History is a clock that people use to tell their political and cultural time of day. It is also a compass that people use to find themselves on the map of human geography. History tells a people where they’ve been and what they’ve been; where they are and what they are. History tells a people where they still must go and what they still must be. The relationship of history to the people is the same as the relationship of a mother to her child.
~ Dr. John Henrik ClarkeConscious memory is the prerequisite for human behavior.
~ Professor Greg Carr
As we sit in the middle of Black History Month I confess that I’ve spent the entirety of it thinking about the possibilities of how we might enter into a more progressive conversation on the topic of Black History. But please realize this month is not merely about the recognition of the achievements of African Americans, or a perfunctory gesture to insert Black faces in as missing chapters of American history. To be clear, most people, African Americans and people of non-color alike, tend to engage the month at equal levels of indifference. That said, for many, Black history in a US context, typically begins with the usual slavery narrative:
- Once upon a time Black people were slaves…
- Civil War, blah-blah…
- Civil Rights, blah-blah…
- Now we finally have a Black president.
- The End.
My claim is a small one: the moment you initiate a conversation on Black history with chattel slavery as the port of origin you are always already affirming a short range historical position which ensures that you will (re)fabricate a limiting (and limited) scope from which to view Black (African) history and future. I can best liken it to walking into a football game after halftime and thinking the third quarter kickoff was the beginning of the game.
Professor Greg Carr stresses three critical indexes rendered in the work of Dr. Theophile Obenga which assert that in order to exist with agency in the world a people must be skilled practitioners of their own history, historiography and historicity.
- History: meaning memory; how do you remember your identity as an individual and as a part of a group.
- Historiography: how do you write that memory; how do you construct it and pass it on from generation to generation.
- Historicity: a sense of yourself in time and space; what’s your vision for the future.
If we, as people of African ancestry, only remember ourselves as former slaves and never recall ourselves as the first constructors of highly advanced civilizations with great centers of learning (philosophy, science, mathematics, agriculture and medicine), then we are condemned to remain a people who are only free due to the so-called benevolence of an American president.
Hubert Harrison, a brilliant early twentieth century West Indian writer whose political work influenced figures such as Marcus Garvey and A. Philip Randolph, penned these words in an article from December of 1920…
When white people today talk of civilizing Africa and assert that the Africans are uncivilized [they] awaken in the minds of well-informed Africans a doubt as to whether white people know what is meant by the term. For, no matter how it may be defined, it is clear to the instructed that various “civilizations” not only have existed in Africa, but do exist there today, independently of that particular brand which white people are taking there in exchange for the untold millions of dollars which they are taking from there.
If by civilization we mean a stable society which supports itself and maintains a system of government and laws, industry and commerce, then the Hausas and Mandingoes, the people of the Ashanti and Dahomey, and the Yorubas of the Gold Coast had and have all these, and they are consequently civilized.”
What America means to an individual depends in large part on the historical perspective from which it has been introduced to them. And perhaps by now you’ve heard it mentioned in various mainstream media sources and talked about in numerous context, that is, Arizona’s new education law banning Ethnic Studies which went into effect this January, but will apparently be enforced as of 1 February. In this case, we see the deployment of a political, legal, and economic structure controlled by white political elites. But the fact that it is controlled by this political cohort should be subordinated to the fact that it exist and is maintained by thought norms which are American exceptionalist — that is to say, they are ideas which imagine the nation in a particularly narrow and ahistorical conception. The danger of this perception is not that it is reductionist, for clearly it is, but that it rebuffs attempts at expanding a democratic ethos. No proper understanding of our contemporary moment as a nation can be had unless we are willing to dig through the archives unafraid of what we shall find.
There is no “black history.” There is only “history.” To have a “black history month” implies that the achievements of black individuals are somehow different from the achievements of other individuals or should otherwise be treated separately. This mentality encourages divisiveness and racial clansmanship in an environment that could otherwise be conducive to celebrating unity. And we have seen this occur with the now introduction of Asian History Month, Women’s History Month, Hispanic History Month, etc. It needs to end. The approach is fundamentally backwards toward what we should be trying to accomplish.
RTW, while I agree to an extent that there is just “history,” I don’t feel that’s exactly the point of the article. The one single history that has taken root in the US is that spelled out by Marco:
And while that history is true to some degree, it is horribly incomplete.
