The Atlantic - Latest Comments in Black History Month. Meh.

Re: Black History Month. Meh.

thomas friend — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 12:01:55 -0000

Hey Coates,

I think you are full of sh*T. You sit here at your computer and flip off black history month. How do you think you got your exalted position to pontificate here at the atlantic. Maybe you need to read some archives of the atlantic and brush up on your history. Do you realize how many children of every race and adults who know next to nothing about black history. Black history month does atleast offer the opportunity to discuss race and history in this country. That those who are teaching or neglecting to teach it correctly does not make it meh as you stated. Get over yourself brotha. Your status is going to your head. Check yourself before your wreck yourself.

Re: Black History Month. Meh.

Caroline — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 19:32:24 -0000

It takes reading a whole book to get the full picture of people like Ida B. Wells, MLK, W.E.B Du Bois-- or anybody else, really. But history classes and history months don't usually ask us to read whole books about one person. That's a shame, because it's the only way to get the depth, the variety, the context, the conflicting impulses and loyalties, the flaws with the greatness. I like Black History Month because it gives us a time to remember how great has been the contribution of black people in our history. But I do wish people read more, bigger, and better books as a matter of course. An educated populace would be a beautiful thing.

Re: Black History Month. Meh.

mray — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 19:19:19 -0000

I understand how many can "hate" black history month. The high school that I teach at is predominately white the population I teach as an (white)ELL teacher is predominately many shades of brown.

Kids still need to learn their history of Civil Rights. Some teachers make it a strong part of their US curriculum some don't. But most do not, have not gotten to see see people who look like them honored in the history books that are used in the US until they get to college, if they make it. So, yes I am so not into token black history but in little Oregon town's where I teach many believe racism is a thing o the past yet many of my students still experience it on a daily basis. We still need to be teaching why civil rights are necessary, why we honor and respect all.

I had students the other day ask, while we're reading "Warriors Don't Cry" why white people control everything, how did it get that way.

Re: Black History Month. Meh.

anon — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 16:36:17 -0000

I'm not sure I agree with your argument. You seem to be saying that there needs to be a Black History Month, because all the default American holidays are de facto "white holidays." The thing is, I'm not (nor are most people) desecendents of anyone who participated in the first Thanksgiving, but it's still my holiday. And other holidays- Veteran's Day, Memorial Day is certainly also in honor of African-American Vets. MLK day is another "everybody" day, in the sense that it advanced liberty for all of us. I'm not anti-Black History Month, in fact there may be good reasons for it. I just don't think it should be a matter of "racial holiday justice," but for a difference reason altogether.

Re: Black History Month. Meh.

dance — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 13:49:33 -0000

Random and late--I don't know if this is what you meant by a schemer, but I went to the farm where Booker T was born (a few years back) and the exhibit there said that Booker T secretly sent money to DuBois and the NAACP. That is totally not the story we hear.

Re: Black History Month. Meh.

zacksback — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 11:30:13 -0000

It helps to know that Booker T was a schemer, that Du Bois was arrogant as all hell, that Monroe Trotter was a little off.

A friend of mine, a 56-year old lesbian, had the same reaction to MILK. Her attitude was that it made Harvey into a saint, which he was not. She said, "I wanted to see him annoying and angry and jealous and petty - like most human beings are. And none of that would negate his pioneering role in gay equality."

I guess with any pioneer, whether it's Susan B. Anthony or King or Milk, ya gotta go through the hagiography before you get to the biography.

Re: Black History Month. Meh.

Thomas R — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 03:50:42 -0000

Obama won California, New Jersey, and New Mexico by larger margins than he did Minnesota. Those three states have a significant percentage of non-whites. Obama lost heavily in West Virginia and Kentucky, states that are highly white and plurality Democratic. As well as doing the worst in the highly-Republican/highly-white states of Wyoming, Idaho, and Utah.

