7 Reasons Why Black History Month Sucks Giraffe’s Clitoris

Many don’t recognize the significance of the celebration. Not so much Black History, as it is the philosophy of Asylum to remember that “Black” history is truly Human history; the “his” of the story would most likely have to be a Black man, and without the Black woman, that story could never exist. To be more exact, we here at Asylum understand the need for a peoples that have suffered such a traumatic psychological condition(Maafa) due to the atrocity committed by the White peoples of the United States in the act of forced illiteracy and division of not only the immediate family but the culture with which those humans where connected. This trauma sees as its fundamental absolving the reminding of the stories that provide any peoples with a sense of stability and faith-mental states that allow for the championing of further progress.

 

1. I believe that one of the major maladies that the celebration of Black History month has created is the overlooking of its founder, Carter G. Woodson. Understanding the supreme necessity that knowledge plays in the development of any person, Carter worked fields and taught in order to finance his formal education. His college years would have him attached to the Boule chapters of Sigma Pi Phi, as well as the Omegas (“1904-2004: the Boule at 100: sigma Pi Phi Fraternity Holds Centennial Celebration,” Ebony, Sept 2004). His efforts as an intellectual would produce two scholarly works during the time of the Massacre At Rosewood, and the Tragedy Of Greenwood(Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1989) {Editor’s notes: For a full look at the events of Greenwood, Oklahoma, see “Without Benefit,” J. Farand, Dec 2009}. His disdain for the leadership of the NAACP and the president of Howard University saw the historian focusing his efforts on establishing the celebration, “Negro History Week” in which he set around the first week of the month of February in 1926 as a means to memorialize the born days of Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglas.

 

2. I’m tired of being asked, “Hey do you know that Henry Horny Phukkker was the first Black man to buy a Playboy Magazine?” Jokes, but I think the sentiment is understood. We’ve taken a month dedicated to recalling and reflection and made it into a baseball card trading type of ceremony. For the children, I can understand, but when grown humans feel the need to one-up one another on the basis of reading a tidbit of trivia, I’m appalled. It doesn’t show what you know; it tends to shed light on what you don’t. And that is a great segue…

 

3. Black History Month has become a tool to focus on the lives of a handful of prominent names without considering the accomplishments of the people in total. Dr. Martin suffered from a group of often nameless people. Malcolm lead a group; he was an organizer, that implies- to my recollection- another group of nameless people. This creates a space where we overlook, and thus ignore, and become ignorant of a wide array of accomplishments of our people. This is where the baseball card trading element comes in: because we have been inundated with names of the familiar, we are often not privy to the actions of those that didn’t get the same amount of media coverage. Even names like Nat Turner would not have made it to us without a certain Will to help him finish the death blow in the initial strike that eventful night August 21, 1831(“Confessions of Nat Turner,” 1831). The tactical prowess of Rosa Parks is blunted as our history is packaged in 28 to 29 day sound bites that leave out critical examinations, simple footnotes in italics on some calendar.

 

4. Black History is more than just about Black people, and the other than Black people we tend to recall often don’t get the critical analysis they should. Without disparaging the name of Carter G. Woodson, the inception of the celebration is tainted in that aligning of Black History with Abraham Lincoln as a hero of Black History. The Emancipation Proclamation deserves its attention, but so do the documented intentions of Lincoln. As written and recorded by former Missouri U.S. Congressman, William L. Clay:

 

“Historians have neglected to record the racist attitudes of American presidents, and they remain particularly generous in ignoring the shortcomings of President Lincoln concerning human slavery. In 1861, Lincoln countermanded a battlefield order issued by General John C. Fremont freeing all slaves in the state of Missouri. A much publicized letter written by Lincoln to Horace Greeley sheds light on the sentiments underlying Lincoln’s decision to reverse General Fremont. Lincoln wrote:

 

‘My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about slavery and the Colored race, I do because I believe it helps save this Union.'”(“Just Permanent Interests,” pg. 3, William Clay, 1992)

 

Further, the former congressman writes,

“There is very little doubt about Lincoln’s views on the question of race. By all objective measures, he has to be evaluated as believing in white supremacy. His decision to free the slaves was nothing more than a strategic military ploy designed to weaken the Confederacy by eliminating its labor force and inciting slaves to insurrection. The ‘Great Emancipator’ actually blamed blacks and slavery for the disunity of the nation.'”(ibid, pg. 5)

 

As I stated, there are nonBlacks that deserve a much more polished position upon the pedestal of our memory banks. One such personage is another contemporary and acquaintance of Frederick Douglas, John Brown. John Brown led a group of Blacks in guerrilla style battle which fell at Harper’s Ferry. In commenting about John and his military sapience:

“It was, above all, this cool, reckless energy, which shrank from no consequences of the first step, that made Brown the most dreaded leader of the men on the side of the Free-State party. Besides, he had a really remarkable talent for guerilla warfare. It may have been absurd of him to criticize minutely Napoleon’s dispositions for a battle; but no one understood better than he how to post a handful of men in a wood or in a gorge so that they could keep in check a force ten times their superior, composed of such heroes as the Missouri rangers. On the 30th of August, 1856, he posted himself with about thirty men in the way of a troop of from four hundred to five hundred well-armed Missourians who had even brought cannon with them, and did not let them pass until he had killed more than thirty and wounded about fifty.”(“John Brown,” Dr. Hermann von Holst, pg. 92-93)

 

It might be this degree of physical political inspiration that a white man such as John Brown might inspire that causes his name not to be mention yearly around this time. Which allows me to proceed with my next thought…

 

5.The U.S. history book proper is replete with tales of heroism as a vehicle in the face of violence. No people have faced the degree of sheer human torture perpetuated through centuries like the Black peoples of the US. In such, why aren’t the warriors of our people mentioned? I respect the moderate Black viewpoints, but it should be noted that Carter G. Woodson, although a scholar, he was no moderate scholar. He was vigilant in his analysis of the acts and deeds of the NAACP and didn’t budge in the face of monetary threats(he was a damn Q Dawg for kristsakes!!). We tend to limit Black History Month to the study of moderates, with possibly the exception of Harriet Tubman, and Civil Rights Movement figures. I don’t see the images of Geronimo Pratt, Assata Shakur, Cyril Briggs, Clarence 13x, or the countless of other active participants engaged in armed struggles in the US for Black people.

 

6. How much money do Blacks get to make off of their own history as opposed to whites? Now, I understand that the market is a game of who gets there first, but shouldn’t there be some loyalty among Blacks not to patronize White businesses using Black History Month to promote their wares? From McDonald’s to Black Entertainment Television(Yeah, I had to throw that little irony in there…) White marketers manipulate Blacks every year with pictures of Dr. Martin and his march on Washington. The stench of fecal left for days even seeped into the more militant aspects of our history, as we witness Malcolm’s image being sold on stamps. I don’t give a damn if his mama came out of the dirt and told them people it was cool…once you step past a certain point with the people, you are more than just someone’s father. I digress. The point is, Black History Month has become yet another exploitative means for Whites to make a buck off of the notion of “race” as it stands.

 

7. Black History is still being written even when February is over…

 

Lastly, it seems as though our western thought pattern and habit of seeing everything in linear terms allows Black History Month to be diluted of the one thing it should serve…the future. What those millions of Black people did on whatever day they did it on wasn’t limited to that moment. It lived on. It is still breathing. It is being absorbed in the astral body of children that have yet to understand the diseased mindset of a people hell bent on the act of classifying one another based on exterior qualities in hopes that in oppressing them, they might feel better about the weakness of their inner ones. In the same manner that “race” is part human signifier, part human blindness, so is “history.”