THINK TWICE

(Chicago Sun-Times) Liberia has made history by electing Africa’s first female president. After coming in 10 percentage points behind international soccer star George Weah in the Oct. 11 election, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, 66, a Harvard-educated grandmother and former United Nations Development Program director for Africa, World Bank official and Liberian minister of finance, surprisingly won the Nov. 8 runoff election with nearly 60 percent of the vote.

Weah’s Congress for Democratic Change formally filed a complaint with the National Election Commission claiming that several ballot boxes were stuffed in favor of Johnson-Sirleaf’s Unity Party before the runoff.

As an international election observer to the Nov. 8 national election, I can verify that the election was ”free and fair” and ”free from fear”; however, there were several anomalies not unlike elections in other countries. It is probable that there were irregularities. While Weah’s party might have a valid claim that merits serious investigation, his defeat was so decisive that a few stuffed ballot boxes would not affect the outcome. A formal investigation by the elections commission is under way, and a hearing will likely be held next week.

The victory of Johnson-Sirleaf, also known to Liberians as the ”Iron Lady,” can partly be attributed to her Unity Party’s investing heavily in voter education, particularly for the runoff, while Weah’s party appears to have been ill-prepared for the faceoff. While the Unity Party’s political base is made up of all facets of Liberian society, those who voted in the runoff — educated Liberians — supported Johnson-Sirleaf. Other important factors that affected the outcome included poor voter education generally; voter displeasure with long and tension-filled lines (in the rainy season) during the Nov. 8 election, and low turnout among Weah’s primary political base, young men. Johnson- Sirleaf was also a more effective campaigner because she traveled in a helicopter; Weah braved Liberia’s horrid roads, campaigning in a flashy Hummer.

As president, Johnson-Sirleaf will be confronted by numerous challenges, including a population in destitute poverty with an average income of $130 a year; nearly 80 percent illiteracy and unemployment rates; no electricity or running water; extremely poor roads; no viable private sector; no viable transport links or manufacturing capacity. There is the reality that Liberia’s primary exports, including diamonds and timber industries, still are being stifled by U.N. sanctions. Johnson-Sirleaf’s ability and approach to reintegrate more than 10,000 combatants back into Liberian society while simultaneously unifying a country deeply divided along ethnic and political lines will also be formidable tasks.

Johnson-Sirleaf’s past posting as finance minister in the elitist administration of William Tolbert, which was removed by a popular revolt in 1980, raises concerns about her ability to represent all Liberians. She will also have to deal with the Taylor factor. Former warlord and exiled president Charles Taylor rests comfortably in Nigeria. Johnson-Sirleaf’s connection to Taylor’s political party, the National Patriotic Party, raises serious character-related concerns given the support she has received from the NPP.

Taylor’s influence in Liberia has been curbed by the adoption this year of a U.N. Security Council resolution that authorizes the 15,000 troops in the U.N. Mission in Liberia to detain and transfer Taylor to Sierra Leone, where he has been indicted for war crimes, crimes against humanity and other serious crimes, if he returns to Liberia. My primary concern rests with Johnson-Sirleaf’s ability to control the security apparatus given Liberia’s staunch patriarchal culture; refashion a corrupt and ailing civil service and develop a democratic political culture in which the rule of law is supreme. As the first woman to be elected president in Africa, her mere presence will shine a ray of hope in Liberia and Africa that will likely generate critical international assistance and inspire women in Africa, the continent’s most precious resources, to enter Africa’s male-dominated political space.

(Chicago Sun-Times) America must honor and celebrate the life and legacy of Rosa Parks. Both Republicans and Democrats should support H.R. 4145, sponsored by U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.) and nearly 100 co-sponsors, which aims to erect a life-size statue of Parks in the Capitol’s National Statuary H a ll.

Parks is commonly referred to as the ”mother of the civil rights movement,” not simply because she refused to sit at the back of the bus, but for courageously challenging apartheid in America and inspiring the grass-roots bus boycott in Montgomery, Ala., which produced one of America’s most revered sons, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and the civil rights movement that dismantled legal segregation.

Parks and other activists were avid believers in the principle of ”equal protection under the law,” confirmed in the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark Brown vs. Board of Education decision in 1954, and together they sparked a movement that led to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the 1965 Voting Rights Act and the 1968 Open Housing Act, signaling the defeat of American apartheid.

