news-record.com

Black History Month is a well-intended idea that has outlived its usefulness. It is not only redundant, but also divisive. For several decades, professional educators, who boast of their commitment to diversity and multiculturalism, have featured prominently blacks, women and other minorities whose contributions to American history were long-neglected. The fact that our public schools are inordinately obedient to inclusion all year, every year, nullifies the need for race- and gender-specific celebrations.

As reported by The Associated Press in these pages two weeks ago, "claims that Black History Month is outdated are gaining a new potency, as schools diversify their curricula and President Barack Obama's election opens a new chapter in the nation's racial journey." In the same article, Spencer Crew, a professor of history at George Mason University, observes that, "There's a Women's History Month. No one would argue that we don't need to be reminded of women who have done things that are important."

No, but arguing against month-long, race- and gender-specific celebrations is not the same thing as arguing against instruction about notable blacks and women. Crew's argument is a red herring. In fact, every significant historical figure, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious affiliation or handicapped status -- whatever grievance-group attribute you care to consider -- should be featured in the American classroom. And they are. Disciples of diversity within the education establishment have seen to that.

Besides, the calendar is several months short of fulfilling the demands of every sect that lobbies for its own celebration. Rather than celebrate Black History Month, Women's History Month, Native American History Month, Asian American History Month, Italian American History Month, Irish American History Month, Left Handed Transvestite History Month, ad infinitum, why not simply acknowledge the contributions of every significant historical figure, regardless of superficial considerations?

In fact, why not, as suggested by Jason Carter in a letter to the editor last month, drop the hyphenated nationalities and simply call ourselves Americans? "If you are born in America," Carter writes, "you are an American, no matter what your skin color." The time has come, he suggests, "to look past skin color and origins."

Carter's beef was emphatically illustrated by a "Counterpoint" by Meltonia Loretta Young that appeared on the same page, directly underneath his letter. Miss Young uses the term "African" or "African American" 13 times in her brief essay, drawing our attention to Asa Philip Randolph, "the true leader and director of the 1963 March on Washington." Ironically, according to the Web site of the AFL-CIO, Randolph learned from his father "that color was less important than a person's character and conduct."

But Randolph, like W.E.B. DuBois and many other black history luminaries, was also a self-proclaimed socialist. Miss Young is pleased to note that the election of Barack Obama is "the first time capitalism has been interwoven with socialism."

If Black History Month must be retained, then it should be renamed "Radical Black History Month." Although the life story of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas could inspire generations of poor (and yes, black) Americans, he is studiously ignored for purely ideological reasons. Likewise, Condi Rice and former Congressman J.C. Watts. Last month, with little acknowledgement from the media, former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele was elected national chairman of the (presumably racist, bigoted, ultra-right wing) Republican Party. Steele is black but, to the dismay of journalists and those who prefer a monolithic "African American community," he is a conservative. Therefore, there was no celebration of this particular milestone.

Rather than trumpet recent successes, civil rights leaders and defenders of Black History Month perpetuate the cycle of black victimization, from which they stand to gain. An article two weeks ago from The Associated Press was titled, "At 100, NAACP Fights to Keep Struggle Alive." It may be more accurate to say that the organization fights to keep grievance alive.

Julian Bond, chairman of the NAACP board, notes that it has become "difficult to convince people that there's a problem." Most of us would consider that good news, but not the NAACP. Benjamin Todd Jealous, the group's president, is happy to point out areas of concern, including unsolved inner-city murders and a lower rate of graduation among blacks than whites. Neither is proof of racism, but accusations may provide Jealous with job security.

In 1976, when Negro History Week was expanded to a month-long celebration, President Ford asked Americans to "seize the opportunity to honor the too-often neglected accomplishments of black Americans in every area of endeavor throughout our history." The objective has been met, and it is time to abandon Black History Month as a divisive relic of another era.

Charles Davenport Jr. (daisha99@msn.com) is a freelance columnist who appears alternate Sundays in the News & Record.