Is 'Black History Month' discriminatory?

[fashbash]

Every so often the BBC declares 'Black History Month', in which they broadcast programmes on the television and radio abou so-called 'Black History'. The idea behind this appears to be that kids in school are taught too much about the history of Europe, and not enough about African history, yet to me the concept of there being 'Black History' and 'White History' seems segregatory and damaging. Why divide history along the lines of race, surely 'your history is my history'. Certainly each nation or culture has it's own history, but why divide this further by race? So, I ask you, is it segregatory to say 'Black History', or am I just a complete Bampot? Furthermore, is it segregatory for a black comedian to say 'All the white people in the audience say HEY! All the Black people in the audience say HO!'? as Genie Asheray does? Is it damaging to the self identities of the British to have 1XTRA, a 'Black Music' radio station? What do you think?

[Gold Against The Soul]

The pursuit of difference has always been at the heart of the racist agenda. So I don't know if it is racist or not but it certainly plays into the hands of racists.

[Hampton]

I believe the purpose was to highlight some achivements that black people have gave the world and that this was done because most of the time blacks in history were not taught in schools at all, so they deceided to give them a month to talk about it. Then they could go back to white washing history.

[Vanguard1917]

The racist and Eurocentric teaching of history was reactionary and served to rationalise and justify white Empire, while promoting the idea that the colonised people were inferior savages. This view of history was discreditted partly by the rise of anti-imperialist movements around the 'third world', with formal independence in the former colonies after WW2.

The discreditting of the racist interpretation history was a major progress. It signified a real life historical progress too: independence, if only formal, in the colonies.


The idea behind this appears to be that kids in school are taught too much about the history of Europe, and not enough about African history, yet to me the concept of there being 'Black History' and 'White History' seems segregatory and damaging. Why divide history along the lines of race, surely 'your history is my history'.

I agree. The promotion of 'black history' by the Western state and media is part of a multiculturalist agenda which serves to promote human difference and 'diversity' over human commonality. The relativists who run the education system promote a type of non-universalist 'history' which is inevitably divisive and segregationary.

There is a postmodernist idea that there can be no such thing a common human history, and that everyone has their own particular historical interpretation. Black people have their own version of history, so do Muslims, so do Jews, so do Indians and Pakistanis, etc. Here, there can be no common and objective understanding of human history; there can only be various different interpretations, with each interpretation being as valid as the other. Because no one's interpretation is superior to the other, we should just celebrate each group's own interpretation of 'their' history.

Historical progress is not seen as the product of a common human achievement, but as the product of the input of various groups, who are all encouraged to emphasise their own particular input. For example, Muslim school students are pandered to by dedicating a whole part of the syllabus to the study of 'Islamic history'. With this relativist logic, therefore, the greatest contribution made to the history of the modern era (say, 1600-), which was by geographical accident made by Europeans, are to be celebrated as the achievement of the Europeans, rather than as the common achievement of mankind, to be reclaimed for all of mankind.

Is this way of viewing history really such an advance on the 19th century racist version? We need to move closer to the 'your history is my history' ideal. Contemporary relativist history moves us away from it - perhaps even further than the 19th century Eurocentrics.

[Noah]

In my school we are taught about black (well not really, it is one 15 minute assemply) people as part of the 'Black History Month' and then it is all forgotten about.

Black History Month is almost useless in raising awareness about the achievements of black people, it is simply a way for the government to say that they do respect black people and do recognise their achievements...But it's nothing more than a name for many schools.

Black History should be incorporated more into the usual school history, so that it is all history and there is no such thing between, black, white, brown & yellow history...How stupid.

[Hiero]

In the US, when they teach American history do they go into "Black history" as well? I would assume that for instance going into the 20th century they would talk about social change, such as the hippie movement, the Panthers, the Communist Party, Marcus Garvey's movement etc. Or do they reserve the "Black part" for Black History month?

[YSR]

Uh, Vanguard, I don't know where you're from, but here in the States, history is told in the tradition of the white colonialist capitalists. Black History Month is an admittedly useless thing, since it has been embraced by the powers-that-be.

But the idea of Black History (and insert-whatever-alternate History) is incredibly important, particularly in education. "History" as it is taught is full of racist lies and is predicated on passing mention of horrifying tragedies and massacres by the white imperialist powers ("Oh yeah, it sucks that the natives got killed off.") In order to preserve authentic memories and history of marginalized peoples, we should make a strong effort to make sure their voices are heard.

Your concerns of "relativist history" are completely unwarranted. If the myth of history is currently grounded in only one dominant perspective, who cares about there being too many perspectives? Seriously, you sound like one of those "color blind" conservatives.