The "Stuff White People Like", as in the website, type of whites might do as mentioned. However many, maybe most, whites in majority-white communities don't fit that. The town I live in is mostly white and largely Democratic. I saw signs for the Democratic Senatorial candidate, but I saw no signs for Obama. I would put that to them being fairly Catholic and Pro-Life, but the Senatorial candidate was a solidly Pro-Choice Protestant woman.

As for Black History Month I agree with the others that say most history, pre-college anyway, is idolizing. The purpose of American History at that level, granted this is much more the purpose of the Pledge of Allegiance, is largely to indoctrinate you into nationalism so your ethnic or religious identity will be subsumed into it a bit. At least enough that you will identify as American rather than by your faith or origin. Seeing the history of blacks being mistreated might seem to go against that, but the message there is generally that their courage was the "more American" position. (*"American" being defined as all things bright and beautiful) Also that we as a nation are getting better. To present children with the leading/heroic figures of American history as human beings would be to potentially endanger the civic religion and mythos.

That said I think Black History Month is interesting. It might be a bit proned to hackiness or idol worship, but it can be an interesting starting point.

*Although generally conservative nationalism/patriotism is an area where I diverge from conservatives, and particularly Republicans, in a pretty big way.

Re: Black History Month. Meh.

LynJ — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 01:27:18 -0000

As someone touched on way up above, isn’t the bigger issue that most American History classes only touch on so-called "Black History" in a superficial way? In my high school, Africans arrived on slave ships then MLK made a speech and freed us all Amen. From what I understand not, much has changed since 1988. While it is AA parents' job to provide their children identity, the system should give them the facts of that identity. That said BHM is still very necessary.

Re: Black History Month. Meh.

RN — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 23:22:50 -0000

"We need more people in our past, and less idols."

Spoken like a writer. Except, uh... that should be "fewer" idols.

Re: Black History Month. Meh.

DaveinHackensack — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 20:12:06 -0000

"In other words, majority white may be a necessary condition, but I don't think on its own it's a sufficient condition."

I'd agree with that, Mercutio; my point only was that majority white was a necessary condition.

Re: Black History Month. Meh.

cocolamala — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 19:58:12 -0000

i have heard analysis that Obama won the white vote by preventing white voters from meditating on the fact of his blackness. thus the frustration black voters expressed with his lack of specific messaging. thus black voters wondering if obama was "really black." thus our attention on his black wife, and black pastor...

if white voters love voting for black candidates, where are the overwhelming numbers of black senators? governors? sherrifs? county officials? city treasurers? i have yet to see the white electoral clout put to work on those fronts.

Re: Black History Month. Meh.

Jimmy — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 19:37:43 -0000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Beckwourth

I recommend the First Black Man to be an Indian Chief

Re: Black History Month. Meh.

Mercutio42 — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 19:34:43 -0000

Dave:

I think we're agreeing on a lot of things here - the one part of your first post that tripped me up was the early claim that Obama won because this is still a majority white country. While I agree that in the "post-white" areas like Hackensack, NJ, Obama won despite the white vote, and if he won in places like Hackensack, MN, it was because of the lack of anything but a white vote, I don't think the country being majority white is the whole of the explanation. Rather, I think Obama won in part because large portions of this country are in many ways still highly segregated.

I'll modify and expand on my final hypothetical. At present, the US is about 70% white. If every town and city in the country reflected that, I think Obama would have had a harder time of it due to omnipresent racial tensions (not to say he wouldn't still have won, though his strategy might have needed to be different). In our current set-up, however, where large swaths of the country are 95% or more white and other parts are less than 50% white (though I found different numbers than you cited for Hackensack, NJ; granted mine are from 2000 and may thus be out of date), the differential in white voting behavior, on average, broke Obama's way.

In other words, majority white may be a necessary condition, but I don't think on its own it's a sufficient condition. It's entirely possible that I'm reading a stronger claim into your comment than you meant, but I also think it's important to acknowledge these kind of qualifiers when we're discussing this.

Re: Black History Month. Meh.

