February marks the celebration of Black History Month. Setting aside the discussion on whether such a celebration should exist, (see e.g. Stacy Dash and Morgan Freeman), what I find most intriguing about the celebration is the selection of individuals and events we choose to highlight. There is a redundancy about the month in that we see largely the same players and narratives celebrated. Black history is broad, and its contributors vast. Why then do we focus on the same narrative, no matter how incomplete it may be? What is at stake for recapitulating these narratives?
For instance, most people know Rosa Parks. If I asked a random stranger to describe her significance, the narrative might go something like this: “She refused to give up her seat to a white person on the bus because she was tired. She got arrested and her arrest started a movement.” While this narrative is not wholly wrong, it is lacking in completeness. Parks is often seen as this demure older woman who was merely fed up with segregation, and in a moment of great frustration, decided to stand up to segregation. This is simply not true. Parks was an activist long before that fateful day on the bus. She “was a militant race woman, a sharp detective, and an anti-rape activist long before she became the patron saint of the bus boycott.” As the secretary of her local NAACP, she was sent to investigate allegations of racial violence, like the kidnapping and rape of Recy Taylor. As she commented, she had a “life history of being rebellious.”
Why is this portion of Parks’ life left out of the master narrative? Is it because her arrest garnered more publicity than her other activism? If that is the case, it still does not explain why Parks’ image has been watered down and somewhat erased. I suspect at least three reasons for why her narrative has been depicted a certain way. For one, by reducing Parks’ activism to a discrete act, it undermines the force of activism in general. To the uneducated observer, one may believe that change can occur with a single act. While it is true that change can happen quickly, more commonly, effective activism is the result of prolonged and strategic effort by committed people.
This brings me to another reason I think Parks has been re-written. Re-writing her story undermines the strategic nature of the civil rights efforts before the boycott. Most people tend to think that Parks’ arrest sparked the movement. Although she did spark the boycott, the truth is that there was a strategic structure already in place to sustain the movement she initiated. A structure that she helped create. This is lost when Parks is only seen as acting independently. The movement appears far more reactionary and visceral in nature than intelligent and strategic.
Finally, I think a reason why Parks has been watered down, is because we don’t allow our heroes to be complex. We want them to be a host of paradoxes that make them appear one-dimensional. They must be rebellious but pristine, indignant but ultimately compliant. But our heroes, like all of us, are complex and exist in a context. At any given moment our actions are not dictated solely by the circumstances in that moment, but by our personal context that we bring to it. Truly understanding why a person reacts the way they do requires taking the time to learn a person’s context. But we are too lazy to do that. Furthermore, doing so may raise issues we do not want to discuss. After all, to fully talk about Parks’ activism means addressing issues like the rape of black women at the hands of white men who never received justice. I don’t think this country is ready or willing to deal with that. Instead, it’s far easier to re-write Parks’ story.
Therefore, as you celebrate Black History Month, I challenge you to not resort to the common players and narratives. Instead, seek out other individuals, or if you do use popular historic figures, try to discover something new about them. In other words, don’t run from the complexities of history, but embrace them. Go beyond the redundancy the month can bring, and find new reasons to celebrate. If you need some resources I have PLENTY recommendations, just drop me a note in the comments section and I’d be happy to help. In the meantime, Happy Black History Month.
–Until Next Time–
Palooke
Very true! My husband and I just read David Brooks’ “the Road to Character,” and, I believe it is an example of what you’re describing. The book highlights people who have contributed to history in many time periods and in different ways, both big and small (some American civil rights leaders, even Dr. king was mentioned), but it describes the individuals by highlighting their weaknesses first, and then showing how their character was refined over time. It was insightful to me because it showed that some of history’s greatest heroes were deeply flawed, just as I am, but they were able to refine those flaws and make great contributions to society. But most importantly they became better people -over time and often through much effort. When we don’t reveal the full person we create the impression that they did what they did because they were better people than the rest of us and that that in turn exempts us from getting involved.