawing attention to someone because of their skin tone rather than their accomplishments feeding the racial fires? Should we have a "Yellow" history month? Or a "Brown" history month, or a "Red" history month? I feel a poll coming on. DD
It's February, and the annual debate has begun. The subject of Black History Month becomes the centerpiece of many a water-cooler conversation. A poll of almost 10,000 Americans conducted in January shows there is no consensus on the topic of Black History Month. The survey, conducted by MSN and Zogby International, found that 43 percent of Americans believe setting one month of the year to focus on a racially defined observance is a token gesture, while 39 percent say that is an opportunity to raise awareness of African-American history and accomplishments (18 percent are not sure). Is it a valuable and necessary way for African-American history—an essential part of American history—to be offered to the public? Or is it, as one scholar wrote in the Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, "simply a guilt-driven public relations scam to pacify blacks who otherwise receive no attention on the bread and butter issues of education, jobs, and health care?" African-Americans have varying opinions on the issue, too. The poll found that 28 percent feel that dedicating only February to black history is a token gesture. Celebrities Morgan Freeman and Bill Cosby have spoken out against it. "I don't want a black history month," Freeman said on 60 Minutes. "Black history is American history." Comedians Chris Rock and Dick Gregory have made jokes about it. Recently, The Daily Show With Jon Stewart did a riff on the debate over Black History Month. Yet, the majority of African-Americans—64 percent—says Black History Month is a good way to raise awareness of African-American history and accomplishments. The whole debate would be met with a knowing nod from Carter G. Woodson (pictured above). Woodson was the father of Black History Month. Many Americans don't know that he planted the seeds for the celebration back in 1926, when he created Negro History Week. "It had a very wide response from the black community, and people from all over the country celebrated it immediately, but it was initially largely a celebration in the confines of the African-American community," says Daryl Michael Scott, the chairman of history at Howard University. Woodson himself was a great chapter in African-American history. Born in 1875, the son of former slaves, at 17 he was an unschooled coalminer. Despite those humble origins, he went on to receive a doctorate in history from Harvard University. He devoted his life to bringing the story of black history to all Americans. His inspiration for designating February as the month for Negro History Week came from the births of both Frederick Douglass (the revered African-American speaker who fought to end slavery) and President Abraham Lincoln. In 1915, Woodson and several friends in Chicago established the Association for the Study of Negro Life and History. Today, it's called the Association for the Study of African-American Life and History (http://asalh.org/) and is the official voice of Black History Month. Over the decades, interest in Negro History Week grew. By the late 1930s, "whites in the north who are in control of certain kinds of institutions, libraries and universities started celebrating, too," Scott says. Mayors and governors also began to officially recognize Negro History Week, aware that African-American voters were important to their futures. Woodson, who died in 1950, was proud of his accomplishments. "No other single thing," he said, "has done so much to dramatize the achievement of persons of African blood." The association he founded has carried on his work. "There are a lot of people who think you get Black History Month because of the black power movement" of the '60s and '70s, says Scott. But it was the evolution of Negro History Week that became, by presidential proclamation, Black History Month in 1976. Woodson hoped that one day there would be no need for Negro History Week, and that black history would be taught every day as part of the study of American history. He also wanted separate black history studies at the higher levels of education, Scott says. Even before his death, in the 1940s, Woodson was unhappy with the way things were going with Negro History Week. He decried shallow celebrations and self-aggrandizing statements. Today, there are complaints that our consumer culture and the corporate world are using Black History Month strictly for commercial purposes, Scott says. Bruce Slater, the managing editor of The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, wasn't surprised by the MSN/Zogby Poll numbers. "I think generally in an ideal world we wouldn't need a Black History Month. It would be great if we didn't have to set aside a month to highlight the contributions of African-Americans," he says. "It would be nice if it was more fully incorporated with American history in general." More and more, African-American scholars are beginning to resent the fact that in February "their opinions are sought out, and then they are ignored the rest of the year. … Some black scholars refuse to lecture in February because of that," Slater says. Or, as Sarah Willie, an associate professor at Swarthmore College, put it to the San Francisco Chronicle last year: "It was certainly a good starting place, but it was absurd to reduce any particular group's history to one month of motivational speeches.". Despite the controversy, Scott, of Howard University, says: "African-Americans have and will celebrate black history as long as they find their common identity important to themselves. … A good society is like a good marriage. You gotta work on it." The bigger problem, according to many, is the American public's lack of knowledge of history overall. "Stop asking whether there's too much black history and start grappling with the fact that there's too little American history," Scott says.
Personally, I think it fans the flames of racism. Just include all races when talking about discoveries and merits. Making it about race is not a way to move beyond racism...IMHO. DD
Just to put this in context -- I am white. But to set aside a time highlight people that have accomplished great things despite the odds against them (especially those accomplishments prior to 1950's or 60's). Prior to that time racism not only existed -- it didn't have to hide. But desipite the struggle of coming out of slavery, open racism, and segregation they still managed to change history for the better. This deserves some special recognition. I have no problem with black history month.
