Yes, it's that time of year again. It's February and you know what that means. Bad soul food served in the cafeteria at work. Every television station pulls out its token "black programming" for the month and proudly proclaims how enlightened they are.

In the book, The End of Blackness, author Debra Dickerson writes, Black History Month is when blacks most loudly announce to America who they think they are and what's important about themselves, announcements that are always revealing in their contradictions. Challenging the notion that blacks have contributed nothing either to the world or to America, exhaustive surveys of the history of black inventions and technological accomplishments claim that even slaves were 'active in making improvements to the technology of their time.'"

Well, I'm with Sista Dickerson. I'm pretty much done with Black History Month.

What was once a month of celebration and enlightment for both blacks and whites has over the passage of time ossified into numbing ritual. It's tokenism at best and a insult at worse. The length and breadth of Black History is far too vast, too significant and too glorious to settle for being ghettotized into the shortest month of the year. This entire synthetic "celebration" of black accomplishment has become just another corporate-friendly, neutered and bland event sponsored by McDonald's, Nike and Coca-Cola.

“In the 21st century, there should not be something like Black History Month,” said Andrew Jackson, who has been executive director of the Langston Hughes Community Library and Cultural Center in Corona for over 20 years.

http://www.zwire.com/site/News.cfm?BRD=186...7&PAG=461&rfi=9

This is 2005. Why is it still necessary to bludgeon people for 28 days about Black History? By this time shouldn't some progress been made in seamslessly weaving the contributions of black people into the larger tapestry of American history? By narrowing the emphasis to a month, doesn't it make it more likely that blacks will remain marginalized and walled off in a tiny little closet in a larger house?

The question for debate is:

Has Black History Month served its purpose, dragged on long past its "sell-by" date or still has a prominent role to play in bringing about racial equality and diversity?

I voted that it's still useful, but I would like to add a condition...


I generally agree, but I think the first comment is more on the mark.

The fact is that Black History Month is so bland that even at an HBCU like mine, it's hardly even noticed. I don't think we're bludgeoning anyone. More like tickling with a feather really.

I tried to notice last year (I started a topic much like this one, actually) and quite nearly failed.

I believe that if Black History month was more prominent it could be far more useful. I believe that putting the civil rights movement in perspective and relating it to race relations today would be a worthy goal.

After seeing some of the ...interesting... comments on this site about things like the NAACP...

I can't possibly see how more attempts at education could hurt.

That's the goal, yes. But with the attention span of the public not able to focus for 28 days, it would take an education overhaul to get kids to focus year-round.

You would think it would be unnecessary. Unfortunately, now that I am living in St. Louis, I can tell you from experience that there are certainly regions that still need something to try to get the information across. However, Black History month can't do it if it is not used.



I think tickling is a bit too strong a term to properly illustrate the reality of it.

My biggest problem with Black History Month is the extreme lack of Black History. Nothing on the TV in the month of February until the last few days or so. Barely anything in the Newspaper, next to nothing on Radio. Black History month seems to get about as much play as Pearl Harbor Day. There are an enormous amount of stories that could be told. There are endless stories that have already been told in movies that could be re-aired, books where excerpt can be drawn from and published, speeches by men such as Martin Luther King Jr. that could be run on radio, etc, etc.

Why is it, that there seems to be an extreme lack of Black History in Black History Month?

As a parent, who wants to teach his daughter that all people are people that should be judged as individuals, based on their actions and not categories, based on their ethnicity I have to go looking for good information on all types of people all the time. The one time I would think this lazy parent could "get over" is Black History Month. I would think we would be overwhelmed with information, movies, news items, feature stories, etc. Yet the reality is, this stuff is no where to be found.

Maybe it's a St. Louis thing. This town still lives up to it's racist reputation (I never ran into so much racism in the North-East, or Kansas City and I lived in both areas for a combined 30 years, as I have run into in St. Louis in less then 6 years).

Has Black History Month served its purpose, dragged on long past its "sell-by" date or still has a prominent role to play in bringing about racial equality and diversity?

Well, if it is ignored, and no effort is put forth to educate people on Black History during Black History Month then I have to ask, what is the point?

As for teaching diversity, I would think when you are taught American History, that Historical events involving Americans of all categories would be included. It wasn't back in my history classes, but that was nearly 20 years ago. I sincerely hope that it is that way when my 4 year old begins to learn American History in School.

Bob Ray Sanders is a lot of things. He has been a personal friend for more than thirty years. He’s the man I set up until 3: 30 a. m. writing an email to when I was upset that two big journalistic thugs--Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchanan--had teamed up on former Clinton Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers in a display of poor journalism. Bob Ray had seen the same show and concurred that it was indeed bad journalism

Bob Ray is the “token” black, “token” liberal and the brief shining moment of Camelot at otherwise drab The Fort Worth Star Telegram, that locals affectionately call The Startlegram. Not only do I enjoy his columns, but like reading the conservative letter-to-the-editor writers who regularly get their knickers in a twist over something or other he said. It really doesn't seem, at times, to matter what he says. It still gets certain people in a dog-chasing-tail sort of loop.

Here’s his take on Black History Month from yesterday’s paper. I just can’t wait to see what the letter writers have to say about this one.



Bob Ray Sanders, Sunday 1-30-05

Link may require registration.

I've not got much experience of this in America, but I have seen a couple of events here in the UK (organised, for the black Britons in my town at least, by a black American who lives here).