Parks is the foremost American symbol identified with forcing America to confront its bigoted legacy of white supremacy, typified by slavery and segregation. She and others forced America to mature as a nation and evolve its moral fabric and sociopolitical landscape to permit all Americans to realize the fundamental freedoms of equality and justice enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.

Americans have traditionally memorialized their great leaders by naming holidays after them and erecting monuments and libraries in their honor. Yet, the King bust in the rotunda is the only ”monument” honoring an African American on Capitol Hill. There is not a life-size monument honoring an African American in the rotunda. Go figure!

Black women have made an immeasurable and thankless contribution to every facet of human existence in America and beyond. From civil, political and human rights advocacy to innovations in business, science, arts and culture, African-American women have led America. Yet, America has unabashedly and unapologetically raped, beaten, disenfranchised and generally exploited black women while schizophrenically trusting them to serve as nanny to its children and keep house. After 400 years of sacrifice and struggle, America has failed to erect a monument of a single noted black woman patriot and leader.

Conversely, Capitol Hill is fraught with monuments that honor America’s greatest slavers, confederates and alleged racists, including Gen. Joseph Wheeler; Jefferson Davis; Brigham Young; Henry Clay, and Gen. Robert E. Lee. Would it not signal our maturity as a nation if a life-size monument of Rosa Parks, a small, meek and humble woman who helped transform American society armed only with the awesome weapons of love, courage and hope, stood beside these ”great men”? The bill calling for a statue of Parks is sitting idle in the House Administration Committee chaired by Republican Bob Ney of Ohio. Only eight of the 100 co-sponsors of the bill are Republicans. What happened to the Republican Party that was instrumental in passing the 1964 Civil Rights Act; 1965 Voting Rights Act; the 1968 Open Housing Act, and the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery in 1865? It was the gains during Reconstruction that laid the groundwork for the second ”Reconstruction” in the 1960s that allowed Parks to make history.

(Chicago Sun-Times) After 14 years of deadly warfare (1989-2003) Liberians went to the polls this month to participate in the first “free from fear” and “fair and transparent” U.N.-backed election in the country’s 183- year history. A significant majority of the 1.35 million registered voters showed up at the polls.

There were approximately 3,533 national and about 420 international observers from around the world. There are 22 candidates vying for the West African nation’s presidency — including former international soccer sensation George Weah and Harvard-educated politician and respected internationalist Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf. Weah and Johnson are the presidential front-runners and will likely compete in a runoff election on Nov. 8.

I traveled to Monrovia to serve with the joint National Democratic Institute/T he Carter Center delegation observing the Oct.11 presidential and legislative elections. The 38-member multinational delegation was led by former President Jimmy Carter and the former president of Benin, Nicephore Soglo. The delegation included electoral and human rights experts, regional specialists and political and civic leaders from 13 countries in North America, Europe and Africa. The purposes of the delegation was to express the international community’s interest in and support for the development of democratic and accountable governance institutions in Liberia and provide an impartial and accurate report on the election process to the Liberian people and international community. We did.

During the election I witnessed Liberians organize, conduct and participate in a genuinely free, fair and transparent election. This is not to say that there were no anomalies, but arguably less abnormalities than what appears to be commonplace in the United States. From the blind man, elderly woman and deformed youth to the ritzy doctor and lawyer to the distressed ex-combatant, I watched every facet of Liberian society participate in the election. Nowhere have I seen a people exercise such commitment, determination and willingness to effectuate change peacefully in the midst of destitute poverty. I was struck by the stark contrast between widespread poverty on one hand, and the realization among Liberians that after 183 years of authoritarian rule and 14 years of deadly war that voting was a civic responsibility and duty on the other. Perhaps Americans have something to learn from the nation and people we orphaned.

Liberia was founded by the U.S. government and the American Colonization Society, a private association composed primarily of Southern slavocrats, in 1822 to re-colonize free blacks in Africa because of their active opposition to slavery. Simply put, many Liberians are originally Americans — blacks that were not entitled to U.S. citizenship.

In fact, a significant number of Chicagoans have roots in the South, particularly in Mississippi, and a large number of those blacks who went to Liberia came from Mississippi. Slavocrats in Mississippi established the Mississippi Colonization Society that founded the settlement Mississippi in Africa in 1838, which joined the Commonwealth of Liberia in 1841. Liberians declared independence from the ACS and became a sovereign nation in 1847. Yet, Americans and Chicagoans are so painfully unconscious about Liberian history that it is not even mentioned in high school American history classes, let alone during Black History Month.

