Alas, “black history month” is upon us. Otherwise known as “Lies, half-truths and distortions Month”. As a person who doesn’t watch television, I can go through the entire month without being exposed to any of the above – as long as I avoid all large retail outlets, government offices and educational institutions.
Most of the claims of black inventions are, of course, bogus. Also, we are not supposed to notice that a large proportion of the noteworthy black individuals we are told about are “light-skinned blacks”. In other words, they were only partially black. If an individual shows any negro characteristics, then he is considered “black” by the “one drop rule”. This being said, to expect all noteworthy American blacks to be pure negroes would be unfair. After all, how many noteworthy Jews were pure Jews? Perhaps if the powers that be were balanced in their representation of black history, the rest of us wouldn’t feel the need to straighten a crooked tree by bending it to the other extreme. In other words, we would have no problem acknowledging the achievements of blacks in Western history.
But there simply are not very many notable blacks, outside of sports, entertainment and politics, who would be called “negro” by an unbiased person. But here, as is so often the case, we are fooled by words. “Black” can mean many things. In the U.S., it can mean “negro” or it can refer to an ethnic group that is largely negro in origin. Thus, a person can be predominantly Caucasian by race, but “black” by ethnicity. “African-American”, it has been claimed, only refers to ethnicity and not race – but it has plenty of its own problems. For example, can a Caucasian child, adopted by an “African-American” family, call himself “African American”? Would a college, university or government accept such an identification? Probably not. Would an American negro child, adopted by a white family and behaving like a white in every way, not be good enough to fill a quota? Obviously, this is not the case.
Those who deny the biological reality of race typically ignore the distinction between “race” and “ethnicity” when it suits their purposes. They consider Eric Holder to be “black”, and defend their position by claiming that society forces him to be black because he cannot pass as white in our “racist society”. Hence, race is a “social construct” in their eyes. In fact, ethnicity is a social construct, not race – but they conveniently ignore the distinction. By doing so, they are able to include a lot of mixed-race inventors, authors and scientists in their lists of “notable blacks”.
When told that blacks are not as intelligent as whites or Asians, on average, they then point to their artificially inflated list and say, “This list proves that you are wrong! Can’t you see that there are many great black minds?” In their view, this is evidence that race is only a social construct. In other words, they socially construct “blacks” to suit their purposes – and then use those self-same “blacks” as evidence that race is a social construct. A perfect example of circular reasoning.
I have no problem with blacks celebrating the accomplishments of other blacks, but “black history month” is not just an expression of ethnic pride; it is also a tool that is used to spread confusion about the nature of race/ethnicity – and it is one of many institutions used to bolster the official cult of black deification in our society. To reinforce the constant message that blacks are superior to the rest of us. As such, it is a source of resentment for “lower-caste” ethnicities.