[fashbash]

Well thanks for that, I'm glad it's not just me. When I asked my Nigerian friends, they went balistic. They said it was racist that I should say it was racist, and mye dear friend Debisi, who is proud to remind me she's a cappie, told me I was a silly Marxist boy. But then again, she is always happy to point out the differences between white folks and black folks, and when I suggest to do so is racist, she finds it amusing. Am I missing something here?

[Vanguard1917]

here in the States, history is told in the tradition of the white colonialist capitalists.

In what sense?


"History" as it is taught is full of racist lies

Examples?


is predicated on passing mention of horrifying tragedies and massacres by the white imperialist powers ("Oh yeah, it sucks that the natives got killed off.")

The European discovery of America was, in my opinion, one of humanity's greatest historical achievements. Due to the contradictions of the particular historical epoch in which the great discovery was made, it went together with the degradation and slaughter of the native Americans. Yes, we must recognise and expose the contradictions. But we can't, not for a single moment, deny humanity's enormous, pioneering achievement in discovering the continent.

Western history today is more likely to encourage students to be ashamed of humanity's historic achievements. It does this because it encourages an ahistorical understanding of historical developments. A relativist understanding of history is necessarily ahistorical - i.e. historical events are not viewed in their particular historical contexts, but are isolated and abstracted from all context. The discovery of America is not seen in the historical context of the emergence and expansion of a new revolutionary historical epoch (capitalism). As a result, the European massacre of the American natives is not seen as the side-effect of the particular contradictions of the particular historical epoch, but as a simplistic 'good and bad' morality tale. The class relations of the historical period are not held responsible; the very discovery itself is seen as responsible. That's the outcome of the ahistorical approach. It's alien to Marxism.


Your concerns of "relativist history" are completely unwarranted. If the myth of history is currently grounded in only one dominant perspective, who cares about there being too many perspectives? Seriously, you sound like one of those "color blind" conservatives.

History needs to be understood historically. Relativist understanding of history is necessarily - by very definition - ahistorical. Of course, we need to challenge the dominant, bourgeois understanding of history. But that does not mean advocating ahistorical, postmodernist versions of historical explanation, where everyone's own interpretation (blacks, whites, Jews, native Americans, Muslims, etc.) is seen as being equally valid to the next person's. Challenging bourgeois interpretations of history (which is metaphysical and ahistorical) means uncovering and discovering, in tradition of the Marxist method, very definite objective historical laws.

[Vanguard1917]

she is always happy to point out the differences between white folks and black folks, and when I suggest to do so is racist, she finds it amusing. Am I missing something here?

Racism is OK if it's expressed in the legitimate language of multiculturalism. People are not biologically different (because that is illegitimate, discreditted racism). People are culturally different (a legitimate and credible form of racism in respectable circles).

For example, compare the two arguments:

(i) African people are racially incapable of forming democratic organisations. (Unacceptable racism)

(ii) Democratic states fail in African countries because democracy is a phenomenon particular to Western culture and is alien to African culture. (Acceptable racism)

[La Comédie Noire]

Black History Month is okay here in the states. It would be better if they talked about more then just Martin Luther King Jr. and George Washington Carver. It always seems like they leave out such organizations as The Black Panthers, or such people as Malcom X except only when referring to what they think of as "reactionary violence". It's an insecure white person's denial of history and it must be stopped.

[Ol' Dirty]

How come "black" people have one month and "whites" get the rest of the entire fucking year? Because the whole purpose of "black history month" is to appease the oppressed "black" people in the United States so that rich "white" men don't have to worry about civil revolt. That's why the black community has to make every day black history day and take the calender back by removing the racist, fascistoid American elite, and make a new government that is really for the people and by the people like it says in the fucking declaration of independance that this country is supposedly founded upon.

Also, one has to define "black" before one makes grand assumptions. Ethiopians look almost Arab; hell, they could pass for fucking Indian if you brought them the NYC!

[Cryotank Screams]

I think the whole concept of race history month is racist, because it IS a form of segregating history via “race,” collectivism, and is a failure to analyze history in material terms, hence in any form it is wrong.

And really history that is taught in schools is illusory because it’s not talking about white history or the history of the entire europeans or the various myraid of people that made up european society, but just of the bourgeoisie, and the sterilization of their deeds, and exploits, and is a failure to indicate their crimes against their own people of lower social status and class and of other people abroad, so history that is taught should be looked upon as bourgeoisie history and not a specific people’s history or as a accurate portrait of an entire people's history, and that their shouldn’t be any history taught based on race collectivism, and their shouldn’t be any months celebrating any race, period.