(Chicago Sun-Times) On May 11, I attended a protest against genocide in and international ambivalence toward Darfur, Sudan. The protest, at the Dirksen Federal Building in downtown Chicago, was organized by the spirit-filled St. Sabina Church under the dynamic leadership of the Rev. Michael L. Pfleger. Approximately 500 people from various backgrounds and six different religious institutions participated in the protest. The speeches were insightful and the crowd motivated; however, I couldn’t help wondering why there weren’t more participants. St. Sabina supposedly invited 150 religious’ institutions to the rally and a host of academic institutions.

More disturbing, however, was that not a single media outlet covered the event, as there was arguably a justified feeding frenzy in Zion. Notwithstanding, I don’t know if there was ever a time when so much attention was given to the killing of little black girls on the South and West sides.

Although a sizable number of people of various ages and professional affiliations attended the protest, based on Chicago’s tradition of notable black leadership, combined with the number of invitations that purportedly were sent out, hundreds or thousands more people should have attended the rally. Why did so few of Chicago’s churches, mosques and synagogues participate? Why do our religious, civic and political leaders, particularly those of national and international status, appear to be silent on the issue of genocide in Darfur? Most important, why have our most populous, visible and financially secure black churches in Chicago not taken a leadership role in organizing protests against the atrocities in Darfur?

Why has Sen. Barack Obama, who is of Kenyan ancestry and a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Subcommittee on African Affairs, been shamefully quiet about genocide in Darfur? While he has co-sponsored two bills and spoken with President Bush about Darfur, to my knowledge Obama has not written any articles or issued any significant press releases or delivered any speeches on this issue or any other issue related to Africa. He has not posted any information on his Web site about what he has done or is doing on Darfur and Africa generally.

We need visible political and moral leadership, not simply legislative action, from Obama. Obama needs to realize that many of his constituents view this as a critical issue. Let me not comment about the lack of leadership of our other federally elected Illinois representatives on Darfur.

Chicago is home to the most visible and influential black leaders in the United States, yet there has been little outcry from them over Darfur and the scourge of conflict in Africa that has taken more than 6 million lives since the end of the Cold War. While I cannot claim to be a friend, fan or foe of any particular leader in Chicago, to my knowledge, the Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr. and Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. have been the only nationally visible figures speaking out against the genocide and international ambivalence toward Darfur.

I understand that Chicago’s black leaders are busy with their own agendas, but I believe that human life, and particularly black life, is indivisible. I believe that black tragedy anywhere is black tragedy everywhere, and as former subjects of genocide, African Americans have a moral responsibility to fervently oppose genocide everywhere, irrespective of our political interests or otherwise. The Anti-Defamation League, which perhaps unfairly and routinely attacks Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan for being anti-Semitic, has done more to speak out against genocide in Darfur than most black activists and institutions in the city. Perhaps I am being a bit preachy, but I actually believe in the notion of being my brother’s keeper.

We need a “Millions More Movement” against genocide in Darfur. We need to “Keep Hope Alive” in Sudan and Congo-Kinshasa. We need not “Affirm the Greatness of Our Nation” when it fails to prevent and punish acts of genocide, nor claim there is “not a Black and White America” when we live in a color-conscious world where blacks are steadily at the bottom. If the black leadership in Illinois does not lead America to help attack evil in and ambivalence toward Africa, who will?

April 14, 2005 | Chicago Sun-Times (IL)

There can be no question that John R. Bolton, President Bush’s nominee to serve as ambassador to the United Nations and the current undersecretary for arms control and international security, has a distinguished public service record. He is intelligent, disciplined and well-suited to advocate for American interests in the U.N.

At a time when the U.N. is rife with scandal including the oil-for-food scam, allegations of sexual exploitation by its peacekeepers in the Democratic Republic of Congo and multiple claims of sexual harassment of senior officials — Bolton may be the right person to help clean up the troubled organization. The United States needs a “hawk” in the U.N. to ensure that our $3 billion in annual contributions are not squandered.

Notwithstanding that, Bolton’s foreign affairs philosophy, as expressed in public declarations and writings, and alleged bullish demeanor toward subordinates raise several questions about his suitability for the position.

