One cannot log on to the Internet, listen to talk radio (of all political persuasions) come across a number of blogs and other forms of media without encountering a discussion on Black History month. Interestingly, for some reason, right after Martin Luther King Jr. day and right up to the latter part of February, the topic is one that captivates certain segments of the American public like white on rice. It seems that many people, across generations — senior citizens to millennials — the entire political spectrum — far left to far right — have an opinion.
And yes, I have decided to weigh in on the debate as well.
As many people know by now, Black History Month was an event begun as a proposal by renowned Historian Carter G.Woodson in 1925 as an effort to showcase the talents, contributions, history and other facets of African-American life that had been largely obscured, if not entirely ignored by the larger mainstream public. Woodson was mildly successful in the fact that an event known as “Negro History Week” was established in 1926 to coincide with the birthdays of two legendary Americans — Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass. This would largely be the extent of the celebration of the contributions of people of African descent for another 50 years, until 1976, when Congress, along with the enthusiastic support of President Gerald Ford, decided to expand the event to become what we know today as “Black History Month.” This would be a month-long exercise for Americans of all ethnic groups to acknowledge an often neglected group of people with a long, tormented, complex and distinguished history. This is how the event is perceived today.
As I see it, the most common types of groups associated with Black History Month are the following: traditionalists, fence-sitters and dissenters.
Traditionalists — These are the men and women who tend to be avid consumers of Black culture. They often faithfully attend events and programs showcasing African-American culture in all its forms. They are often well-versed and aware of the political, social, cultural and aesthetic issues facing Black people past and present. The level of passion for and dedication to Black culture is evident. These are the people who see Black History Month as a vital ingredient to ensure and complete the rich fabric of Black people. Their political ideologies range from staunch nationalists to passionate integrationists. Many Black professors and politicians are a part of this group.
Fence-Sitters — The motto for people in this category is, “Some of it I like, some of it I don’t.” These are the individuals who see a need for Black History Month, yet are wary of what they see as certain excesses and motivations (perhaps opportunism) of some men and women who claim to be spokespersons for the cause. Moreover, they tend to harbor a degree of skepticism about a culture (read mainstream White culture) that tends to relegate the contributions of a group of Americans to one month and then tends to largely ignore or dismiss their concerns for the remainder of the year. In fact, some find such a situation insulting. Actor Morgan Freeman falls into this category.
Dissenters — These are the people who believe that Black Americans have progressed to the point to where there is not a need for such an event. They see Black History Month as supposedly “divisive,” unnecessary, and in some cases, “racist.” They are also more inclined to believe that Black Americans are no longer suffering from residential, economic, educational and other forms of systematic discrimination. These are the people who subscribe to the belief that America is now in a post-racialist stage and that racial discrimination is no longer the social cancer that it once was. To be sure, there are a number of Blacks, including a notable number of millennials (those born after 1980), a few Black conservatives and some post racialists of all races who are representative of this category. There are problems with all three positions.
