Is there such a thing as 'Black History'?

Sitting around my table with friends , rolling fajitas and drinking wine, the conversation turns to stories about work. One of our guests , who is a teacher, begins to discuss events to celebrate ‘Black History’.

We get tangled up in how these events ‘can’t’ represent a single ‘black’ history , when one of us (Allan) makes a fantastic and simple statement.

‘There isn’t a single black history, and those who try and promote one, as a means of simplifying some complex social imbalances are wrong.’

Well, from that moment on, life would not be the same again for me , on the subject of black culture, or anything that is generally applied with the term ‘black’ to communicate a shared experience by a group of people who share nothing but dark shades of skin tone.

Popularizing a black history is as dumb as promoting a single white history. I mean you could, if you went back far enough. But if you did that, what you would end up with would be a shared human history.

I don’t object to the celebration of an important heritage – in fact I wouldn’t have it any other way. But we must be honest and determined about what we celebrate and why. To this end I recommend that rather than use the all encompassing ‘black’ we should be more specific and perhaps more accurate, by using the term ‘African heritage’.

Folks out there who are already sick to the teeth with political correctness might say ‘But why quibble about words?’.

Because words are important. They represent our values and understandings and so, we must choose them carefully. In the context of race, inequality and social justice, words can mean the difference between being treated with respect and being ignored, marginalized and discriminated against.

‘African heritage’ creates the opportunities to embrace all backgrounds that stem from Africa , regardless of route. It creates a framework to discuss and explore how every person of African origin came to be where they are. They can discover and tell the stories that led them and their forebears, often through turmoil and upheaval, to their present state – without being forced to describe these stories in terms of colour.

If the best we can do, as a society, is to reduce complex histories and the fundamentals of social injustices down to colour, then I’m afraid it isn’t good enough.

Africa is a physical land mass from which many distinct culture have sprung. They each need to be celebrated. Social evolution has seen European settlers in parts of Africa, many who now consider themselves African – but not black. Is their heritage also to be discarded?
What of the children of interracial relationships ? Are they to be marginalized because they aren’t ‘black’ enough?

My experience in the West has been that non-white people , specifically Indians and Africans are generally lumped together as ‘black’. So much so that there is solidarity between these races. But Indian heritage is also hugely rich and varied. Thankfully this is recognized far more readily as there isn’t yet a ‘brown’ history.

So , in summary the term ‘black history’ should be changed to ‘African heritage’ because the former promotes the division of races by color whilst the latter creates an inclusive framework, suitable for a progressive discourse. Whilst this is a simple change in semantics , in time the mindset that comprehends only history by colour may change to one that sees history by heritage and connection to a place. One which embraces the fairness and possibilities which may have been missing until now.

http://agilesoftwarequalities.blogspot.com/ Scott Duncan

I think terminology went from “Negro” & “colored” to “African-American” then “black” largely due to some wanting to focus on the racial issue (in the USA) and its history of slavery. The initial move to “African-American” seemed reasonable, but when it was pointed out that this included cultures (and races) not subjected to (even participants in) slavery, “black” became the more accepted term.

As to “brown” history and use of the word “Indian,” there is still some controversy over the later compared to “Native-American.” Given that the term “Indian” was a mistake due to belief that India had been what was “discovered,” the term “Native-American” took over. But some feel this leads to lumping all such peoples into one culture (e.g., Native-American religion). And, some native people in the USA use the term “Indian.” There are also those who point out that historical evidence suggests the people now known as “native” may have come from Asia and pushed older “native” people south from North America. There are also issues over what qualifies a person to be considered “Indian” as there are for being “black” or, for that matter, “Jewish.”

I believe the issue of racial/cultural identity exists almost everywhere in all races and cultures. Names seem to me to be less important than why people are concerned about the names. That is, what the distinction in names means or represents in terms of what folks who use (or reject) the terms feel is the important racial or cultural focus.
mike.sutton

I agree with all you say (although you seem to be speaking almost exclusively from a North American perspective – which is cool too!).

Terms are less important for progressively minded folk who have already made the leap in thinking. But for the vast majority, I think changing what something is called is an important first step to changing how it is thought of.

All I’m advocating here – vis as vis “African Heritage” is to have a framework that is more inclusive (rightly so) – in a way that enables each cultural thread to shine through. Rather than yet another mechanism to ‘lump’ together for simplicity or bias.

Thanks for your contribution Scott.