Why do we celebrate Black History Month? To re-humanize a people

I believe that Black History Month is for everyone. However, Black History Month is important for Black people, and it’s important to understand why.

Problem, Solution

Colonialists had a problem. They were Christian, yet their method of slavery was inhumane. The solution was to decide that Africans were not human and thus were not eligible to be recipients of love as the Bible required; rather, they could be treated as cattle, as beasts of burden, and in an inhumane manner. To reinforce this, it is documented that they embarked on a systematic program of dehumanization.

Eliminated culture

To dehumanize, African slaves had to be separated from the vestiges and hallmarks of humanity – culture. Tactics included separating Africans from their tribesmen so that, on the plantation, they could not communicate, share their stories, their histories, or organize themselves; making it illegal for slaves to learn to read, or go to school; breaking apart the family unit, separating husbands from wives, parents from children, shredding apart trust by making it worthless to invest in relationships on plantation if slaves were only going to be sold, lynched or otherwise prevented from exercising any free will or self-determinism.

Eliminated history

Not only were Africans prevented from cultural expression, they were also prevented from custodianship of their histories of cultural expression. The  repository of culture, the place where culture is stored and maintained in order to be available for, and of value to, successive generations, is in history and the work of its curators. If there are no curators, and therefore no history, there is no culture, there is no humanity.

In thinking about these and many other tactics, it’s not hard to see the residual damage still entrenched within Black communities. After all, European/American slave trade lasted several centuries – generations of diaspora Africans knew no other way of life but as sub-human property of slave owners.

Restoring history, rebuilding culture

Black History Month, then, is one of many initiatives burdened with the challenge of recreating an historical context for people of the African Diaspora. There is so much data that have been lost or destroyed in the Middle Passage from Africa to the West, utterly unrecoverable, lost forever, especially genealogies connecting the African Diaspora to their rightful pasts. 

Thus does Black History Month not only seek to restore and rebuild what it can from the records that remain; it also serves to create new stories, new history of what has happened since the Great Passage, a New World context in which to reset the African Diaspora back into the fellowship of humanity and equality – it’s all about re-humanizing people.

Why is Black History Month in February?

Every year, the question "why did we get stuck with the shortest month of the year for Black History Month?" is asked.

I am almost ashamed to say I only learned the answer recently, in preparing for speaking at Durham College/UOIT’s Black History Month Mix and Mingle, last week.

But, I'm not fully ashamed because, as is the case with most Black History, the answer is out there, but it's not provided easily, one must actively go and get it, unlike normative histories that are entrenched in the standard curricula. That this question keeps coming up also demonstrates the continued value of Black History Month - there is still so much we have to learn.

So, while the answer is "out there", I’ll summarize it here to build up the content availability, and then add some OughtThoughts.

Dr. Carter G. Woodson, the second African-American to earn a doctorate from Harvard; the founder of the Association for the Study of African-American Life and History (ASALH); the man whom many call the “father of Black History,” developed what he originally called “Negro History Week” in 1920. He set it for the second week in February to coincide with the birthdays of Abraham Lincoln (12th) and Frederick Douglass (14th), two prominent players in the fight for abolition.

In 1926, Dr. Woodson changed the name to “Black History Week.” He died in 1950. In 1976, fifty years after Black History Week was established, the ASALH expanded Black History Week to the full month; and thus have we Black History Month.

In other words, “we weren’t stuck with” the shortest month – the person widely recognized as the greatest builder, defender and promoter of Black History, chose this month for its significance in our history. This is a big deal - at the very least, what we have in Black History Month is:

• a statement of self-determinism, and empowerment: February was not “given to us”, it was chosen, and expanded, by us; 

• a way marker: pointing to two leaders in our history and, by extension, pointing to the history itself - the literature, rhetoric and assembly in defense of abolition; the sheer mass of enterprises pitted against each other (one to maintain that old way of life, and the other to dismantle the old way and usher in a new way of life); the defiant inner-light of people who, despite all the negative reinforcement, still considered themselves “people” and could only will and drive towards the claiming and restoring of that dignity; 

• a symbol of joint interest: two leaders, from opposite racial “sides” who yet strove for a common goal - a common good;

• a nudge to learn, a catalyst for inquiry, discovery, learning. For all people.

For those people who first celebrated Negro History Week almost 100 years ago, the whys and wherefores were no doubt well known. Having receded from plain view by the sands of time, it’s a good exercise for us to bring to the fore those whys and wherefores and appreciate what Black History Month can mean to everyone.

Understanding Morgan Freeman on Black History Month

Morgan Freeman's misunderstood and misused "I don't want a Black History Month" quote during an interview with Morley Safer on 60 Minutes is begging for clarification. Let's break down his six statements which, in context, show clearly that what he's really saying is not that Black History Month is not useful, but that Black History is all-encompassing and should be considered normative rather than marginal.

1.    "I don't want a Black History Month."

2.    "You're going to relegate my history to a month?"

3.    "Which month is White History Month? When is Jewish History Month?"