I agree, my son did the same it was very cool, but why not just teach about MLK anyway? He was a great man, who accomplished incredible things.....tell his story, but do we need to just shotgun it over the course of one month? I would rather just tell history as it happened.....and include everyone of relevance. DD
I think it is a good idea. Why? Does anybody else remember in U.S. history class where you would talk about Christopher Columbus, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and so on and so on. Did you ever hear anything about African-Americans besides the fact of them being slaves even though there were prominent ones before and after slavery? Also, many of the greatest achievements in African-American history have come within the last 100 years and even then I remember my history book telling little about the history except for the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s. Black History Month sort of forced the teachers, in my schools anyway and I am assuming others too, to recognize it and make us (students) recognize it as well. We had to read stories and books on the subject, watch movies about the subject, and write papers on the subject. I think it may be necessary just to give students a glimpse at some really important achievements. There are already other months dedicated to other groups: Asian Pacific American Heritage Month is May. Women's History Month is March Native American History Month is November and so on. Now many of these don't receive the same attention as Black History Month but they are there. Why they do not receive the same amount of attention is beyond me but I think there should be some emphasis on all groups that make up the U.S. but unfortunately most don't get the time they should.
While I do feel that African American culture is basis for much of American culture, and the contributions are immense...I don't see black history month really accomplishing anything. The very fact that it's "Black history" must be a turn off to the very people they are trying to raise awareness with. I think it's better to have a "civil rights" week that talks about all the civil rights moments, including the women's movement and those benefiting children. Better to have a "Jazz history" week, or R&B day...or have a week dedicate to whatever. This way it's more inclusive and I think more powerful. If you learn about great people in the context of discussing what they did as opposed to their color of their skin - it makes them seem even more impressive. It's not - wow, a black person did that!??? Can you believe black people can do great things!? It's - wow, that man was great! Oh, as a foot note he was black.
I don't understand at all why we have Black history month at this point. Doesn't having the month just continue the idea of separation? The only thing Black or another "minority" races have wanted for years, is the idea of equality right? We all want to be treated equally for our minds, accomplishments and respected regardless of the color of our skin. Then, we turn around and dedicate an entire month defining accomplishments by the very thing they want to be left alone about? All races are responsible for this kind of behavior. The irony is terrible. When are we as a society going to stop using the phrase......."The first, Black/Hispanic/Asian to do something"? The day we stop using race in any context, especially positive accomplishments, is the day it REALLY doesn't matter the color of your skin is. Either forget race all together, or continue to define yourself by it in everything you do. You can't say, "don't judge me by the color of my skin," then turn around and say "praise me because I'm the first (insert any race) to do this" You can't have it both ways and expect anything to change long term.
Very true, the idea of "February is Black history month" serves as a good one and bad one altogether...Great post!
Besides, everyone knows about Black History now. African Americans are part of mainstream American culture - in fact they are the centerpiece. How about chaning Black History month to "Asian" history month. It's time some other groups got some positive press....
Didn't Chris Rock say this? I have no problem with Black History Month, especially if it helps to educate people about great Americans like George Washington Carver and Benjamin Banneker.
Yes, I am a student right now and teachers emphasize black history throughout the year the same as all other people. They talk about MLK when we get to his time period, same with Rosa Parks, WEB Dubois, Nat Turner etc. WE dont ever set aside a specific month to talk about them, it messes up the chronological order of what we are studying. Black history is always included in american history in schools now adays and I dont see a point to setting a whole month aside for it. If they have a black history month, they should also have a hispanic history month and Native American history month.
I think it's important for this reason: Some of the accomplishments of great black people wouldn't be historically noteworthy if they weren't African American. Example: Booker T. Washington. Had he simply been the first President of any particular college, that wouldn't have been especially historically noteworthy. Had he been a white President of a college for African Americans that became as important as Tuskegee, it would have been worth a minor mention. But as an Emancipated slave, operating under Jim Crow conditions, starting Tuskegee and all that it gave us scientifically is very important. If we have to set aside time to recognize men like him, we should.
Given that the rest of the year is pretty much White History Hendecamonth, I have no problem with it.
I'm not saying they messed up the chronological order of the history but they devised a plan where they could center in on some of the stuff because like I said although it was discussed it was never in-depth as some of the other subjects though. There are months for those groups as I already pointed out in my earlier thread.
Lil'Jon, grills, spinning rims and gansta hip-hop-ified stereotypes don't count as African Americans going "mainstream." What people know about history counts more than who they think they know it about. I don't like the whole ______ History Month thing. It would be better to just desegregate educational content and just teach history year round while showing an appreciation for the historical experiences of all Americans. Defining anything by race is a losing proposition as, ultimately, its the staunch white supremacists who really decide who is or isn't white, black, etc.(think "one drop rules", etc.) Why continue to give those folks power by categorizing our world according to their "white/not-white" world view? Reminds me of watching Obama getting interviewed on 60 Minutes. The interviewer asked Obama why, despite being 1/2 black and 1/2 white and raised by his white familiy in Hawaii, he would "choose to be black." Obama responded that its not like he chose to be black, it was just obvious from the way people treated him (while hailing a cab, while shopping, etc). My wife and I raise our kids to see themselves as people and to understand, not be defined by, the historical legacy the present has inherited from the past. Unfortunately, after shortly attending public school, some "white kids" let them in on, and continue to remind them of, the that they are black. So obviously, wife and I can't move on and pretend race doesn't exist. We just do our best to keep it in historical context and privilege our personal identities while teachign them to reject any ascribed identity, especially racial and gendered ones.
When did you go to school? nowadays they spend just as much time on black historical figures as they do on white ones. They dont need a month set aside for their history, it is already included in the curriculum at schools
That is the problem. It is not and has not been added into 'mainstream' history you don't et rid of something until you have something better right now. . . there is nothing better Until it is FULLY integrated into regular history . . . . and i mean FULLY!!!! don't mess with it Rocket River
