Arguably Black History Month in the UK serves at least two aims: (1) to teach a once neglected history, and (2) celebrate black contributions to British society. The first of these aims concerns the inclusion of facts and themes previously ignored --this correction could be considered a fairly dispassionate exercise. The second aim involves what at the turn of the 20th century was often referred to as racial uplift. There is a prima facie reason to assume that these are two perfectly compatible aims: as Marcus Garvey once said, “A people without the knowledge of their history, origin and culture is like a tree without roots.’ A tree without roots --to complete Garvey’s thought in relation to uplift—will not stand tall. 

But perhaps there is a tension to be found within these two aims.

An issue raised in relation to the teaching of Black History Month by Historian David Olusoga in 2015 is whether the focus of our attention should be individuals or structures -- or more specifically black heroes or the exploitative systems of slavery and empire that accounts for the current distribution of the African diaspora. Olusoga states that the favoured version of black history focuses only on the “contributions” of black soldiers, sailors and airmen who served in the armed forces and pioneering black “firsts” in civilian life. Slavery, racism and the murderous violence of empire are pushed to the margins.

The movement from individuals to structures reflects a broader trend in the teaching of history. Musician Akala in his work Natives examines what must be the worst epitome of hero worship: the view that he was taught as a child that William Wilberforce singlehandedly ended slavery. Olusoga distinction however can also help tease out the distinction between BHM’s two intertwined goals mentioned in the opening paragraph: Focusing on heroes or ‘first timers’ is a good strategy when it comes to promoting racial uplift and also a sense of belonging in British society. Such a focus highlights black achievement while simultaneously placing blacks within a mainstream British narrative. This however as Olusoga observes amounts to a kind of reverse political correctness – a political correctness that assuages British guilt by not sufficiently grappling with the brutal realities of British slavery or British colonial violence. Of course, no examination of heroes can take place without some mention of the deep challenges that such black heroes faced but it can be done in a way much more flattering to Britain’s national ego.

While no doubt of the vital area of understanding – and one that should be a permanent feature of history teaching in the UK- can an examination of wider structures and forces (including the transatlantic slave trade, British imperialism and the seeding of antiblack racism into modern British society) meet our second aim of producing racial uplift during Black History Month? Uplift --not likely, but a kind of equality of psychological standing perhaps. After all, one way to achieve equality of status recognition at the level of group identity is to bring down the esteem of the dominant group. Those with great pride in Great Britain will feel deflated as they reckon with Britain’s historic wrong doings. This is one way to achieve equality of social recognition. However, levelling social recognition between white British and black British citizens is likely to provoke bitterness in the patriotic white individuals who feel their social recognition has been lessened.

But it is not the feelings of the whites that are my concern. A problem with a deep focus on the structures is that it casts black history as forever in the shadow of white supremacy. Doubtless modern black history is inextricably bound with empire and it is incumbent on educators to illustrate the myriad forms of black resistance within this setting, but I have scolded students for the simplicity of thinking that black history (e.g. the history of people of African ancestry) is really just about slavery. It is now an entrenched cliché that when Hollywood releases a movie about slavery, that a significant number of black people will be dissatisfied not just with how it is done (e.g. white saviours) but by the repeated focus on slavery itself. You cannot please everyone and so opinions vary on topics like this. The point being that a focus of systems of exploitation can be depressing and so the establishment line of heroes and first timers or perhaps alternatively medieval African kingdoms offers a more feel good and unifying theme during a time of celebration.

In his most recent piece in the Guardian, Olusoga concludes that 2020 ‘might therefore be the year in which Black History Month truly comes of age.’ He is right that it has improved immensely since its adoption into the UK in the 1980s but perhaps amid a growing race consciousness reflected in a slew of movies, bestsellers, TV documentaries, and tabloid headlines it may be contributing to what American author Shelby Steele has elsewhere referred to as ‘race fatigue.’ It is a delicate task to give racism its due attention without doubling down on its very concepts and antiracism in some quarters has come increasingly close to anti-white racism and religiosity. By accident we may be breeding an obsession with race that we find increasingly hard to dispel from our society even as greater racial equality is achieved.

Black British history is, as Olusoga points out, multifaceted – it is not one monolith of bad news and racial conflict but in the classroom reductions inevitably occur. The very title black history tempts us away from finer grained ethnic distinctions between communities all racialised as Black. When poorly executed in the classroom the constant joining of Black history with the theme of white supremacy not only runs the risk of inculcating a ‘we/them’ mentality in youngsters, but obscures other aspects of the history of people of African ancestry that would lend itself to building group esteem more effectively.

At any rate, even with the inclusion of precolonial African histories we should never forget that Black History Month was born of a neglect. Consequently, our goal should be to make the appropriate corrections and no more. The best way to do this is by embedding all the relevant themes in an as balanced way as possible into our broad curricula of British and world history and phase out the month within 10 years - unless our politics regresses. Black History Month has however become institutionalised and like a plaster on a wound the longer it stays on the harder it will be to remove.

Daniel Ouka
@Dan_Ouka_Writes