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.

BHM Toronto History - Old Cicero, the last Grand Old Man

Black History Month is for everyone.  Unlike Thornton Blackburn, William Peyton Hubbard was a full Torontonian, born and raised. Much like Blackburn, Hubbard would also establish a Toronto institution.

Hubbard's parents were Virginia slaves who took the Underground Railroad to freedom, finally establishing themselves in Toronto. Born free in Toronto in 1842, Hubbard went to school to be a baker on the grounds currently occupied by Ryerson University. While most schools in Ontario were segregated, Toronto schools were not.

One night, a young Hubbard saw a man whose carriage was about to plunge into the Don River.  He dashed to his rescue - that man was George Brown, one of Canada's "Fathers of Confederation," founder of the Toronto Globe (precursor to the Globe and Mail) and one of the founders of the beginnings of the Liberal Party of Canada. Brown would take Hubbard under his wing and encourage him into politics.

Hubbard would be elected alderman of the most affluent ward in the city - Ward 4, thirteen years straight. He would rise to the powerful Board of Control (topping the polls in 1906) and the office of Deputy Mayor, including periods as acting mayor. His eloquence earned him the nickname "Old Cicero".

Hubbard partnered with Adam Beck to create the publicly owned hydroelectric company now known as HydroOne.

He retired to his home on Broadview Avenue, and was regularly visited by reporters looking for a quote, right up until his death in 1935 at the good old age of 93, Toronto's last "grand old man."

For more details and images of William Hubbard's life, see the excellent article Historicist: Public History and William Peyton Hubbard, or this fine article in the Star.

Today, Hydro One's William Peyton Hubbard Award goes annually to two black, Ontario university students enrolled in power industry programs.

Have Your Story Told

Global Toronto is having a contest - tell them, in 500 words or less, what Black History Month means to you.  It closes January 31, 2011. For more information, see http://www.globaltoronto.com/story.html?id=4109241

Couple of quick notes:

• you don't have to be black to talk about what Black History Month means to you! As we've previously discussed, Black History Month is for everyone;

• while it is a "contest", it doesn't matter if you win or not. What matters is that we have an opportunity to tell our stories, to share our experiences and continue to stitch our threads into the tapestry of this great city. When these stories are told, everyone wins.

So, get writing!

Big problem with big media

Today I read about director Amir Bar-Lev's documentary looking at what he alleges is a coverup of the truth surrounding the death of Pat Tillman, an NFL star who quit his professional football career to serve his country as a soldier. In 2004, he died in a "friendly fire" incident - but that was not the initial report, thus the headline The Tillman Story is a scathing indictment of the US government.

The key quote from this story is:

"Perhaps the most disturbing aspect ofThe Tillman Story is how much incriminating footage Bar-Lev was able to find. There are even scenes from a congressional hearing in which government officials ranking as high as then-defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld lied about knowing the cause of Tillmans death and were not only cleared of taking responsibility, but werent even properly questioned about the issue.

" 'None of that footage was difficult to obtain, which in itself is a tragedy, said Bar-Lev. When people see some of the clips that we have, theyll probably think that we got it from some Deep Throat garage in a paper bag or something. Nothing could be further from the truth. We got this footage from the mainstream press archives. Why that stuff ended up on the cutting room floor of the major networks, I think speaks to one of the larger concerns that the film hopes to address'," (my emphasis).

And so, we have yet another concrete example of a real problem with modern big media, which we've previously discussed - big media is conflicted.

The concept of a free press is critical to a free society. The media should be unencumbered with obligation to the government. It should remain a tool of a free society to, among other things, guard against an oppressive government by disseminating information to empower citizens to make informed decisions, especially about its representative, elected leaders.

Thomson Reuters, in its Trust Principles, sets forth in meaningful language its fundamental obligation and commitment to "safeguard our independence and integrity and avoid any bias which may stem from control by specific individuals or interests."

According to Bar-Lev, Tillman's family says that the American government put "public relations ahead of the truth". What should be alarming to a free society is the apparent complicity of the major networks to edit out so much available truth in order to fashion the fictitious "story" for public consumption, a story that does not transparently present the extent of the government's knowledge of the events leading to Tillman's death but instead obscures it from view and alleviates the government's accountability to its citizens, vis a vis "government of the people, for the people, by the people."

Pat Tillman was a person whose public record spoke of a "down home" integrity. In an age when money talks and loyalty is to the highest bidder, Tillman is reported to have turned down a five year, $9 million contract offer from the St. Louis Rams to stick with his Arizona Cardinals and his salary of $512,000. After the destruction of the World Trade Center in 2001, Tillman finished out the season, turned down a three year, $3.6 million dollar contract offer from the Cardinals to enlist and serve his country.

In other words, Tillman gave up a life of riches and  the adoration of football fans to put himself in harm's way for higher ideals. He ultimately sacrificed his life for what he believed a worthy cause - freedom. Government, media and society itself - we - should so value the freedom for which he died.

Governments can get off-track. It's the function of a free press to empower citizens to hold the government accountable. Freedom is supported by a free press.  Government, in getting off-track, would naturally seek control of the press. In totalitarian states, the press is one of the first institutions to be assumed. But of course - a free press should subject a government to its citizens. If a government is seeking to subject its citizens, the press must be pulled under auspice.

