Is Morgan Freeman correct on his assessment on the need of Black History Month. Take a look at his 60 Minutes Interview with Mike Wallace.
John Ridley addressed the question as to whether there is a need for Black History Month now that we have an African American President in the article below.
Yes, We Still Need Black History Month
by John Ridley
So it’s February. That means school kids across America are learning that George Washington Carver didn’t actually invent the peanut, and a black man did invent the stoplight. And while the kids are learning, February by February, grown-ups are asking if maybe it’s time to retire Black History Month.
This year, one op-ed writer flat-out said Black History Month “has come to seem quaint, jarring, anachronistic” and “robs blacks of [their] part in U.S. history.”
The country is for sure in a different place than it was when historian Carter G. Woodson originated “Negro History Week” in 1926. Most obvious, of course, is that 83 years later we have a black man in the White House. Beyond that, black American history is now seemingly cranked out on a regular basis. Eric Holder becomes the first black attorney general. Mike Tomlin becomes the second black coach to win a Super Bowl championship in three years. The Republican National Committee is so desperate for relevance it elects Michael Steele as its chairman, and does so over Katon Dawson, who until last September belonged to a whites-only country club. Somewhere Strom Thurmond is doing about 8,000 rpms in his grave.
So, clearly, a nation whose icons are the likes of Tiger Woods, Oprah and Barack Obama doesn’t need a Black History Month.
What the advocates of dumping Black History Month miss is that watching Tiger sink a 20-foot putt or Oprah cooking with Rachael Ray doesn’t exactly teach the kiddies about the Tuskegee Airmen or the Middle Passage or Plessy v. Ferguson. That’s kind of like saying you can get a master class in Hispanic heritage by watching an episode of Ugly Betty.
Now, I happen to agree that Black History Month is a set-aside. But the reason it’s set aside is because even in 2009, most schools do a poor job of integrating black history — or Hispanic history or Asian-American history — into their yearly curriculum. Are kids really taught about the Nisei brigade or Executive Order 9066, the Trail of Tears or the National Farm Workers Association?
This isn’t the history of one ethnicity. It’s our history. And until our history is fully explored throughout the school year, then Black History Month remains relevant.
Are the two men on opposing sides or are they saying the same thing?
What’s Your Take On The Matter? Register and/or sign in and sound off!
You can also twitter the febone_blog