The U.N. was borne out of the horrors of World War II. It is an international organization composed of 191 states founded on the recognition of the importance of the international rule of law. International law comprises rules that govern and regulate the behavior of states and international actors in relations, transactions and problems that transcend national boundaries.

According to the U.N. Charter, central purposes of the U.N. are to maintain international peace and security, preserve the international rule of law, develop friendly relations among nations, strengthen universal peace, achieve international cooperation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, promote and encourage respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, and harmonize the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

The U.S. ambassador to the U.N. must take a leadership role in helping the organization realize these objectives and understand the importance of the sanctity of the international rule of law in international relations. He should consider the U.N. as more than an instrument of U.S. foreign policy, but rather an instrument for improving the health and welfare of peoples and nations.

As a professor of international law and policy, I believe Bolton’s nomination is problematic not because he lacks the qualifications for the job, but because he is an anti-U.N. ideologue and so- called loose cannon. Rumors of his abuse of subordinates and bullish managerial style are well known.

His arguable willingness to out superiors may also present a problem. For example, Bolton criticized the decision of his former boss, George H. W. Bush, in 1991-1992 to “judicialize” the Pan Am 103 matter rather than to use military force, arguing that it was tantamount to treating the Libyan act of terror like a domestic murder case. Bolton also characterized the Clinton administration’s policy of humanitarian intervention to justify military operations to thwart ethnic cleansing or potential genocide as treacherous and a type of “high-minded morality” . . . “susceptible to cynical manipulation, as Hitler might have done to justify intervention to protect Sudetan Germans from mistreatment in Czechoslovakia.” Such statements leave one wondering whether Bolton is a bit unbolted.

Bolton’s public declarations and writings go beyond mere rhetoric and at times into the realm of the ideologically bizarre and irresponsible. Throughout his career, Bolton has made outrageous pronouncements about the U.N. and the status of international law claiming that the U.N. does not, in effect, exist; that the U.N. Charter is simply a political deal; that international law is not law, but a series of political and moral arrangements and that anything else is simply theology and superstition masquerading as law; that treaties such as the Genocide and Torture conventions are not “legally binding internationally, and certainly not as law themselves.”

Although Bolton’s perspectives on U.S. foreign policy and international law are painful to read and even more difficult to listen to, he is no slouch. While some have perhaps correctly characterized him as a serial abuser and dangerous ideologue, character flaws aside, he may prove to be the right antidote for a sick U.N.

While I object to Bolton’s candidacy because of his rudimentary and generally distasteful perspectives on foreign affairs, I would not underestimate him. Stay tuned for the sequel: “Bolton Unbolted II.”

(Chicago Sun-Times) On March 16, the elite world of multilateral governance was shocked when President Bush nominated Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, a key architect of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, to be the next president of the World Bank.

Wolfowitz is often referred to as a “war hawk,” but the frenzy sparked by his nomination casts him in a wolflike light. Similar to the wolf, Wolfowitz’s role in the Bush administration has been the subject of much hullabaloo and folklore; however, unlike the wolf, the apprehensions about Wolfowitz are arguably well-placed. As a former special assistant to a senior managing director of the World Bank, I was shocked and concerned, then troubled and disappointed, and finally cautiously amused by Wolfowitz’s nomination.

The World Bank is a monstrous, multifaceted and multifarious institution. Its 10,000 employees are among the best and brightest in the world, and, unlike any other international organization of its size, the bank’s governance structure is surprisingly democratic. The bank’s executive board makes decisions by consensus and tends to vent all policy issues in a systematic, comprehensive and thoughtful fashion.

The president of the World Bank must be an experienced administrator, listener, negotiator and selfless advocate against global poverty. He must be committed to the human and social development of poor people, particularly women and children.

While his scholarly and practical experiences are no doubt strengths that would greatly benefit the bank, Wolfowitz has arguably never written about poverty alleviation and development and has no experience in the practice of international development. Although Indonesia is one of most populous developing countries in the world, during his tenure as ambassador, he naturally was more engrossed in the politics of the Cold War rather than international development. Wolfowitz has never served in an international organization and all of his government experience has been preoccupied with serving the hegemonic interests of the United States. In this sense, he lacks one essential characteristic essential for the bank job — the credibility of political impartiality.

Nevertheless, Wolfowitz is no less qualified to head the World Bank than any of his would-be predecessors. For example, before becoming head of the bank, James Wolfenson, the current president, was an international investment banker involved in development issues and the global environment, but nonetheless had far less administrative and diplomatic experience than Wolfowitz. One key difference between the two men is that Wolfenson is a visionary and Wolfowitz an ideologue. In my view, the bank’s culture is much more amenable to a development visionary than a “hawkish” American ideologue irrespective of good intentions.

