This is how they can look back on ‘uncivilized’ societies and judge them for human sacrifice, nature gods, slavery and witch trials and think we’ve evolved. We are healthier, richer, and have better access to information. Yet, we have serial killers, suicides, sex trafficking, and drive-by shootings. This does not describe a more civilized society.
One of the best explanations of the flaws of judging past generations against one’s own was given by the late, great Charles Krauthammer. He warned of looking back at the founding fathers and dismissing much of the great work they did because of the evils of slavery. He posited that one day, future generations will look at us as primitive for some reason we don’t see; maybe being carnivores. He suggests there may come a time when one of the 20th century greats, say Einstein, may have his accomplishments dismissed because he ate meat.
For example, let’s assume we passed laws banning the consumption of meat in 2020. By 2040, the entire meat industry has been dismantled, including any black-market sellers, and the average college student has never tasted meat. In just 50 years, former carnivores are comprised of only senior citizens. Fast forward to 2120, 100 years since the ban, and the shift will be complete.
If someone looked back and wanted to quote an economist like Thomas Sowell or Paul Krugman, people would discount them saying, "Who cares what they said, they ate animals!" Radio stations would no longer play greats like Sinatra, Led Zeppelin, and Beyoncé. Mobs would ban many books and demand that statues of MLK, Obama, Reagan, and Michael Brown come down. Much of society would view these people, and any other meat eaters, just one century from now, the same way many view the founding fathers today, over two hundred years later.
We abhor slavery, as we should, but we should not discount everything said in the Bible because at that time people owned slaves. This is not a wise way to judge. Keep this in mind, When God saw the wickedness of man and knew they would not turn away from it, He decided to destroy all of mankind. He said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.” Noah, however, found favor in the eyes of the Lord because he was, “a just man and perfect in his generation.”97
• 2 •
How the Fight Got Hijacked
The history of African-American repression in this country rose from government-sanctioned racism.
– Rand Paul
There were two primary objectives of the previous chapter. The first was to clearly establish that human nature is unchanging. The other was to show that those Americans who voraciously point out the many flaws of the US have a limited view of their country. They minimize the many accomplishments while highlighting the bad acts, or they don’t acknowledge the ubiquity of those acts throughout the world. Because it appeared that I was defending America, detractors will say it was simply an attempt to excuse these bad acts. That changes here, as it is important to know the ugly past to understand why we ever had to fight for equality.
While America didn’t create the practice of chattel slavery, which was much more brutal than indentured servitude or the conquering slavery of antiquity, many of the men who founded the country willfully participated in the practice inherited from their British predecessors. The practice was so engrained in the economy of the South that the country, sadly, could not find a diplomatic way to end it.
After the Civil War, we saw the creation of the Ku Klux Klan. Its primary mission was to suppress the rights of the former slaves and to overthrow the Republican government in the South. The situation was made worse by Lincoln picking Andrew Johnson, a Confederate-sympathizing Democrat, as his second vice president. Johnson would assume office after Lincoln’s assassination. He did nothing to stop the Klan’s reign of terror and granted all members of the Confederacy full pardons.
Many of those former Confederates went back to their home states and assumed roles in local government. Some became judges and congressmen. This allowed them to establish the black codes and enact Jim Crow laws.98 When the federal government did try to take action, it didn’t always get assistance from the courts.
President Grant pushed to put a stop to the actions of the Klan. The Republicans in Congress passed enforcement acts and Grant suspended habeas corpus to aggressively attack the Klan. Though he was very effective, the Supreme Court, in United States v. Cruikshank (1876), ruled it was unconstitutional for the federal government to take jurisdiction of crimes that should be handled by the states. This after several white men were convicted in the Colfax massacre.99
Later, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of racial segregation in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896). This decision led to the resurgence of the Klan. Because of this, lynching became increasingly common. While blacks were lynched by racist whites, without provocation, this gave rise to unfettered acts of vigilantism. By the time the practice was stamped out, over 4,000 people had been killed, over one-third of whom were white. The numbers are unknown, but several Mexicans and Chinese were also lynched.100
Because of the ugly history of the South, many in the North look down on them. They consider themselves to be morally superior because the South fought to preserve this moral blight on our country. While this is true, it does not mean the North was a welcoming oasis for blacks. Slavery had been legal in all 13 British colonies prior to the Revolutionary War. It would be naïve to think that the racist views regarding blacks went away immediately when the northern states abolished slavery. It didn’t happen in the South after the Civil War; why would the North be any different?
In the North, there was a strong contingent of abolitionists and a façade of freedom not available in the South. Unfortunately, what most former slaves found waiting for them in the Northern states was Jim Crow by another name. Blacks were either refused admission to, or segregated in, hotels, restaurants, and theaters. Most lived in poor, segregated neighborhoods.
