Why We Should Eliminate All History Months

 

Many people do not like history, because they feel marginalized by it. It always seems that some rich anglosaxon white guy did everything. However, at the cost of making people feel less marginalized, we marginalize "the disadvantaged" even more by creating history months for them.

 

That's why we have history months like Women's and Black history month. One, the idea that people have to be honored because they are "disadvantaged" is absurd. History should be told like it was, as closely as possible. If someone was important then give them credit, if someone was not that important (no matter who they are) do not give them credit. When we start asigning value to people because of their sex, ethnicity, or ect, we start making our teaching of history dishonest.

 

However, it gets worse. On television or in school during a "history month" you usually hear the same old thing: that guy who invented peanut butter or the blind/deaf girl who learned to say water. Though their importance is debatable (Carver's development of synthetic chemicals was truly important), that is not the point. When you "celebrate diversity" by talking about the same couple of people who seemed not to do all that much, you just marginalize the "disadvantage group" more so.

 

Think about it. I was watching the Rochester Fox Network and they were doing their part in celebrating "Black History Month: honoring famous African Americans." Its annoying enough they say black and african american in the same sentence (blacks are black as much as whites are white), but whenever they talked about some person, all they did was write a book or a play. Every single person they mentioned was an entertainer.

 

So if people are "affected" enough by history to be "marginalized" from it, is it too out of the realm of possibility for a kid to come to the conclusion of, "All that blacks are good for is entertaining people and inventing peanut butter..."

 

Both are just as likely, and such "marginalization" can be avoided by jsut teaching history honestly. If all the person did was write a book, you are not doing anyone a favor by saying their name proudly. I could not stand in school the moment February hit, we would have to read about the Harlem Renaissance. There is nothing wrong with reading "A Raisin In The Sun" (hell, it's more entertaining than Shakespeare), but to purposely set a month aside for that and a couple of poems that are not about anything more than having black skin is ridiculous.

 

Maybe people just do not like thinking hard enough. February is the shortest month of the year, maybe that is why they make it Black History Month. They are too lazy to think of anything else, but entertainers like Bill Cosby and that guy who said "dynomite." I can just imagine when it's a leap year, "Oh my God, we have to think up of another one? Did we do Jimi Hendrix yet?"

 

The worst part is how they always honor probably the most effective anti-black person of his era, Booker T. Washington. A man who openly said that blacks are hundreds of years behind whites and should therefore have no equal standing (with that of white people) is no heroic historical figure. He's just another guy who held back the march towards equality. At times they mention Du Bois, so that is good, but he does not nearly get enough credit.

 

 

 

So just teach history, do not start honoring people by making "their achievements" seem marginal and not worthwhile. Want to teach black history? Talk about Du Bois when you teach about the late 1800s. Want to teach women's history? Quite possibily one of the most influential women of her era was Queen Isabella of Castile, she even dominated her husband's country! Sadly, we will never see the end of "history months" until we evolve socially.

that should win non sports post of the year

 

anyways, i see your point

people as a group should not be pushed into one month. we can see the effect of blacks and women and hispanics every day, so why do we have to give them a month?

 

speaking of black history month: does anyone know why it is in february? winner gets a pat on the back

You obviously miss the point. History as it has been told has been told from the view of the majority (in our case, the anglo-saxon male). Their accomplishments have been given more attention than others. Their accomplishments have been told in heroic tales that go further to establish the dominance of the culture of the majority's persuasion. Throughout time the accomplishments of minorities have been looked down upon, either as not deserving the attention or praise in some form of resentment. Those of the majority culture who might have assisted are given credit (and, IMO, properly due in most aspects, a minority would be a no-name due to lack of access), while the minority assistants, or forefathers, aren't given credit for their help. Do you follow me? One egregious example is the role that many Asian cultures had in developing the sciences (language, medical, mathematics, and more) has been almost swept from the history books in preference of telling a story how the knowledge was handed down from the Romans and Greeks (who weren't particulary modern European then as they are now) to be rediscovered towards the end of the European Middle Ages. It's true that the Greeks (not so much the Romans) did develop much of the basis of the modern sciences, but their work was ignored by the West for thousands of years and were used, along with knowledge from South Asia, Africa and China by Jews, Arabs and Byzantine Christians (who added their own ideas, the Kabbalah is a landmark work in the progress of the sciences) to be passed on.