What I saw was an evening in a local theatre where old black people told stories about their experiences to the audience. Most of which were younger black people (and at least one white one - me!) I saw the first one by accident - covering front of house as a volunteer. I enjoyed it so much I bought a ticket to see it the next year.

From what I gathered at this event the main benefit within the black community was this passing on of knowledge from "black elders" - the people from the generation that first arrived here from the Caribbean in the 1950s, or that grew up in Africa or elsewhere - to the youngsters in the audience.

Essentially, it was a way of ensuring the continuity of that community, by giving an excuse for old people to be listened to. This was one of the things I liked most about it - my initial reaction was "why doesn't my community hold an event where our old people get a chance to pass on their memories and experiences?". I think that side of Black History Month is innately valuable, but probably should be widened beyond the black community.

And, also from what I gathered, the main benefit to the black community was passing on this knowledge to white people. I know I have learned things at these evenings that I would never have found out in the normal course of events. From talking to black audience members, most of whom were friends or family of the performers, not much of what was said was news to them - it was more the comfort of the familiar. (This was different for the kids, however, as I've indicated.)

Prejudice (literally, pre-judging) has it's roots in ignorance. If black people made this kind of effort to tell their stories to white people, and white people took the time to listen and made the effort to to it with open minds - THEN I think that ideas like Black History Month would have the power to make a real difference.

However, the black British experience is different from that in America. For one thing, Britain is still much "whiter" than America - all non-white British ethnic minorities are still less than 10% of the population taken together, and blacks are not the largest sub-groups within that. And, isolated pockets in port towns aside, most black Britons trace their roots in this country back no further than the 1950s.

Compare that to the ~20% of America that is black (I'm open to correction if that's wrong), and which can trace its American roots back as far as most white Americans, if not further.

Also, Black History month is relatively new here (if it isn't, it hasn't impinged on wider society at all - remember I only came on it by accident).

If it's been going on for decades, has remained contained within the black community alone and is just used as an opportunity for people involved to entrench their views of themselves (I'm guessing, but this seems to be nighttimer's opinion), I can see how it might have outlived its usefulness in it's current form.

In an ideal world everyone would be judged solely on the content of their character and not on the color of their skin. I would love to live in a society where skin color, ethnicity, gender, and religious affiliation matter no more to people than hair color and accents do.

I don't think black history is a panacea but I do think it has its place as a tool to use for various reasons. In a school such as my high school, which is overwhelmingly white/protestant, black history month can help teachers use a little extra emphasis to point out the contributions of African American culture to the larger American culture. Even if it is a hand and a student asking what we are doing about black history month, it can be a good thing.

I think an emphasis on remembering the particular history of African Americans in the United States adds perspective to anyone who makes the study. It helps create an understanding of the development of a particular sub-culture within our larger culture.

It can be trite. It can be an excuse to ignore black history the rest of the year.

But I have noticed it has generated a discussion each of the past two years. It is a tool that can be usefully used. It doesn't hurt anybody IMHO. And it prompts some questions here and there that lead to a greater understanding of our world. One of the best of the questions is: why is there a black history month?

I think the more we can empathize with the different kinds of human experience, the more we tolerate, appreciate, and even admire the different ways there are to circle around the sun. And the less we think that the people who do it differently are trying to take something away from us.

So I like Black History month. It is a mild help to many people.

Black History Month at this point seems to amount to a few blurbs on the news and some nice graphics on the television with a floating, ghostly photo of Martin Luther King, Jr and the announcer saying 'Channel 8 celebrates Black History Month'.
Our American history includes important inventors and public figures some of whom are black. History in general is worth the time and effort of study, and it's important to keep the events and contributions of anyone in perspective. Something's not a great invention or idea because a person is one color or another but because it's simply great.
I don't think highlighting Black History for one month out of a year is a good idea. It gives the impression that the other eleven months are dedicated to the 'opposite' - the study of white history and white history alone - which couldn't be farther from the truth.




An event like this would be about the only argument I would have for Black History Month, if indeed it was inspired by Black History Month. I have to wonder whether this is a Black History Month event or just seemed like as good a time as any to have it.

Having a 'month' for anything that is important throughout the year is really kind of stupid.

-Jessica

Has Black History Month served its purpose, dragged on long past its "sell-by" date or still has a prominent role to play in bringing about racial equality and diversity?

I'm with Eeyore on this one. My daughter is learning about Justice Thurgood Marshall--she would not have shown the slightest bit of interest if the school did not have a list of African Americans from which the children select a person to study.

Yes, it seems trite to have Black History Month, and inevitably there are people who complain about it. But it is the students who benefit from reading about these people of color who have had such a positive influence in society at large.

Some day Black History Month should be phased out. That time will come when the generation in power says with conviction, What's the big deal? These are all Americans, and we read about them every day.

Sadly, my half -filipino son never learned that a filipino invented the shoestring. Sadly, my half-filipino son never learned about the contributions of Jose Rizal. Sadly, my half-filipino son never had a school where a whole month was devoted to the accomplishments of filipinos.

My son did learn about Eleanor Roosevelt. Fortunately, his school celebrated an ugly American month.

I think Black History Month is not useful. It serves the impression that we should only honor blacks for their achievement one month of the year. I would recommend eliminating a month for black history and instead incorporate more of black history into the regular educational curriculum.


EDIT:

A second point. It also seems to suggest that while we don't consider black achievements as important as whites (because they only get 1 month), we don't consider achievements by other minorities to be important at all (because they have no designated months).

