I think people who want to get rid of Black History Month are only slightly less annoying than people who complain about Kwanzaa. Yes, it's true--Bob Johnson and Michael Jordan weren't what Carter G. Woodson had in mind. But the true mark of a movement's success is its descent into hackery. Black people don't get to pick and chose what aspects of America we want to integrate into. We have to take it all. 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.
Me on the other hand, I tired of black history month, circa 7th grade. True, I did do a recital of Marcus Garvey's "Look For Me In The Whirlwind" at the "Black Awareness Assembly" in 12th grade. But mostly when I think of Black History Month, I think of being made to watch footage of Negroes getting the shit kicked out of them, and then Negro teachers extolling the nobility of letting someone kick the shit out of you. You can imagine how well that went over in West Baltimore at the height of the Crack Age. And then there was, as one of my editors put it, the "I Am Somebody" bullshit, in which you were forced to memorize a litany of black achievement facts. The goal seemed to be to prove that my history took to rote for just as well as anybody's. I too can be reduced into a list of facts, America.
I'm thankful for some of that--Garret A. Morgan is forever etched on the brain. But what sucks is black history, as it was presented to us, was a kind of museum filled wit exhibits dedicated to the effects of oppression. It's been a great relief to read black history as an adult and find much more compelling, human stories. 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 couple of months ago, I finished Paula Giddings's incredible biography of Ida B. Wells. What a lovely book and what a heroic, brave woman. Ida Wells rode through the south with a pistol, investigating and reporting on lynchings. But the books true success lies not in extolling Wells's courage, but in this simple fact: When I finished reading, my conclusion was as follows: "Damn. I wouldn't have wanted to date Ida Wells. She's the sort of chick who'd have you beefing with some dude at the club."
That's a very irreverant reaction. And yet it showed, to me, how well Giddings had sketched her subject, had rescued her from "I Am Somebody" narrative and given her some rough edges, a sense of humor, some humanity. In other words, though much of Wells's career was a reaction to white racism, she came across as a fully realized person. If I could change anything about Black History Month, it would be that. Less hero worship. Less empty celebration of achievement. We need more people in our past, and less idols.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Well said, Ta-Nehisi. Now, ummm... rather than curse the darkness, how about lighting a few more candles?
You have, after all, access to a whole lot of eyeballs. There are great narratives and characters aplenty to be discovered on the Internets.
I've been over Black History Month for a long time precisely because it lacked the dimension you wrote about.
Because it's history doesn't mean, shouldn't have meant, the packaging of people and their lives so people could memorise and recite them.
I didn't know what Black History Month was until I came to the States in the 80s. Even then I didn't attend a Black History Month assembly until I became a high school teacher. I was struck by the lack of interest on the part of the students and by how the teachers and administrators, most of them anyway, seemed to be going through the motions.
The Carvers, Morgans, Douglases, Du Boises, Walkers, Wellses and Garveys deserve better, but their stories deserve better, also.
"We need more people in our past, and less idols."
I feel this way every time MLK Day rolls around. I revere Dr. King, his courage and his ideals, but I get uncomfortable with the way the man is deified.
Yes, he is a worthy hero for us all to try to emulate, but do that. Don't turn him into some sort of perfected, static image.
Appreciate him for his faults, as well. Faults teach us something about what we are as human beings.
And btw, TNC, it's "fewer" idols, not "less". 15 years of teaching English -- sorry.
"But the true mark of a movement's success is its descent into hackery."
Truer words, etc. etc. Also, there's a part of me that really hates the "iconification" of Martin Luther King. I feel like his radicalism has been devalued - but the truth is that some folks will dig deeper and some will just bask in the simplistic bullshit. Everything's like that. It's just more annoying when you care about something.
kids need to know that our ancestors, & current role models, were/are regular people doing extraordinary things, so that they will understand that they are capable of such things as well.
nothing is more humbling than seeing Obama smoking a joint :)
Can I just give a shout out to Taylor Branch's 3 volume civil rights epic, starting with "Parting the Waters."
It's relatively well-known and part of the "essential" bookshelf...but deserves a reminder recommendation.
Most of our secondary schools teach this type of lazy history, whether it's about George Washington or George Washington Carver. (English class, however, would call for "fewer" idols.)
nista206:
kids need to know that our ancestors, & current role models, were/are regular people doing extraordinary things, so that they will understand that they are capable of such things as well.
Absolutely. Although we need to remember how many people owe their wealth and power to keeping all of us from that understanding.
You'll notice, though, that American history in general is filled with "idols" rather than "people." Generally speaking, we do not take the whole person seriously in the high school version of history -- this may be a flaw, but not one unique to black history month.
I do take your point and have always agreed that creating blackness as merely the legacy of oppression is deeply reductive, but I don't think there's anything wrong with school children remembering heroes of the civil rights movements as, you know, heroes of the civil rights movement.
