Should Black History Month Be History? - by Philip

Now that America has elected its first African-American president, an increasing number of people all over this great land of ours are asking the same question: Do we really need Black History Month any more? This sentiment is not just coming from people who voted for David Duke –one or two of whom I see at family reunions– but from lots of mainstream bloggers and Facebook activists. So now that America has become the first majority-white nation in history to elect an African-American as president (Okay, I think I need to say “black” here because no other country could actually elect an African-American, could it?), does that mean that it’s time to abolish this slightly time-honored tradition? Let’s look at the facts.

Item: Now that we have elected an African-American to lead our nation, we are finally able to say that black people can rise to any position that they want – except, of course, a leading role on any TV network other than the CW. Other item: The NAACP has now decided to stop focusing exclusively on America, and to begin advancing colored people worldwide, which clearly means that they believe that they have completed their mission here at home. If they no longer think that American people of color need help advancing, then why should the month of February still care? Final item: McDonald’s recently aired a commercial with an actual, live white person in it, which means that they must have come to the conclusion that all races are now equal. Check and mate. But I suppose that we should take a look at the flip side of this coin. (Hey, there’s another place we don’t have any black people – our currency! I assume this is now in the works.)



In the “con” column of the debate to stop observing Black History Month is the fact that white presidents still outnumber black presidents 43-to-1. Would you bet your life savings on those odds at the racetrack? That’s assuming you still have a life savings. It’s also a con that black and white facilities were kept separate (but totally equal) until 1964. This led to a lot of angered African-Americans yelling at whites to get to the front of the bus so that they could maintain control of all those good seats way at the back. It also freaks me out that up until 1972, the year I turned 4, doctors in Alabama experimented on black people without their knowledge, though this did lead to breakthroughs in how to lie to patients about their condition: "I'm afraid you have a condition called 'bad blood.' Since it's contagious, I'll have to ask you to use the bathroom at the gas station down the street." And, as many people know, the aforementioned David Duke, who was once the Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, received 38% of the general vote in the 1991 Louisiana gubernatorial election and 55% of the white vote. As a reminder, 1991 occurred approximately 18 years ago.

It seems clear that no one would think that the “pro” column outweighs the “con” column in this debate, with the possible exception of 55% of Louisiana’s white population. (Hi, Uncle Roy!) So I have to come to the conclusion that we can still benefit from continuing Black History Month. But I would go even further. (Or is it “farther?”) We should move it to January. Not only does it make more sense because that's the month when when observe Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birthday, but it would also be nice to start out each year with a reminder not to repeat the mistakes of our very recent past. Plus, this would give Black History month an extra 2-3 days, which would help us to learn just that much more about George Washington Carver. Did you know that he didn’t actually invent the peanut? It’s true! But regardless of when or how we observe it, Black History Month is still a relevant and important part of our national heritage. I’m as sure of this as anyone could be who is trying to assuage his white guilt by protesting too much about racism in a blog.