Some thoughts on "black history month"

Alas, “black history month” is upon us.  Otherwise known as “Lies, half-truths and distortions Month”.  As a person who doesn’t watch television, I can go through the entire month without being exposed to any of the above – as long as I avoid all large retail outlets, government offices and educational institutions.
Most of the claims of black inventions are, of course, bogus.  Also, we are not supposed to notice that a large proportion of the noteworthy black individuals we are told about are “light-skinned blacks”.  In other words, they were only partially black.  If an individual shows any negro characteristics, then he is considered “black” by the “one drop rule”.  This being said, to expect all noteworthy American blacks to be pure negroes would be unfair.  After all, how many noteworthy Jews were pure Jews?  Perhaps if the powers that be were balanced in their representation of black history, the rest of us wouldn’t feel the need to straighten a crooked tree by bending it to the other extreme.  In other words, we would have no problem acknowledging the achievements of blacks in Western history.
But there simply are not very many notable blacks, outside of sports, entertainment and politics, who would be called “negro” by an unbiased person.  But here, as is so often the case, we are fooled by words.  “Black” can mean many things.  In the U.S., it can mean “negro” or it can refer to an ethnic group that is largely negro in origin.  Thus, a person can be predominantly Caucasian by race, but “black” by ethnicity.  “African-American”, it has been claimed, only refers to ethnicity and not race – but it has plenty of its own problems.  For example, can a Caucasian child, adopted by an “African-American” family, call himself “African American”?  Would a college, university or government accept such an identification?  Probably not.  Would an American negro child, adopted by a white family and behaving like a white in every way, not be good enough to fill a quota?  Obviously, this is not the case.
Those who deny the biological reality of race typically ignore the distinction between “race” and “ethnicity” when it suits their purposes.  They consider Eric Holder to be “black”, and defend their position by claiming that society forces him to be black because he cannot pass as white in our “racist society”.  Hence, race is a “social construct” in their eyes.  In fact, ethnicity is a social construct, not race – but they conveniently ignore the distinction.  By doing so, they are able to include a lot of mixed-race inventors, authors and scientists in their lists of “notable blacks”.
When told that blacks are not as intelligent as whites or Asians, on average, they then point to their artificially inflated list and say, “This list proves that you are wrong!  Can’t you see that there are many great black minds?”  In their view, this is evidence that race is only a social construct.  In other words, they socially construct “blacks” to suit their purposes – and then use those self-same “blacks” as evidence that race is a social construct.  A perfect example of circular reasoning.
I have no problem with blacks celebrating the accomplishments of other blacks, but “black history month” is not just an expression of ethnic pride; it is also a tool that is used to spread confusion about the nature of race/ethnicity – and it is one of many institutions used to bolster the official cult of black deification in our society.  To reinforce the constant message that blacks are superior to the rest of us.  As such, it is a source of resentment for “lower-caste” ethnicities.

This entry was posted in examples of propaganda, shenanigans of the Left and of non-white activists. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Some thoughts on "black history month"

  1. Someguy says:

    The first man to travel to the north pole was a black man

  2. For the unitiated, it would be interesting if you linked some examples. Not everyone watches US American television to know what you are referring to.
    It is seldom argued that America’s youth does not at least somewhat benefit from having an annual Black History Month, however, several critics argue that the adult population now perceives the month of February from a different angle.[2] One question that has been raised is in regard to why the month chosen to celebrate Black history is February, which is the shortest month of the year.[3]
    It is argued that Black History Month has become a “ready made excuse to ignore African American history for the other 11 months of the year”, thus promoting racism. Journalists argue that by dedicating a single month of the year to black history, it provokes a tendency for people to assume that black history is separate from American history.[4] Joseph Wayne states that “One month out of every year, Americans are given permission to commemorate the achievements of black people.

  3. People pointing out examples of ‘great black minds’ says something- that perhaps there are few enough of them to recall? Every race has standout individuals. That says nothing of the whole.

  4. Californian says:

    Black History Month, like a lot of other things, might have had a figleaf of justification 40 or so years ago. But today? It’s become one more institution which will go on in perpetuity.
    By the way, how does Detroit or Haiti (i.e., black majority ruled polities) celebrate black history month? Or do they have a new approach to history for the entire year?

  5. The fourth doorman of the apocalypse says:

    Hmmm, what about The Old Negro Space Program?

  6. Anonymous says:

    Good read, spot on.

  7. BlackPride says:

    (1) Whites invented the 1 drop rule not blacks.
    (2) Whites lynched half-blacks, made them work as slaves and made them ride on the back of the bus.
    (3) in places where blacks have been erased through mixing, half-blacks are treated just as bad as full blacks.
    …So can you really blame the world for counting creoles as blacks?

    • jewamongyou says:

      Re: #1, True, but why do modern American blacks embrace it so much? It’s because these days, being “black” is an advantage, not a liability.
      Re: #2, True, but blacks also lynched people. These days, and for the past 50 years or so, it’s whites who have typically been lynched by blacks, not the other way around.
      Re: #3, Half blacks are treated poorly in some third-world countries. Not in the U.S. The article is referring to the U.S., since this is where “Black History Month” is celebrated. Here, blacks (even half-blacks such as Obama and Holder) are treated better than whites. For example, Obama could never have been president were he not “black”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *