The diluted look into the history of blacks that schools teach today is why we must continue to have these conversations.

Each February elementary school teachers prepare lesson plans in an effort to expose their pupils about the importance of Black history. They commercially discuss the more well-known change agents such as, Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, George Washington Carver and touch on the the thirteen-year-long era of the Civil Rights Movement in an attempt make it relevant to the happenings of today.

Each February that same routine passes, the lessons become diluted and in the next half a century, Black history will be just a glimpse into the past and the significance of Black contributions to society.

The discourse on whether Black History month is relevant isn’t new. We’ve gone back and forth for years on how we should celebrate Black history everyday of the year and not embrace America’s misbegotten perspective on the history of Blacks. Historian and scientist, Carter G. Woodson, took a significant step to nationally commemorate the contributions of Black people. In 1926, Woodson founded “Negro History Week.” He chose the second week of February because it marked the birthdays of Abraham Lincoln and Fredrick Douglas. Lincoln’s contributions to black history are sketchy at best, but Woodson’s pre-civil rights proposal was applicable and relevant.

Today that relevance is being tested. Some are saying this is a post-race era because we have elected out first black president therefore BHM is no longer needed. Well the converse of that is that we were only celebrating BHM until there was a reason not to, not because we genuinely appreciate the contributions of Blacks to American society, or because it is invaluable to remember the struggle of inequity and the struggles of people of color, and certainly not because American slavery was one of the most genocidal events to ever take place. No, not any of those reasons but so blacks and their advocates could stop whining about race and race relations and BHM. I can’t see what one has to do with the other. How does Obama’s election inappropriate Black history? In fact, shouldn’t it be all the more important?

This post –race theory is so far fetched, you’d really have to be reaching to believe that Obama’s election proved racism no longer existed in this country. It’s preposterously irresponsible to even consider trying to validate that notion because the reverse would mean that if John McCain were elected president those same idealists would have to explain how and why this country was so racist they could not see a black man in office. I can’t imagine those self-righteous politicians and pundits ever admitting anything like that.

We are not post-race, unfortunately, the idea of race and race relations still very relevant. Sure, Obama’s election demonstrated some progress but it only takes a trip to rural South Carolina or even my alma matter, Louisiana State University to be reminded that racism is an entity weaved into fabric of this country’s foundations and it is going to take a lot more diligence on behalf of the American people to transcend race.

Today’s Black history month celebration is a gambit to pacify blacks so we can shut up about slavery and racism, an appeasement that would have Carter G. Woodson rolling over in his grave. The diluted look into the history of blacks that schools teach today is why we must continue to have these conversations. I’d venture to say that if we weren’t so politically correct and taught kids the true history of how heinously evil the beginnings of this country were we might have a better chance at cohesiveness.

I don’t celebrate BHM for all of the reasons I mentioned, but I also don’t celebrate it because I know a new, more potent, less tangible type of racism is surfacing, the type that makes people believe this is a post-race era, and that those of us conscious enough to identify it and with enough passion and vehemence to oppose it should do all we can to help others do the same.