Paul Revere by Cyrus Dallin, North End, Boston

Koch Brothers' Vision for America

Koch Brothers' Vision for America
No Medicare or Medicaid

Wednesday, February 20, 2013

WHY ISN'T THERE A "WHITE HISTORY" MONTH!

I hear or read that whenever I acknowledge February's Black History Month and post something about African-American history, or even something on racism.  And, just as dependably as the sun rises every morning, someone complains about it.  And that's because there are folks out there who just don't get it, or worse, are uncomfortable with acknowledging history based on race because, as I've heard them complain, "Why isn't there a white history month?!


This guy will help those people who refuse to "get it" or are just, well, uncomfortable with our history:










More on this subject below:


 Daily effects of white privilege, by Peggy MacIntosh



Little Rock Crisis, 1957


Twenty-eight common racist attitudes and behaviors that indicate a detour or wrong turn into white guilt, denial, or defensiveness, by Debra Leigh


RACIALICIOUS

Dave Miller's blog, The Mission, covers the subject of Teapublican racism HERE.

17 comments:

Jerry Critter said...

Because every month is White History Month.

possumlady said...

Reminds me of when I was a little squirt of about 6-8 years old after having a nice Mother's Day celebration, I asked why there wasn't a "Children's Day". Both my mom and dad laughed out loud and said "because EVERY DAY is Children's Day!!"

S.W. Anderson said...

Good video. I hope it gets lots of play in schools.

I think the better question for anyone who asks your post headline is, "Why would something as positive and innocuous as Black History Month prompt you to ask that?"

Jerry, history was my minor in college. I've noticed since that the gulf between what most people think they know about it and what they actually know is almost as wide as the one involving economics.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Yes, Jerry, as possumlady wrote--every month is white history month.

S.W.A., I think some people get ticked off over Black History Month because it reminds them of how much they don't know about it.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Teapublicans and their racism.

Dave Miller said...

Shaw... I posted on the pic from the Daily Kos...

For me, no amount of "We love Herman Cain, Allen West and Dr. Ben Carson" can change the facts.

Not one national leader of the GOP has the courage to step up and call this type of crude humor what it is, racist!

Not one national leader has stepped up to say that in 2013, people that still think this stuff is funny are racists.

It is getting harder and harder to not see the GOP as rotten to the core and without a moral compass.

We can argue politics all day, fine. But when attacks on people solely based on skin color go unanswered by the party, we must conclude that they are in accord with those views, and as such, an illegitimate party to lead our nation.

White History Month... right...

Rational Nation USA said...

Sure are a lot of "probables", which of course means there is no certainty. But I guess that is to allow for those of us who, well, just might be color blind.

As in promoting people of color based on ability as it should be across the board.

But yeah the dude is certainly articulate and his points solid.

Always On Watch said...

I do recall a time during the Civil Rights Era when we whites were lectured to this effect: "See the person, not the race." Yet, now I read in one of the links (pdf - Point 1) that stating that one believes may indicate that a person is a racist.

I confess that I am "guilty" with regard to Point 7 in the pdf link.

I'm curious. Just what exactly specifics prove that a person is not a racist at heart? [no snark intended or implied]

Shaw Kenawe said...

AOW, I don't think the majority of white people are racist "at heart." But I do believe we all hold an image or an assessment in our hearts about black people that we've learned through our culture.

As an example, a female relative worked with an African-American woman, and this relative used to emphasize, when speaking about this co-worker, how "clean" she was. I remember this from my childhood, the other women who were listening to this relative would then all nod in approval over the description of the cleanliness described.

I think this is an example. The relative in question was a good hearted woman who bore no enmity against anyone; and yet, when speaking of another woman of color felt the need to tell her friends that even though she was A.A., she was "clean."

I never ever heard that qualifier tagged on to a description of any other woman this relative spoke of.

Hearing this, as a child, impressed me--I never forgot it. Why would this relative emphasize cleanliness in speaking about this particular woman? Did it mean most of the people in that race were dirty?

This is just one example--another was a close relative, born and raised in Cincinnati, whose grandmother cautioned him, when he was a child, not to put money in his mouth because a n****r might have had it in his hand.

His grandmother never cautioned him about this, say, if an Irishman, or an Italian, possibly had the coin in his hand.

These are the sort of subtle but insidious prejudices and fears we learn and internalize.

Shaw Kenawe said...

BTW, this comment was published over at Jo Joe Politico's blog.

Says it all:

Anonymous said...
I'm sick and tired of Black history month, black this and black that, enough already!

February 20, 2013 at 4:26 PM

skudrunner said...

The statement "light skinned" African-American "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one" was made by a leading democrat.

We have lost the ability to discuss race because if anything about race is said the racist term immediately thrown out. You seem to ignore that Mexicans, Cubans, Native Americans also face racism.

In past decades there was a movement toward equality which has now turned to separation. Black History month designates blacks as separate as does the black representative caucus, naacp, and black unions in college.

Until we quite allowing certain segments on both sides to divide the races we will remain separate.

Shaw Kenawe said...

skudrunner: The statement "light skinned" African-American "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one" was made by a leading democrat.

We have lost the ability to discuss race because if anything about race is said the racist term immediately thrown out. You seem to ignore that Mexicans, Cubans, Native Americans also face racism."


skudrunner, you have no self-awareness. Read the above two paragraphs and see if you can detect how you contradict yourself with your own words.

Anonymous said...

If all people should be the same, then why do we give blacks legal superiority in our laws? Where is the affirmative action for native Americans? If we had not killed them off, native Americans would be the largest minority in American society. Even your outrage over bigotry, is bigoted.

Shaw Kenawe said...

To Anonymous who appears to be a wingnutter [see today's 2/21/2013/ post] because Anon is too lazy to do any research before coming here and making statements that are easily refuted:

Issue Brief: Native American Affirmative Action Policy in the United States

Blacks have "superiority" in our laws?

You mean blacks like Treyvon Martin who was murdered for walking while being black?

How about African Americans who drive while being black?

How about the number of A.A. males compared with others who are in prison?

Are you sure you don't work for Breitbart.com, Anon?

skudrunner said...

Ms Shaw,

You do place all blame for all things on conservatives. My statements do not contradict each other they just point out that even the royalty of the democratic party can make racist statements if you choose to take those statements literally. Again, we have lost the ability to reason.

Shaw Kenawe said...

skudrunner, the words "conservative" and "liberal" are not included in any part of the blog post.

I included the example of racism from the Montana head of the GOP, and the statement in the comments of Jo Joe Politico because they are pertinent to the discussion. That those two links are linked to conservatives is simply a fact, and they stand on their own.

What Harry Reid said about Mr. Obama was dumb. But it is not in the same league as showing photos of a trap with a watermelon in it to catch our first bi-racial president, nor is it on the same par as photo shopped images of the First Lady and her husband as apes, or witch doctors, or the White House lawn strewn with watermelons. Those images are all brought to us by Teapublicans.

If the shoe fits, wear it.

w-dervish said...

Shaw: If the shoe fits, wear it.

Agreed.