America was founded on principles specifically adopted and adapted to champion freedom, which is why freedom of the press was etched into its very constitution, its national DNA. It's a part of what makes America, America. Of course, America is not the only country with a free press component to its constitutional documents. Canada, for one example, also has a free press component to its constitution, and the aforementioned Thomson Reuters was once two separate companies that merged in 2008 - the Thomson half is Canadian, its global headquarters were in Toronto.

But, given that America blazed the trail in 1776, almost 100 years before Canada, and its Constitution and Amendments continue to inform thought on political philosophy, this sordid episode is a particularly acute failure of the "experiment".

If there is anything redeeming about this story, it's that it could have come out at all, by the efforts of an individual, without fear of reprisal. The concept of freedom of the press does indeed empower any individual to investigate and speak freely about the findings, which is all the more important and necessary if big media fails to live up to higher ideals.

No soup for you! Freedom vs. discrimination

The TV show Seinfeld had a funny shtick about a restaurant that served a really tasty mulligatawny. If, however, a customer didn't approach the server appropriately, the head chef might yell "No soup for you!" and refuse to sell. In fact, depending on the severity of the offense, the "soup Nazi" (as the chef came to be known) might issue bans up to a year in duration! How could this happen in America, the land of the free? Surely I'm free to approach the counter any way I want, right?

In another episode, the character Elaine went to a Yankees baseball home game up in the Bronx wearing a Baltimore Orioles cap. A fan took exception and demanded she remove the hat. She said "No, this is America, it's a free country!"

Back in the real world, recently President Obama declared his opinion that an Islamic group had the right to build a mosque near the site of "Ground Zero" where the World Trade Center towers once stood, saying ""This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable." I, myself, would tend to theoretically agree with that statement...but then I'm conflicted since I have difficulty when, in the name of freedom, the Confederate Flag - with all it symbolizes for both its proponents and opponents - is flown from a state capitol building.

Last month, I read an interesting article in the New York Times by Stanley Fish, professor of humanities and law at Florida International University,  entitled Is Religion Special? in which Professor Fish discussed the conundrum of a free society's interest in protecting freedom of religion, the expression of which might include discrimination. His conclusion: "What it goes to show is that the conflict between the liberal state, with its devotion to procedural rather than substantive norms, and religion, which is all substance from its doctrines to its procedures, is intractable." They key word here is "intractable."

Today, I was included on a distribution list and received this article about an Adventist leader's reaction to the Toronto Vegetarian Association's rejection of an application from the Health department of the Ontario Conference of Seventh-day Adventists for participation in its 2010 Vegetarian Food Fair.

In summary, TVA's issue is precisely about the official Adventist denominational position statement on homosexuality (a well-rounded application of this statement is found here). The TVA is a non-religious organization who seeks not to make uncomfortable homosexuals who might be in attendance and may take offense to the presence of an Adventist booth as a representation of the church's stance against homosexuality.

The article delivered to my inbox, written by Adventist leader Martin Weber, labels this an act of the "radical left", and I (being a Seventh-day Adventist) disagree with his position.

Adventists have long been the topic of study for the health benefits of a vegetarian diet. Any vegetarian organization benefits from including Adventist knowledge,  experience and credibility in its programs. TVA's decision to decline the application is to stand on a principal that comes at a cost, and we should rather commend the TVA for willing to take that stand before we stoop to name-calling.

The Seventh-day Adventist Church has had a stake in active religious liberty efforts for well over 100 years. We should, therefore, be quite capable of recognizing what constitues an exercise of freedom, religious or otherwise, even if it inconveniences or opposes our views. Freedom is a doubled-edged sword.

As a Seventh-day Adventist, I enjoy the freedom to go to church on Saturday. The government's defence of my right to do so extends to everyone else to join me, or go to church on Sunday. Or on Friday. Or not at all.

My "right to be right" means not only that others have the right to be wrong, but also that others are in their right consider me wrong.

Having said that, it does demonstrate the endless loop of the conundrum. Isn't the TVA's decision, to oppose the discriminatory nature of the church's position, itself also discrimination against the church? How do you oppose discrimination... by discriminating? In effect, the TVA had to choose whom to embrace and whom to exclude, and did so apparently on the basis of the losing group's very willingness to do the same thing, for whatever reason.

People are free to be homosexual, or not. People are free to endorse homosexuality, or not. People are free to support either view and the respective proponents thereof. Essentially, discrimination is, to a degree, inherent in freedom.

Is there a right/wrong assessment to be made? They're both right in exercising their freedom...to discriminate.

What, then, is the  value of "freedom"? Basically,the value is that the state is not taking sides. People and organizations are, basically, free to take their positions. For what it's worth, this is the caveat by which I take umbrage with the Confederate flag. Religious or otherwise, the Confederate flag is symbolically not unlike a swastika; its use by private citizens or groups is one thing, but the state capitol or any other community government building should be off limits. As such, at the end of the day, the TVA is a private organization and within its right. So, very sorry, Health Department of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in Ontario, but "no soup for you!" Or, "if you're going to come to Yankee Stadium, freedom notwithstanding, don't be wearing an Orioles hat."

Professor Fish can only conclude that the conflict will remain "intractable" ("not easily governed or managed").  Not only do I agree with that particular choice of word, but I came to that conclusion all by myself, some time ago, as an extension of my personal religious beliefs. 

Hence the OughtThought: life is too complex for finite human minds to administrate with absolute ideological clarity and consistency. By extension, the extent to which Christians look for a new kingdom governed by an all-wise God, situations such as these support the contention that any such kingdom could only be managed by an all-knowing entity.