When I first read the bottom title I was convinced I was not going to agree. I was wrong. It seems as if celebrating black history month would do more harm than good to race relations overall. Good argument.

Very true. Much in the same way Native American History Month, Latin American History Month, and Asian Pacific American History Month are marked on the calendar, but aren’t excessively celebrated…Black History Month should go on the same path.

I love this! My sentiments are the exact same. You have a phenomenal way with words and your ideas are out of this world. I wish I didn’t sound so much like a groupie but I really love your columns. YOU GO!

damn straight ernest.

i too am uncomfortable with singling out a specific demographic, for a specific amount of time in a year.

it’s interesting then, that we still make exceptions for religious holidays (judeo-christian). meanwhile, other ethnicities are not given the same opportunities in the year. i wonder if there’s a parallel? and what the implicit assumptions are here…?

I don’t know if I agree that we never learn much about blacks in history outside of February (but I come from a very white part of the country), but I definitely think putting all historical achievements by blacks into the “black history” category – separate from American history – makes them something more like a novelty and less relatable to people who aren’t black.

GREAT COLUMN! I think that it is one of those thoughts that no one wants to admit, especially being black , that comes up each year. Your perspective is spot on.

Yeah, now that I think about it- most blacks, such as myself and others do not want to admit how foolish it is to have a particular month-coincidentally the shortest month of the year-be allotted to us to celebrate “our” history. Black history is everyone’s history…history does not belong to anyone.

Black history month is about preserving our history, because you all know damn well that if we didn’t keep it relevant, it would disappear. To be blunt, many non-black people don’t give a f**k about the majority of our history. They want us to get over it, slavery and segregation of blacks were a think of the past. Think I’m making this up? Google information about states like Texas and Tennessee that want to remove slavery from the textbooks.
Why would whites want to talk about how they used to spray our people with hoses and send viscous dogs on them? They don’t, because it wasn’t monumental to their history. But it was to OURS. And the point of black history month is to reflect how far we have come, what our ancestors have done to earn this freedom. Trust, there are Caucasians out there that don’t care, at all. If we don’t talk about it, then generations down the line people are not going to know what our ancestors had to go through to allow us to sit in the same dining hall as whites, to use the same bathrooms etc.
Why is it only a month? Because the other 11 months of the year, we celebrate what we have become. We celebrate our ability to have the same freedoms as our neighbors. But February is a time where nationally we can reflect on those who brought us to where we are.

@ “The truth is”:

Your comment seems more like a mildly angry rant and sweeping generalization than a thoughtful response to Ernest’s article, whose central message it seems you’ve misunderstood.

In regards to your stereotyping, you casually lump all whites into one category: “Why would whites want to talk about…? They don’t…”. By using the broad term “they”, you classify all white people into the same group, which is not only naive, but offensive.

That same excerpted quote is offensive for other reasons. For one, because it conveys your belief that white people have no desire to discuss a history in which they as a whole come off in a bad light, which is not only narrow-minded but also insulting. Additionally, your contention that U.S. slavery era history is “YOURS” (i.e., that it belongs distinctly to black Americans) is at best arrogant and at worst incredibly ignorant.

Your general argument clearly supports the preservation of Black History Month, and you contend that “February is a time when nationally we can reflect on those who brought us to where are are”. While this is true, it seems that you missed the crux of Ernest’s piece: that African-American history should not be examined as distinct from American history. As members of a “melting pot” nation, we should integrate the histories of all races and cultures into one solitary narrative: American history. Black History Month makes it that much more likely that the contributions of individuals like Martin Luther King and Harriet Tubman will be viewed only through a lens of “black history”, rather than through one of “American history”. Essentially, Black History Month deters the integration of African-American history with American history as a whole, and instead conceptualizes the two as somewhat disconnected.

notice how ‘they’ was referring to the ‘many non-blacks who don’t give a f**k about the majority of our history’. While this many not be true for you, I know that its true for people in other areas of the country. Look at the white teenagers in Mississippi who said that they were looking for ni**ers to f**k around with who ran over the black man for simply being black. You think they care about black history? Those are the people that I am referring to.

the article: http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/08/06/mississippi.hate.crime/index.html

Clearly, you are a part of the population who cares, which in that case, my statements do not apply to you.

Also, the entire slavery era doesn’t belong to us, obviously because there were two parties involved. But the SLAVE PART does. Obviously. And yes, there were other races who stood alongside freedom fighters, but they were majority black. Thus, majority a part of our history.

