There’s an old joke about Black History Month (BHM) being in February (“because ‘The Man’ didn’t want to give us a full month”). When I was a kid, it wasn’t even an entire month — we got a week. The originator of “Negro History Week”, Carter G. Woodson (personal note: I attended Carter G. Woodson as a third-grader),
Carter G. Woodson
envisioned the obvervance as a time of reflection on the achievements and contributions of African-Americans within the fabric of American society…and the world. For many folks, February is a time to explore and discuss the lives of Daniel Hale Williams, Marcus Garvey, Frederick Douglass, Crispus Attucks, Benjamin Banneker, Phyllis Wheatley, Joseph Cinque, Hannibal, James Baldwin, Barbara Jordan, Shirley Chisolm, Bert Williams, and Paul Robeson (among many, many others). Today, there are many who would argue that Black History Month has outlived its usefulness. Included in those voices is acclaimed thespian Morgan Freeman, who contends that Black History Month is irrelevant, saying the observation ”has degenerated into a shallow ritual,” and believes it “serves to undermine the contention that Black history is American history.” I have to admit, he has a point.
Now, I’ve admired Morgan Freeman since I was a kid. I think he’s one of our country’s finest actors. Some have said I look like him. I became a fan because of my great affection for Bill Cosby. Cosby was the reason I began watching the PBS reading show, “The Electric Company,” as he was in the cast during the first season. As a kid, I used to get picked on because of my love of reading; not many of my third-grade peers were reading if they didn’t have to — much less Langston Hughes. In my neighborhood, Freeman’s “Easy Reader” character instantly made it cool to read (I’m sure I provided other reasons for classmates to pick on me…but I digress). Now, for a guy like me who preferred reading to running the streets (and, trust me, I did my share of running the streets!), I didn’t need a Black History Month. I don’t need it now. I’ve always liked reading about history. To Freeman’s point, there are a LOT of people who probably don’t need BHM now. I’m sure that there are a lot of people like me tuning into the History Channel. Then, there’s Wikipedia — the best thing on the Internet for a guy like me. Whatever I want to know, I’m a broadband-connected mouse click away from finding out…anytime, anywhere, 24/7/365. So, I could skip every BHM event this month, and catch up on my own the week after the NBA Finals is over (there’s no sport worth watching that week anyway).
So, why continue the practice of dedicating one month a year to the study of one segment of America’s citizenry? Good question, Black History Month critics. Yes, Martin Luther King Jr. has a federal holiday in his name. Yes, an African-American is president (actually, that’s not his entire heritage, but I’ll save this rant for another post; I touched on it briefly in my blog about Obama’s inauguration last year). Black people have assimilated themselves into the mainstream as public officials, professional athletes, corporate CEOs, Wall Street brokers and award-winning stage/screen actors. And, there’s Oprah Winfrey – a category in and of herself – arguably the most powerful media presence in the country…if not the world. It stands to reason that Woodson’s creation has outlived its usefulness, an ancient relic of a time when Black people were citizens in name only, forced to remain ignorant of its culture’s contributions to society and relegated to learning only of the greatness of their oppressors. Are African-Americans under the misconception that BHM remains necessary to make sure the contributions of George Washington Carver are viewed with equal inspiration and awe as Thomas Edison’s? Has BHM succumbed to the point where we should bury it in the same graveyard where women’s suffrage is interned? Has Dr. King’s dream been achieved?
If I could answer “yes” to those questions, then I’d feel precisely as Morgan Freeman does about Black History Month. In theory, he’s right; Black history IS American history. The same could be said of Native American History, Irish-American history, Mexican-American history, Japanese-American history, Iranian-American history, and so on. Here’s the problem: we keep creating these descriptive categories of culture, and encouraging each other to adopt at least one of them as our own. As long as we keep doing that, we will feel compelled to identify — and celebrate – the value of the culture with which we identify. For that reason, Black History Month remains a relative staple of the American tapestry. I would argue that anything which promotes careful study and recognition of history is worth keeping, period. As an African-American, I would further advocate the importance of reminding everyone that, even though the racial climate in 2010 is worlds apart from that of 1810, the work to provide equality and justice for all citizens is FAR from over.
If you want an intelligent argument for Black History Month, I invite you to read Raina Kelley’s Newsweek article on the subject. One of the things Kelley writes is that Black History Month “…works in exactly the same way as Breast Cancer Awareness Month in October or Gay and Lesbian Pride Month in June.” On its face, that might seem to trivialize what Carter G. Woodson was trying to achieve. In actuality, what this statement does — for me — is to bring Woodson’s brainchild into context, by demonstrating that, viewed through the prism of an entire year’s historical journey, Black History Month is but ONE chapter in the entire American history book. Well-meaning though Freeman may be, my childhood hero believes that one can understand all it needs to about the American engine without examining its components.
Someday, maybe we’ll be able to discuss the contributions of Thurgood Marshall as simply a brilliant jurist, much as history acknowledges John Marshall. At present, no mention of Thurgood Marshall’s career would be complete without mentioning his race; however, there’s not even a hint of a cultural identity discussion when reviewing John Marshall’s life. Nathan Hale is described as a patriot. Crispus Attucks is described as a Black patriot. I can remember a time when Attucks was not only excised from the American Revolution story, but wasn’t even worthy of the ”patriot” moniker. The impact of Black History Month has at least made it possible for America to recognize that Blacks were part of the American Revolution, and to view Attucks’ sacrifice as patriotic. If the time comes when there’s less emphasis on Attucks being Black and more emphasis on his being a patriot, then I’ll be the first in line to recommend the retirement of Black History Month. Until that day, BHM serves as an important recognition of American stories within the context of a history that isn’t always so pleasant to review – stories just as important as the founding fathers on July 4 and Christopher Columbus on October 11.
One of the great gifts visionaries share is their ability to espouse concepts and ideas ahead of its time. When it comes to eliminating Black History Month, Morgan Freeman is a visionary.
Advertisement
Tags: African-Americans, history, Morgan Freeman