DaveinHackensack — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 18:47:37 -0000

In honor of Black History, this is kind of neat: the young country star Taylor Swift, possibly the whitest girl in America, covering Beyoncé’s song "Irreplaceable", live outdoors in Los Angeles: Taylor Swift: Irreplaceable.

Re: Black History Month. Meh.

DaveinHackensack — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 18:40:15 -0000

Mercutio42,

"Ultimately, though, I'd believe that one of the reasons why Minnesota went so hard for Obama is that, when you get right down to it, a lot of the white folks in this state do not see or spend a lot of time with any significant number of black folks."

I agree, and this supports my point. By way of contrast, here in Hackensack, NJ (I know you have a Hackensack in MN too), a blue city in a blue state, Obama won about two thirds of the vote -- but: Hackensack is about 50% black. You could say we're "post-white". So, assuming a majority of our city's Latinos voted for Obama and ~95% of our black residents voted for him, that means that about 2/3rds of Hackensack whites voted against Obama. Which also supports my point.

Re: Black History Month. Meh.

BG — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 17:35:22 -0000

There already is a white people's holiday--St. Patrick's Day...The only black folks wearing green here in Inglewood, Ca. are Paul Pierce fans.

This notion that Black literature is to be taught in one month, or Black History, likewise is ludricrous, and entirely outmoded, out-of-date, obsolete. One has to remember though that it grew from white suburban schools having perhaps one Langston Hughes poem--the seemingly harmless ones, of course-- in the 10 pound lit book,with the history books only mentioning slaves and George Washington Carver.

Whites could graduate high school without ever having known who Emmett Til was, or what happened at Rosewood.

Convenience-market history was taught; the flag-waving, Lawrence Welk-listening, apple pie- eating kind, not what was both true and interesting, like Tommy Jefferson's daliances with Sally Hemmings, or how the Japanese were forced into war with the U.S. Those textbooks simply reaffirmed the belief that they were the enemy. One can now find teachers using Wanda Coleman poems alongside Pablo Neruda.

Don't worry, though; there's no money left in schools for superfluous assemblies, unless Black Student Union puts it on for free. Be grateful for any mention of notable black folks in public schools because nowadays administrators are afraid to offend 10 other nationalities who want equal time.

I'm okay with having Cesar Chavez Day, for example, but immigrants might just need Black History month so that they who have no historical context for referencing the suffering and struggle that preceded their arrival learn that racism isn't confined to one group, although that one group endured the heaviest hits. IMO, it is the main reason problems exist between groups; some folks simply do not see the connectivity of myriad prejudices. What affects the least of us affects all of us...

So, maybe it is outdated, but some folks need reminding, like they do on their own family's anniversaries and birthdays.

Re: Black History Month. Meh.

Mercutio42 — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 17:21:53 -0000

DaveinHackensack:

One observation, as a Minnesotan. While Minnesota's 5th Congressional District happily elected (and now re-elected) Keith Ellison to the US House, he's also the first black representative from Minnesota to the US Congress, ever. (Also, to get elected in the 5th, the key thing is winning the Democratic primary - after that, you're golden. I suspect Ellison would have a harder time getting elected if he ran for Senate.) And all you have to do is go over to the 6th CD to see our good anti-American-hunting friend, Michele Bachmann, who got elected to Congress the same year that Ellison did. We're a complicated state on these matters, and any given congressional district can hardly be taken as representative of our state.

That said, I'm quite proud of the high points, when Minnesota's been on the bleeding edge of progressivism. If you ever want to read a good speech, check out Hubert Humphrey's 1948 address to the Democratic National Convention (back when he was less establishment than in his later years). It's the speech that made Mississippi and half of Alabama get up and walk out in protest, then go form the Dixiecrats.

