Racist History Month

October 1, 2010 Longrider General News, misanthropy, Political 6

It’s racist black history month apparently and it’s being criticised – by black people, too.

Black History Month has attracted a great deal of criticism lately, an increasing amount of which is from black people. That criticism includes two main complaints. First, why should the focus on black figures of historical significance be confined to one month of the year? If they are important, they should be entered into the mainstream of the rest of the curriculum and, outside school, into cultural events. If they aren’t significant, then there is no greater justification for focusing on them in October than there is at any other time of the year.

I’d say that criticism is fair. If someone is of historical importance, then they are of historical importance. The amount of melanin in their skin is of no consequence and to have a special month just because of that pigmentation is, well, racist, there’s no other word to accurately describe it. Don’t take it from me, try asking Morgan Freeman. He sums it up beautifully.

But, still, the racists don’t think it’s racist. Try this for some twisted logic:

A further claim frequently made by white commentators on the right is that Black History Month is racist. This is nonsense, in the same way that there is nothing racist about having black networks in the professions. Coming out of one such network meeting, a colleague of mine once asked: “Where is the white people’s network?” The answer was straightforward – the rest of the organisation.

If Afua Hirsch cannot see the contradictions and convoluted reasoning in that statement she is beyond reason – and people who disagree with her are not necessarily on the “right”. Of course black networks in the professions are racist. Entry requirements are based upon race and those not of that race may not join. That is racist, whichever way you try to spin it. The last statement is the most absurd of all. Try treating the rest of the organisation as a whites only network and see how long before one of the professionally aggrieved cries “racist”, which they will. Yet if Ms Hirsch wants to see a real racist, all she needs is a mirror.

This article is the usual bleating from one of the professionally offended who cannot see that she is herself one of the demons she denounces. Nor does she seem too bright:

When I was at school, I remember asking my parents which African country Michael Jackson was from, and being perplexed at their attempt to explain the concept of an African American and the history of slavery from scratch.

Now that’s funny, because when I was at school – back in the seventies – we learned about the slave trade; including the complicity of the African slave sellers and the subsequent actions of the Royal Navy in stamping it out. I can only presume that Ms Hirsch is somewhat dense or didn’t pay attention.

—————————————————

Update: A delicious comment responding to some idiot calling himself Blackpresence who couldn’t resist the urge to tell us that Africans made up part of the Roman Legions who conqured much of Europe.

Enslaving the natives is not something to get proud of!

Oh, Touché.

Tags: , ,

6 Comments

  1. Personally, I’d like to see a moratorium called on the use of the term “racist” in any dialogue about persons or organisations who indulge only in misdeeds that fall short of humiliating, disenfranchising, killing or injuring people because of their ethnic background. I find this modern game of people trying to prove each other the bigger bigot when neither party has so much as managed to call someone “a black bastard” more than a little tedious.

    So, Hitler and the Ku Klux Klan: racist, yes.

    People who are for or against Black History Month: merely well meaning, and dull.

  2. Then you are in for a long wait. The term “racism” is not confined to grievous harm or murder. While the identity politics mongers insist upon calling the rest of us racist and forming cliques based upon the colour of their skin, I’ll call them exactly what they are; racist.

  3. Agreed. And what MHW says. But “humiliating, disenfranchising, killing or injuring people” is WRONG whatever the reason, so there’s no need to have a separate category for this.

  4. Mmmm interesting post Longrider,

    I didnt know it was BHM,none of my bro`s have mentioned it either.Of the top of my head I would say its all about putting a positive light on black history after many years of negativity.

    I agree with your point about official black branches of organizations,they are guaranteed to cause resentment and distrust amongst other non black employees,I personally wouldn`t involve myself,much better to discuss issues over a pint or two in the boozer with anyone who`s interested black,white,yellow or brown, then take those issues to the boss with some recommendations/solutions/demands etc.

  5. The point these people are making is that black people should be specifically mentioned because there were black people present at momentous occasions in history. I disagree. Waterloo involved lots of ordinary soldiers who didn’t get a mention – it was Wellington, Napoleon and their generals who get all the airtime (unless you choose to read the autobiographies of those soldiers who wrote down their accounts). None of whom were black.

    Trafalgar was Nelson’s big day. He wasn’t black. Nor is there great mention of at least one woman below decks on the Victory. That’s because it wasn’t that significant to the outcome. And therein lies the problem. Throughout British history, the movers and shakers were predominantly white. You can’t change that with some sort of revisionist view of history.

    Despite the suggestion in the article’s comments thread to the contrary, there is mention of Empire troops present in the trenches of WW1 and again in WW2 in historic documentary, so the suggestion that they have been airbrushed out is simply not true. History is history – or is it bunk?

Comments are closed.