Tuesday, February 01, 2011

Blackuary Uno - 03 AB. The Post-Racialism Continues...

Here on Your MoM, we started a feature W-A-Y back on February 1, 2006 of celebrating what "Progressives" refer to as "Black History Month." Since we are not racists here, we simply made the name into something that means something.

Now, for your educational awareness, we present "BLACKUARY 2011!!!"

During Blackuary, we attempt to bring to light the misconceptions or simple misrepresentations of "Progressive" history that seek to bastardize REAL HISTORY.

You know, like...Rosa Parks was a poor, washer woman that was tired and refused to give up her seat on a bus. When in fact, originally, Rosa was the catalyst for getting Claudette Colvin arrested for refusing to do the same thing and then dumped Claudette like a hot rock when Colvin proved to be a little Tourette-y.

Anyhoo, Rosa Parks, while correct in her ideology on equality of the races, was still a simple, middle-class activist that set out to agitate for publicity for her cause. She was not who they said she was. But, you'll never believe me, so look it up, yo!

Or Malcolm Little, known to everyone as Malcolm X. Geez, this dude was a piece of shit from the jump. After he became a Prislamist*, he basically became a freaking terrorist. A Muslim killed him because there was a rift in the Nation of Islam. Wow, that sounds familiar, huh? Malcolm's reintroduction into polite society came when Spike Lee made the movie about him. Oddly enough, Denzel Washington played Malcolm X and his philosophical brethren, Frank Lucas, too. Yes, Malcolm was really just another American Gangster, there was nothing noble, religious, or righteous about Malcolm X, but..."Progressive" history occurred.

Just so you know, though, Black History Month was originally started in 1926 as Negro History Week by Carter Woodson, the son of former slaves. The week was held in the second week of February to occur around the birthdays of Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Augustus Washington Bailey. (Yeah, click it, it matters.)

Also, Negro History Week was expanded to Black History Month in 1976, by President Gerald Ford (Republican).

So, why do we have a problem with Black History Month, well, other than not calling it African-American History Year or whatever? Because you remove the history that includes black folks from the timeline. History that centers around blacks is dumped into the month of February and the kids study stuff that has no cohesion with actual dates, other political occurrences, or other events happening at the same time. Black history then becomes meaningless in the overall scheme of the past.

Of course, most black kids can really relate to the studies and get a huge sense of pride from studying "THEIR PEOPLE." However, ask them about Martin Luther King, does Vietnam ever enter to the discussion? What about how the Democrats, NOT JUST IN THE SOUTH, were adamantly opposed to the Civil Rights Acts? Even John F. Kennedy!!! Check out the cloture for the 1964 act. What is the very first name you read?

But, since we have to study King, whose name was really Michael, in February and never again, that kinda stuff is never discussed.

By the way, we started this exercise with renaming ALL of the months. I think that looking back on our changes, Obamaber certainly needs to be added to the list, but according to the tenets of Black History Month, Obamaber would have to happen in Blackuary.

Still, Juanuary will certainly revert to January as planned, because we can NEVAH get enough of Jan Michael Vincent.

Please take the time to comment.

*A "Prislamist" is a dude that becomes a Muslim in PRISON.

9 comments:

Steve B said...

I'm still bucking for Anglo-American History month. Not holding my breath, though.

disgruntled said...

If only we could ignore the bullshit the other 11 months of the year. Hyphenated-Americans suck. You are American of [fill in your national origin]. If they want Blackuary, when do I get to get all William Wallace and dress like Braveheart for my heritage?

OregonGuy said...

Notice that Eldridge Cleaver's name doesn't come up to much anymore. Is there a reason for that?

BTW--yeah, I owe you five bucks. Waiting for the #2 to show up so I can use his Paypal account. I'm not going through the rigamarole to set one up. I'm that kind of lazy.
.

paul mitchell said...

Steve, Whitey Month, according to the Black History Month fans, is the other eleven months.

Disgruntled, we have a Celtic-fest where YOUR PEOPLE can throw logs and doing that Riverdance shit that y'all love so much.

OregonGuy, Cleaver is too busy getting spit on to do much of anything else. Victimhood has its privileges. And please do not worry too much about that five bucks. Seriously, it wasn't a FAIR BET. You had the PAC-10 against the SEC!!!

Anonymous said...

Paul,

Is it possible to be against the Civil Rights Act and not be a racist?

There are some philosophical issues there.

Barry Goldwater opposed it, was he a racist too?

Civil rights was not about equality, it was about something else. I mean did we not have the 14th and 15th amendments. Just like with illegal immigration, it is not a law problem it is an enforcement problem...or should I say a moral problem like segregation laws (which were blatantly unconstitutional yet somehow stood the test of time for more than half a century...oh but the constitution is so sacred right, too sacred to actually follow).

Roderick

paul mitchell said...

Roderick, it was impossible to be against any of the Civil Rights Acts up until 1964 and NOT be a racist. Goldwater opposed the act in 1964 because it forced private businesses to participate. The other acts prior did not. The Democrats did not oppose the 1964 Act because of the private business participation, they opposed it because as always, Democrats believe that blacks are inferior to all other races and cannot compete on their own accord.

As far as segregation in public schools is concerned, it is unconstitutional in my opinion to keep blacks out of their neighborhood schools and government buildings, which is what the Democrats' Jim Crow laws did.

Anonymous said...

The democrats must have read that in that great sacred document called the constitution, where they counted all 3/5 of others (slaves) when setting up population arrangements for the house of representatives.

Funny how that works, not a legal person but yet are included when doling out seats in the house of representatives. Wow, how is this possible when you have a "constitution?" Oh let me guess they misinterpreted it, just like ppl used to do with the bible.

By the way segregation lasted more than half a century, how much more evidence do you need to realize the constitution doesn't mean anything! If it does mean something then how did that go on for 50+ years??? Unconstitution but yet it happened and stood the test of time. Just a piece of paper, how could such things happen after the 14th and 15th amendments????

Roderick

Steve B said...

We have a hispanic friend who, whenever a hispanic person does something significant in a movie, crows, "That's mah PEOPLE!"

I'm happy for her ethnic pride and all, but I wonder what the reaction would be if I was watching a Spike Lee movie, and whenever a white dude did something good, I chimed in with, "Dats mah PEOPLE!!"?

Anonymous said...

Steve B,

You'd be called a racist of course. Your "people" are so guilt ridden that if you were to espouse anything close to that you'd suffer extreme social isolation.

You'd be the "bad guy" Tony Montana eloquently described in Scarface.

Roderick

Post a Comment