Ultimately, though, I'd believe that one of the reasons why Minnesota went so hard for Obama is that, when you get right down to it, a lot of the white folks in this state do not see or spend a lot of time with any significant number of black folks. It's hard to get too worked up about racial tension when 98% of your community is white. Obviously, certain quarters of the Twin Cities are more mixed than that, but a decent proportion of the suburbs and nearly all of greater Minnesota are hugely, hugely white. If you shrank the white proportion down to 70%, I suspect you might not have seen quite the overwhelming support.

Re: Black History Month. Meh.

baileyl — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 17:21:32 -0000

"She's the sort of chick who'd have you beefing with some dude at the club." What does this mean?

Re: Black History Month. Meh.

Chris L. — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 16:58:37 -0000

In general, I agree about these "months" as a necessary-evil sort of thing, tho as a sometimes-educator I sort of refused. At CCNY, handed a World Humanities class to teach that ended with a unit on black writers, I shattered the glass and put each in their historical place (which has the extremely heartening effect of STARTING the American-poetry discussion with a black woman, Phillis Wheatley).

And with any luck the newer narrative history, as it has come alive in stuff like that Wells biography, can help infuse ALL teaching of history with full-blooded characters.

History disconnected into these "months" threatens to impoverish the whole discussion (e.g, what did the kids being taught "black history" learn about Jefferson?)

Re: Black History Month. Meh.

LonBecker — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 16:36:42 -0000

I'm agreeing with some above that all history is taught in school as hero worship. But for me the book that showed that history could be about actually trying to create a true picture was Charles Beard's Economic histories (looking it up on Wikepedia apparently the one I read as independent research was An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States).

Reading about how the Constitution got passed (my topic) was like reading about the horse trading that goes on with current politicians. (Samuel Adams was bought off with the promise of construction of ships in Boston. John Hancock was promised the presidency (which didn't work out too well) and so Massachusetts signed on).

It was the first time I had seen a history book populated by real people.

Re: Black History Month. Meh.

Nick — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 16:20:15 -0000

Deleted and banned for sockpuppetry and trolling. Again.

Re: Black History Month. Meh.

Tim McGaha — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 16:10:09 -0000

I have to confess to a minor faux pas on my part with regards to Black History Month.

About ten years ago, I was a Civil Air Patrol volunteer, serving as the local squadron's Aerospace Education Officer. My colleague Frank was the Safety Officer, and was giving the montly safety briefing in February. He wrote three letters on the chalkboard: "BHM". Then he asked us what they meant.

Being that Frank and I shared the same hairstyle (or lack thereof), I said, "Bald-Headed Man?" And regretted it immediately. Frank thought it was funny, though.

That said, I have nothing in particular against Black History Month. It still serves to highlight the contributions to our history by people that had been marginalized. The day may come when it's outlived its usefulness, but not yet. Not quite yet.

Re: Black History Month. Meh.

DaveinHackensack — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 16:03:31 -0000

"White people who complain that there is no "White History Month," much in the way that one might complain that there is no "Black Rapper Show", merit no real response, except that we all look forward to a day when there is one."

Really? I'd argue that the election of Barack Obama was possible precisely because this is still a majority-white country. A lot of white people like voting for someone from a different ethnic or racial group. That's especially true in the whitest states -- think of how Minnesota has elected Jewish Senators and a black Muslim Congressman; think of how well Obama did in the primaries in states like Iowa. In a post-white America, where, say, Latinos were the majority, I highly doubt you'd see another black man elected President.

Re: Black History Month. Meh.

Green — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 15:50:22 -0000

Well, let me just shout out Lerone Bennett's "Before the Mayflower: A History of Black America"

very readable, for folks who aren't otherwise into reading history books. should be required reading.

Re: Black History Month. Meh.

Freddybak — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 15:02:05 -0000

Great post. I think humanizing historical figures is crucial, although I understand why educators present a more two-dimensional portrait to younger audiences.

Because I am self absorbed, this got me thinking about my annoyance with the way Jewish History was taught for so long and how much I liked watching Defiance more than Shinler's List (Not that the latter wasn't awesome and extremely important!)

Anyways, TNC, I highly recommend you see Defiance.

Holla,

Freddy