1. Incorporating more of black history in the curriculum is a worthy goal, but I suspect is not a particularly realistic one. I doubt we will be hearing any calls in state congresses to improve history education anytime soon.

2. I don't think it is a slight to other races to have Black History Month. It's not that they are less important, simply less influential in the development of the nation.

The trauma of Black-White relations in the country forms the backbone of its current state. The Civil-rights movement is likely the most important even in American history short of the Civil war (which itself had racial-overtones).

May I begin with a personal anecdote? Yesterday I went to Nashville. I had a meal at a kosher vegetarian restaurant, the only one of its kind in the state, at the Jewish Cultural Center at Vanderbilt University. The Center also had a display of photographs from the 1960's, showing African-Americans staging sit-ins at segregated Nashville restaurants. It was difficult for me to imagine how, during my own lifetime, people were hated and violently attacked for wanting to sit down for a meal at a hamburger joint. As one who is neither a Jew nor an African-American, yesterday was a powerful learning experience.

I understand some of the objections that haved been raised against Black History Month. Overall, however, I find that Black History Month has been good for me.

It cannot be denied that the history of African-Americans is a very important part of American history in general. The Civil Rights Movement, in my opinion, is the most important political event in the United States since World War Two. Black History Month keeps its memory alive.

I don't think Black History month is very useful and I think it might be detrimental. History should teach the important contributions of all americans. Setting aside a special month for "Black" history implies either that (1) Black history is so important that it needs to be covered in a special month in addition to throughout the year; or (2) that "Black" history is not all that important and won't be covered through the year so we need a special month to make sure that it gets covered.

Neither of these possibilities is a good thing. I say, forget Black History month and instead as parents, we should take an interest in the schools' curriculum and see that it includes history of all important contributions and of course that it tells the story of the civil rights movement in our country.

That's just it, is is just that important to the history of the US. America would not be close to what it is today if it didn't have to deal with Black/White issues.

..again referencing the year-round approach is a moot point. The fact is that schools don't teach enough black history to make up for Black History Month.

The barely teach any at all...

Again, this is a great idea that simply won't happen any time soon.

But Turnea-- you can't have it both ways-- If it is that important, why isn't it getting covered through the year? You tell me why they aren't teaching it? What should be taught? Why is BLACK history so important-- don't you mean the history of the civil rights movement?

1. I think the entire history curriculum is a bit broken. I took AP history my senior year in high school. Even that advanced course barely covered black history.

Why? I'm really not sure. I might have something to do with the fact that all recent history is given a bit of a cursory overview. We spend about the same amount of time on the war of 1812 and Vietnam.

2. I say black history because it includes both the Civil Rights movement and slavery as the two major examples of its importance.

It's not a matter of racial pride. The fact is these two items are two of the most important in US history.

Turnea

I agree with you that the Civil War/slavery and the civil rights movement are extremely important and should be emphasized in history courses. I am not sure I agree that contemporary history should be emphasized more than all of our history though.

Don't forget, we also have Martin Luther King Day as a national holiday. Celebration of that holiday has grown immensely over the last 10 years. For example, some of the Catholic schools here in Michigan are coming under increasing pressure to take the day off. They are hesitant to do this as it would mean they may have to give up certain of the holy days of obligation. In any case, my point is that we have a built in day that naturally falls as a way that schools can highlight the civil rights movement. I know my daughter, who just turned 11 and is in the 5th grade has covered alot of material about the civil rights movement. Much is done during the week of the Martin Luther King holiday.

I agree that the teaching of History needs to be examined in this country. I believe it is one of the most important subjects taught. I am not sure we would agree about how it should be revised though ......

Wow, that one made me think.

I DON'T agree with the premise that it has run it's course.

I am a fan of Jeopardy and a few other shows that dispense little-known facts. I dislike the term TRIVIA simply because the facts are not known to large segments of society. I had rather refer to knowledge that is not widely known as obscure but not necessarily trivial.

From that context, I say that "A" Black History Month serves to distribute NON-trivial information many of us would not otherwise know.

Agreed that the commercialization and coporatization of the idea does not serve to make the effort to educate, as acceptable but, nevertheless, there are some who will never read or hear that information anywhere else.

Are there better vehicles for disseminaton of this information? Of course. Would people seek them out. Some would. Some wouldn't.

My political leanings are for championing the underdog, no matter who that image represents in different minds. There are Black Americans who will never be underdogs and White Americans who are.

Unfortunately, in it's present state, the emphasis during Black History Month on the ACCOMPLISHMENTS of AMERICANS is inextricably TIED to their race because of the format.

The scars of 250 years of forced segregation and 50 more years of coming to terms with the dynamics of integration have NOT made the human spirit change as much as one would hope.

We need Black History Month until more Americans see history as history and decide to read about all the Americans who participated in BOTH attempts to build our country and the attempts to tear at its multi-cultural fabric.

Nighttimer, I agree with the concepts you posted with some reservations.

I love to watch Tiger Woods play golf since I suck at the game myself. For years he tried to explain he was NOT Black and tried to label himself witha term he and his family actually made up - "cablinasian". There were leters in that term that gave credit to his multi-racial and multi-cultural make-up. You see, he had a Thai mother and a Black father and there was American Indian and Caucasion in his family's bloodline. (I doubt there are any full-blooded anybodies in the entire world.)

Tiger had it right when he said, "I'm a golfer". And a damn good one he is.