 

Sure, it's a bit kitschy to dedicate months to recognize them. And a better way to recognize the accomplishments would be to change how we think every day. But given the alternatives, a month of dedicating school and community events to allow people to explore cultures that have been hidden from mainstream sources doesn't seem so bad.

Obviously, you miss the point:

"If someone was important then give them credit, if someone was not that important (no matter who they are) do not give them credit. When we start asigning value to people because of their sex, ethnicity, or ect, we start making our teaching of history dishonest."

 

If you start giving months "to a people" you imply they are somehow different than other people (but we are all people nonetheless.) Furthermore, if by "honoring 'them'" that means reading poetry about black-ness and learning about a thousand entertainers that weren't that damn important, that is not honoring, that's patronizing an ethnicity.

 

Give whoever that accomplished something their due credit. Do not assign more credit for someone because of their ethnicity. This is a purely non-racist stance. however, with history months the patronizing of blacks and the teaching of things that are not necessarily good for blacks makes the idea of a history month a bad thing.

 

So my response to you is reiterating my original argument.

The first point true enough. However unless you can find a way to fight against our cultural biases that have put all at disadvantage at failing to understand the diverse cultures that not only are present in our communities but that our communities are actually built upon, without going the whole white guilt stretching for multiculturalism thing I don't see where you offer any insight.

However unless you can find a way to fight against our cultural biases that have put all at disadvantage at failing to understand the diverse cultures that not only are present in our communities but that our communities are actually built upon, without going the whole white guilt stretching for multiculturalism thing I don't see where you offer any insight.

 

PAtronizing blacks or women does not help the disadvantaged that's my point. We should simply give credit when credit is due. History months only perpetuate the marginaliztion of contributions made by blacks, females, and ect.

It's not dedicating a month to put greater focus on segment of history or not that's patronizing minorities. It's the stories that are told. Much like how many pop-culture historians like to skip from the reconstruction era straight to the stock market crash of 1929 with little stupid stories like the Scopes evolution trial ignoring the whole labor movement. Rosa Parks (no disrespect, that took a lot of courage) really isn't that important story in the history of blacks in this country. There is plenty of talk about the lack of political access in the south, but absolutly none about the lack of economic access to blacks nationwide. Supposedly because it's a touchy subject. There's enough touchy subjects to fill out 28 days, but are avoided to retell the cutesy George Washington Carver, or like your Queen Isabella (when hasn't there been powerful Queens?) suggestion.

Queen Isabella (when hasn't there been powerful Queens?) suggestion.

She's pretty up there, but we like to think of Queen Elizabeth who rules 100 years after Queen ISabella flexed her muscle.

 

It's not dedicating a month to put greater focus on segment of history or not that's patronizing minorities. It's the stories that are told. Much like how many pop-culture historians like to skip from the reconstruction era straight to the stock market crash of 1929 with little stupid stories like the Scopes evolution trial ignoring the whole labor movement. Rosa Parks (no disrespect, that took a lot of courage) really isn't that important story in the history of blacks in this country. There is plenty of talk about the lack of political access in the south, but absolutly none about the lack of economic access to blacks nationwide. Supposedly because it's a touchy subject. There's enough touchy subjects to fill out 28 days, but are avoided to retell the cutesy George Washington Carver...

But you said it yourself. The unhonest telling of history (avoiding the massive labor movement, defranchisement of blacks but most notably and importantly taking away their education, the civil rights movement, and ect.) is the problem. The idea of the history month is to compensate for unhonest teaching of history, but in result unhonest interpretation of history is only perpetuated. That's why history month's are not the answer.

 

Would you support a fully honest teaching of history and a black history month that was honest? However, if the telling of history is honest, the need for the month itself dissappears, so any way you look at it, the history month is a flawed concept.

If your against months, what about days?

 

I rarely see anyone trying to get rid of Christopher Columbus day when all it is, is an Italian Pride Day while MLK JR day is attacked more than Bobbit's short comings.

I think martin luther king day should be called "civil rights day" as furman put it. Columbus day is celebrated throughout the continent, so its more than an "italian pride day." It really isn't a useful holiday so I wouldn't care if it went away.

