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.

The growing gap of income inequality

{EAV_BLOG_VER:96ad5f92edc4eb46}

Search for terms such as "income inequality" or "wealth gap" will turn up some interesting reading. One series of articles I've actually read is by Timothy Noah for Slate called The United States of Inequality: Introducing The Great Divergence. There's good reason this topic is blipping more radars these days.

A block of quotes from Mr. Noah's introduction quickly puts things in perspective:

• In 1915, University of Wisconsin statistician Willford King published The Wealth and Income of the People of the United States;

• he was troubled to find that the richest 1 percent possessed approximately 15 percent of the nation's income (it was likely closer to 18 percent);

• modern income tax was created in part to ostensibly prevent disparities in wealth turn the United Sates into a European-style aristocracy;

• there had never been a time when class warfare seemed more imminent;

• that was when the richest 1 percent accounted for approximately 18 percent of the nation's income. Today, the richest 1 percent account for 24 percent of the nation's income.

How did this happen? Thus begins Mr. Noah's examination of a host of possible factors. It's a fascinating and recommended read which arrives at the unambiguous conclusion: this is a problem that needs to be fixed.

To say "I'm Canadian" is of little comfort, because the problem is not hemmed in to the 48 contiguous United States. As Canada's largest trading partner, we suffer if they are unable to meet their demand for our exports; we also suffer for the imports that we buy from the US that fall in availability or quality. And, to the degree that our media is dominated by our neighbours to the south, we are not altogether separate in ideologies, health care and gun control not withstanding.

We've all heard the term "the rich get richer" and at no time in history the history of the United States has this been more true than today. Granted, those stats in 1915 surely didn't factor in all the people who had no income at all - thus the disparity is of income inequality, not socio-economic inequality, which must surely have been worse then than now, especially since social programs have raised the floor for seniors or those who are unable to work.

And this may be the very pivot upon which the gap could have been allowed to expand. Back in the 1930s when the New Deal was forged, society's most destitute really did live in squalor, and poverty was plain to the naked eye. Today, social programs raise the floor and allow most people a standard of living above that of a Hoovervilleshantytown, so that there's less attention on the topic of poverty.

There's also the manner in which we, as a society, glorify wealth. We watch Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous, and covet the materials we associate with success. We idolize the athletes and entertainers who put on a good show for us and take billions of dollars at the box office and the arena gate, as well as advertising proceeds from the spots during the movies, television shows and sporting events that sponge up increasing portions of the money supply.

Of course, unlike the feudal system of that feared European aristocracy, we don't need to be born into royalty for an opportunity to "succeed" - we can roll up our sleeves, work hard and achieve success for ourselves in this free society. Yet, the numbers Mr. Noah parses shows that many other nations - Canada included - enjoy better average quality of life and higher real social mobility...for now.

Some may quip that America is becoming a third world country. But that shouldn't be a shocking statement. Some may recognize that third world countries are often rendered as such through colonialism and exploitation by first world countries, especially those with in-demand natural resources that are plundered instead of being fairly traded. The American middle-class has been/is being plundered - it only takes a stroll down through history to see what becomes of a group of people after whatever it is they have to offer has been plundered.

What resource did the middle class have that was worth being plundered? Labor.  It was labor that created the middle class in the first place (consider Henry Ford's initiatives to ensure that his workers had a decent house to live in, and could afford to buy what they built) , lifting the poor up from destitution to a dignified living, so it is only fitting that the plunder of  labor wipe out that same middle class it created (if that word seems out of place, consider the modern use of the term "dead peasants" with respect to corporate-owned life insurance policies).

And in this plunder, the rich get richer, and the gap grows, exceeding levels not seen since before the Great Depression.

We Westerners are quick to spew the status quo argument that "unions" are a problem.  Mr. Noah's discussion of the effects of the Taft-Hartley Act as well as Reaganomics actions such as busting the air-traffic controllers' union, slashing top income-tax rates; and stagnating minimum wage at $3.32/hr for his two terms, halting a yearly increase process, when compared to the labor-supportive social democracies such as Sweden and Germany, seem to indicate that "smashing unions" as the UK and US did (two nations who historically have enjoyed high-value currency, by the way) eventually resulted in smashing the industrial base of both nations.

Revisiting minimum wage for a moment, after Mr. Reagan left the White House, his vice-president Mr. George H. W. Bush held a term, followed by Mr. William J. "Bill" Clinton for two terms. During these three presidential terms, the minimum wage increase process was restored and rose to $5.15 by the time Mr. George. W. Bush took office. He again halted minimum wage adjustments for the duration of his two terms, at the end of which time the American dollar had reached a 51-year low in buying power.

Granted, Mr. Noah does examine, and dismiss, the notion that we can "blame the Republicans" for the income gap, conceding that what might be more indicative of the problem is how government works these days. The amount of money invested in lobby groups in Washington D.C. has grown exponentially (again, read his article for the numbers nitty-gritty), and while party powers ebb and flow into and out of Washington D. C. the lobbyists remain.

I can't prescribe "the solution to this problem." The Ought Thought here is that we have a problem, and if we can raise awareness that we have a problem, we can focus some attention on how to fix it.