Black
History Month was conceived by historian Carter G. Woodson. The son
of enslaved parents, Woodson (1875~1950) was the second Black person to earn a
Ph.D. (in 1912) from Harvard University, the first being W.E.B. Du Bois.
Woodson
established what became Black History Month in 1926, choosing February because
of President Lincoln’s birthday on Feb. 12 and Frederick Douglass’s birthday on
Feb. 14. (The day and even the year of Douglass’s birth is not known for sure,
but his death date of Feb. 20, 1895, is certain.)
Black
History Month has been observed annually in the U.S. since 1976. While there
have always been detractors, perhaps the study of Black history is questioned/attacked
more this year than ever before.
The teaching of Black
history is being attacked especially by numerous (almost entirely
Republican) politicians. Foremost among those are Florida Governor Ron
DeSantis, who is now the frontrunner as the GOP nominee for next year’s
presidential election.
A law passed in 1994 requires the teaching of Florida’s Black
history in K-12 schools.
But DeSantis has mounted an attack
on what he calls the “woke mob,” claiming that certain instruction of Black
history is the equivalent of political indoctrination.
“Florida’s struggle
to teach Black history has become a battle over who controls the past” is a
fairly long article by Mary Ellen Klas, a White woman who is a “bureau chief” for
the Miami Herald newspaper.
I recommend the
reading of Klas’s article, which was posted February 8 on the Miami Herald’s
website (see here). Her closing words
are from George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984: “Who controls the past
controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”
DeSantis is by no
means the only prominent politician who is trying to control the past and the
future by objecting to the teaching of Black history in the present.
In her GOP rebuttal
to President Biden’s State of the Union address on Tuesday evening (Feb. 7), Arkansas
Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders claimed that “our children are taught to hate
one another on account of their race.”
That charge was in
keeping with her January 10 “Executive Order to Prohibit Indoctrination and
Critical Race Theory in Schools,” in which she claimed that CRT “emphasizes
skin color as a person’s primary characteristic, thereby resurrecting
segregationist values . . . .”
Southern governors shamefully
distort facts to attack the teaching of Black history in their states—and in
the nation as a whole.
Black history is
being strongly asserted by “The 1619 Project,” a “long-form journalism endeavor”
developed by Nikole Hannah-Jones, writers from The New York Times, and The
New York Times Magazine.
The first publication
of that endeavor was in August 2019, commemorating the 400th anniversary
of the arrival of the first enslaved Africans in the English colony of Virginia.
Its aim was “to
reframe the country’s history by placing the consequences of slavery and the
contributions of Black Americans at the very center of U.S. history."
Hannah-Jones (b. 1976)
was awarded the 2020 Pulitzer Prize for her lead essay in “The 1619 Project.”
She was also chosen as first on a list of “The Most Influential African Americans 2020” (see here).
A six-part TV docuseries
produced by Hulu debuted on January 26. Hannah-Jones is the host of that series
that explores Black history as related to the themes that are the titles of the
six TV episodes: democracy, race, music, capitalism, fear, and justice.
There has been
criticism of Hannah-Jones’s work, some of it by historians and legitimate. Indeed,
there are deficiencies in presenting history in sweeping generalizations and
folksy anecdotes. But for the general public, there are advantages to presenting
history in such a way.
Most of the criticism,
though, has been by right-wing politicians and others who will not acknowledge
the reality of systematic racism and also by those who want to preserve white
supremacy in the country.
Black History Month
is important as a time for challenging the unwarranted prevalence of white
supremacy and for advancing acceptance of the reality of systematic racism that
has been highly detrimental for so many Blacks in the United States, a reality
that dates back to 1619.
Well written article, Leroy! One positive thing on getting rid of systematic discrimination: I noticed articles in the K.C. Star recently that indicated Kansas and Missouri are being more pro-active in enforcing their laws that prohibit covenants in properties that have kept Black folks from buying homes in certain areas. Little by little we must keep chipping away at laws, rules, or even customs that shut out any people from our Democracy. Though 1619 Project made me uncomfortable a few times (my "white supremacy tendencies" showing up??) I do recommend watching it. It is interestingly done, and quickly moves along. Especially in last night's episode, "Fear" I was impressed at the lack of anger and resentment one might expect from persons living under such a heavy blanket of suspicion and fear their entire lives. The direct line drawn from the time of slavery to the present attitude of many in our police force even today was striking. (Watch and suspect that a man of color might be guilty of some wrong doing. Even today in the K.C. area many more P.O.C. are stopped by police that are white people.) Shameful!