There should be no Columbus day (although only banks and DMVs celebrate it). The guy might have discovered "America", but he did it by accident, and he did too much to the natives for me to celebrate him. He committed genocide on the natives, and was a bit of an idiot at that. Everyone grows up learning that he was brave enough to believe that the world was round. Truth be told, most people believed it to be round, but Columbus thought it was a lot smaller than it really was. If it weren't for America, he'd be dead. Without Columbus, someone else would have found it (I mean, the Vikings, led by Leif Erikson, found it earlier).

I think martin luther king day should be called "civil rights day" as furman put it. Columbus day is celebrated throughout the continent, so its more than an "italian pride day." It really isn't a useful holiday so I wouldn't care if it went away.

And yes, MLK day should be Civil Rights day.

There should be no Columbus day (although only banks and DMVs celebrate it). The guy might have discovered "America", but he did it by accident, and he did too much to the natives for me to celebrate him. He committed genocide on the natives, and was a bit of an idiot at that. Everyone grows up learning that he was brave enough to believe that the world was round. Truth be told, most people believed it to be round, but Columbus thought it was a lot smaller than it really was. If it weren't for America, he'd be dead. Without Columbus, someone else would have found it (I mean, the Vikings, led by Leif Erikson, found it earlier).

I agree, columbus was laughed out of portugal because his idea to go west to asia was insane. he's damn lucky to run into another two continents.

Would you support a fully honest teaching of history and a black history month that was honest? However, if the telling of history is honest, the need for the month itself dissappears, so any way you look at it, the history month is a flawed concept.

The telling of history will never be completly honest, but that aside you overlook the impact that cultural evens have in the community. Throughout this month many people have meaningful experiences all because they take time out of their year to go to a pan-African street festival, or visit a plantation or read a piece of black literature they might have not had.

I remember my fourth grade class (I should note that fourth grade history focused on Maryland history) took us to a plantation where indentured servants worked. Every Spring when February and St. Patrick' Day comes around, I recognize the similarities of the Irish immigrant with the slave. Obviously slaves had it worse, and their descendents are worse off as a result, but I understand their struggle beyond the names and dates because of that one day.

Blacks still undergo oppression and segregation in huge proportions in the US, despite being "freed" by Abe Lincoln over a hundred years ago. Black history month is the celebration of a culture of people who were enslaved and forced to far away land. Can any of us whites possibly imagine what its like to be in a place that initially enslaved you, and you still undergo racism in your evereyday lives? No, we cannot because we are the majority race and its really not even possibly to understand the disposition.

 

African Americans were so dehumanized and their history so distorted in academia that "slavery, peonage, segretation and lynching" were considered justifiable conditions.? In fact, Professor John Burgess, the founder of Columbia University graduate school of Political Science and an important figure in American scholarship defined the African race as "a race of men which has never created any civilization of any kind..."? It was this kind of climate and the sensational, racist scholarship that inspired the talented and brilliant African American scholar, Dr. Carter Godwin Woodson to lead the struggle and search for the truth and institutionalize what was then referred to as "Negro History Week". A Harvard trained Ph.D., Dr. Woodson dropped out of mainstream academia to devote his life to the scientific study of the African experience in America, Africa and throughout the world.? Under Woodson's direction and contributions from other African American and white scholars, the "Negro History Week" was launched on a serious platform in 1926 to neutralize the apparent ignorance and deliberate distortion of Black History. Meetings, exhibitions, lectures and symposia were organized to climax the scientific study of the African experience throughout the year in order to give a more objective and scholarly balance in American and World history.

 

Today, this national and international observance has been expanded to encompass the entire month of February. The expansion, of course, has increased the number of days for celebration, but its strength and importance lie in the new meaning that has emerged. As Ralph L. Crowder points out in an article in the December 1977 issue of the Western Journal of Black Studies, "it is no longer sufficient to devote the entire month to the celebration of great Negro contributions to the American mainstream."

 

I believe, like Dr. Crowder, that it is necessary to use the occasion to examine the collective ingenuity, creativity, cultural and political experience of the masses of Africans and peoples of African descent. In North America, a variety of programs - including lectures, exhibitions, banquets and a host of cultural activities are presented throughout the month of February to commemorate the occasion. It is not uncommon, during these weeks in February, for African students in the U.S. to receive a number of invitations to speak at gatherings, schools and in community churches.

 

In Ghana, it is the W.E.B. DuBois Center for Pan African Culture that has been in the forefront of programs developed to mark the observance. The intention of the founders was not and is still not to initiate a week's or a month's study of the universal African experience. Instead, the observance portrays the climax of a scientific study of the African experience throughout the year.

