You seem unable to discern the definition of the words 'fact' and 'fragile'.
It being Black History Month may well have played into the decision. It would be silly of me to insist otherwise because I was not party to the decision-making process.
Likewise, neither were you involved in the process nor do you have first-hand knowledge of what occurred, so you cannot speak accurately about the facts of what took place. Of course you can have suspicions and beliefs, even be very sure of what you think happened. But you can't call them facts, because a belief or suspicion - no matter how strong or well-founded - is not the same as a fact.
Also, someone disbelieving your version of events or disagreeing with your opinion does not equate to them being fragile. The two have absolutely no correlation.
To return to the issue of Naomi's title win and the reasons behind it, for your sake, again I will concede that Black History Month may well have been a factor. However, consider this. As you pointed out, she won the title with little build or story behind it. But this is far from the first time such a thing has ever occurred. Multiple wrestlers and teams from numerous promotions have won championships in similar circumstances before. Do we in all circumstances assume that race must've been the sole or primary motivator behind their wins? Of course not.
Once again, I'm not saying that Black History Month had no bearing on events, but I would encourage you and everyone else to consider all possible influences and factors rather than simply grab eagerly at the low hanging fruit.
Possible there was, but I doubt if there was a conference where all the WWE honchos got together and said "Hey, you know black history month is coming up, maybe we should toss a bone to minorities and enhance our ad nauseum multi weekly promotions and give a short title run to a black star !" These people know each other well enough, more than likely the script came from the top on short notice, and was implemented without anyone having to get into the reasons behind it, which they already knew with a wink of an eye.
As far as "numerous promotions have won championships in similar circumstances before", care to name some examples ?
You might point to the swaps of Charlotte/Banks, but the swaps themselves developed into a build and angle, and there weren't many if any people saying neither one deserved it or came from out of nowhere. When you have a whole series of champ vs #1
challenger title matches, someone has got to win and its not always going to be the champ.
Cena has had some short reigns lately in the build to make him all time champ, but his at least are plot heavy and designed to put a younger talent over. Outside of that, most title reigns have been relatively stable.
Was probably the ideal time to make such a move though, now or never really. With the brand split and creation of 2 titles, that eases the heat they would have got if she was gifted a unified title over all divas instead of less than half.