ReplyDeleteThanks, Leroy, for highlighting Black History Month and what I would call the Republicans' consistent racism. I was surprised to learn that BHM was founded so long ago.
ReplyDeleteLocal Thinking Friend Debra Sapp-Yarwood shares the following comments:
ReplyDelete"My one observation from your post: I would rather be taught in 'sweeping generalizations and folksy anecdotes' rather than as I was in the 1970s, in sweeping generalizations (such as 'manifest destiny') and bloody battle accounts, punctuated by gentler myths about white men like Johnny Appleseed and Paul Bunyan, and Washington with his I-cannot-tell-a-lie cherry tree."
Thanks for your comments, Debra. As I wrote in the post, there are advantages to presenting history in sweeping generalizations and folksy anecdotes, although those are my words reflecting on some of the criticism of Hannah-Jones. But, yes, I wish as a student I had been taught history that way. Unfortunately, history was my least favorite subject both in high school and college, for there didn't seem to be much emphasis on the big picture of what it all meant or on how all the historical facts (names, dates, battles, etc.) affected the lives of individual people.
DeleteI hope you will share further reflections after you and Keith finish watching the series.
Thinking Friend Glenn Hinson in Kentucky wrote, "A very timely blog, Leroy. I must see 'The 1619 Project.' The truth and facts seem to frighten Republicans such as DeSantis."
ReplyDeleteAs he often does, Thinking Friend Eric Dollard in Chicago sent the following comments:
ReplyDelete"Thanks, Leroy, for your comments about teaching black history, with which I fully agree, and for recommending the Hulu series on 'The 1619 Project.'
"Teaching about black history offers an opportunity for students to think critically about race, race relations, and U.S. history. What some white parents fear is not just exposing America's failure to fully implement the ideals it touts, but that their children will learn to think critically. This will expose the falsehoods and myths surrounding American history, along with a number of other things. Good decisions cannot be made in a bubble of ignorance; history should be taught fully and accurately.
"I have a friend, who voted for Trump and who calls CRT 'bunk,' but he has never read any of the papers that constitute CRT. His definition of CRT is the one provided by Fox News, hardly an accurate source for any sort of news. I have not read any of those papers either, but I think it is obvious that systemic racism is still widespread in the U S.
"The critics of CRT and teaching black history worry, supposedly, that white children will be made uncomfortable if they are taught about America's past treatment of racial minorities. But what about black children or Native American children? Will they be comfortable if their histories are ignored?
"America has made considerable progress in addressing racial inequities, but I am afraid we are starting to slide backwards. It's dismaying."
Thanks for your pertinent comments, Eric. You correctly mention two of the main criticisms of CRT: the stress on systemic racism and the matter of White children being made to feel uncomfortable. But I can't understand how any thinking person could deny that there has been, and still is, systematic racism in the country. From the beginning, slavery in this country was not the bad choice of individual people but the system whereby people were exploited for producing cotton.
DeleteAnd I suppose it would be possible for history to be taught in such a way that would shame White students, but I can't imagine that is done intentionally except in some rare cases. I feel quite certain that most teachers who deal with racial history in the U.S. do so with the intent of increasing not only knowledge of the past but also understanding of and compassion for those who were mistreated.
And here are comments from Thinking Friend Michael Olmsted in Springfield, Mo.:
ReplyDelete“My exposure with racism came when my military dad was assigned to Ft. Worth, Texas. My life began in Iowa, then Chicago, and a small town in north Illinois where dad was stationed. Dad went on to Texas and mother and I joined him when school ended in the spring. We traveled to Ft. Worth by train and when we arrived at the main terminal, I sought out restroom facilities. What I saw completely dumbfounded me: facilities with signs clearly marked ‘white’ and ‘colored’! Mother gave me my first lesson on racism. Although I was only a fifth grade child ... I was dumbfounded ... and angry that such prejudice was acceptable. Thank God I was raised to respect people, even if they were different from me. My travels and mission experiences overseas have shown that racism is common around the world. Noteworthy is Jesus notable lack of prejudice and gift of grace for ALL.”