I don’t actually agree that discussing the history of Blacks in America or elsewhere in the world, or Latinos in the Southern Hemisphere, or Asian history creates division or racialism per se. The discussion of the topics are simply that, an acknowledgement that these certain things have happened in the world, and they involved people which are non-Anglo Saxons. I think identifying and even celebrating the accomplishments of brilliant minds and phenomenal people all over the world is a good thing specifically because it makes people (hopefully) much more aware that perceived racial stereotypes are far from true.
I think one of the biggest challenges we have in the world is a racial (and class) narrative that undergirds social interactions that has evolved quite literally over hundreds and thousands of years. To break past this and accept people for who they are will be a long time coming. And it will take even longer if we assume that if everyone can just ignore race and class and gender, racism, classism, and sexism will disappear. I don’t believe that is the case. We can pretend that neutral policies will create equal outcomes only if we ignore the structural inequalities that are embedded in society due to these historical legacies of racism, classism, and sexism. If we don’t acknowledge that, we just reinforce it.
I absolutely think these accomplishments should be acknowledged, but they should be examined in the context of overall human history proportionately to their significance to demonstrate that they are no different from any other individual or societal accomplishments and should be treated the same. Treating them disproportionately or separately only justifies the racist attitudes that they can’t stand on their own merits. It can be appropriate to have a unit based on time period or geography, or even race indirectly by examining different societies throughout history, but to have a “black history unit” that examines “black accomplishments” separately from everything else is backwards, paternalistic (racist), and counterproductive to the end goal of equal treatment.
My problem with affirmative action and other paternalism like “black history month” is that there is no upper bound to it – how do we know when to stop? Well, progressives will answer, we stop when discrimination ends. How do we know when discrimination ends? We know because affirmative action is no longer necessary. You see, it’s all circular and unfalsifiable. I would hope that progressives can at least acknowledge that at *some* point all this obsession about race and racial identity becomes counterproductive – how can we know when that is? Go to a college campus during orientation before school begins and you’ll witness people of all races intermingling freely. After school begins and everyone signs up for various progressive racial organizations (black students, southeast asian students, etc.), you’ll see tables of all black or all latino or all asian students sitting together like it’s the 1920′s. The organizations cause this alienating behavior, not resolve it. The individuals can then defend this self-segregation because they “made friends through the organization.” I think it’s wrong, and it’s clearly philosophically inconsistent because we wouldn’t tolerate a “white students organization” for a moment, nor should we.
I think this misses the point (or misses my point). For me, supporting things like affirmative action and black history month would never end in this circularity because of the structural racism that exists in society that I referenced above, which may never go away (my cynicism shows again). While I would love it if discrimination were to end tomorrow, in this hypothetical world, there would still be a legacy of injustice that would be reinforced if we were to move to neutral policies when discrimination ended.
I don’t think focusing on race is counterproductive because of the current systemic imbalance that disadvantages Blacks (and others) in the US. Acknowledging that is important. If at some later time all the discrimination in the world were to disappear and we could all come together and sing kumbaya, then I may be concerned with the upper bound you speak of. Until then, it’s not an issue for me. Maybe that’s one of my flaws.
RTW…
1. Theoretically I agree with your opening statement. This is why I say that Black history is American history. But the way it plays out in the classrooms of schools and colleges, print and TV media around the country has always been something quite different. The achievements of people groups in this country take place within a wide range of contexts. For example, the achievements of a steel tycoon and the achievements of a young girl working in a factory in Worcester, both in the 19th century might both be great but clearly they are different realities. A proper historiography is needed to nuance these accounts.
2. This nation’s founders made damn sure “divisiveness and racial clansmanship” would be the order of the day both before and after 1776. The struggles of marginalized groups (women, Blacks, LGBTQ, laborers, etc.) has tended toward an emphasis on inclusion not divisiveness. Our history is very clear about this.
3. I’m all for celebrating unity as long as I know what I’m unifying with.
4. Would you please provide specific examples of how the introduction of Asian, Women’s and Hispanic History Months have encouraged divisiveness and racial clansmanship?
5. Would you please provide one example of a “disproportional” historical representation of a marginal group, and explain how its presentation has been examined outside of other societal accomplishments.
6. For the record, I do not believe in, nor do I advocate “equal treatment.” I call for EQUITABLE treatment. The two are fundamentally different.