Well, we tend to iconify ALL our heroes. We tend to skip over George Washington's slave owning and don't emphasize that Abraham Lincoln was genuinely ambivalent about the black man's place in America. To me, the big thing about Black History Month is the idea that blacks actually have HAD a history. Before Black History Week- the predecessor to Black History Month- the conventional wisdom was that white people made history- black people just worked in the fields.
That said, we have to do a better job bof portraying her heroes in an interesting and human way- not just as plaster saints.
Republicans only HAVE the lazy history for vast portions of America; that's why they're so hopeless vis a vis race relations.
Not say that Dems are immune to that, either; nothing annoys me more than self-righteous twits who miss the humanity of the past and fail to apply it to the present. They know the words, but not the music.
This is why one of my all time favorites is The People's History of The United States. Say what you will about the book, but Zinn broke new ground by changing our perceptions of what a history book can be.
Great post. Minor nitpick (are we still doing that?)- should be "fewer idols" not less.
Ida: A Sword Among Lions is now on my reading list. Sounds excellent.
"When I finished reading, my conclusion was as follows: "Damn. I wouldn't have wanted to date Ida Wells. She's the sort of chick who'd have you beefing with some dude at the club."
What a Dick Armey thing to say.
This is why one of my all time favorites is The People's History of The United States. Say what you will about the book, but Zinn broke new ground by changing our perceptions of what a history book can be.
I concur 100%. I took a freshman history class in my senior year of high school and Zinn's book was required reading. I was blown away. It's amazing the crap they pass off as history in grade school. This book should be required high school reading.
I've always taken a pedagogical stance against Black History month. You don't teach Napoleon, Erik the Red, Caesar and Nixon together, so why teach Martin, Sojourner Truth and Crispus Attucks together?
One thing that's interesting (to me) about the whole "Black History Month" thing is that in some ways - even though it's only one month out of 12 - the specific emphasis on one of the most significant - if not "THE" most significant - arenas of democratic struggle in the history of the United States means that (or at least it's arguable IMHO that) kids of all races get a richer sense of black history than they do of the more generalized history of working class folks and minorities struggling for democratic rights outside of the sphere of slavery and segregation. I would bet that because of that designated month there are more teaching opportunities related to the civil rights movement than there are in an entire year of most standard curricula for teaching about US history from the perspective of labor vs capital.
"What a Dick Armey thing to say."
When TNC says that to her face on NPR - as opposed to in an ironic blog musing - he'll belong to the Dick Army.
This post hits some of the same points I made in a piece I wrote a while back: Why I Hate Black History Month.
http://tinyurl.com/b2vcsg
It's groundwork. It's lies-to-children. TNC rightly points out that there's more to the story, and you do everyone a disservice if you stop there.
But how much of the real story about, well, anything do you learn in K-12?
The whole idea of ethnic studies or multicultural studies comes from Alain Locke at Harvard. In some senses all aspects of these educational movements were meant to address the exclusion and marginalization of various groups from the mainstream academic discourse.
I believe integration was always the impetus behind these movements; that is, when the contributions, achievements, conflicts, struggles were considered an equal part of the wider discourse, such studies would lose their necessity. Until then, a repository of cultural heritage needed to be preserved, especially for the groups who, like Ralph Ellison's famous protagonist, were invisible. Of course, victimology and tokenism, the worst aspects of such studies were inevitable, in part because that kind of thinking already fit the mainstream discourse, as was empty iconography. Hoqever, weren't Joe Louis and Martin Luther King, Jr. already icons, despite their personal shortcomings of which many were well aware?
I still do not believe we live in a nation that has its history told often enough from non white, non privileged class, non Christian, non straight perspectives, but to the extent that we are moving in that direction, I as someone who is not African American, do appreciate, as I appreciate the civil rights movement, how the black community has taken a leadership role in institutionalizing their own visibility in the American consciousness.
I always see it as a time to investigate some of your community's history, especially parts not covered in your Texas History textbooks (yes, it's a 7th grade requirement in our fair state): from the origins of Juneteenth and related celebrations in Galveston to (in anticipation of the start of the baseball season) the popularizer and semi-inventor of the batting helmet, Austin's own Willie Wells.
Don't know what to think about that Ida beefin in the club comment. I haven't read the book, but that comment says more about its author's opinions on women with authority and moxy than it renders a deeper understanding of some personal aspect of Wells.
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
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.
"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.
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.
Deleted and banned for sockpuppetry and trolling. Again.
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.
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?)
"She's the sort of chick who'd have you beefing with some dude at the club." What does this mean?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Beckwourth
I recommend the First Black Man to be an Indian Chief
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.
"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.
"We need more people in our past, and less idols."
Spoken like a writer. Except, uh... that should be "fewer" idols.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.