Black history needs attention year-round\nI'm not ready to label Black History Month as "racist," but Mr. Freiberg does make many good points in his article. He is correct that the month makes it appear that great accomplishments by African Americans are an "exception to the rule," as if only whites are supposed to be influential. The real question Mr. Freiberg and the rest of us should focus on is whether having a "Black History Month" is fruitful or limiting. \nI would argue that dedicating a month to a deep, respectful analysis of the history of African-Americans is on the surface beneficial, for it fosters much-needed education on a race that has historically been overtly marginalized by society. Thus the title and sharp focus open up many people's eyes to the contributions of African-Americans. The problem, though, is that giving specific attention for a set time frame (February) seemingly results in forgetting this history for the rest of the year or at least reducing its significance in a larger context. \nConsequently, the cause and intentions are quickly lost once February ends and March begins. Giving so much attention briefly but little attention overall is not what the month was striving for, but unfortunately this is what happens. Rather than jamming the contributions of African-Americans into the shortest month of the year, why don't we as a society educate ourselves year-round on the merits and accomplishments of a people that should be afforded the same stake in our nation's history as everyone else.
Aaron Shields\nJunior
\nColumn shows need for Black History Month\nIn his opinion piece, Warren Freiberg argues that Black History Month is "racist." But without meaning to do so, his article shows exactly why Black History Month is still necessary. He says that he can't recall reading a book that didn't mention black achievements. As if there's no need for any special tribute to blacks. But history books have become more truthful, or "inclusive," only because of the impact of the civil rights movement, including Black History Month, which used to be Black History Week. \nHe also describes such books as written by the victors of history who "suck up to" the losers. So black history is just the product of white guilt. But Black History Week was pioneered by Carter Woodson, a black historian. And it's been continued by blacks and whites who were inspired by the victories by blacks and their allies for civil rights. Freiberg also accuses Black History Month of increasing "racial tensions." \nThis is the same argument opponents of black rights have used since the Civil War, when they claimed that allowing black people to vote would cause "friction"; or in the 1950s, when they accused civil rights activists of being "outside agitators" stirring up the happy southern blacks. Positive change causes "tension" -- get over it. \nFinally, Freiberg unfortunately promotes other racist stereotypes, of Irish and Germans, to bolster his case. The idea that Irish are natural drunkards or that Germans are naturally authoritarian bolsters biologically-based ideas about black inferiority. My German-Jewish great-grandparents, who died in Hitler's camps, would be surprised that "German stock" confers any special common attributes.
Carl Weinberg\nFaculty
\nBlack History Month deserves recognition\nI feel that Freiberg's article was pretty inaccurate. Freiberg feels that Black History Month is racist. He feels that it further separates blacks from whites and that it makes white people look bad (in a nutshell). Freiberg argues that if we have a Black History Month then why don't we have a Latino History Month or a Asian History Month, and so on and so forth. \nI think that black people deserve a month dedicated to them. Keep in mind that all minorities have been oppressed at a certain point in time, but none have been oppressed like the African-Americans have. African-Americans have been put through slavery, which is one of the worst forms of racial oppression this country has ever seen. So why shouldn't they have their own month dedicated to them?\nI look at Black History Month as a form of reparation. Instead of giving them money for reparation we gave them a month dedicated to their culture. This seems fair because money doesn't fix everything. I don't think that Black History Month is racist. I think that it is a way of our country to honor those who were wrongfully oppressed. We owe them a sense of gratitude since they had it so bad for such a long time. I think that Freiberg is looking at this topic in the wrong light. \nIt doesn't increase racial tensions to have a black history month; rather it gives us a means of respecting one another for our assimilation together as a culture. It gives white people a means of better understanding the black culture and respecting them as human beings. I think that Black History Month is great.
Sameer Siddiqui\nSophomore
Accomplishments, not race, matter in history\nIn response to Warren Christopher Freiberg's article, "Black History Month is racist," I'd have to say that I agree with him. His point that "there's no such thing as 'black history' or 'Latino history' or 'white history.' There is only history," I think he is exactly right. Why do we need a specific month to show respect for the notable black people in the world today? They should be recognized in everyday life, just as every other culture is, or at least should be. His question about, during black history month, do we just bring things up because "they're that influential, or just because the people behind them are black?" is another great point. People who are worthy of respect and notability, black or not, should be recognized year-round. Not just in one month. Great article, Freiberg.
Nick Cope\nFreshman
Column is ridiculous, narrow-minded\nRegarding Warren Freiberg's column (March 2) George Washington Carver did not invent peanut butter. Contrary to popular belief, peanut butter is not within Carver's 300 uses for peanuts. This is one of any number of ridiculous and frivolous idiocies in your column "Black History Month is racist." These factual troubles, however, are beside the point.\nThere are many legitimate complaints that one can have about Black History Month. Indeed many black scholars have noted the troublesome narrow scope of calling something "black history." Regardless, your column glosses over these real complaints and instead focuses on reinforcing racial stereotypes and making light of history's tragic moments.\nHaving been in contact with white people for our entire lives, we sure hope they do more than listen to John Denver while eating mayonnaise sandwiches. And "leave that nasty slavery business in the past"? What kind of "history"-conscious person would say such an insensitive and ignorant comment? Also, ignoring 1933 to 1945 in German history is far more narrow-minded than any concept such as Black History Month. \nEnjoy your mayo sandwich.
Peter Chen\nFreshman\nBryan Schmidt\nSophomore
