Skip to main content

Black History Month is Racist

Perhaps the greatest irony of Black History Month, the contemporary incarnation of what was formerly labeled Negro History Week, is that so many of its champions claim to want to eradicate both racism and focus on race, yet so many of those same people remain so heavily involved in doing whatever they possibly can to continue bringing it up and returning our focus back to it. 

So long as Black History Month endures, will we ever reach a point in time when "black history" becomes world history? 

If so, when will we finally flip that switch, and will we still celebrate these four weeks as Black History Month?

I’ve always wondered why any person who’s passionate about any history, whether of a given civilization, culture, idea or whatever, would condense its celebration into such a narrow window. 

I’ve also long believed that this particular occasion has only prevented the people of this world, particularly of this nation, from accepting “black history” as a form of human history. 

For example, John Rock was a famed African-American abolitionist who coined the phrase “black is beautiful.” 

Rock was also one of the first African-American men to earn a medical degree, and he was the first ever to be admitted to the bar of the Supreme Court. 

But I don’t need a specific month to direct my focus to this, as I’ve long known it, for obvious reasons. 

What’s more, I appreciate that “black history” is broadly a part of American history and world history; moreover, I don’t find it exceptional that a “black person” has achieved these successes, because I recognize that people of any kind, of any background or makeup, can be excellent. 

And it is remarkably condescending to modify their achievements as something other than human and to frame them as ones against nearly insurmountable odds. 

This month, and all of the annual fanfare around it, appears only to preserve the antiquated notion that people of different complexions are inherently separate from their counterparts, that they are automatically assumed members of a group with which they bear only a superficial association.

And the conversation around this issue remains in keeping with the depth of that association. 

So while this group purportedly remains encumbered by those implied differences which surface in nearly every history textbook and resurface every February, these messages palpably inculcate every new wave of adolescents with these distinctions and the interpretable disadvantages attending them. 

Ultimately, the way to reconcile the errors of racism is not to repeat the follies of the past, but rather to, as Morgan Freeman posited, “Stop talking about it.” 

A range of research shows that blacks are far more inclined than whites to identify their skin color as a primary driver of their identities. 

Meanwhile, whites are demonstrably more likely to point to their ideas, families and likes. 

This heavily implies that superficial qualities far outside the bounds of the former’s control are largely predetermining those individuals' dispositions and attitudes about who they are and what they are capable of achieving, respectively. 

This attitude is wholly restrictive and repressive for a group of individuals who are individually capable of far more than they can reliably determine by merely assessing the achievements of those who bear physical likeness to them. 

This is always and everywhere a failed method for determining one's own potential, as it proves a self-fulfilling process.

What’s more, this focus tends to crowd out other personal features and identities which might otherwise propel the individual to realize his or her potential as a unique person. 

Instead, the majority of individuals commit to the low-hanging excuse, a phenomenon at least consistent with the law of least effort, to rest their heads complacently on preexisting dogma which is far easier to affirm than to challenge.

In fact, independent of both race and appearance, all people endure their own respective struggles, and it takes a disciplined thinker to isolate the actual causes.  

Just as their associations have been assumed in such a superficial manner, their inductions operate at such a depth as to affirm their foregone conclusions while independently and unwittingly subjecting themselves to those contrived limits perpetually imposed upon themselves. 

Ultimately, we would all be far better off if we were to appreciate ourselves and others as individuals capable of diverse value beyond the surface of our skin.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Deal with Tariffs

Over the course of President Trump’s two terms, there has been much talk around the matter of tariffs — taxes on imported goods. However, much of the talk seems to miss the point. After all, for those of us who seek the truth, it’s not really a question of whether tariffs are ‘good’ but whether they are preferable to other kinds of taxes — assuming, of course, that taxes are the rule, as certain as the eventuality of death. First, let’s establish the theory: beyond the generic purpose of revenue generation for the state, the institution of tariffs ordinarily serves to  reduce (or discourage) imports by making them artificially more expensive, while encouraging domestic production by making domestic products more appealing on a relative price basis. In the realm of foreign affairs, tariffs are instituted or threatened in the course of international trade negotiations in order to signal dissatisfaction with existing trade barriers and to push for more favorable trade terms; or in ord...

Fischer: Tortured in the Pasadena Jailhouse (featuring the Morals of Chess by Benjamin Franklin)

Buy your copy today of  Fischer: Tortured in the Pasadena Jailhouse (featuring the Morals of Chess by Benjamin Franklin) , available at  Amazon  and Barnes & Noble . The name Bobby Fischer reigns supreme in the world of chess, yet there was a time when it hogged headlines, struck fear into the eyes of the competition, and was on the lips of folks all across the globe. More than the face of the centuries-old game, there was a time when Bobby Fischer was synonymous with the cause and spirit of America, that his moves on the chessboard sought more than checkmate but to pit the strength of “raw-boned American individualism” against “the Soviet megalithic system” which had come to dominate the game of chess at the same time it dominated Cold War politics. Fischer’s triumph over the USSR's Boris Spassky in the ’72 World Chess Championship would ultimately be celebrated as a symbolic and diplomatic victory for the U.S., but, as time would tell, it would not mean the American...

The Cost of Government is What It Spends, Not What It Taxes

The cost of government is the quantity it spends, not the quantity it taxes; that cost representing the financial burden imposed upon those who pay the taxes and all who transact within that economy or through its common currency. Likewise, governments can either take the people’s money through taxation or they can take the people’s purchasing power through money-printing (or the like).  Therefore, the argument against tax cuts requires further context to appreciate why tax cuts have failed and will continue to fail to deliver economic growth, especially where those tax cuts promote or serve excess indulgence and cheap speculation. In short, it’s not that tax cuts are inherently destructive, or that reducing the tax liability of the wealthiest in society “doesn’t work”; rather, the fact is that the public debt is so high that the country simply cannot afford those tax cuts without defaulting on its debts or — which is the same — covering them through inflation (i.e. money-printing,...