7. Affirmative Action and Black History Month are two completely different undertakings, and thus do not belong in the same sentence. Moreover, neither have anything to do with “paternalism”. I’m perfectly happy to talk about either, but we’ll need to create two separate conversation spaces for that.
8. I am unequipped to speak for progressives as a collective group. Your comments seem to suggest that progressives are one monolithic body ideologically moving in lockstep with each other. The fact is that progressives often fight not unlike Romney and Gingrich in a 2012 presidential debate.
9. Your comparison of students from diverse ethnic groups freely convening on college campuses in 2012 with 1920’s Jim Crow racial segregation is at best historically incompatible and at worst completely absurd. Every week Jews, Muslims and Christians attend their respective worship services and no one thinks this is odd in any way. There is nothing ominous about people grouping themselves for cultural, political, religious, etc. reasons. Why does this concern you? No one in those campus organizations are plotting to overthrow anything.
10. To be clear, student organizations that have as a central organizing theme their whiteness have a particularly troubled history in this country — to put it mildly. So yes, a group calling itself the “white students organization” might not be a good idea. That said, none of these other groups you’ve mentioned organize themselves on the basis of their so-called *race*. They are cultural and political organizations, not racial clans. And they often organize with the purpose of supporting the needs of the members of their constituent communities. Again… Liberian, Jewish, Dominican, various South East Asian groups right here in Providence organize in similar fashion and it’s both successful and beautiful, so relax, RTW.
Marco,
I’m talking about these principles generally, so I don’t have specific examples in mind (except what I have personally experienced). If you provided me with some middle and high school curriculums, I’m sure that some would spend a disproprotionate amount of time on white individuals or black individuals, if you wanted to look at them that way. My point is that the simple act of breaking down historical accomplishments into “white accomplishments” and “black accomplishments” is fundamentally backwards, and that is exactly what racial emphasis programs like “Black History Month” attempt to do by definition. The fact that every minority group now has to have its own “month” is evidence to me that these individuals continue to self-identify based on what they are instead of who they are as people, and I think the end goal should be changing that perspective to one of individualism instead of identity based on immutable characteristics.
I don’t agree that affirmative action and Black History Month are “completely different.” They are related in subject matter, their stated goals, and some aspects of their methodologies, such as classifying individuals into race-based categories and treating them differently according to that criterion. They don’t need to be discussed separately here because they both relate to my central point about not categorizing people in the first place.
Progressives are not monolithic with regard to every issue, but they do share a core group of beliefs and political positions. If people choose to self-identify based on a shared core ideology, as progressives do, then I will make reference to that. My experience has been that progressives generally support policies like Black History Month and affirmative action. By contrast, many of the people I know who self-identify as “liberal” are at least skeptical of them if not fully opposed, and these certainly aren’t libertarian or conservative policies.
My comparison to the 1920′s is valid in certain respects but not others. You would expect, during that era, to enter a room and see a “black area” and a “white area.” We see the same thing today as we enter campus dining rooms with “black tables” and “white tables” and “latino tables” and “asian tables” due to the race-based campus groups, only it is based on self-segregation now instead of top-down segregation. I think both practices are racist and wrong, although if I have to pick, the latter situation is clearly worse.
Your argument that the campus groups are “culturally based” is self-defeating and specious. Religious organizations chiefly facilitate religious observances and group worship, and these are legitimate non-discriminatory functionalities of those groups not based on immutable characteristics. The groups I’m talking about aren’t cultural – they call themselves things like “Black Students Organization” or “Black Engineers Society.” There are no such things as “Black culture” or “Black activities” that these groups could legitimately facilitate, and their very names indicate that they are race-based. I’ve been to dozens of events hosted by these types of organizations, and they are often just social activities aimed at black (or other minority) individuals, such as bowling night, movie night, or pub night, etc. I don’t think people need a “Black” group to meet friends and enjoy these activities, and my experience is that they are really just a socially acceptable way to self-segregate by race. I have no issue with clubs that are aimed at facilitating activities for everyone and don’t draw distinctions based on race.
Your point about white race-based groups is historically accurate but not principled with regard to my point. I’m sure you’re well aware that many black race-based groups have had violent or racist histories in the United States. I don’t see why a peaceful white race-based campus group should be scorned while a fundamentally identical black race-based campus group should be celebrated. To be clear, I don’t support any of this self-segregation, regardless of which race happens to be is involved.