What makes Wolfowitz’s appoint controversial is that he is perhaps rightly perceived as a logician chiefly responsible for the evolving war-debacle in Iraq and the Bush administration’s burgeoning “pro-democratic” Middle East policy. It also appears that Wolfowitz is being “dumped” on the international community because he is too controversial and would likely not engender enough senatorial support to be confirmed for a Cabinet post. Simply put, Wolfowitz has an image problem and his nomination to head the bank, which also has serious reputation problems for iniquitous lending practices, seems illogical.

Three of the biggest challenges the new World Bank president will face are improving the bank’s reputation, alleviating the debt burden on developing nations and curbing the global HIV/AIDS pandemic, particularly in Africa — tasks Wolfowitz is not best qualified to do.

Conversely, Wolfowitz’s unconventional and disciplined approaches may help the bank become more accountable and operationally effective. Whatever the case may be, Wolfowitz will need to avoid grand schemes to launch new initiatives and redefine the bank’s mission or risk being cursed by the mission creep that has often plagued Wolfenson’s presidency.

The bank needs a leader that will force it to more effectively effectuate its mandate, i.e. to alleviate world poverty — not employ its economic clout to spread American-styled democracy in contravention of the bank’s Articles of Agreement prohibiting it from interfering in the political affairs of member states, from being influenced in its decisions by the political character of members and from using any standard except economic considerations in lending decisions. Can the wolf be tamed?

(Chicago Sun-Times) The Illinois Legislature should take punitive action against the genocidal regime in Sudan. The people of Illinois have a tradition of principled activism that should be harnessed to combat global evils whether at home or abroad.

As one of the largest, most industrious, diverse and progressive states, does Illinois have a moral responsibility to speak to the evils of genocide abroad? In my view, the answer is yes. The “anti- genocide” divestment legislation being proposed by state Sen. Jacqueline Collins places Illinois at the helm of moral global leadership. As one of few states with a regional trade bureau in Africa, extensive private and public sector relationships throughout the continent and the only state with a U.S. senator who is of direct African origin, Illinois should be at the forefront of fighting genocide in Darfur, Sudan.

On Feb. 20, I visited St. Sabina Church, 1209 W. 78th, to hear Paul Rusesabagina speak (to listen to the speech, visit www.saintsabina.org). St. Sabina is a spirit-filled African-American Catholic community of faith, guided by the dynamic priest and messenger, the Rev. Michael L. Pfleger.

Rusesabagina is the former manager of the Hotel Des Milles Collines in Rwanda whose story is depicted in the excellent and true-to-fact movie “Hotel Rwanda.” While the international community, including the United States and the United Nations, watched preventable genocide unfold in Rwanda, killing 1 million people, Rusesabagina saved the lives of more than 1,200 Tutsis and moderate Hutus from extremist Hutu killers.

At a post-speech press conference, Pfleger announced that in protest of genocide in Darfur, his church would no longer fly the American flag but rather the Sudanese flag at half-staff until action is taken to end the atrocities in Darfur.

What was surprisingly not carried by the media was the press conference announcement of Collins’ plan to introduce “anti-genocide” legislation that would: (1) disqualify as a state depository any bank or savings and loan association from making a loan to entities conducting business in or with the government of Sudan; and (2) prohibit the investment or deposit from the retirement system or pension fund to entities conducting business in or with the government of Sudan.

Collins’ legislation is appealing because it supports declarations by the executive branch and Congress that genocide has been committed and may still be occurring in the Darfur region, and that the government of Sudan and militias backed by the government of Sudan bear full responsibility for the genocide.

Democrats and Republicans alike have worked in a bipartisan way at the national level to pass the Comprehensive Peace in Sudan Act in the 108th House of Representatives (H.R. 5061) and Senate (S. 2781), pronouncing genocide in Sudan and recommending four critical action points for the U.S. government — namely, U.S. leadership in an international effort to prevent genocide in Darfur, consideration of multilateral or unilateral intervention, the imposition of targeted sanctions against the Khartoum government and the establishment of a resettlement and rehabilitation fund for genocide victims.

