Shouldn’t every month be Black History Month? | READER COMMENTARY
Shouldn’t every month be Black History Month? | READER COMMENTARY
Many years ago, Mike Wallace interviewed Morgan Freeman on “60 Minutes” and asked him about Black History Month. I’ve never forgotten Mr. Freeman’s abrupt reply: “Would you want a month?”
Mr. Freeman’s answer made it perfectly clear that a month is insufficient time for the teaching of Black history. How would a white person, like Mr. Wallace, feel about having their history reduced to one month? Mr. Freeman was correct those many years ago and his statement then still resonates today (”Anne Arundel school board approves LGBTQ+ history, county African-American history courses,” Feb. 3).
As a retired social studies teacher, I don’t like the entire concept of Black History Month because it implies that Black history is separate from American history. It also incorrectly implies that one-tenth of the school year is sufficient time to cover Black history. This relegates Black history to a minority status within American history and, more importantly, should they choose, it also allows educators not to focus on the subject for the other nine months of the school year.
It is impossible to properly teach American history without teaching about all people including Black Americans, Native Americans, Asian Americans and other minorities throughout the entire school year. Can one teach Black history without mentioning whites or vice versa? Of course not. It is all one story, one narrative, one history. We certainly do not need or want two or three versions of American history with competing narratives because it is all a shared history. Whether we like it or not, warts and all, it is our history and it is incumbent upon us to teach it as a single narrative that is neither sugarcoated nor whitewashed nor limited to a singular or prevailing view.
READ MORE: Shouldn’t every month be Black History Month? | READER COMMENTARY https://www.baltimoresun.com/opinion/reade...
Many years ago, Mike Wallace interviewed Morgan Freeman on “60 Minutes” and asked him about Black History Month. I’ve never forgotten Mr. Freeman’s abrupt reply: “Would you want a month?”
Mr. Freeman’s answer made it perfectly clear that a month is insufficient time for the teaching of Black history. How would a white person, like Mr. Wallace, feel about having their history reduced to one month? Mr. Freeman was correct those many years ago and his statement then still resonates today (”Anne Arundel school board approves LGBTQ+ history, county African-American history courses,” Feb. 3).
As a retired social studies teacher, I don’t like the entire concept of Black History Month because it implies that Black history is separate from American history. It also incorrectly implies that one-tenth of the school year is sufficient time to cover Black history. This relegates Black history to a minority status within American history and, more importantly, should they choose, it also allows educators not to focus on the subject for the other nine months of the school year.
It is impossible to properly teach American history without teaching about all people including Black Americans, Native Americans, Asian Americans and other minorities throughout the entire school year. Can one teach Black history without mentioning whites or vice versa? Of course not. It is all one story, one narrative, one history. We certainly do not need or want two or three versions of American history with competing narratives because it is all a shared history. Whether we like it or not, warts and all, it is our history and it is incumbent upon us to teach it as a single narrative that is neither sugarcoated nor whitewashed nor limited to a singular or prevailing view.
READ MORE: Shouldn’t every month be Black History Month? | READER COMMENTARY https://www.baltimoresun.com/opinion/reade...
Ron, do you know "black history?"