Black History Month

- A cliched statement that I'll bet many of you have heard before: "Q: If february is black history month, when is white history month? A: The other 11 months are white history months." Comments like these have always bothered me, as they insinuate that blacks are purposely excluded from history lessons based on pigment. In reality, if the other months truly are white history months, it's because "white" people (a generalized term applied basically to anyone of european descent) did more notable things.

- History should be taught based on importance of the action, not based on the skintone of the person who performed the action. However, this notion is turned on its head every february as we are told yet again what George Washington Carver did with peanuts. After mister peanut butter, next on the list are figures such as Frederick Douglas or Martin Luther King Jr., whose most notable accomplishments were writings and speeches on the subject of freedom for their people. Outside of a few exceptions such as Carver's peanut butter or Garret Augustus Morgan's streetlight, few black historical figures made a difference in the world that didn't pertain directly to black people. Most of the figures celebrated during black history month are only important to black history, making black history seem to exist within a vacuum.

- I used to dread february when I was still attending public schools for just this reason. I was basically forced to pretend that I thought these figures were important, lest I be branded as a racist. Not to say I don't see the importance of these contributions; but should the inventor of peanut butter really get a whole month? Couldn't these figures be covered as the history lesson progressed to the appropriate point in the lesson? Black history month is nothing more than a token gesture to appease a demographic, and I'm not going to pretend I care ever again.