From this background, Collins’ legislation not only seeks to support national efforts to halt genocide in Darfur, but more important, localizes and captures the moral essence of the 1948 Genocide Convention, which confirms that “genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law.” The United States has a positive duty to prevent and punish acts of genocide.

If the people of Illinois abhor mass killing, forced starvation and the systematic rape of women and children, they should demand that their state legislators support Collins’ critical divestment legislation. Illinois is a part of the international community. Let us not allow our ignorance and historical ambivalence of African affairs and suffering translate into unequal global treatment for dying Africans. Illinois can make a difference. Collins’ legislation is nonpartisan and should be backed in a bipartisan way by all Illinois lawmakers, particularly the party of Lincoln, which was founded on the premise of freedom for enslaved and stateless Africans in America.

(Chicago Sun-Times) Do Americans and Chicagoans, particularly non-blacks; really embrace one of America’s oldest sociocultural and educational pastimes, Black History Month?

Yes, I said American pastime. In the runup to Super Bowl XXXIX, I could not help but to think how ironic it was that America’s most watched athletic event took place in February. I wanted Donovan McNabb’s Philadelphia Eagles to win the Super Bowl during Black History Month — yes I’m biased.

The formal celebration of black history in the United States is about as old as the National Football League. “Negro History Week” began in 1926, and the NFL was founded in 1921. Ironically, incremental racial integration in both of these American pastimes arguably began in the mid-1940s. Simply put, until the 1940s very few whites, if any, celebrated “Negro History Week” (later named Black History Month) and very few blacks were allowed to play in the NFL. Times certainly have changed — haven’t they?

Today, whites are clearly in the minority in the NFL, among other sports, and generally openly acquiesce in the celebration of Black History Month. In fact, many non-blacks pay greater homage to this American pastime than some blacks. That said, many non-blacks believe that Black History Month is a type of monthlong affirmative action holiday for “black people” and have little interest in celebrating it or learning about the contributions of blacks to American society.

Perhaps this disinterest or uncomfortable acquiescence is deeply rooted in the psychological vestiges of America’s historical slavocrat and segregationist sociopolitical order. Notwithstanding, many Americans, especially blacks, celebrate Black History Month in a lackluster way, placing a premium on the legacies of athletes and entertainers over black scientists, inventors, scholars and human rights activists. What’s more, I cannot count the number of times I have heard blacks complain that “whites gave us the shortest month of the year” to celebrate black history. This myth has gained so much momentum that white people are repeating it. Please stop!

The hard reality is that Dr. Carter G. Woodson, the grandfather and founder of black history, selected the second week in February for “Negro History Week” because it marked the birthdays of two of the most influential figures in American politics, Frederick Douglass and Abraham Lincoln.

Other significant events that took place in February make it an ideal time to celebrate black history, including the birth of W.E.B. DuBois, the famed intellectual, civil rights leader, pan-Africanist and co-founder of the NAACP (Feb. 23, 1868); passing of the 15th Amendment giving blacks the right to vote (Feb. 3, 1870); taking of the oath of office of the first black U.S. senator, Hiram R. Revels, a Republican from Mississippi (Feb. 25, 1870); founding of the NAACP (Feb. 12, 1909); historical civil rights lunch counter sit-in at segregated Woolworth’s store in Greensboro, N.C. (Feb. 1, 1960); and the unforgivable murder of Malcolm X (Feb. 21, 1965).

From this background, perhaps, Woodson’s choice of February was prophetic. We could always follow Great Britain’s example and celebrate black history in October–but then conspiracy theorists would draw a shadowy nexus between Black History Month and Halloween. Let us settle on February as a good time to learn about and honor the achievements of blacks.

Black History Month should not only focus on the achievements of “African Americans” but blacks throughout the globe. It should be a month where blacks not only glorify their rich history but also scrutinize it. Learning about black history should be a year-round endeavor.

All Americans, particularly whites, should study black history. For better or for worse, white Americans and other non-blacks have been and are unwittingly makers of black history. From the white supremacist Democrats and white Republican abolitionists of the 19th century to the white citizens councils and white civil rights activists of the 20th century, black history is unavoidably

“White, Latino and Asian history” too. Non-blacks should embrace Black History Month, first because it is an integral part of American history and, second because they, especially whites, featured prominently in its making. All Americans and certainly Chicagoans should embrace Black History Month as an American pas-time and engage in holistic dialogue about the history of black history, as American history has proven it to be America’s moral compass.