Nitpick: G.W. Carver didn’t invent peanut butter. It was older than he was. His uses for peanuts were primarily industrial.
Personally I like black history month, women’s history month, etc.- I’ve learned some cool things in all of them. I don’t see it as segregating so much as highlighting.
We have a word for fried chicken, okra, grits, etc., down here: FOOD.
Morgan Freeman has recently spoken out against Black History Month.
[Pointless hijack]The library where I work has a display case for Black History Month. It features various things from our archives related to Alabama history: there’s a photograph of slaves at the university (rented from local farmers as maintenance staff), an 1850 newspaper describing a local slave auction, photos of ‘WHITES ONLY’ signs, a book about entertainment written by a faculty member that has a picture of Bert Williams on the cover, photos of Condoleeza Rice speaking here, etc…
An assistant dean asked us to remove the Bert Williams book because “black students might find it degrading”. I thought it was hysterical for some reason: one of the highest paid most lauded entertainers of his day is demeaning but WHITES ONLY counters and slavery was just fine. Gotta love academics.[/Pointless hijack]
No single person invented the traffic light, the light bulb, the telephone, the airplane, or dozens of other products. We still tend to give someone credit as “first” and the fact that blacks were major contributors to the evolution of various products is still the point of the exercise–demonstrating that blacks have done more than work fields and suffer abuse on this continent since 1619.
Yes but you credit the people who were the prominent inventors. The invention of the light bulb wasn’t a filament in a vacuum tube, it was an entire industry. The bulb was a tiny piece of the puzzle. Electricity, as we know it today, was the direct result of Edison’s vision (even if he screwed up alternating current). Many people worked on heavier than air machines but the Wright Brothers invented the tools and the science behind their discovery of 3 axis controlled powered flight. The airplane was the product of their research, not just their ability to string wire to wood. Aeronautical engineering started with the Wright Brothers.
QUOTE=MGibson]That true. So what’s wrong with having some time set aside to concentrate on something in specific?
[/QUOTE]
Nothing is wrong with it except it is often portrayed as history on a macro level when it’s usually information on a micro level. History is history. It’s not black or white. Thomas Jefferson gets historic mention because of his works as a founding father, not for his inventions.
I’m not sure how to approach it. I love history, particularly the human-interest side of it. What is presented during Black History Month is rarely historic. It’s usually human-interest stories that emphasize black achievement. That’s how it should be portrayed.
I am well aware that the Wright brothers were more than lucky tinkerers and that they did a massive amount of actual investigation and experimentation in building their craft, investigating the theoretical as well as doing practical things such as developing a wind tunnel, thus laying a good basis on which the fledgling industry could build.
On the other hand, they also hid most of their work for several years as they tried to secure their patents and a lot of parallel work was done “without” them. Had a late hurricane swept them and their Flyer into Albemarle Sound, someone, whether it was Curtis or Bleriot or some other individual or group, would have gotten heavier than air flight off the ground before 1910, even without them.
I’m not sure what this nitpicking has to do with the topic at hand.
Ok, I agree that history is history and that it isn’t black or white. I can understand why historians focus on the big movers and shakers like Jefferson but it’s valuable to take a look at the lives of those who weren’t as influential or even those who had almost no influence at all.
Context is everything. If I were to tell you about Scott Bond, who was a former slave who eventually went on to become a wealthy dairy farmer/business man around Little Rock, it wouldn’t mean all that much I suppose. However if I were to tell you about Scott Bond and what was going on while he was alive. That’s historic enough for me.
Marc
That’s a perfect example of what I’m talking about. Scott Bond is a personal (AE) success story. It’s interesting. I would personally enjoy hearing about it. But where’s the historic connection?
I’m trying to differentiate between historically significant events and people who are inventors or are generally successful. If you start to include everyone in the process then the general concept of history is lost in a sea of personal achievement. The machinist who constructed the plutonium core for fat man was not historically relevant to the Manhattan project. He probably had some interesting stories to tell but nothing that would make it into a history book.
I don’t quite understand the question. Historians love to use the points of view of the common man to provide us with greater insight into those eras. They love gettings their hands on letters written by soldiers at war for example. Scott Bond didn’t exist in a vacuum and while his accomplishments aren’t anywhere near the scale of our Washingtons, Pattons, or Shakespeares his story does provide us with some insight into the Reconstruction era southern United States. Granted, it’s tough to put some perspective on his story in a 60-90 second blurp on television but there’s the historical connection for you.
