I mean, right?
There's no White History Month, and if there was, it would be called racist.
That's a double standard, isn't it?
This is what someone said when #Blackhistorymonth was trending on twitter the other day, and I all but came through the monitor. I hear people say impressively ignorant things like this, and I want to knock their blocks off.
Fortunately, my impulse control isn't terrible, and I managed to take a breath or two before I responded. I was simply trying to point out that his logic was lacking, and to share my thoughts on the matter. However, it apparently didn't occur to him that saying that on a TT might attract some strong responses. I was only one of several, and he started to get very defensive, saying he had nothing against black history month. Whether he has a problem with the idea or not is completely irrelevant, I was only responding to the statement he made.
It also reminded me how many people I have heard say things like this, and I decided to respond.
Questionable comment one: "Black history month is racist."
My thoughts: There are several definitions for racist, but I think the one people who say this are working on is 'based on racial intolerance' or 'the idea that one race is intrinsically superior to another.'
In no way is this true. It is not based on exclusion. No one is running around during February saying "Only study black history! White people suck!" and if they are, they are certainly not speaking for the collective. Black History Month was created as Black History Week, by a black teacher who noticed the severe lack of any mention of the achievements of African American individuals in the textbooks he was teaching out of. The idea being that those achievements are just as important as those of white individuals, not more so.
Questionable comment two: "White History Month would be called racist if there was one."
My thoughts: You're right, and it would be. This is like saying that the feminist movement is sexist because there is no 'masculinism' movement. This is really important, since there is such a lack in our society of rights for men. Come on.
Essentially, every month is white history month. There is no lack of coverage of the achievements of white people in America. Highlighting a specific month to focus on something that doesn't need extra attention to bring it to the same level as other similar topics has superiority complex written all over it. Aside from that, have you ever met someone that takes special pride in being white that doesn't think other races are inferior? Not to say such individuals do not exist, but I have never met one.
Questionable comment three: "But it's like a company hiring a black person for a job because he's black, not because he's good at the job." (direct quote)
My response: Setting aside a month to recognize accomplishments that do not get enough attention is completely different than giving someone preferential employment.
Also, if I am not mistaken, the idea behind affirmative action is that when presented with two potential employees with essentially the same level of qualifications, the employer should choose the individual that is part of the minority population.
I'm not saying that this is how it has been implemented, or that this is a good idea, I'm just saying that the basis for this remark is wobbly at best. In my opinion, giving a less skilled individual a job because they are a minority is counterproductive.
Questionable comment four: There shouldn't be a Black History Month anymore.
My response: I don't think that this month or any other month/day that focuses on the contributions made by under-represented populations/people to our culture should be gotten rid of until there is a more wholesome approach to the inclusion of said groups/individuals in "American History."
Questionable comment five: There should be other months like this for other groups' histories.
My response: Do it.
If you think there is a need, get people together, and get it started. Even if we are talking Eastern European history. Get support, and get it started, in the same way BHM was started. If there really is a need, you will find the necessary support. Things like this don't happen magically, over night. It takes work.
The problem here, of course, is that most of the time when someone says this, they have absolutely no interest in making it happen. They are just trying to make a point. And failing.
If nothing else, perhaps instead of seeing BHM as divisive, we could all just take February as an opportunity to have more mature open and honest dialogue about the subject of race, without being so uptight at the prospect of offending each other. Those people who are willing to have such conversations with open minds, without spewing hate and intolerance, that is.
Find out more about Black History Month's Origin
There's no White History Month, and if there was, it would be called racist.
That's a double standard, isn't it?
This is what someone said when #Blackhistorymonth was trending on twitter the other day, and I all but came through the monitor. I hear people say impressively ignorant things like this, and I want to knock their blocks off.
Fortunately, my impulse control isn't terrible, and I managed to take a breath or two before I responded. I was simply trying to point out that his logic was lacking, and to share my thoughts on the matter. However, it apparently didn't occur to him that saying that on a TT might attract some strong responses. I was only one of several, and he started to get very defensive, saying he had nothing against black history month. Whether he has a problem with the idea or not is completely irrelevant, I was only responding to the statement he made.
It also reminded me how many people I have heard say things like this, and I decided to respond.
Questionable comment one: "Black history month is racist."
My thoughts: There are several definitions for racist, but I think the one people who say this are working on is 'based on racial intolerance' or 'the idea that one race is intrinsically superior to another.'
In no way is this true. It is not based on exclusion. No one is running around during February saying "Only study black history! White people suck!" and if they are, they are certainly not speaking for the collective. Black History Month was created as Black History Week, by a black teacher who noticed the severe lack of any mention of the achievements of African American individuals in the textbooks he was teaching out of. The idea being that those achievements are just as important as those of white individuals, not more so.
Questionable comment two: "White History Month would be called racist if there was one."
My thoughts: You're right, and it would be. This is like saying that the feminist movement is sexist because there is no 'masculinism' movement. This is really important, since there is such a lack in our society of rights for men. Come on.
Essentially, every month is white history month. There is no lack of coverage of the achievements of white people in America. Highlighting a specific month to focus on something that doesn't need extra attention to bring it to the same level as other similar topics has superiority complex written all over it. Aside from that, have you ever met someone that takes special pride in being white that doesn't think other races are inferior? Not to say such individuals do not exist, but I have never met one.
Questionable comment three: "But it's like a company hiring a black person for a job because he's black, not because he's good at the job." (direct quote)
My response: Setting aside a month to recognize accomplishments that do not get enough attention is completely different than giving someone preferential employment.
Also, if I am not mistaken, the idea behind affirmative action is that when presented with two potential employees with essentially the same level of qualifications, the employer should choose the individual that is part of the minority population.
I'm not saying that this is how it has been implemented, or that this is a good idea, I'm just saying that the basis for this remark is wobbly at best. In my opinion, giving a less skilled individual a job because they are a minority is counterproductive.
Questionable comment four: There shouldn't be a Black History Month anymore.
My response: I don't think that this month or any other month/day that focuses on the contributions made by under-represented populations/people to our culture should be gotten rid of until there is a more wholesome approach to the inclusion of said groups/individuals in "American History."
Questionable comment five: There should be other months like this for other groups' histories.
My response: Do it.
If you think there is a need, get people together, and get it started. Even if we are talking Eastern European history. Get support, and get it started, in the same way BHM was started. If there really is a need, you will find the necessary support. Things like this don't happen magically, over night. It takes work.
The problem here, of course, is that most of the time when someone says this, they have absolutely no interest in making it happen. They are just trying to make a point. And failing.
If nothing else, perhaps instead of seeing BHM as divisive, we could all just take February as an opportunity to have more mature open and honest dialogue about the subject of race, without being so uptight at the prospect of offending each other. Those people who are willing to have such conversations with open minds, without spewing hate and intolerance, that is.
Find out more about Black History Month's Origin
