This month I've had more of a chance than I've ever taken for myself to think about Black History Month.
A friend shared this article with me:
http://www.cleveland.com/morris/index.ssf/2009/02/black_history_month_is_outlivi.html
I encourage you to read it and to really consider it.
If by chance you do not take the time to read it, it essentially asks the question of whether or not a Black history month is still needed.
My first reaction was no. Of course not. As long as we still separate ourselves by class or race or sex or religion in any way we cannot achieve equality. When are we just Americans? When will Obama not be my black president but my president? When is Woman's history month? When is Native American history month? When is Mormon history month? When does black history become American history?
The author of the article asks that with the election and inauguration of our first black president are we mature enough to accept our histories as one? When does this "pointless exercise of racial chest-bumping" become obsolete?
At first I agreed with him.
Then I was offered an alternate point of view.
Is black (or lets say any minority) history given as much time in an American classroom as white american (majority) history? As a history teacher I guiltily have been a witness to (even the reason) that no its not. Are black inventors and writers, activists and athletes revered and taught about as frequently? No they are not.
Until they are, maybe we still need a black history month.
I think though as we've been witnessing in our own time important and lasting milestones in black history that black history, more than ever is American history. As years pass and today is written in history books there will be less and less distinguishment over who's history is being taught and we will accept and understand that whether we are discussing the achievements of blacks, women, jews, gays it is OUR history.
Someday, I hope every month will be black history month...cuz my mom says "Once you go black you never go back" :)
3 comments:
Interesting to consider the different perspectives on Black history month. On one hand, there is value in recognizing achievements that past historians might have overlooked due to racial bias.
On the other hand, the month is viewed as a sort of paltry recompense for historical mistreatment. As Larry Wilmore (the "senior black correspondent" on The Daily Show) puts it in his book I'd Rather We Got Casinos, "after all, can twenty-eight days of trivia really make up for centuries of oppression?"
There was a provocative and interesting article in the Atlantic last month called "The End of White America?" which examines, among other things, the growing disconnect between what role race plays in what it means to be an American.
My whole interest in commenting, though, came more in response to your question of if black (or any minority) history given as much time in the classroom as white american history.
I would say the answer is no, and would posit that while there is no dearth of room for a more complete historical view incorporating Native Americans, Blacks, and other minorities, we shouldn't be striving for a 1:1 ratio of white/black representation. Blacks currently make up about 13–14% of the population in America, and while that percentage may have been higher in previous generations (as it is presently declining), blacks have not had as much influence as whites on the history of the country (to this point, I add hopefully).
The history of the United States is going to have more time given to white history, simply because there are more whites, and they were more involved in the geopolitical history of the country. They have been the majority.
Similarly Chinese histories do not devote as much time to Uygur history as they do to Han history, because the Hans are the majority, and have shaped China today to a much greater extent than other ethnic minorities.
And looking at, say, Nigeria, there would of course be a massively greater amount of time devoted to black history in the country than to the history of the white colonists (and slavemasters).
I too, look forward to a time when we don't have to draw distinctions because of under-representation; when all history is our history.
I'd like to see that extend worldwide. Students studying an overview of American history might find more of their time spent in "white" history, yes, but I would hope for more world history classes which incorporated not only European history, but also Indian, African, Asian, and Middle-Eastern history.
I think we're headed that way.
Very interesting post; thanks for putting it up.
http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=81569
The above link features some of Mr. Wilmore's ideas. Including...
Whitey Gras!
Screw the blacks, whites, jews, mormons, irish.... What about the reds AKA native americans? We ("Americans") are the ones who ruined thier culture and way of life. We should be studying them every year, every day in school.
-Mo
Post a Comment