 

The month of February is significant and recognized in African American history for the birthdays of great African American pioneers and institutions. These include the birthdays of Frederick Douglass, W.E.B. DuBois, Langston Hughes, Eubie Blake, NAACP and the first Pan African Congress.

 

Historians may also recall that the first African American Senator, Hiram Revels took the oath of office in February 1870. Black History Month takes on a paramount significance as we approach the 21st century. Civil rights laws and celebrations such as Black History Month have exposed the legal consequences of overt discriminatory practices and racial harassment. The struggles for, and achievement of independence by African countries in the 20th century have shown the strength, the humanity, the ingenuity and the contributions of the African to the human civilization.

 

However, these revelations have not neutralized the prevalence of prejudicial attitudes which generate discriminatory acts both on a national and in the international arena. Behaviour may be controlled by laws, national and international, but attitudes can only change through education and the elimination of ignorance. I believe strongly that Black History Month should be the reaffirmation of struggle and determination to change attitudes and heighten the understanding of the African experience. In the words of Ralph Crowder, "the observance must be a testimony to those African pioneers who struggled to affirm the humanity of African peoples and a challenge to the present generation to protect and preserve...the humanity of all peoples of African descent."

 

http://www.dal.ca/~acswww/grfibhm.html

 

taken from a professor at eastern washington university...he makes very good points and I with him 100%

The telling of history will never be completly honest, but that aside you overlook the impact that cultural evens have in the community. Throughout this month many people have meaningful experiences all because they take time out of their year to go to a pan-African street festival, or visit a plantation or read a piece of black literature they might have not had.

Yes, but these things should be done without the need for a month. You are suggesting a honest telling of history, and the "history month" method does not accomplish this, so I reiterate my argument:

 

Argument B:

Would you support a fully honest teaching of history and a black history month that was honest? However, if the telling of history is honest, the need for the month itself dissappears, so any way you look at it, the history month is a flawed concept.

 

 

Blacks still undergo oppression and segregation in huge proportions in the US, despite being "freed" by Abe Lincoln over a hundred years ago. Black history month is the celebration of a culture of people who were enslaved and forced to far away land. Can any of us whites possibly imagine what its like to be in a place that initially enslaved you, and you still undergo racism in your evereyday lives? No, we cannot because we are the majority race and its really not even possibly to understand the disposition.

I was segregated at a pizza hut, I have been stared at for being white, swatstikas have been put up at my campus, when I was a kid at a water park I was picked on for being white. PEOPLE MAKE FUN OF YOU, this does not necessitate the need for a history month.

 

Behaviour may be controlled by laws, national and international, but attitudes can only change through education and the elimination of ignorance. I believe strongly that Black History Month should be the reaffirmation of struggle and determination to change attitudes and heighten the understanding of the African experience.

See this is faulty logic. Black history month so far is mostly a failure. Again it implies that history isn't taught honestly and it should...as if making a HISTORY month all of the sudden history is honest. Guys, the month isn't the problem here, so I reiterate the argument I have under argument B.

I agree with argument B...I was just pointing out the reason for the month was because black history was being incorrectly taught hence the need for a month to correctly teach said history. Would you agree that black history/culture was/is grossly misrepresented? Can the telling of history be honest? Will there always be racisms or overlooking towards minority culture...intended or not? Of course months would not be needed if history/culture was taught honestly, but of course it is not always taught honestly.

 

Many people in my own family still believe blacks and Hispanics are inferior intellectually and these thoughts are widespread throughout the South to this day.

 

See this is faulty logic. Black history month so far is mostly a failure. Again it implies that history isn't taught honestly and it should...as if making a HISTORY month all of the sudden history is honest. Guys, the month isn't the problem here, so I reiterate the argument I have under argument B.

 

How is it a failure? It debunked popularly and academically held opinions at the time (1926) about black intellectual and other inferiority. I even held these beliefs through the training of family until I hit the college scene and was able to think for myself. Black history month afforded me opportunities to discover that black people are biologically similiar to me and are capable intellectual advances equal with any other race of people. Maybe we should just agree to disagree, but I believe the month serves a worthy purpose and is necessary still today.

Many people in my own family still believe blacks and Hispanics are inferior intellectually and these thoughts are widespread throughout the South to this day.

