Why is it "black" history? After all that we now know from our past concerning the separation, hatred and segregation of our society and why things were once "white" and "black" in our country, we must ask why these linguistic relics still comprise our vocabulary and speech. More than a hundred years ago Plessy v Ferguson ushered in the era of Jim Crow, which segregated businesses, public institutions and most all organizations. This was at the time, the only way to do business in our country. With those days in the proverbial rearview mirror, it is time for a re or deprogramming of our minds to accommodate the modern realities.
This month we begin what is traditionally referred to as "Black" history month; a time to reflect on the accomplishment of dark-skinned people whose genetic makeup would largely come from the African continent. While that description was somewhat lengthy, it more accurately defines what we are doing. Today we understand that due to colonial ambitions and conquest over many centuries, mixed with migration patterns and the mixing of human populations, almost no one in the U.S. is left untouched by the genetic makeup that would include the African continent.
However, to this day, we still make judgments on who gets to be termed "black" based on scientifically ludicrous concepts like the one-drop rule. We must move on.
Our society was created by people whose ancestry spans the globe and have played an integral part in shaping what it means to be an American. From Africa to Asia and from Europe to Australia and beyond, we are inextricably linked.
Our history, like most all other cultures worldwide, is one of large scale population mixing for the last four and half centuries.
Native Americans were shown to have mixed with other people groups prior to the arrival of the pilgrims. Is that "black" history? The story of "black" or "brown" or "colored people" in America clearly predates the trans-atlantic slave trade, which identifies the problem of trying to state that there is such a thing as "black" history because it clearly depends on how one chooses to define "black."
Without going down that road, we should simply become technically accurate and call it "history."
After all, that is what it is. "Black" can not be clearly defined with any sense of rationality. Therefore it behooves us to do, not only what is most expedient, but also what is most rational. Though our skin tones are varying shades, none of us is "white" or "black" but we are all part of each other. All HISTORY is therefore relevant to us. Let us tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth; that there is only HISTORY and just like "race," there is only one. We need to tell it it like it was.