I very much agree that having a perspective of individualism should be a goal, but that individualism is rooted in who the person is: Black, White, Asian, Latino, etc. Thinking about things from these perspectives isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Nationalism and/or racism are – and we both agree with that. And while I’ll agree that having the success of Blacks, Latinos, Asians, etc., acknowledged in every month would be ideal, I think that is ALSO a goal which comes from their acknowledgement during specific times. Cultural change takes time, and sometimes it needs to be forced. In this case, I think we disagree on the amount of force necessary.
This is actually something that has more to do with social psychology than policy choices. I would assume that in the absence of racially identified campus groups, we would see the same quasi-segregation (for lack of a better term). At the Kennedy School at Harvard, it happens among different nationalities. The German students will be together and communicate in German, South Americans will be together and speak Spanish, etc. I don’t actually find this all that troubling, since there is the opportunity for me (or anyone) to be a part of that group.
There is a certain level of comfort afforded when people are among “their own kind,” however that is defined. I’m much more comfortable being around liberal social activists who enjoy punk rock music, but that doesn’t mean I associate only with them. Maybe I’m not seeing this correctly, but I get the impression that you’re putting the onus of responsibility on minority groups to be more integrative in White culture and society, rather than acknowledging an equal level of responsibility of Whites to be a part of and understand non-White culture and society. I don’t think that is right.
When you saw a table of Asian students sitting in a cafeteria, a scenario that you find offensive, did you ever go over to them and ask if you could join them?
RTW…
1. Your “general principle” argument looses a lot of traction because you seem to be having trouble citing specific instances which support your claim of a “general principle.” But you do say from your personal experience, so let’s go with that. Please share a personal experience that you feel supports this “general principle” (and by “general principle” I’m assuming you mean one that is widely practiced and commonly held).
2. Yes, primary and secondary school curriculums in this country have historically been biased towards those white, wealthy, male, and in power. As a result, the realities of oppressed groups who lived, loved and worked concomitantly with those in power have been either silenced or mistold. The good news is that much work has been and is being done by educators, scholars, writers, journalist, Historians, etc. to correct this problem.
3. Before I comment on the history and purpose of Black History Month allow me to ask you what you’ve read about it. I have an ongoing academic and intellectual background in this area, and so, before I comment I want to know what you’ve read on it. Then perhaps we can take it from there.
4. Define what you mean by “what they are” vs. “who they are.” How are you differentiating these two?
5. Provide for me documentation which suggest that Affirmative Action and Black History Month are related in subject matter and stated goals.
6. I’m not a liberal or “a” progressive. You’ll need to have that conversation with one of them.
7. Again, there are no RACE-BASED campus groups!! What college did you attend where there were so-called “race-based” campus groups????? If you find a campus group with mostly Latinos in it THAT DOES NOT MEAN that it’s race-based! It just means that it’s probably a Latino student organization, which is no different than a Women’s or Jewish organization.
8. The name “Black” in student organizations simply means that they have a focus on issues which directly impact Black communities, or that they focus racial minority professional societies, which simply means that they network and professionally support one another. It has nothing to do with racial supremacy.
9. What do you mean there is no such thing as Black culture??? Of course there is! And it’s incredibly diverse! And no, it has nothing to do with bowling. Bowling is merely a social activity which provides a space for people to convene and feel accepted or talk with people who they know will understand them.
10. Lastly, name for me one Black group that has had a violent racist history, and tell me what historic and systemic violence they’ve committed.
I don’t see why talking about general principles without specific examples loses credibility. They are simply different levels of conversational abstraction. For example, we can talk about racism as a concept without analyzing specific instances of racism. I’m not comfortable sharing the schools I attended here, but will tell you that several of my middle school and high school courses contained “black history units” in which the accomplishments of black individuals were examined separately from other accomplishments. The school library in my high school also observed Black History Month by displaying books by or about black individuals.
I don’t understand what you mean by asking what I’ve “read about” Black History Month. I imagine that I’ve read roughly the same number of materials about it, discussed it, and experienced it in my education to the same extent as any other average New Englander. I know that it has been around for decades and its stated purpose is to highlight the accomplishments of black individuals in United States history. I also don’t understand what you mean by your request for “documentation” on the common goals of affirmative action and Black History Month. I feel that I have already explained my reasoning clearly.