Obviously we can’t give the Andy Andersons, Frank Roneys, or the Yick Wos the same amount of play time as the movers and shakers throughout the ages. However, I don’t see how anyone can question their historical connection. Unless we have very different ideas on what historical connection means.
Marc
Oh come on, “incredibly bad taste.” It’s good food. You want to celebrate someone’s culture, the best way to do it is with their food. It’s not wrong to serve Chinese food on the Chinese New Year (at they did at my school) but serving what happens to be the food of Southern black culture is somehow in bad taste?
I’ve noticed that the food of poor southern blacks isn’t all that different from the food of poor southern whites. Catfish, chicken, bbq, chitlins, grits, cornbread, etc. are all foods that were consumed by poor folks in the south regardless of race.
Marc
My family wasn’t poor when I was growing up (we achieved it later) and this was our standard fare. I could take you to a dozen very popular restaurants that I know of where this is the daily menu or buffet as well.
For the really poor it was chitlins (very cheap), jowl, pigtails, fatback and pig’s feet. These you don’t see that often anymore, though they are still sold in grocery stores. (I tried fried chitlins once accidentally and was surprised and disturbed to learn they aren’t bad.)
My aunts (born in 1889) referrred to very lean years when cash crops and vegetables didn’t pan out and game was more scarce than usual as “blackbird winters” because those were the years when people killed blackbirds, who in the rural south will literally turn your lawn black they fly in such thick flocks. They’re easy to kill (one buckshot blast would take out several) but so skinny and bony that it took several to make a meal for an average person.
I should have probably said that these foods originated with poor folk instead of saying it was food for poor folk. After all, ribs can be rather expensive these days compared to what it was in the past. Even with economic success I imagine a lot of people continue to eat the types of foods they were raised on.
I joke about chitlins and liver being so disgusting but I realize that my food preferences are largely a matter of what I’m accustomed to having. I had a frog legs a few years ago and even though they were tasty I just couldn’t get over the idea that I was eating frog legs. I still won’t eat pickled pigs feet because I’ve seen what they stepped in.
I’ve heard of people eating crow, literally I mean, but I’ve never met anyone who actually ate some. I admit that I’d eat damn near anything if my alternative was to go hungry. Cats, dogs, squirrels, possum, etc.
I’m curious as to the origin of black people and watermelons in the United States. I’ve seen plenty of centry old photos of white people at picnics digging into the watermelon so why the focus on it as a “black” food? Ideas, anyone?
Marc
I’m not disagreeing with anything you are saying except for context. From a personal perspective, I’m more interested in the smaller chunks of history (the personal side) then the macro view. When presented in a classroom environment, micro histories should evolve as an extension of
the marco view. Kids should seek this out as a natural extension of what is taught.
I’ve always objected to Black History Month because for 2 reasons: It implies black people are left out of history and it is almost always presented as a patronizing rendition of success stories. They might as well call it “take a Negro to lunch month”. As I’ve said before, history is history. There isn’t a historic venue that I can think of that doesn’t include a cross section of humanity. Unfortunately, the macro view leaves out a lot of ethnicity because that’s what actually happened. If the macro view is used to promote the micro view then history is better understood and appreciated.
Using the Wright Brothers as an example I would show the roots of aviation and then draw a line to modern homebuilt aircraft. When you read about Neal Loving’s life you connect on a personal level and that in turn connects you to what the Wright Brothers achieved. The macro and the micro view of history build on each other. You can’t study the Wright Brothers and not appreciate Neal Loving (and vice versa). It’s condescending to study Loving as an “African American Aviation Pioneer”. He’s a frickin god to people who build their own aircraft and should be treated historically as such.
Note to self, proof read after you spell check.
Not only were they left out of history they were even left out of popular culture. How many black cowboys do you see in westerns from the 40’s and 50’s?
I don’t agree that it’s condescending at all any more then it would be to study John Watt as a Scottish mechanical pioneer. There are many ways to study people and perceived racial characters is just one of them.
Marc
Referring to John Watt as a Scottish mechanical pioneer is unnecessary and therefore patronizing. He should be referred to as John Watt. It would be like me introducing you as Mgibson, a black/Spanish/Jewish/Albino friend of mine. Unless it’s specifically relevant to the subject then it’s patronizing. Saying the Blues originated from Southern African American culture is relevant. Calling BB king a famous Black Blues musician is not. It would be like calling President Lincoln a famous White American. It should be obvious in the study of an individual’s life what his/her background is.
