The annual Black History observance is a reflection of the prevailing political atmosphere, so what steps can we take to refresh it?
We are in Black History Month in the UK, and it seems it’s time for a reassessment. Over the years, an event that was initiated as a commemorative event of heritage, traditions and links between international African diaspora communities, has adopted a corporate feel, growing to encompass functions where individuals of African heritage are remunerated to speak with Caucasian groups about hidden biases and supportive partnership. The 2020s Black Lives Matter protests sparked an increase in the enterprise of displaying cultural sensitivity. Yet, that phase is now over. The surge has peaked, producing a diluted aftermath of what raising awareness is for.
The Origins of Black History Observance
Originally observed in the America and its northern neighbor, Black History Month was created in 1962 as “Negro History Week” by Black scholar Carter G. Woodson with a week of remembrance and recognition in the middle of February. Black History Month evolved from this initiative and was formally inaugurated in 1970. Currently it is marked not only in the North America in the second month, but also in October in the United Kingdom, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Ireland and the the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
The month has transformed since that time, giving reduced attention to the histories of transatlantic enslavement and struggles for equality, and greater focus on prominent Black figures in public life, creative fields, and advocacy, and widely honoring the input Black people have made to shape the country. It is in educational institutions where Black History Month is most frequently marked, with talks and cultural events. But the method the month is celebrated is a manifestation of the political moment. How it evolves is a valuable example in how co-option leads to weakening: the restructuring of Black History Month has impeded the point of it, which is to address embedded and established prejudice.
A Disconcerting Period
Few things illustrate how important it is to reevaluate Black History Month better than the particular moment in which it takes place this year. In the Britain, a reemerging right-wing in the guise of the Reform political group is leading the polls. In the recent season we witnessed the largest far-right rally in British history. Kemi Badenoch, the person of color at the helm of the Tory party, is a staunch adversary of the racial justice movement, and we are in a situation where a member of parliament feels empowered to declare that “not seeing any white faces” in certain urban areas is a cause for alarm. At the same time, extreme conservative groups are surging in the European continent as a whole.
In the United States, a massive attack against diversity initiatives and positive discrimination has been brought, frequently with success, to the supreme judicial bodies of the state. A campaign to scrub Black history and legacy from the historical documents is under way. One of the political figure's initial presidential directives targeted the National Museum of African American History and Culture, and the prestigious establishment, accusing them of a “concerted and widespread effort to alter the country's historical narrative” by portraying America “as fundamentally prejudiced”.
In this context, the month illustrates how minimally it can be influential if it is confined to either dutiful corporate observances, or stripped of political content commemorations of contributions in the past, rather than addressing the conditions of the current era. It also demonstrates how its short period means that it is disconnected from the wider consistent effort that is required. Denise Miller, a professor at a learning establishment, expressed it perfectly when she voiced worries about the temporary “tokenism” of the observance. “The problem with taking a tokenistic approach”, she stated, “is that it typically leads to that Black History Month becomes a brief show rather than a catalyst for change.”
Reconsidering, Not Discarding
Establishing how to adjust, modify and expand efforts for equal rights and acknowledgment in such moments of dejection and worry is a treacherous thing. There is a inclination to just eliminate events including Black History Month completely, assuming they are simply not fit for purpose, or are remnants of an era that has been ineffective.
Yet, in spite of all this, Black History Month, and in fact the complete comprehensive structure and tradition of campaigns for equality – local anti-racism groups, inclusion and equity efforts, and yes, even those talks to businesses – constitute an infrastructure that a significant effort has gone into. It is there not only to deteriorate as the political landscape shifts (and in fact, deteriorates), but to be a dynamic entity.
So what would a fresh vibrant Black History Month seem? Well, first, it would be more than a single focused period: something that is spread out across all seasons (as some institutions are already beginning to do), sections of its curriculum (particularly around notable African descendants) included in school curriculums. It would also be a period that does not evade governmental matters, and allows opportunity for individuals, particularly youth, to express their concerns and stories. What purpose serves simple recognition of the history when it ignores the present reality of extreme conservative demonstrations in the street? Establishments who mark it should not be reassured with the non-confrontational words of implicit prejudice and awareness of minor insults, but confronted with the threats that impact society if fight against prejudice is not taken seriously. Briefly stated, Black History Month should be made up-to-date, urgent, and reactive. Perhaps an complete renaming is in order – Contemporary Black History Month.
