I Survived Another Black History Month

And to the OP of this thread, I wonder if they'd be willing to carefully explain, in excruciating detail, exactly how hard this Black History Month has been on you and what it did that apparently is causing you so much unbearable, unending and relentless pain that you felt the need to make a thread on how you managed to survive the horrors of a commemorative month that has been around longer than most of us here.

Please, I'd love to know how much worse off your life is because of BHM.

 

Who said that it is meant to be "the end all be all"? As far as I can tell, you're the only one that has made that claim, which means you're making a straw argument.

furthermore, it's not because Morgan Freeman is saying it, but rather what is being said. He makes a very good argument against having black history month, as does Stacey Dash in that clip. It's not meant to be the only argument made, or somehow representative of blacks in general. It is to be taken in the context of one person explaining why black history month is stupid, or the other (Stacey Dash) calling it hypocritical and segregationist.

The historical reasoning behind having a negro history week is ludicrous. You don't need a special week or month out of the year in order to become educated on the history of blacks. The library is open to anybody that can be quiet and respectful of other people, and they are open throughout the year. In other words, you don't need negro history week or black history month to get an education on blacks.

You cannot say this because you are only capable of speaking for yourself. Other people, be they black, brown, or green can speak for themselves. Now if you personally want to "celebrate" the history of blacks, then have fun! Nobody has ever stopped you, nor did they stop your parents or their parents or their parents before them.

 

November

September

May.

 

There is no point in our history when society has been "color blind," present times included.

 

Posters and people all over have used it as an end all be all" on several occasions, at least twice on this board I can remember.

I don't listen to Stacey Dash or anything she has to say, mainly because she's wrong and because I doubt she cares much about our history. More importantly, it's not hypocritical unless you happen to have some misguided issue with it. If it's because other groups don't have one, then feel free to google them, as I've mentioned previously in this thread. Also, Freeman's reasoning is actually understandable but that doesn't negate BHMs purpose nor does it mean black people don't do it already.

I do believe I mentioned Negro History Week starting in 1926, at a time when black people still didn't have it good, so looking for things in a library would prove difficult. True, a week or month is not a requirement, but as I already said it doesn't negate its purpose. Furthermore, if anyone has an issue they should take it up with Carter G. Woodson, since it was his idea. The only problem is he hasn't been alive for some time.

Good to know, though I'm sure if you asked the average black person they'd probably not be concerned with what non-blacks have to say about it.

 

Because all of those groups have a sense of identity and no longer feel the need to play the victim.

 

Maybe because they find Freeman's argument compelling enough that no others are needed. If you or somebody else wants to tackle his argument, then good luck! You have yet to do that. What you did was rebut some idea that others have made about it being an "end all be all". That isn't rebutting Freeman's argument, but have merely said that it's not the only argument against having black history month.

Personally, I agree with you. There are many very good arguments against having it, as there are for having it.

Right off the bat, I'm wondering how you know she's wrong if you don't listen to her? Furthermore, why does it matter if she cares about "our history"? Her personal feelings don't effect her argument.

She says that it's hypocritical because she believes that there would be a backlash against a white history month by many of the same people who appreciate having a black history month. I personally don't care, and think it can be a good idea, much like when my kids were still in school and it was homework time. So you have a homework month to study the history of blacks. This is not a bad thing, just as it's not a bad thing to have a specific time set in order to study the war of the roses. It's not going to be important to most people to learn about a war waged between royal families from way back in the day. However, it can be good to set a time to study things you might be interested in.

Why would it matter if black people didn't have it so good in 1926? They can still study stuff in between being told to pick cotton or sit in the back of the bus.

Nobody cares about Carter G. Woodson because he no longer advocates studying negro history during a specific week of the year. It's people who still think it's a good thing that some disagree with.

Yes, like all races, there are some blacks who place an emphasis on skin color rather than the ideas that people might have. It's a form of racism, and they're free to be as racist as anybody else.

 

A color blind society is the goal.
And it won't happen while the gov't keeps tabs on us by color

 

Okay then. However, him celebrating being black 365 does not negate its purpose.

Which is funny because the topic of White History Month almost never comes up until someone mentions Black History Month. No one cares about it until that specific time.

Okay then, that's not bad.

If they could find things, which I'm sure they could. Why they'd still be picking cotton 60 years after slavery was abolished is a mystery.

I can see that.

I meant in terms of whether they care or not what other people think about it.

 

We all have a sense of identity. The problem with blacks is that they have a very negative view of their own history. The things many focus on with the history of blacks in america are negative, and this isn't really healthy for people who don't have the perspective required to learn some few dark truths. Yes, the blacks were enslaved, just as every race has been enslaved at one point or another.

This perspective is lost on a lot of black americans because they haven't been taught the entire history of slavery. They just know that kunta kinte was owned by some white guy who told him that his new slave name was Toby, and to get back in the cotton fields.

A major problem is that most of black history is prehistory because there is no written account of what happened way back in the day. Their history basically starts with slavery because that's when most first encountered a written language. So yeah, a lot of it is shackles and whips and slave auctions. Not exactly the kinda stuff to have a lot of pride in, especially when confronted with the fact that the native Americans actually refused to become slaves, which is why they imported Africans who were generally much more understanding when it came to the idea of slavery.

Do you think it would be a good idea if black history month focused more on the benefits that American blacks currently enjoy compared to their African relatives who weren't lucky enough to be brought over in slave ships and taught about Jesus and modern agriculture?

 

All American groups clearly somewhat lose their identities, Blacks aren't unique in this aspect.

Most groups don't hold onto their traditions, nor language, very well, after a few generations.