I will admit that I may be a bit biased on this issue as I work as a diversity trainer. In our office we do celebrate black history month -- we have a lecture series and during February we are having a special lecture on the African diaspora, we sponsored a cooking event to showcase African cuisine and soulfood.

We are making an extra effort to showcase African American culture during this month, and I believe this is good. In our training we also spend time focusing in on Asians, Asian-Americans, Latinos, and Latino-Americans, religious minorities, etc. Why? Because our office serves a diverse university and health-care community. It is important that administrators, health-care providers and workers in general at the university understand how people differ from each other, why this is so, and we teach ways to deal with or handle differences in culture. A large portion of the research community on our campus are from Asian countries. A large portion of the health-care and university workers are African-American and our city has had a huge influx of Latino immigrants, who go to the University hospital for treatment and enroll in university courses.

Despite our efforts, many members of our community, even in the university, are still woefully undereducated on the African-American experience. I believe it does no harm to have a month in which we can focus in on one of the largest minorities on our campus and increase our education efforts in that sector. I don't think it's trivializing African-American history to devote a month to it, when otherwise it is usually not covered. I don't think it is right that it isn't worked into curriculums all year -- but since it is not, something must be done.

However, I do think that the entire way history is taught in America is horribly inadequate. When I was in high school post-WWII history was hardly covered at all. Only major events were covered (think wars). There was a passing nod to the Depression (but very little discussion about how the policies implemented during that era transformed America and was still influencing the running of our government to this day). In fact, history's implications to today were hardly ever recognized or discussed. It was all dates and wars and presidents. Maybe this was because almost all of our history teachers were coaches... And black history? It was occasionally mentioned, but like the rest of the curriculum it was colorless and impactless.

I have to wholeheartedly agree.

I wish we didn't have to have a Black History Month.

But sad as it is, most schools in this great United States choose quite willingly to ignore the awesome contributions and struggles of African-Americans.

There is no doubt that February has become the month when many corporations spend a specific amount of cash on advertising as a sop to their most loyal and trusting consumer customers.

But it's also a time when The History Channel and PBS devote a good portion of their programming to specials and historical highlights that may never see the light of the day.

I admire Black History Month for a lot of reasons. At least there is one.

Of course, it rankles me that the powers-that-be chose the shortest month of the year, (no doubt to show their contempt) and that it occurs during one of the coldest periods of the year.

This obivates any chance of outdoor celebrations, which would probably be received warmly by millions who don't care to watch their history on TV.

Again, I wish we didn't have to have one.

But then, I also wish for an end to racism, discrimination and intolerance.

I never said it should be given more time, I would eagerly settle for equal time. I do believe our contemporary history has more practical value to students.


Haleyanne... come on... one week?!

Surely you can't believe that that is a worthy substitute for the already insufficient Black History Month.


If you think your daughter can learn what she needs to know about the civil rights movement in a week every year... never mind... I would rather extend the benefit of the doubt that you don't

...and it would only get worse as the kids get older. I shudder to think of the weight of ignorance of a high school graduate with only a week a year of education about one of the most defining moments in American history.

..such a person would be wandering blind in a world shaped by forces they could never hope to understand. I wouldn't wish that upon anyone.

Turnea wrote (about MLK day and week):



Turnea, the premise of your responses seems to be that not enough attention is given to the civil rights movement in history classes and in our country in general. I vehemently disagree. First, Martin Luther King Day is a national holiday-- for crying out loud. There aren't too many of those and each except for xmas and thanksgiving, signifies important historical events/people in our nation. The way you are talking, you would think that this country basically pays short shrift to the civil rights movement and that is absurd. Kids learn about Civil rights movement throughout their courses. Like I said, at my daughter's school there is a lot of special emphasis during MLK week-- but also throughout the year. She knows who Rosa Parks is but I bet she has no idea who exactly are the "founding fathers". Moreover, major media is ALWAYS integrating the civil rights movement into popular tv and cable shows. For example, I have the Quantum Leap first two seasons. Three (maybe more) of the shows are about the civil rights movement. So many movies have been made about the civil rights movement. It is ridiculous to suggest that somehow this country is not teaching our kids about the movement. It is EVERYWHERE.

Maybe you would not be so rankled if you knew the history of black history month. From infoplease.com



No, it was not an evil white man that said "Ya know, Billy Bob, if we gotta give them nigras a month let's give 'em a short and cold one." It evolved from the actions of a black man who chose the week because it coincided with Lincoln's and Douglass's birthdays. Maybe we need a history of black history month day.

I think you are missing my point. A single national holiday does nearly nothing to alleviate the concerns I'm highlighting.

I'm not saying there is a lack of recognition, I'm saying that this recognition is superficial. I'm looking for education, a day off work (dedicated as it may be to a man who fully deserves a national holiday, as do many involved in the Civil Rights movement) does nothing to help people understand the importance of black history to America.

I've been to a number of schools, my mother and many of my family friends are teachers, education has always been an interest of mine and I can stick to my guns on this issue with confidence.

Children do not learn about the Civil Rights movement throughout their education. If your daughter knows more about Rosa Parks that George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, etc. then she has received a highly unusual education.

Black History (indeed history in general) is often mistakenly approached as a list of personalities. As important as Rosa Parks is, one could know absolutely nothing about her and still be well versed in the Civil Rights Movement.

What kids need to know about are the 13th and 14th amendments including the actual circumstances leading to their adoption. Then they need to learn about the long (really long) struggle for their enforcement. No child should leave high school not knowing the gist of Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education Topeka, Kansas. They should learn about the mass behavior in addition to that of a few notable individuals. Finally, they should understand how these things served to form the backbone of current American society. From due process laws to expansion of franchise to the majority of Americans including women.


