A newborn was brought to his adopted parents who, while well educated, seemingly ethical, and definitely well-established in the community were cruel to the infant. The proud father and mother were happy to take the neonate in. "Dad" and "Mom" were fine folks. Each spoke eloquently. They wrote wondrous words such as "all men are created equal." Yet, in the New World they acted as barbarians would. All that they said they thought sacred was negated. The patriarch brutally beat the baby. He may not have physically laid a hand on the toddler. Nonetheless, he had overseers do the dirty deeds. The matriarch, while outwardly sweeter, swiped at the "boy" whenever he was near. The man who acted as a father, and his spouse, did all they could to ensure the tot remain enslaved.
The head of the family provided no books for the little tyke. His wife did not discuss deeper issues with the child. Ignorance would surely suppress desires for advancement. If nothing else, a lad, without formal erudition, would not believe, he could succeed. Surely, a child who had not learned to express himself well or to imagine would not wander far. It would be best, the couple conceded, if the Black baby did not have the means to survive without assistance from the Lord and Lady of the land.
As much as the couple worked to keep the dark-skinned "boy" in his place, the curious lad proved to be creative. He invented. He was innovative. At times, he achieved beyond expectations. Still, the youngster, the adolescent he grew to be, and the adult man, pitch in hue, was not rewarded for his achievements. Traditionally, his caregivers took credit for his achievements. The pinker persons who housed him, confined the Black man to a symbolic cage, a field of cotton, a city slum, or a prison, far from civilized society.
The ebony man escaped when he could. He sought an education. He excelled when given a semblance of equal opportunities. However, even in good times, someone, somewhere sought to subjugate him. Away from his parents' home, from father and mother's persistent grip, the Black man remained subordinate. What he did well, he had to be better than his white counterparts. For Caucasians, it seemed impossible to separate him from his color.
Given an inch, an inspired "Negro" would take a mile, a week, or a month, his parents once mused. Indeed, children of color did. In 1926, Historian, Carter G. Woodson, a man born to former slaves, went on to earn a doctorate degree from Harvard and invite Americans to adopt Negro History Week. In 2009, with the first African-American President of the United States in the White House, countless citizens conclude, Black History Month isalready history.
Today, Americans are told the narrative is no longer relevant. Accounts of African ancestors "robs" purplish-brown persons of the prominent role they played in the United States. Journalist Cynthia Tucker writes, "The commemoration is a damaging form of apartheid, setting the contributions of black Americans aside as separate and unequal."
Commentator, John Ridley disagrees. He opines, and offers, Yes, We Still Need Black History Month. He believes the legends must be shared. Mister Ridley fears the anecdotes will be forgotten. Most, he observes, are yet to be told, or taught in school. Society remains segregated when the subject is race relations, or Black History Month.
Perchance that is why people in this country are, as the first African-American Secretary of State says the actions of pale skinned Americans are,"polite, restrained" when the races mix or muse over their shared history. The story of what was, and was not, in a country founded on freedom for all, is a sensitive topic, When broached, anger boils over. Excuses are made, or the embarrassed blame the Black man or woman for overreacting.
On February 18, 2009, Artist, Sean Delonas. appeared in the New York Post, The Artist once nicknamed the Picasso of prejudice, castigated the Commander-In-Chief, the first American charcoal in color to occupy the Oval Office,
Mister Delonas penned a political cartoon many thoug