Basically the United States is an English speaking country, with a culture of Capitalist junk.

- - - Updated - - -

Would this colorblind society, also have no Jews in it?

 

\
Why a month when it could have been done in 3 minutes. That is unless you want to include the carnage in Chicago, Newark, Gary, Baltimore, Birmingham etc etc etc.

 

Let see 3 minutes you are going to cover the contribution of two hundred thousands black soldiers in the civil war alone?

Or three minutes for the contributions of blacks in the Spain American war or world war one or world war 2 or........

To say nothing of the so call buffalo soldiers who took a large part in winning the west from the Indians tribes.

An that is only some of the blacks contributions to the US military.

Every minute of every day lives are being save around the world by the use of blood transfusions that to a large degree was develop by Charles R. Drew a black doctor and researcher.

So all this you are going to cover in three minutes?

 

I have no problem with blacks having their own black history month. But I don’t see how that is necessary in order for them to learn their history. History classes are available everywhere, libraries are open to everyone, the internet makes research a snap.

And, imo, there is absolutely NO reason for black history to be featured on so many broadcast venues. For the entire month there are “black movies” on many channels, on talk radio there are never-ending interviews with black “somebodies.” It just feels so overdone, like we can’t get away from it. And it’s the same old crap, over and over. MLK speeches or blurbs, Malcolm X rehashes. Just the same few things, refried, endlessly. It could easily be done in one, single, black history day. It would be fine if they would confine it to BET or other black outlets — anyone who was interested in black history could easily find it. But there’s no need to devote so much attention to it on the other media outlets and inflict it on the rest of us for a whole stinking month.

 

It has been explained to me in various ways by multiple American black folks that they really don't have a sense of identity. They don't even want to be referred to as African american. Much of this stems from that they are looked down upon and viewed as inferior by native Africans.

It is sad when a group of peoples strongest sense of self is the most negative part of their past. Unless or until they can let go and move forward we are all fighting an uphill battle. Yes the rest of us can do better but it is up to them to demand better of themselves before further meaningful progress can be made.

 

The problem I have with it is that there is no corresponding maths month or philosophy month or science month. We only have 12 of those bad boys, and in terms of importance, black history deserves maybe a day out of the year.

Where would black history study time rank if we were to start listing and evaluating that list for things that are important enough to focus upon? The protestant reformation would rank much higher, as would the history of Christianity as a whole. How many days do we assign to Aristotle? How about oceanography day? Darwin week! MLK has a day, but Einstein doesn't?

Who the hell came up with the annual syllabus we currently have, because they're obviously idiots!!!!!

 

All fine and good and even true but once more blacks as a group had been treated as far less then human for hundreds of years in this country and a black history month as a token offset seems no big deal for the rest of us to honor.

 

Yes they served but the effectiveness of such service is clearly in question. The 92nd in WW2 got it's butt handed to them by off all things the Italian 4th Alpine division and could barely make headway against an a German reserve division, the 148th with most of men in this unit in their late 30's and 40's without help.

BTW Charles Drew did NOT develop blood transfusion, he improved the technology thereof. He certainly did not invent it.

- - - Updated - - -

It's the historical revisionism that's the problem.

 

Then let's accept it for what it is, which is a month for people who don't realize that a specified study time for a particular subject is not a legitimate purvey of the state. It's toothless "legislation" that intelligent people can forget because intelligent people know that they can study whatever they want, and at any time they want.

If blacks are happy with token legislation that seemingly elevates their status in the country without actually doing anything to truly elevate them beyond mere tokens, then I guess they're happy.

But then we get back to Morgan Freeman's argument. He doesn't like being turned into a token month of study time, and finds it incredibly demeaning, which I can certainly understand.

 

LOL love the attempts to degrade the standing of some very very brave and good soldiers.

Who was not treated well and yet bleed along with other Americans in one war after another.

But if you care to do so we can go over in details every battle that black Americans was involved in.

footnote where did I stated that the good doctor invented blood transfusions instead of helping developed it to the point it was a useful tool in saving lives on a very massive scale?

Another very weak attempt to degrade a black man contribution to the human race.

 

Should we start with the preformed of the Buffalo Soldiers in the Spain and American war and how they compare with Roosevelt white rough riders?

 

No hyphenated America? I didn't know Teddy Roosevelt was a racist.

 

That was necessary because society wasn't, and still isn't, color blind.

 

Was.

Is it still necessary?
Gov't, or anyone counting color is impeding a color blind society.
"They" keep making color an issue.

 

Not attempts to degrade, just the performance issues. The majority wanted to serve and served to the best of their abilities and as such are patriotic Americans. The performance of the all Black units at the Pusan Perimeter was so atrocious that the USMC came very close to firing on their own soldiers. Instead they just ignored them and were made essentially non-entitities in that battle. Granted their motivation to fight was poor and their leadership less than optimal. This is not about the patriotism of Black soldiers, it's about the real record of accomplishment. An analogy would be comparing the Cleveland Browns to the Patriots. Both are in the NFL, but only one is multi-world champion. In WW2 there are simply no large all Black units comparable to the 1st USMC division, the Big Red One or the 82nd airborne. For the Brits, the 7th Armored comes to mind. In comparison, man for man, the Germans produced numerous large first class units. The SS divisions were by and far excellent formations. Even their regular infantry units were good and often gave more than they got. I'd also learn about the differences between a regiment vs a division and larger unit in terms of manpower.

There is no doubt Dr. Drew's work saved lives, but the myth is that he developed transfusion technology. He did not and wartime use of transfusion preceded his work by years. There is also the myth that he died because he was refused a transfusion. That is a false claim and did not happen.