These token references teach people nothing, they are precisely what is wrong with Black History Month today. I'm referring to real education, in school, not blurbs that end up as snack breaks on American Idol.

http://www.csl.mtu.edu/~kjwalker/timeline.html

While we often talk about soldiers dying on a battlefield fighting foes of freedom, we could say the same for freedoms at home. Being loosely affiliated with the Unitarian/ Universalists I remember well the death of James Reeb. We must remember that whatever advances we’ve made have come with a blood price tag. While I don’t wish them harm, I do wish the Falwells, Robertsons and Dobsons of this world could find something half as constructive to do as James Reeb.

I don’t know how much things have changed since I graduated from high school. We usually took American Literature during our junior year. I remember studying John Steinbeck, Ernest Hemingway, William Faulkner and others, but I don’t remember hearing about Richard Wright, James Baldwin, Ralph Ellison, Chester Himes or Willard Motley. I kind of had to dig all this out on my own.

Black history (including literature, theater, music etc) is so enormous in its many manifestations, that it deserves integration into existing curriculum.

You know, I bet most high school students have heard of John Wayne and Marlon Brando, but I wonder how many had heard of Ossie Davis prior to his death this week. Something’s lacking.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/Movies/02/04/obit.davis.ap/

Turnea wrote:



Two points in response turnea:
(1) I am not sure it is unusual for kids to know all about Rosa Parks as you say. Although, I was thinking about it, and it may be because we live in Michigan and of course Rosa Parks is a native Detroiter. Everyone knows about her and I suspect all the kids, like my daughter, learn alot about her protest because she is our "celebrity".

(2) You suggest that kids should learn about the due process laws and the expansion of rights to women through it. Pretty complicated. Did you know that Plessy and Roe are based in substantive due process. Shall we teach our kids that the "right" read into the constitution, that guaranteed a slave cannot become "free" from his owner is the same "right" that guarantees a women can have an abortion?


Turnea wrote:




The media's treatment of the civil rights movement in tv programs and movies is anything but "token". The treatment is in depth and makes history come "live" in a way that is not even "do-able" in a history course. Are you really saying that someone who comes away after watching a movie like Mississippi Burning does not have a very real picture of the difficult and dangerous battles that were fought in the south during the civil rights movement?

Due process has had many other applications as well, the fact that it has been used for purposes not everyone agrees with is beside the point.

...not to mention I don't think Plessy was based on due process, it does not deal with slavery but segregation in schools. Methinks you're confusing this with the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision.

Fifth amendment rights are some of the most important constitutional protections we have and the Fourteenth Amendment's extension of these protections on a state level to people regardless of race is something people should know in order to function in our modern democracy.

These things are not too complicated for high school students. I covered them (briefly) and a lot more in a one semester AP American History class without breaking a sweat.



Picture like "Mississippi Burning" have historical value, sure.

...but they are few and far between in the Box Office. Let's be honest, this is not what most kids (indeed most people) are watching 99.99% of the time. The treatment of black history in the vast majority of popular entertainment is token.


Secondly, such pictures cannot every substitute for the practical learning that comes form the classroom. The emotional learning is all well and good but not as good as learning how the modern Democratic and Republican parties formed their current power bases and how it affects their approach to policy.

Though I think that the contributions of ALL Americans should be included in history education (as well as all the blunders we so often ignore in propaganda 101 (AKA US History)), I think that movies like Mississippi burning are wonderful potential tools that should be included in history classes.

So many good pictures have been made about historical events, they should be a resource, available to the teachers to help captivate the interest of the students. Sure some of these pictures take a bit of poetic license with the truth of the events, but then the teacher is there to point that out and clarify it.

I truly hope that, before my 4 year old daughter enters high school, that we as a country have come to terms with or real history, both the good and the bad. I hope that her history text is just that, a history text. Mine, was a pure propaganda piece that might as well have had a white knight with a red, white and blue lance on the cover.

Mississippi Burning, Hayleanne? Ugh. A good example of a bad example of Hollywood trivializing an important event for mass consumption.

You don't have to be a student of history to know among the myriad flaws of Mississippi Burning is the depiction of the FBI as dedicated and committed defenders of civil rights. What a laugh! J. Edgar Hoover's loathing of Martin Luther King is a indisputable fact of history and Hoover dragged his feet in utilizing the FBI to investigate the murders of Goodman, Cheney and Schwerner until President Johnson ordered Hoover to get serious.

Director Alan Parker disposes of the murders within the first five minutes of the film choosing instead to focus upon the differing styles of the two central FBI agents played by Gene Hackman and Willem Defoe. More screen time is devoted to the flirting between Hackman and the wife of a redneck deputy, played by Frances McDormand than any analysis of what the three Civil Rights workers were trying to accomplish in Mississippi prior to their murders.

Mississippi Burning is just part of a sad trend of Hollywood liberal paternalism where the emphasis is placed upon how whites react to the racism afflicted upon blacks. Other examples in this genre include Ghosts of Mississippi, Cry Freedom, Heart of Dixie and The Long Walk Home. These films are well-meaning and wear their liberalism on their sleeve, but their good intentions fall flat and fall short of being historically accurate.