I'd venture to say that it's just as bad everywhere else in this country. There are definitely racists in the South, but racism has never been in just one place. Yes there was slavery in the South, but the only reason it wasn't in the North was because it wasn't needed (hence the selling of northern slaves to the South--instead of freeing them--when the North quit using slaves). During the rise of the KKK in the 1920s, the Klan was more popular in the North and Midwest than in the South. Racism is everywhere. Racism against blacks is throughout all the U.S. Racism of any kind is rampant throughout this world. It isn't right.

 

 

Now, after saying this, I know what you meant Shamrock :thumbup and what you said is true, but not just in the South.

I agree with argument B...I was just pointing out the reason for the month was because black history was being incorrectly taught hence the need for a month to correctly teach said history. Would you agree that black history/culture was/is grossly misrepresented? Can the telling of history be honest? Will there always be racisms or overlooking towards minority culture...intended or not? Of course months would not be needed if history/culture was taught honestly, but of course it is not always taught honestly.

Yes, but the history month idea only continues the dishonesty. A month in the middle of no where (though the post you made did explain the historical significance) does not help historical honesty. Do we just teach apount Washingtion and Lincoln in February? No, because history is taught as a sequence of events.

 

Personally I don't care for most shakespear (besides macbeth) and if they wanted to add more black playrights that's fine. However, we cannot compromise good works for the sake of diversity. A big problem in history and writing is that everything centers around a man and rarely are women important or heroic. This is a big problem in society. History months cannot and do not compensate for this. The best we can do is be truthful when we teach and hold everyone to equal standards.

 

How is it a failure? It debunked popularly and academically held opinions at the time (1926) about black intellectual and other inferiority. I even held these beliefs through the training of family until I hit the college scene and was able to think for myself. Black history month afforded me opportunities to discover that black people are biologically similiar to me and are capable intellectual advances equal with any other race of people. Maybe we should just agree to disagree, but I believe the month serves a worthy purpose and is necessary still today.

In 1926, it surprised racists that blacks can even have literary ability. This is not of question now and if it is the holder of such a belief is stupid to begin with so a history month does nothing.

 

The month does not serve a worthy purpose because in its current state it perpetuates the marginalization of minorities and if the effort that could be put into a flawed concept like a history month is simply put into teaching history accurately, which is the ultimate goal.

 

The point of history months is to compensate for a bias. However, the months are inherently biased and do nothign to correct the bias. Therefore, the ultimate goal is to eliminate bias, not add to it.

 

It is fine if we disagree, but I still beleive the idea of the history month is flawed. The only good outcome of it is at my college we're having "Soul food" day, and because they're having fried chicken (and the school lack deep fryers), I assume BSU will by the chicken from KFC, and KFC rules.

i think eliminate histery months and make more holiday s insted

Many people in my own family still believe blacks and Hispanics are inferior intellectually and these thoughts are widespread throughout the South to this day.

I'd venture to say that it's just as bad everywhere else in this country. There are definitely racists in the South, but racism has never been in just one place. Yes there was slavery in the South, but the only reason it wasn't in the North was because it wasn't needed (hence the selling of northern slaves to the South--instead of freeing them--when the North quit using slaves). During the rise of the KKK in the 1920s, the Klan was more popular in the North and Midwest than in the South. Racism is everywhere. Racism against blacks is throughout all the U.S. Racism of any kind is rampant throughout this world. It isn't right.

 

 

Now, after saying this, I know what you meant Shamrock :thumbup and what you said is true, but not just in the South. I agree...definitely should have included other areas as well.

This brings up an interesting question...do you think Howard Zinn's A Peoples History is dishonest in its presentation of American history? Hes the most famous of the revisionist historians and if any of you have not read this book, please release yourself from ignorance and read it ASAP. That includes you furmangator and superanglels.

What is revisionist history? Well, most importantly, it is an attempt to show important historical events from the perspective of those who have not typically written history, for example women, African-Americans, poor and working-class people, gays and lesbians, among others.

the problem with a lot of revisionist history is that instead of trying to make accurate history, they simply try to make a version of history that supports thier political leanings.

 

one must keep many sources.

Zinn's APH is a great read and I won't even attempt to say that it's a decent supplement to your traditional history book because it does not go that deep. In a way it offers something similar to what black history month (or queer, womens or asian recognitions) does. It gives your everyday American the chance to explore what they might not have before. It brings lesser known individuals, events and issues out, and allows you the chance to take an individual effort to delve in deeper.