Your comparison of a Latino students group to a Women or Jewish students group is not as clear-cut as you make it out to be. There are legitimate biological and behavioral differences between men and women that are not present between different racial groups. If a women’s group is meant to facilitate these legitimate differences, then I have no problem with it because it is not really discriminatory in its intent. However, if the group exists simply for the purpose of associating with people of the same gender, then I view that as sexism. Jewish groups are similarly complex, in that being Jewish can refer to either an ethnicity or a religion. For example, I am ethnically Jewish, but not religiously so. If the group is designed to facilitate religious observances that require or are enhanced by group settings, then that is legitimate. However, if the group is more focused on giving ethnically Jewish people the opportunity to associate with other ethnically Jewish people, then I would also view that as racist and not support the organization. To address your example, I don’t view “feeling comfortable with other black people” as a legitimate rationale behind an organization or event. I’m sure you would consider me racist if I said that I was more comfortable hanging out with white people than with you.
You’re doing some linguistic acrobatics in your attempt to categorize these organizations as cultural and not racial. As I already pointed out, the names that these groups have selected for themselves specifically refer to race. Latino is a race. Black is a race. I don’t see anything in the group names about culture, although I would welcome that distinction if it were present.
The Black Panthers are one of several well-known examples of violent, racist black organizations in American History. I’m surprised that you even have to ask to what I was referring. There is a quite lengthy section entitled “Violence” on the Black Panther Party Wikipedia page if you would like specifics.
RTW…
It looses some credibility because it should be empirical, or testable. Otherwise, we find ourselves debating with ideology rather than engaging in a dialectical exchange. It also helps to keep the conversation intellectually honest.
Bob: “You’re a sexist homophobe!”
Josh: “Really?!!! Prove it!”
Bob: “I can’t. It’s just a general principle I have to call you that.”
[see my point?]
No, we can’t talk about racism that way. It is a concept in part because there is centuries long documentary evidence of it’s existence, maintenance and proliferation globally. We have a concept of racism because we have instances of racism BECAUSE we have concepts of racism, etc., etc.
What your school should have done is taught you about those individuals all year so then you wouldn’t have needed a Black History month in the first place.
I asked you what you’ve read about it because your conflation of Black History Month with Affirmative Action connotes to me that you clearly couldn’t have read anything. Aside from the fact that they both touch the lives of Black people they have absolutely no relation to each other; in fact, their emergences are decades apart. I suppose swimming and bowling are both sporting type activities, after all they do both have “lanes” as a necessary part of their processes, but certainly they are not the same. Again, I am more than happy to discuss them, but it’ll have to be separately.
Here is what you are missing on the group issue. These so-called “race groups” do not form in a bubble. Historically speaking, the need for Black or Latino[1] groups to form had everything to do with the various ways in which they were being denied access in this country. Whether it was social, political, educational, in health care, professional societies, etc., minorities were either excluded all together or admitted but still marginalized within the organization. Or, you might even have some organizations that form specifically to tackle an issue impacting a particular community, and the organization would fit its name to suit the cause. This is wholly different from overtly white organizations which have historically formed to advance racist agendas. A Latino or Asian student org. is not pushing a racist agenda.
In the city of Providence there are numerous ethnic oriented orgs., many of which are racially diverse, and their missions are to support the needs of the members of that community. It has nothing whatsoever to do with “biology” or divisiveness. To the extent that people still think of Blacks as a race, the way in which Blacks organize is based on politics and social culture. This persistent notion you have that these are “race based” groups is very, very imprecise and misguided.
As I’m sure you know, Jewish populations have been organizing themselves the way you’ve described for many, many years — and I don’t see a thing wrong with it. What’s more, I think it’s quite brilliant! In fact, if the Black community organized themselves the way the Jewish community does our problems would end overnight!
The histories and realities of white and black people in this land are completely different. You know this. Therefore, you don’t need to say that you’d be more comfortable hanging around white people than Black people because you have opportunities to hang around white people ALL THE TIME. But that wouldn’t be the same for a Person of Color. The fact that the devision is racialized is actually a very incidental moment resulting from a history of chattel slavery. I don’t intend to go into a long history lesson on the contours of the American slave society. Suffice it to say, the separation that you think is happening with Black people along racial lines is really just a cultural line which has been drawn by white people historically. The racially utopian society that you long for is not here, yet.