A story that should be told by Hollywood and is often ignored during these 28 days of Black History Month is the inspiring, yet tragic life and death of Viola Liuzzo, who marched for civil rights, was murdered by the Klan and smeared by the FBI. The fact that the only white woman to die in the Civil Rights movement has been largely been lost in history illustrates the shallowness of both Black History Month specifically and how American history is whitewashed generally.

http://www.uua.org/uuhs/duub/articles/violaliuzzo.html
http://www.emergingpictures.com/hotb_synopsis.htm
http://www.detnews.com/2004/metro/0409/30/c01-289311.htm

Turnea wrote:




Not beside the point. If you disagree with the broad application of "substantive" due process-- you will have a problem with this concept being at the core of how we teach our kids history.

Turnea wrote:



Yes, you are right. Dred Scott was the slavery case and it was based in due process. I don't think Plessy was based in due process (equal protection?). You mentioned the case at the same time as you referenced "due process" and I got confused.



OK. But alot of people like myself, believe the Supreme court has overstepped its bounds in this area. To the extent that it actually impedes the function of our democracy. The last thing I want to see is high schools turning out students who believe they can use the 14th amendment to further their political agendas.




Probably because they skirted over the intricacies and presented it in exactly the way that I object to-- I.E. that the 14th amendment is the way to further certain agendas.

Well it should be beside the point. Teachers needs not impose decisions of right and wrong... but no harm can results simply from teaching the facts of the matter.



If they wanted to, they could have done so long ago...

The current situation perpetuates ignorance about the 14th Amendment, agree or disagree with its application ignorance cannot be a good thing.

We can look for excuses not to teach essential history all we want, though the question of "Why?" immediately springs to mind. Arguing for ignorance in not my strong point.

Interesting assumption but totally false

I had to learn circumstance leading up to adoption, immediate and long-range results and connection to other landmark cases.

I hardly think a basic understand of such this is above the head of a reasonably intelligent high-schooler. It's a sight less complicated than Chaucer and they already have to sit through that...

Turnea wrote:



No one should have to sit through -- let alone read Chaucer.

Maybe I do agree with you after all. It is important for them to learn such important cases. And it could be made interesting for them. You are right, it should be taught. I can't even remember if I learned of these cases in high school. Probably not, but that was a while ago. I just have a pet peeve about judicial activism, and I shouldn't be going on about it here. As soon as anyone brings up court cases and social change----But I don't think that is what you mean.

I still think more is being taught than you think. But in the end, I am all for getting the message out to kids about our history and the civil rights movement in whatever way is effective. I believe that really good movies can be invaluable. Like Schindlers List. A movie like that should be done about the civil rights movement.

The 14th amendment was ratified in 1868. Yet it was 96 more years before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 passed.

When haven't people used the Constitution to advance agendas? For nearly a century after passage of the 14h amendment, segregationists advanced their agenda with states' rights arguments. Why is it so much different if women use the 14th Amendment to advance abortion rights?

When the shoes doing the kicking change to a different pair of feet, there is always resistance.



Good point, Turnea. I think we routinely underestimate both the actual abilities an potential of students. If one doesn’t expect much, one doesn’t get much.

Bof wrote:



Of course the Constitution has been used to advance agendas throughout the years. But does that make it right? My position is that judicial activism of any brand is just plain wrong. I would also argue that Plessy (segregation) and Dred Scott (slavery) are good examples of judicial activism. Plessy is not consistent with the 14th amendment which meant to insure equality under the law. We also had "conservative" activism in the 30s with the Court furthering corporate and economic interests in the name of "substantive" due process. When we permit jurisprudence from the Supreme Court that is not moored in the Constitution intent and text we establish judicial aristocracy, the very antithesis of democracy.

I recommend reading the new york times bestseller by Robert Bork: The Tempting of America; the Political Seduction of the Law. (1991). It was written shortly after his nomination to the Supreme Court was defeated and it is -- as George Will puts it -- "among the few masterpieces of American political reflection". It is the best book I have seen that is understandable by the lay person and describes the rise of the judicial aristocracy in our country. Of course judicial activism has always existed, as you point out, but its acceleration in modern times is astounding.

I don't think it's all that easy to determine when we have judicial activism and when the court is performing the function of judicial review established by Marbury v. Madison.

I think any attempt to curb the courts would only rearrange the balance in the separation of powers concept.



BTW: Thanks for recommending something a "lay person" might understand. George Will is far from an unbiased reviewer. Could part of Bork's book be sour grapes--a conservative "whiner," if you will?

Bof wrote:



Bof-- I hope you didn't take that as a dig! I just meant that books about jurisprudence can be awfully dense and difficult to get through. This one is surprisingly a fairly easy read. I don't have the patience to plod through dense argumentation, so I enjoyed it very much.

Yes, George Will could not be described as an unbiased reviewer! But he is also extremely intelligent. As far as the book being "sour grapes"-- I really don't think it is. It was written a three years after his nomination was defeated and I got the impression that he wrote it to set the record straight as to what his judicial philosophy is. It is sad that at even the mention of Judge Bork, people often simply think of him as this chain smoking freak who would have liked to see the nation taken back to the dark ages. He was truly demonized by the Left during those Senate hearings. He needed to write the book to clarify what his true views are. And much to people's surprise, he does not advocate replacing Liberal Judges with Conservative ones. His whole point is that we need JUDGES WHO ARE NOT ACTIVIST. He is a true supporter and believer in Democracy. I share his views completely.

Not only is black history month something that is outdated, but the entire concept of "race" something that should be thrown into the ash heap of history.

