Do Clarence Thomas and the father of black history have anything in common? (op-ed)
History is written by the victors.
If that’s true, then who writes black history, victors or victims?
In 1926 Carter G. Woodson started Negro History Week because black contributions to civilization were suppressed by textbook authors. Woodson believed white students, developed racial prejudice from this omission and black students developed an inferiority complex.
In 1976 Negro History Week was expanded into Black history month and Carter G. Woodson is considered the “father of black history”.
But during Carter G. Woodson’s career, he was ostracized for his scholarship.
Woodson believed education alongside social and professional interaction would reduce racism and he wanted to turn black history into an academic discipline to advance that cause.
But Woodson’s contemporaries rejected his insistence on defining black history as its own entity. These educators believed Negroes were American with no history apart from “American History”, and they blocked all of Woodson’s efforts to get black history into school curriculums. Woodson’s views were also rejected by historically black colleges.
Today, Woodson’s contemporaries are forgotten, and there is a Dr. Carter G. Woodson African American Museum in St. Petersburg, Florida.
Speaking of Museums.
The Smithsonian National Museum of African American History and Culture recently opened in Washington, DC and like everything else in Washington it has its critics.
One critic stated the Museum is illuminating and flawed. It’s plain how much African-American history and culture is simply American history and culture. (That’s what Carter G. Woodson’s critics said to him.)
But this critic went further and said the museum is reluctant to give a nuanced assessment of conflicts, to cast doubt on one perspective or another. For example, the actual doctrines of Elijah Muhammad, a leader of the Nation of Islam and mentor to Malcolm X are unmentioned, and, more troubling, the Black Panthers are characterized as if they were nothing but defensively armed social workers.
That’s a mild accusation of political correctness.
But other critics have charged the museum with blatant bias and circulated a petition for the museum to acknowledge the accomplishments of Clarence Thomas, the second black Supreme Court justice.
The museum actually does mention Clarence Thomas but it’s in reference of being accused of sexual harassment by Anita Hill during Thomas’ 1991 confirmation hearings. (Is this history written by the victims?) Now, if Clarence Thomas wasn’t mentioned at all critics would have just complained, but it’s this snub/smear that generated the petition by a group of conservatives.
The museum defended its decision by stating “They can’t tell every story.”
That’s true, but it’s far from the truth.
For decades Clarence Thomas has been ostracized for conservative judicial opinions labeled anti-black, and he’s been branded a traitor unworthy to replace Thurgood Marshall. By continuing this tradition the museum has made its own statement on who writes black history.
But the petitioners are political too.
They’re more interested in having a representative of conservatism on display in the museum, not necessarily, honoring Thomas’ life story of overcoming poverty and oppression (History of the victor) to reach the Supreme Court.
But that’s Washington.
Both Carter G. Woodson and Clarence Thomas were ostracized for their scholarship. One wanted to make black history, its own entity. The other is being excluded from an African American museum for becoming his own entity instead of Thurgood Marshall’s clone.
The irony is those that do the ostracizing don’t understand how people make history.
History remembers and pays special homage to those that were condemned, excommunicated, or ostracized by their contemporaries.
First published by the New Pittsburgh Courier 11/2/16
If that’s true, then who writes black history, victors or victims?
In 1926 Carter G. Woodson started Negro History Week because black contributions to civilization were suppressed by textbook authors. Woodson believed white students, developed racial prejudice from this omission and black students developed an inferiority complex.
In 1976 Negro History Week was expanded into Black history month and Carter G. Woodson is considered the “father of black history”.
But during Carter G. Woodson’s career, he was ostracized for his scholarship.
Woodson believed education alongside social and professional interaction would reduce racism and he wanted to turn black history into an academic discipline to advance that cause.
But Woodson’s contemporaries rejected his insistence on defining black history as its own entity. These educators believed Negroes were American with no history apart from “American History”, and they blocked all of Woodson’s efforts to get black history into school curriculums. Woodson’s views were also rejected by historically black colleges.
Today, Woodson’s contemporaries are forgotten, and there is a Dr. Carter G. Woodson African American Museum in St. Petersburg, Florida.
Speaking of Museums.
The Smithsonian National Museum of African American History and Culture recently opened in Washington, DC and like everything else in Washington it has its critics.
One critic stated the Museum is illuminating and flawed. It’s plain how much African-American history and culture is simply American history and culture. (That’s what Carter G. Woodson’s critics said to him.)
But this critic went further and said the museum is reluctant to give a nuanced assessment of conflicts, to cast doubt on one perspective or another. For example, the actual doctrines of Elijah Muhammad, a leader of the Nation of Islam and mentor to Malcolm X are unmentioned, and, more troubling, the Black Panthers are characterized as if they were nothing but defensively armed social workers.
That’s a mild accusation of political correctness.
But other critics have charged the museum with blatant bias and circulated a petition for the museum to acknowledge the accomplishments of Clarence Thomas, the second black Supreme Court justice.
The museum actually does mention Clarence Thomas but it’s in reference of being accused of sexual harassment by Anita Hill during Thomas’ 1991 confirmation hearings. (Is this history written by the victims?) Now, if Clarence Thomas wasn’t mentioned at all critics would have just complained, but it’s this snub/smear that generated the petition by a group of conservatives.
The museum defended its decision by stating “They can’t tell every story.”
That’s true, but it’s far from the truth.
For decades Clarence Thomas has been ostracized for conservative judicial opinions labeled anti-black, and he’s been branded a traitor unworthy to replace Thurgood Marshall. By continuing this tradition the museum has made its own statement on who writes black history.
But the petitioners are political too.
They’re more interested in having a representative of conservatism on display in the museum, not necessarily, honoring Thomas’ life story of overcoming poverty and oppression (History of the victor) to reach the Supreme Court.
But that’s Washington.
Both Carter G. Woodson and Clarence Thomas were ostracized for their scholarship. One wanted to make black history, its own entity. The other is being excluded from an African American museum for becoming his own entity instead of Thurgood Marshall’s clone.
The irony is those that do the ostracizing don’t understand how people make history.
History remembers and pays special homage to those that were condemned, excommunicated, or ostracized by their contemporaries.
First published by the New Pittsburgh Courier 11/2/16
Comments
Post a Comment