[Comrade_Scott]

as a black person yes i think it is very racist. I know it sound silly but think about it does that mean every month is white history? NO, so shut the fuck up and treat me like an equal or get the hell out progressions way. We must look beyond this like Afro american?? wtf are you from africa?? noyou are american so stop calling youreself afro american because in doing that you help the racial divide you give off a sense that you dont belong. but thats just my point of view

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 10:27 pm
In the US, when they teach American history do they go into "Black history" as well? I would assume that for instance going into the 20th century they would talk about social change, such as the hippie movement, the Panthers, the Communist Party, Marcus Garvey's movement etc. Or do they reserve the "Black part" for Black History month?
Black history is partly included throughout the history books, yes. It often seems kinda tokenistic even when it's not limited to February. It always seems to have this feel that they're just sticking it in because they're supposed to, even though racism, slavery, etc., are totally central and tied up with everything else in U.S. history.

And they'll have their little moments of mentioning women, or the labor movement, or whatever, but usually as an aside to the main story, not part of it. After all, that main story is still the story of the capitalist class from its own viewpoint.

Black History Month always does have this limited, tokenistic feel - why isn't it just part of everything - but then again, if it didn't exist, probably some of this history wouldn't be taught at all.

It's one of those things that's a byproduct of the class struggle, but gets co-opted like a lot of other things.

A bit on the history of Black History Month:

In 1926, Carter G. Woodson created Negro History Week. The goal was to "popularize the truth...[we] are not interested so much in Negro History as in history influenced by the Negro." Dr. Woodson, considered by many to be the "Father of Black History," chose the second week in February because of the birthdays of Frederick Douglass, and Abraham Lincoln. The celebration of Negro History Week continued; however, in the early 1960s the word "Negro" was replaced with "black" and "African American." The week of celebration was then call "Black History Week." In 1976 America celebrated its Bicentennial, at this time, Black History Week became the celebration that we know as "Black History Month."
link (http://www.swagga.com/woodson.htm)

[Comrade_Scott]

mabey its because in jamaica its (history) is told as equaly as possible i feel that way. but i still feel black history month is there so that governments say hey were not racists we gave you this the shortest month :lol: its also because i feel that culture is a bad thing for the most part as africa has proven (Rwanda) with Tutsis and moderate Hutus killing each other for cultural and political reasons.
Then again mabey its because im young and not fully exposed but these are my views

[Morag]

I think that, just by educators and politicians feeling that they need a Black History Month, they are admitting that there is racism in the education system. I'm a history and politics student, and when I was in high school in Canada, different historical interpretations were included into the cirriculum in the form of debate. Was Louis Riel a hero, a traitor, or the leader of a legitimate uprising? Was Lenin a opportunist or was he really interested in changing the world? Blah blah blah. Black history came into it, but our classes were taught chronologically, not in sections dedicated to different groups. And really, that's how history should be taught. If your talking about American history from the mid-19th century until WWI, why seperate the different movements and tensions within the nation? All that does is give a segregated view of human history.

That doesn't mean that ethnic histories shouldn't be taught, but they shouldn't be taught as if there are only a few exceptions to the rule. When discussing European history, for example, we learn about things like the Industrial Revolution, as well as specific people. Entire movements, in other words, not just what some people, usually men, do. From what I've heard about the teaching of Black history (from a cousin of mine who attended school in Grenada, America, Canada and Ghana), when it is taught in America, it is entirely focused on singular people and not the cultural or historical settings that shaped them. As Severian posted,


In 1926, Carter G. Woodson created Negro History Week. The goal was to "popularize the truth...[we] are not interested so much in Negro History as in history influenced by the Negro."

If all histories were taught this way, not just white history, that would be the truest expression of knowledge of the past.

.......

Although, I am interested in the cirriculum that their teaching for Black History Month. I've recently been reading some criticisms of afrocentric history cirriculums, so if anyone has any links, I'd appreciate it.

[Raisa]

I think its a white joke.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 10:29 pm
From what I've heard about the teaching of Black history (from a cousin of mine who attended school in Grenada, America, Canada and Ghana), when it is taught in America, it is entirely focused on singular people and not the cultural or historical settings that shaped them.
I think that's usually true.



Although, I am interested in the cirriculum that their teaching for Black History Month. I've recently been reading some criticisms of afrocentric history cirriculums, so if anyone has any links, I'd appreciate it.

Curricula in the U.S. are often different in every school district.

[Janus]

The usefulness of this month is quite debatable. After all, it's more symbolic than actually useful or really followed up through just like Asian Heritage Month or Women's History Month.