We're all Americans. We should focus on that basic fact instead of obsessing on the superficial factors that differentiate us. That's the key to the success of our society. Oh, that doesn't mean that we will all become the same bland homogeneous drones. On the contrary. It will FREE us to go to the next level of human society; a society that holds together in spite of traditional barriers because the focus is on what holds us together, not what divides us.

Black history month has degenerated into a politically correct, corporate sponsored symbolic show of condescension.

The Martin Luther King holiday is another matter altogether. Since that represents a holiday for most people, it should be retained at all costs. My only suggestion is to move it to the Monday after the Superbowl. It would be far more practical and popular among Americans who have a hard time dragging themselves out of bed on the post-Superbowl Monday.

Free and responsible speech, especially educational in nature, is definitely still valid!

I think it helps to understand the origins of BHM when critiquing it. After I read your question, the first thing I asked myself was "How did it get started?" Here's what I found after some googling.

Black History Month is the free expression of Dr. Carter Woodson's friends and followers. Dr. Woodson, a lifetime educator, founded of the black history movement with his publication of the Negro History Bulletin and promoted black history month in schools. He chose the 2nd week in Feb because both Abe Lincoln's and Frederick Douglass were born that week - not because of some "give those blacks the shortest month" conspiracy.

Dr. Woodson

Woodson's expression is represented today by the Association for the Study of African American Life, which still publishes his Bulletin, holds conventions, and provides curriculum materials/speakers to schools.



Why apply some sort of statute of limitations on Dr. Woodsons groups' free expression? A kind of "we finally get it now, so there is no need for your free expression - you must stop your celebrating."

It is ironic that a racial group so lacking in accomplishments as sub-Saharan Africans has an entire month devoted to their "history" (many of the claims associated therewith being outright lies, such as the lightbulb, the steam engine, and the airplane being claimed as Black inventions to impressionable elementary school children every February), when Europeans, being responsible for most of the inventions (with a few notable examples duly credited to the Arabs as well as the Chinese), art, music, literature, philosophy, and so on that we enjoy today, are systematically denied a month officially devoted to them (the claim that "every month is White history month" does not cut it because there is no official recognition of the extremely numerous, practical, enriching contributions that Whites have given to the world).

On a side note about guilt-tripping, it certainly is amusing that Whites are scape goated for "historical oppression" despite the fact that for every lynched Black, there have been thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of Third World childrens' lives saved by medecines developed by White scientists. For every non-White allegedly discriminated against somewhere in the West, how many miles of telegraph, telephone, road, and railroad have been laid or built? For every non-White individual who has been called a racial slur, how many Western (read: White taxpayer) dollars in aid have poured into the Third World?

However, the politically correct NKVD-like thought police make sure that any mention of this is suppressed, and that all rational debate on the matter stifled.

It's time to hang up this obsolete concept. People are equal under the law. Race is a set of meaningless superficial physical characteristics that once played a big role in our society but now it's time to move on.

The entire concept of "diversity" has been subverted by the left. Diversity is now used to excuse sub-cultures and behaviors which are clearly self destructive. Ironically, those who most loudly champion what they mean by "diversity" are the least tolerant when it comes to diversity in things that actually matter; ideas, culture, etc. That's explains why people who have "african" physical characteristics and who behave as conservatives (Condi Rice, Justice Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, Bill Cosby) are outright attacked as "sell-outs", "race traitors", or "Uncle Toms".

People who focus on "race" first, second, and third are misguided. Setting aside a whole month to focus on one's "racial characteristics" is absurd. It's the type of thinking that was popular in the 1930's in Germany. The end result is not "pride", the end result is resentment toward others who don't share the same meaningless physical characteristics. Unfortunately, there seem to be no shortage of race baiters and diversity hucksters (such as Sharpton, Jackson, Farakhan, the NAACP) who will play up anger, resentment, and racial hate in order to increase their own personal and political power. People like that are part of the problem, not part of a progressive solution.

This misguided focus also ignores the reality of our society in 2005; that we're a melting pot where the number of people from a "pure" race is decreasing at an ever increasing rate.

This country needs to focus on what we have in common, not on meaningless physical characteristics that make us "different". We need to focus on encouraging positive and constructive behavior. We don't need to as apologists for self destructive and criminal behavior out of fear of offending "diversity".

There is no such thing as "Black History". There is the history of the world and the history of the United States. That's what our children should be taught.

It's time to grow up as a nation when it comes to "race".

Yes, it certainly is tragic how such "rational debate" is suppressed by the "politically correct NKVD-like thought police." Is the "The Man" trying to keep you down, Wehrwolf?

Do all the miles of phone cable and railroad, and all the life-saving medicine (developed by white scientists, of course) and all the foriegn aid (drawn only from white taxpayers, of course) somehow magically erase the fact of oppression and exploitation by majority-white nations? Or is it a formula whereby a certain amount of telegraph line and penicillin negates a certain amount of enslavement and covert government interference?

Maybe it's just that white nations' selfless contributions have simply earned them the right to ignore whatever wrongdoing they've historically perpetrated? Goodness knows we wouldn't want to imperil our fragile collective self-esteem by ackowledging that in addition to our great acheivements we also have some, you know, not-so-good moments.

Wehrwolf, if white people are truly being scapegoated (def: made to bear the blame for others) for historical oppression, then who - in your no doubt fascinating worldview - who are they taking the blame for?

EDITED to reply to lordhelmet:



So Black History Month is like Nazi Germany? What does that make BHM advocates?