Thanks for sharing this, Michael. As you have probably seen, recently two bathroom stalls in a Eureka (Mo.) high school were labeled “Colored toilet” and “White toilet.” That was probably done by mischievous students as a prank or maybe as an expression of their racism. But that is far different from the systematic racism that segregated water fountains, bathrooms, and other public facilities in the past--and which was still prevalent when you and I were boys.
DeleteLocal Thinking Friend Greg Brown commented briefly:
ReplyDelete"Love it! Kudos for addressing a most important topic."
Another local Thinking Friend wrote,
ReplyDelete"Thanks for the history of the movement. Have we ever had a time when the month was so thoughtlessly politicized? Of course, it seems like Republicans are politicizing everything, even the Russian balloon incident."
Local Thinking Friend David Nelson sent the following comments yesterday afternoon:
ReplyDelete"Thanks for adding to the awareness and celebration of 'The 1619 Project.' It is important for all of us to seek different eyes at times to view our history as well as our present reality. I am sad that some seek to cover up the history we don’t like. Not only our children, but all of us need to tell our story honestly, or as close to truth as we can find. Young and old can handle 'the truth' and those who seek to edit history betray their own fear of reality. Each new set of eyes is a gift to all of us if we will be curious instead of judgmental."
I much appreciate the following comments from local Thinking Friend Joseph Ndifor, who came to this country from the Republic of Cameroon in west-central Africa:
ReplyDelete"I like it Prof! History has validated Lincoln's pessimism about the prospects of racial equality in the United States, but men like you, like he did in his time, do keep hope alive. It's an amazing read. Thank you for it."
Even to grapple with the CRT matter and the fears of the rightists is a discouraging exercise. So be it. I seriously doubt that "CRT" is actually being taught in the K-12 curricula of the states. Similar topics involved? Sure! But what started as, essentially, a graduate-level (legal education) theoretical analysis of racially-based structure of regulations and laws in the USA, is something the white racist crowd do not want to find fiddling with or obstructing that structure and the socio-cultural norms associated with a white supremacy that is real, if not so visible to the "unwoke".
ReplyDeleteTo continually cry out about "CRT" is to "wave the bloody shirt" or to "declaim the threats to the sanctity" of our most cherished social and religious "norms" and the ideals of the traditional Christian family, or the like. It's like crying "inerrancy" with each breath in the denominational wars of the seventies and eighties and beyond. It's shamelessly like the Antebellum slave nation's incitement of fears about "the protection of the purity of our womanhood" in the abolitionist battles . . . the fears about the horrible immigrants (for the last 150 or more years) who would bring crime, disease, rapine, and paganism, etc., to our pure 100% American society, etc., etc.
Meant to say , ". . . racist crowd do not want anyone fiddling with the structure and socio-cultural "norms" associated with white supremacy, which is real, but the "unwoke" do not see it." (And, yes, I agree the "white supremacy" can be a bludgeon--now, who would like that?)
DeleteI think the real problem is the unwillingness, even the fear some have, to face up to the documented narratives historians present. I do not include the narrow, all-glorified, providential approaches. I don't think CRT is the real issue. History is the real issue.
ReplyDeleteThe history must be offered according to the developmental level of the student. I doubt what's decried as CRT is what the opponents are referring to for the schools.
Should collegians be exposed to CRT (whenever they actually are required to or choose to take "a" history class) --well, if it's relevant, surely, but only then, so, not likely often, if at all.
It's bad enough that so many "college graduates" (definitions vary) remain ignorant of the main outlines of American history; they shouldn't have to deal with a sophisticated socio-legal theoretical approach. But then, most historians are not going to take them there anyhow.
Some advanced students? Graduate students? Yes, of course, but again, only if other well-proven tools can't help them to produce sound and revealing historical analysis.
Please pardon my prolixity.
Thanks, Jerry, for your thoughtful comments--and since you are a historian, I don't think your prolixity is to such a degree that it needs any pardoning.
DeleteI fully agree that CRT is not the real issue, but rather as you say, "History is the real issue." And I also fully agree with the social media meme going around that you and most readers of this blog have most likely seen. It boils down to this: "Studying history will sometimes make you feel uncomfortable. And if it doesn’t, you probably aren’t studying history." It needs to be recognized, I think, that most changes for the better came about because of some discomfort.