By: Marcus Reynolds
Special to the Chronicle
It takes nationalization of a problem to impose an adequate solution, and there are people who in 2016, are still ignorant to the issue of race in this country.
A recent Op-ed in The Hofstra Chronicle suggests that Black History Month (BHM), “has served its purpose.” The First Amendment allows free press and speech of one’s beliefs even if those beliefs are misinformed. Even if that opinion falls short in substance and awareness.
The purpose of BHM is to recognize the contributions of black people, which are often forgotten, unappreciated, and expunged from education systems across the world. BHM gives children an understanding of their history so they can defer to different and more positive images of blacks other than mass incarceration and slavery.
Dr. Carter G. Woodson believed in the idea of “knowledge of self,” and that the only true education is self-education. It’s important to know who you are, where you came from and where you’re going. Why take away a great opportunity to educate people of all races who may not understand how this country became the one we live in today? Black history is intrinsic to understanding American history.
While I agree with the article’s writer saying that a lot has changed since 1926, it would be jumping the gun to say we are living in a post-racial society. Especially when the same injustices that plagued the country then, like police brutality towards people of color, are still relevant today.
If national pizza, wine, and margarita day are, “what’s important to the younger generation,” than frankly I am highly disappointed in my comrades. While I understand that my peers may be enthralled with social media hashtags and geo filters, that is by no way a means to justify swiping left on BHM.
BHM is the last of what black people have left to call their own, and if anything it should be longer.
This is a great opportunity to initiate productive dialogue amongst students and faculty at Hofstra University. The issue of race is not about myself or the article’s writer. This type of situation can bring people of all backgrounds together and on the same accord when approached in a proper manner.
Furthermore, I would like to say that any form of rebuttal should remain within the confines of journalism. Verbal attacks and threats of violence towards the article’s writer shouldn’t be tolerated.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in the Op-Ed section are those of the authors of the articles. They are not an endorsement of the views of The Chronicle or its staff. The Chronicle does not discriminate based on the opinions of the authors.