Small donations have HUGE consequences. Senior Editor Laura Washington explains why.
ZoomZoom InZoom OutPrintDiscuss
Views > January 29, 2006

Black History Month Matters

By Salim Muwakkil

Some critics contend Black History Month is irrelevant because it has degenerated into a shallow ritual.
Tags   

While reading an interesting story in the New York Observer about the overwhelming whiteness of the magazine industry, I noticed the prevalence of the phrase “people of color.” This term has become ubiquitous among progressives as an inclusive nomenclature for non-white people. Ironically, it’s a variation of the now discredited term “colored people,” once used to identify African Americans.

These days, of course, a person of color could be anyone of non-European stock. Were magazines inspired to take affirmative action and employ more people of color, they could end up with not a single African American on staff.

On one level, this blurring of affirmative action categories may seem to be a good thing—a merging of difference. But in real world America, this practice has allowed us to postpone addressing the lengthening legacy of our racist past and provides another example of why Black History Month still matters.

African Americans, as a distinct ethnic variation in the African diaspora, were created by slavery. Millions of Africans wound up in America only because they were kidnapped to fill the needs of a slave economy. This process forged a new people, who became American by necessity, and included 12 generations of chattel slavery. For nearly 250 years, American culture dehumanized those it enslaved and, more insidiously, socialized generations of African Americans for enslavement. The nation’s economic reliance on slavery mandated a rigid and pitiless racial hierarchy.

The century of official Jim Crow segregation that followed slavery’s abolition did little to end African Americans’ social isolation or alter reigning cultural biases. Because of this unrelenting social hostility, the hyphen that connects African to American connotes dueling as well as dual identities. Slavery’s damaging legacy includes the social implications of that internal duel.

A thorough examination of this history would help clarify how the past influences our present of African-American disparity. Affirmative action is a compensatory program designed to begin that process. By blurring people of color into one mass, those complicated historical distinctions get lost.

President Lyndon Johnson zeroed in on the program’s focus in a famous 1965 speech at Howard University. “You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, ‘you are free to compete with all the others,’ and still justly believe that you have been completely fair.” Johnson made this speech urging affirmative action a year after passage of the Civil Rights Bill had done little to weaken resistance to equal employment.

But since many Americans lacked a perspective informed by blacks’ peculiar history, other groups had to be included to gain political support for affirmative action. Instead of a program focused on the descendants of enslaved Africans, as originally designed, affirmative action became a comprehensive attempt to offset discrimination against all “minorities”—a term so fuzzy, it includes even white women.

Any program seeking broad remedies for unfair biases is worthy, but the original rationale for affirmative action was much narrower and justified by African Americans’ unique history. Black History Month is an outgrowth of Negro History Week, established by black historian Carter G. Woodson in 1926. He designated the second week in February to mark the birthdays of both Frederick Douglass and Abraham Lincoln. The week was expanded to a month in 1976, as part of the nation’s Bicentennial commemoration. The intent was to feature the racial aspects of our common history.

Some critics argue that sanctioning a racially distinct observation moves Americans away from a common history. African-American actor Morgan Freeman expressed this sentiment in a recent interview on CBS’ “60 Minutes” when he said it was “ridiculous” to have a month dedicated to black history. “I don’t want a black history month,” he said. Freeman’s objection is common, although not often expressed by African Americans—at least not publicly. I have no hard poll numbers, but I suspect most black Americans feel the monthly observation has symbolic importance, even if it has little practical application.

Some critics contend Black History Month is irrelevant because it has degenerated into a shallow ritual. But that problem is one of execution not design. If treated seriously, the monthly observation could conceivably trigger more concern for the accuracy of traditional school curricula.

In fact, that already has happened in Philadelphia where, starting this September, public school students will be required to pass a course in African-American history before they can graduate. Knowledge of that formative history is so essential to understanding the nation’s character, we should utilize all public institutions to ensure all Americans know from whence they came.

Salim Muwakkil is a senior editor of In These Times, where he has worked since 1983, and an op-ed columnist for the Chicago Tribune. He is currently a Crime and Communities Media Fellow of the Open Society Institute, examining the impact of ex-inmates and gang leaders in leadership positions in the black community.

More information about Salim Muwakkil
Tags   
  • subscribe to print magazine

  • Reader Comments

    Slavery is over and America has changed.

    1965, Univ of Alabama football team (0 black players)

    1973, Univ of Alabama football team (11 black players)

    1979, Univ of Alabama football team (19 black players)

    2005, Univ of Alabama football team (54 black players)

    And out of 22 starters (Def & Off) .... 15 of the starters are black.

    Ya ... I would say we have made progress when it comes to race relations in America.

    Posted by tina1 on Jan 31, 2006 at 10:06 AM

    Thanks Salim, great article

    Posted by theloneous on Jan 31, 2006 at 10:35 AM

    Are blacks who were for nearly 250 years ill-paid, ill-housed and ill-treated supposed to feel tranquil and happy now that they can drink from the same water fountains as white people, or play football with white people?

    Come on tina1, as Katrina proved, one’s race/class determined who would live and who would die. The poor blacks lived in the below-sea level Ninth Ward, whereas the wealthy whites lived on the high ground and were spared death and severe emotional distress.

    Posted by Liberal on Jan 31, 2006 at 4:14 PM

    The fact that black people are in writing seen equal before the law did NOTHING to improve race relations in this country. A law can end discrimination, but not prejudice against or discomfort with another race. The onus is on the people of this country to create bonds between all of mankind. I know tina1 will not participate, as she thinks racial injustice and inequality magically disappeared in 1965.

    Posted by Liberal on Jan 31, 2006 at 4:17 PM

    [url="http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060206/zirin" ]
    Strength in numbers---go team![/url]

    Posted by wileywitch on Jan 31, 2006 at 11:00 PM
  • extended discussion >>>Continued...

    Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 16 posts.

Join Here
Member Login

Forgot password?

Article Appeared in this Issue

Full contents
Past issues


Donate now
and get a
free, signed copy
of Rick Perlstein's new book Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America!

Popular Discussions