4.    [on Racism]. "Stop talking about it."

5.    "I'm going to stop calling you a 'white man'. I'm going to ask you to stop calling me a 'black man'."

6.    "Black history is American history."

First, here's the video:

1. I Don't Want a Black History Month

First, saying "I don't want a Black History Month" is not unlike saying "I don't want a cast on my leg." For people like Morgan Freeman who can walk just fine, he doesn't need one. But not everyone can walk like he can. For those who have a broken leg, the cast is necessary. All I'm saying here is not wanting something doesn't make it unnecessary and, sometimes, what we don't want (eat our veggies, take our medicine, go to bed early...) are  still good for us or, at least, better than the alternatives. However, this statement can only be misleading if divorced from the context of the rest of the interview. Why doesn't he want a Black History Month? He answers this question in the next statement.

2. "You're going to relegate my history to a month?"

Clearly, he's criticizing the implication that Black history is limited to a month's worth of attention. What he refers to as "my history" extends beyond a single monthly observation. It's a call to celebrate Black history every month. This assertion is plainly buttressed by his next statement.

3. "Which month is White History Month? Which month is Jewish History Month?"

Both groups of people celebrate their history without end, and tell everyone else about it. Neither group waits for or stops after a designated month when it comes to their history. 

Mr. Freeman clearly suggests that Black history is equally worthy of the same approach. 

When Mr. Freeman asks Mr. Safer if he wants a White/Jewish History Month, Mr. Safer says "No, no!" Do a Youtube search - there's not a single hit mentioning this, no one is misinterpreting or asserting "Morley Safer doesn't want Jewish History Month!" because there is none, because they don't need one, because they observer their history - and teach others about it - regularly.

4. [On Racism] "Stop talking about it."

Would that we could. But even if we could, it wouldn't change the fact that Morgan Freeman is Black, and Morley Safer is Jewish. Notice how abruptly Mr. Safer interjects to clarify "I'm Jewish" (he would, evidently, not express an opinion about 'White History Month" because he sees himself as Jewish, not White). Issues people face as a direct result of being...whatever they are, will continue to exist.

Ask a Jewish person if "not talking about the Holocaust" is the best way to ensure it doesn't happen again. Ask a battered woman if "not talking about physical abuse" will make it go away. Ask a molested child if...ask the mother of a child who was a victim of drunk-driving if not talking about drinking and driving will make it go away. With all due respect to Mr. Freeman, "not talking about it" won't make it go away any more than not talking about a brain tumour will make it go away. In fact, if we don't talk about it, it'll not only stay but further entrench itself in hiring practices and other points of interface between races. 

This is one point with which I did not agree wholesale with Mr. Freeman, however, it has been noted that Mr. Freeman seldom takes acting roles that are "stereotypically Black" or require a Black actor to fill, or in which the character's being Black is an issue in the plot or any subtexts of the plot. And, in this, I respect him, because it elevates the opportunity for Black actors to do more, and encourages writers to see Black characters as characters.

5. "I'm going to stop calling you a White man, and I'm going to ask you to stop calling me a Black man."

For Mr. Freeman, this idea - "stop calling me a Black man" - doesn't mean he disregards that he is Black; he began this discussion by asking the question, "are you going to relegate my history to a month?" He is a Black man, he embraces his history as a function of his person, and feels no need to wait for or quit after an external calendar designation announces he's now free to learn about and share his history.

I do, appreciate, however, the concept of what he's talking about. Too often, we make race an issue where it really shouldn't have been an issue at all. In such situations, if we remove race from the equation, we may be better able to deal with the issue for what it is.

6. "Black history is American history."

If people were truly listening to what he is really saying, and want to agree with him or quote him as having some kind of insight into the value of Black History Month, they'd pause here and ask the question about Black history itself: do standard history textbooks and public policy reflect the reality of this statement?

We can apply this same question in whatever country Black people have been a part and, I can tell you without hesitation that, where I come from (Toronto), standard history curricula and public policy do not reflect this reality, at all. Granted, Mr. Freeman is, specifically, referring to American history, and Canada's history is not the same. 

However, one of the challenges about Black history in Canada is that it is far less known to average Canadians, and literature on the subject needs to be promoted so that more people can learn a "truer, fuller capturing of the history of people in the development of Canada."

One book I've got on my "must read list" is Colour-coded: A Legal History of Racism in Canada, 1900-1950, by Constance Backhouse. And, no, all conversation about Black people in Canadian history should not be about "racism". This is just one book to add to any exploration of the topic. But, it is sure to make an excellent contribution for demonstrating the systemic, deliberate machinations of marginalization that the legal landscape has enforced through the courts to disenfranchise Black people, driving a wedge between Black people and their legacy as part of Canada's heritage.

In summary

I appreciate Mr. Freeman correcting me. His saying "Black history is American history" suggests this post could be aptly renamed "Black History Month is for everyone," and discourse and dialog in how Black people are a part of Western and world history should be ongoing throughout the year as a part of any standard curricula.