There is a really great book called “Why Are All The Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria?”: A Psychologist Explains the Development of Racial Identity, by Dr. Beverly Daniel Tatum. She does great work in terms of explaining the core of what seems to be troubling you.
Oh boy! Wikipedia? Really? Now I have to debate with Wikipedia. Ok, if you say so. Since you’ve named the Black Panthers, I want you to cite examples of both their violence and racism. And I do want you to cite it. Don’t tell me to go read Wikipedia.
-Endnotes-
[1] Your claim that “Latino is a race” is a massive indication that you may be in over your head. Almost ANY random Spanish-speaking person with Caribbean and/or South American ancestry will tell you that “Latino” is a cultural marker and not a race. That said, I am increasingly beginning to think that I’m wasting huge amounts of my valuable time debating an opponent who is unprepared on even the rudimentary structure of the arguments.
Yeah, this is exactly what I was trying to get at with my comment above. But Marco deftly explained it much better than I could.
You seem to be having a lot of fun condescending to me and trying to prove to the audience how “academic” and “well read” you are, so let’s just leave it at that. Personally, I have nothing to prove to anyone. I disagree with most of the premises of your arguments that you have taken for granted, and I have already explained my reasoning, so there isn’t much more to discuss. At some point, you have to agree to disagree, and I’m at that point now.
—>Personally, I have nothing to prove to anyone.<— [Roaring with laughter!]
Marco, I hear you, and I’ve been a longtime proponent of a more grown-up conversation about race in the US. But here’s the problem. The story of race in the US is dominated by slavery, and until we can deal with it, we’re stuck here. White people – particularly descendants of slave owners – need closure. I take a lot of the action I see in the South these days in a very bad light. They’re starting to go backwards again in a pretty aggressive way.
I actually think there’s a lot that can be done within the pitiful context of items 1 – 5 you list. For example, there’s a whole lot of white people with black family that they don’t know about. I’m likely one. I’m continually amazed that the Jefferson-Hemings story is not a bigger deal in the US. I couldn’t imagine the social impact if an on-going plantation-based genealogy study were to get rolling somewhere. The numbers of people affected in the South would be giant.
Frymaster…
I think you’re right, and as a nation, we are doing it. But as you’ve said, the southern right tea party push has created a new tone both in Republican politics and the nation at large.
“My claim is a small one: the moment you initiate a conversation on Black history with chattel slavery as the port of origin you are always already affirming a short range historical position which ensures that you will (re)fabricate a limiting (and limited) scope from which to view Black (African) history and future.”
I have a small problem with this. The OP states that beginning a conversation of black history is taking a short range historical position. I don’t quite understand this. Slavery began in 17th century and continued through the middle part of the 19th century. We’re still not at a point where black people have all been freemen longer than they have been slaves. I fail to see how slavery is short sighted.
Further, the end of slavery did not end inequality. If the end of the Civil War were some clean break from slave to free I’d agree, but the term ‘free’ was defined and redefined for black people for over a century after the end of the Civil War.
Thus, I find it odd the OP states that initiating a conversation of Black History should not start with slavery…well, that such a conversation illustrates a short-sighted range. I’d suggest the opposite.
Black History does not begin and end with slavery, but it certainly does begin with it. The OP states we need to see ourselves pre-slavery wherein we were part of larger (and some successful) societies.
But taking that view ignores the impact of slavery and expressed intent of the slavers to wipe out the history of the black man. They were quite successful in so doing to the extent that if we do as suggested by the OP, I think we’ll find we have more in common with our white American brethren than African societies. In other words, we have been mostly assimilated and a desire to harken back to a village in a desert, jungle, or mountainland is only an opiate for the mind; trying to hold onto something other than the slave experience despite the slave experience being the only memory for which we can hold.
It’s sad, but true.
Instead, I feel black people should embrace their slave heritage but decide that today it’s time to forge our own and different path. We have so many role models in the US of how to not be marginalized (e.g. other non-white immigrants) but still groupthink remains. It’s a crutch and an anchor, one that will not be easily broken.
donroach…
I actually agree with most of what you’ve said. I think you’ve only slightly misunderstood my claim. In no way, shape, form, or fashion would I ever even begin to suggest that we skip over or otherwise ignore our enslavement by Europeans. I’m simply proffering that the collective socio-psychological impact of not knowing your history beyond the time when you were owned by someone can be a problem. Historical memory for a people is hugely important.