I totally see Ernest’s point. I just don’t agree with it. I do not think that our history should be integrated into the general American history because I feel like the most crucial parts, such as our struggle, would be glossed over or left out entirely, like they tried to do in Tennessee.

Also,

“it conveys your belief that white people have no desire to discuss a history in which they as a whole come off in a bad light, which is not only narrow-minded but also insulting.”

I do believe that Americans in general do not like talking about situations where they are portrayed in bad lighting. Look at the way that we learn about historical situations, such as our settlers. Aren’t they glorified as finding this wonderful new land, befriending the natives and so on? How much time is spent on how we gave the natives small pox blankets, raped and killed them, etc? Don’t be naive.

I agree with the point that “The truth is” is making. I feel that XO has a point also in saying that as a melting pot society that America claims to be, all of our collective history should be celebrated and integrated. While this is a very idealistic idea, it is simply not reality. We live in a nation where people rarely claim to be “American”. Everyone still holds on to being English, German, Italian, Caribbean, etc. These barriers that we create for ourselves separate this collective society and force us to put each other in categories by race and ethnicity. Everyone wants to tell history from his or her point of view which will likely leave out another important point of view. Taking an African American history class in high school was absolute TORTURE for most non-white students because they were listening to a point of view that was not theirs nor what they were used to hearing. They had to sit and listen to accounts of non-blacks being the “other” or the “enemy” or the “outsider”. They spent more claiming that this was information that was already learned in “regular” American history rather than paying attention to the differences in information that was left out. I beleive that if we cease to acknowledge Black History (as well as Latino, Asian, Women, LGBT history) as something distinct, we may lose it forever to the point of view of whichever group is in the majority. The last thing that would be good for future Americans is to have the voices of people to represent them silenced forever.

I agree with you, but at the end of the day that can be said for anything. “The truth is” wants to continue to dawn on the past and current errors rather than appreciate the progress that is being made and the potential change that can happen. Black history month is in some sense like how Ernest alludes to “40 acres and a mule.” The holiday is a cheap handout of inclusion rather than an already entitled place of acceptance-history. It doesn’t belong to anyone, it is all of us.

To “The truth is”…would you like 40 acres and a mule to go along with the holiday? What you fail to realize is that Black History Month has been socially constructed to trivialize the achievements of blacks for a short period of time rather than a whole year. Ernest makes a very strong argument here, hands down. You cannot deny that the shortest month of the year is catered to one specific race at at time when it almost seems irrelevant.

InAnIdealWorld
‘“The truth is” wants to continue to dawn on the past and current errors rather than appreciate the progress that is being made and the potential change that can happen.’
I’m sure you didn’t read my original comment. I’ll copy and paste for you and that will be that.
‘Why is it only a month? Because the other 11 months of the year, we celebrate what we have become. We celebrate our ability to have the same freedoms as our neighbors. But February is a time where nationally we can reflect on those who brought us to where we are. ‘ I’m sure if you read that, you wouldn’t have made your statement. Moving right along.

@Lucy Do some research. Negro History Week, which originally became black history month, was established in 1926 by a BLACK MAN. The second week in February was chosen to honor the birthdays of Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass. It’s not like we were given the shortest month of the year because we’re black, there’s historical significance.
Also, as I said before, Ernest has a good argument, I just don’t agree. It’s okay to disagree :)

So you really think that a month should be created for an entire race because of the birth of one prominent black figure and a white man that under no moral circumstances was politically motivated to free black slaves? The fact that black history month is even created to include the birth of Abraham Lincoln shows how black history isn’t “black history” it includes all of us, whether white or any other race. You don’t see a Hispanic history month being created in October just because some famous hispanic and white man such as Christopher Columbus just so happens to be born around the same time….the correlation is not justification as to why someone would choose that month versus any other and why there is still a need for it in 2012. Many trends such as Negro history week and such has gone and so should this month if diversity is the essential end goal.

@Finding some issues Yes, I do support it. When it was created, it was needed. And I believe that it is still needed for the preservation of our history, as I said before.

By the way, There actually is a Hispanic history month. And it was created for similar reasons:
“September 15 was chosen as the starting point for the celebration because it is the anniversary of independence of five Latin American countries: Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua. They all declared independence in 1821. In addition, Mexico, Chile and Belize celebrate their independence days on September 16, September 18, and September 21, respectively.”

So please do your research before commenting.

Judging others by the content of their character and not the color of their skin is an ideal situation and we must all be color blind in order to do it.
What’s the difference between a White flashmob who brutalized and/or lynched Blacks than a Black flashmob who brutalized Whites, Latinos and Asians just because their not Black?