Boy, that's a new one. Talk about "reframing the debate"!

To be fair, I know you mean this in a very narrow sense (ie too much focus on racial difference = bad thing). But I think your analogy is over the top.

At its best, the message of BHM is "Black folks were enslaved and oppressed, but look at what a lot of black people did in spite of this! And as a group we still haven't fullly caught up in prosperity and achievements, but look at what these black individuals are doing now!"

Nazi Germany was more like "The Jews screwed us, so let's kill 'em all!"



I won't argue that many diversity advocates aren't shrill, self-serving hypocrites. But most BHM material I've seen celebrates Rice, Cosby, Powell et al as examples of achievement.



But the fact is that we are different. The physical differences are indeed insignificant, but (despite your crafty attempts to cast BHM otherwise) Black History Month is not about physical differences, it is about 1) cultural differences, which are still very much in existence, and especially 2) differences in historical experience, which also are very different.

It seems that you are trying to turn the integrationist "colorblind" rhetoric on its head in order to argue against BHM. Black people and white people are indeed all essentially the same in all the important ways, but we have not, as groups, been treated the same, or had to struggle against the same obstacles. And that's what BHM is about.

The oppression perpetrated by dead White individuals should not be blamed on extant White individuals. To claim otherwise is to fan the flames of anti-White hatred, and encourage already rampant non-White-on-White crime.

I applaud your need to propogate racial seperation, as frankly, that's all a month like BHM does. The black community still holds on to the notion that large companies are not hiring minorites, still suppressing growth and achievement, and that affirmative action negates the actions of the racist history of caucasians. The absurd notion that the previous generations' suffering should somehow be "righted" by punishing current generations of caucasian males is illogical and meaningless at best. To bring this rant to a point, BHM brings to attention the fact that some black Americans in our community believe that our school children need to spend time learning about "black" history for 28 days a year. If I were a gamblin' man, I'd venture to guess that History books distributed to our school children nowadays are extremely sensitive to the fact that America wasn't built by white hands alone.

Secondly, and more to the point, as long as we make race an issue in American society... it will be. Policies that cause lines to divide "cultures" will only instigate more division. If BHM is about "struggling against different obstacles", call it that. Call it black oppression month. It's not like 3rd graders are sitting around learning about how hard it was for a black man to find a decent job in the 40's. It's not about understanding at this point. Our school children are spending time discussing George Washington Carver and the Tuskeegee Airmen... which are of very significant importance, but why can't we put them in their historical relevance along with all other relevant Americans?

As long as current generations of minorities believe that things are "harder" for them, they will be. The attitude that the decks are stacked against them is only a crutch for mediocrity (i.e. affirmative action... of which no studies have ever proven its effectiveness, but many to the contrary).

BHM should be turned into a year long process. Let's get rid of the 28 days of racial division. Why isn't their an Asian American History month, or a native American History month, etc, etc???

Jaime, I apologize for my infraction of your rules. Regarding my statement about not buying into collective guilt, I did not cite any sources because I took my attitude as one of the basic philosophical premises of Western Civilization. I can, if you'd like, provide quotes from classical thinkers who spoke out against collective punishment, punishment for what one's ancestor did, and so on, if that's what you had in mind. It just, in all honesty, seems as if that particular point is a rather awkward one to actually post links in support of: I stated a widespread attitude. Of course, I should have written a bit more to fully explain my point (though, with all due respect, what qualifies as a "one liner"---I did have two sentences):

@ Robert B: Should the children of felons be punished for the crimes of one (or both) of their parents? This is why I am against the outright lies and exaggeration of Black History Month, because they are forced upon White children with the thinly-veiled implication that they should somehow feel ashamed with what long-White dead men and women have done, who may or may not have any relation to them (and if they did have relation to them, do you want to seriously maintain that it would matter in any case?)

@ Jaime: Is this acceptable?

You make good points, aeveans, and for the record I'm not particularly enamored of the idea of BHM or affirmative action or reparations or whatever else my previous post may have suggested. I really don't have a strong position either way on these issues (except for reparations, which would be a really bad idea).

What I object to is when people take a self-righteous tone and write glibly about BHM focusing on 1) physical differences (suggesting a kind of hypocritical racism) or on 2) majority oppression at the expense of minority achievements. As Wehrwolf suggested, there are no doubt some "outright lies and exaggeration" in some BHM programs. But the idea of specifically celebrating black historical experiences and achievements is (OK, arguably) sound in principle. It most certainly is not anything like Nazi Germany, and it is not anything like a tit-for-tat victimization of white people.

Now whether events like BHM are, in practice, unproductive and disempowering for minorities is a point worthy of debate, but merely acknowledging a difference in historical experience and celebrating minority achievements are not in themselves a bad idea.

Here's my take on it. As a multi-racial woman I think that there should be a history month for every race. There should be black history, Asian history, Native American history, etc. Each race should be representated with it's own month. Even white history month. Either that or get rid of Black history month. My mom is white and my dad is black. I also have Cherokee blood. I find it offensive that black history is the only race that gets it's own month. Ethnic Jews have suffered just as much as black people. And lets not forget the Japanese internment camps. Each race has suffered in it's own way. It's time that everyone gets represented. And if that's not possible than take out all history months. That's my take.

Great post! It's time to focus on things that really matter, not side issues that just get people angry at each other for no good reason.

I suggest 12 months of study of the history of the human race.

Thanks for the compliment. And I love your idea of the study of the human race. Sounds good to me.