Black Segregation Month
I'm opposed to racism. All ethnicities, all skin colors, are equal in the eyes of the Creator. And the original humans were almost assuredly some shade of brown.
I offer that little preface to couch all of the following.
Black History Month does precisely nothing to make the United States “less racist,” or the Black community more “resilient” or “empowered.” Indeed, rather than improving or enriching American race relations, BHM drives ideological wedges between ethnicities.
Do African nations have “White History Month”?
Certainly it's possible for a racially motivated historian or teacher to exclude a minority from a book or course allegedly intended to be “general” in its content. If such a thing has been done, that should be challenged as a legitimate case of racism.
However, logically we should expect that in any culture, the numerically dominant ethnicity will dominate historical studies of that culture. If I spent time in, say, Zimbabwe, I would expect history courses to be dominated by Black historical figures.
It wouldn't even occur to me to complain about Whites being “underrepresented” in those courses.
Or let's consider one strand of a culture: sports. The NBA is (obviously) dominated by Blacks (currently over 73% of all players, and of course the percentage is far higher if we consider only the star players). In any documentary on the post-desegregation history of the NBA, Blacks will be front-and-center—which is as it should be, since Blacks do most of the NBA's “heavy lifting.”
Imagine the uproar if ESPN or some other sports outlet held a “White NBA History Month.” I myself would view such a thing as patently absurd.
History is history. Black history is part of world and American history. If we break it down to regional contexts, then it makes sense that—
Predominantly White regions will give rise to predominantly White histories;
Predominantly Black regions will give rise to predominantly Black histories;
History courses or books or documentaries intended to be “general” in content should logically reflect the ethnic makeup of the peoples or regions to be covered; but—
There should be room for more focused books/courses/documentaries specifically intended to chronicle the history of a minority (e.g., the experiences of Mennonite colonists in Russia).
Black History Month—especially in the well-nigh insane era of Black Lives Matter and Antifa—doesn't qualify for that last category.
It's ideologically and politically motivated; tainted by a neo-Marxist outlook on life and society.
It ignores the steady trajectory of American society away from racism. America is in fact one of the least racist countries on Earth.
It's condescending to Blacks (as actor Morgan Freeman seems to feel). Rather than empowering them, it encourages forever playing the victim.
It ignores the sad fact that most Black slaves were sold into bondage by other Blacks.
It ignores the glaring social ills and tragedy caused by the immoral behaviors of a significant number of urban Blacks collectively (particularly abortion, fatherlessness, and Black-on-Black violence). These too are an important part of “Black history,” yet they're routinely overlooked.
BHM has the ironic effect of re-segregating Blacks from Whites. It's as if we're saying: “Let's throw Blacks a bone here: give them a month for their own history (apart from ours); then we can get back to ‘regular’ history.” In other words, a separate “Black History Month” doesn't help Blacks and Whites view one another as cultivating culture together; it fails to view and appreciate Blacks as part of the American mainstream.
By contrast, things like Lawrence Hill's The Book Of Negroes and the 1997 film Amistad are superb enrichments to our overall historical awareness.
As a Gentile Christian, I've come to see myself as belonging to the stream of Biblical history, despite the fact that almost every Biblical figure is an Israelite. I'm in the picture because I'm in God's extended family through faith in Jesus Christ, the God-Man.
That same Jesus—though by nature God Himself, and though in His human form Jewish—nonetheless also viewed himself as belonging to humanity at large. Though a son of David, his favorite title for himself was “Son of Man.” And while Matthew, for good reason, emphasized Jesus' Hebrew lineage going back to Abraham—Luke, himself a Gentile, took that lineage all the way back to Adam, emphasizing Jesus' universality.
Shortly before he left Earth (but with a promise to return!), Jesus prayed “for all who will ever believe in me . . . that they will all be one, just as you [God the Father] and I are one” (John 17:20-21).
And these Biblical themes remind me of why I'm not a huge fan of Christmas and Easter, which you'd likely assume I would be. The problem is that setting aside brief, special occasions to commemorate Jesus’ incarnation, self sacrifice, and resurrection—though well-intentioned—has the unfortunate effect of training us not to ponder and appreciate these core Gospel truths enough throughout the rest of the year.
In the same way, then, Black History Month actually works against the goal of making society increasingly less racist.
Unless . . . that isn't really the goal.
Ever hear the phrase “Divide and conquer” . . . ?
More food for thought:
Hillsdale Prof Speaks at St. Vincent About ‘Black Privilege and Racial Hysteria’
BLM at School Week – Indoctrinating and Training Radical Activist Children
For Black History Month, Remember the Racist Roots of Abortion in America
Thomas Sowell: A Leading Black Intellectual, A Truly Independent Thinker
The Detrimental Impact of Planned Parenthood on the African American Community
Historical Fallacy – The Failure of The New York Times 1619 Project