What the government did with Jim Crow laws in the South, the citizens did in the North, and the government turned a blind eye to it. Businesses refused service to blacks. While the North didn’t have laws banning blacks from living in certain neighborhoods, it was nearly impossible for successful blacks to find a home in predominately white areas. Finding employment was also difficult. Blacks were blocked from union-controlled jobs. Violence and intimidation were also factors in the North, just as they were in the South. The North had its share of racial killings and white riots.101
While no other group’s mistreatment sank to the level of blacks, every other group faced some level of discrimination that needed to be addressed. Women were not just discriminated against, they were made invisible. Think of this, black men were once considered property, yet they got the right to vote fifty years before white women. Married women were totally beholden to their husbands. They could not own property or sign contracts. Women were discouraged from attending school, and many careers were closed to women.
Poor whites were also disenfranchised. Most worked as sharecroppers and did not own land, thus, owing to the prevalence of property requirements, they were not allowed to vote. They had no formal education and lived at the bottom of a de facto caste system. Leading up to the Civil War, many poor whites fought to maintain slavery, as they were told that freed slaves would take away their livelihood. After the war, those in power encouraged an us-versus-them mentality as a way to maintain control. When blacks were granted citizenship, much of the South enacted poll taxes to block them from voting; this also kept poor whites from the polls for decades.
Most of the history of Native Americans has been reduced to the Trail of Tears, but their mistreatment continued long after. They suffered the difficulties and discrimination that most minority groups faced. However, the biggest sin was one that only black Americans also had to live through: the theft of their culture. On the reservations, the native people were ‘Americanized.’ They were stripped of their tribal garb, forced to
learn English, their hair was cut short, and they were introduced to Christianity. Many immigrant groups assimilated to make their lives easier, but none were forced by the government to do so.102
Native Americans also lived in limbo within the US. They were part of the US, but were not citizens. This created confusion as to when they were sovereign and when the federal government had a say. They had a form of tribal government, but they had to adhere to federal laws. They couldn’t vote, but Native American veterans in WWII represented the largest percentage of any ethnic group. They were not fully made citizens of the U.S until 1924. Later, there would be a push to move them off the reservation and into the general society, causing them to lose even more land.
Immigrants had it hard throughout history in America. Those arguing for illegal immigration often say, “We are a nation of immigrants!” They wax nostalgic about the idyllic treatment immigrants received from the late 19th century through the end of WWII, but they leave out the not-so-glamorous true details.
Immigrants arriving by ship were separated by class, with the affluent getting preference. They were given physical and legal exams. This included a series of questions to determine background, intent, and to ensure they would not seek financial assistance. Based on this, people were admitted, interned, or immediately deported. Later there would be a series of laws that restricted naturalization, set quotas, created taxes, and limited immigration from certain countries.
Chinese immigrants came to take advantage of the gold rush and work the former plantations after slavery was abolished. They were attacked by settlers, forced into segregated neighborhoods, and subjected to the same housing and marriage restrictions as blacks. Many Chinese women were forced into prostitution, making the sex trade a lucrative business.
As for the men, they were integral in construction of the first Transcontinental Railroad, however, they were paid far less than their white counterparts and not given board or lodging as was the custom for whites. For instance, in 1850, during the gold rush, California enacted the Foreign Miners’ Tax Act. It mandated that all non-citizens pay $20 per month, which was subsequently reduced to $3 per month. The idea was to reduce the number of Chinese and Mexicans working in the mines.
In Los Angeles in 1871, a mob of white men attacked and robbed Chinese immigrants, killing nearly two dozen. Justice was averted as the convictions of the few men charged were overturned.103 This was followed by the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, which cut off the flow of Chinese immigrants to the US. In 1924, twenty-six years before Brown v. Board of Education, a Chinese-American girl was prohibited from attending a high school in Bolivar County, Mississippi (Lum v. Rice).104
Mistreatment of immigrants was not limited to racial minorities. Germans, Italians, Poles, and Slavs were all viewed as ‘different.’ Most were ostracized, living in slums. During WWI, German immigrants were put in camps.105 Like others, immigrants were not considered for many jobs, leaving them competing with native-born blacks for low-wage jobs. Because blacks were paid less and didn’t suffer from a language barrier, they were often hired first. This created animosity and an inevitable ‘battle at the bottom.’ Minorities, mostly blacks, were beaten and intimidated from keeping jobs, again with little recourse from the government.
While most immigrants came for opportunities, others were escaping tyranny. Even with this immediate threat, some were denied entry to the US. When several Jews seeking asylum were turned away from Cuba, President Roosevelt refused to allow them into the country, sending them back to the horrors of Germany. Despite this, many Nicaraguans, Cubans, Armenians were given asylum. Later, Jews were also allowed entry. Unfortunately, the acceptance was not equal. Since our government was anti-communist, fleeing a communist regime was better for you than fleeing an authoritarian regime, even if the treatment was equally bad.
Because of this, Guatemalans, Salvadorans, and Haitians were less likely to get asylum. For Cubans, it was easier to gain access fleeing Castro than it was if you were fleeing Batista. However, this was not always the case. After the fall of Saigon and the ascension of communism, Vietnamese and Cambodians sought refuge in America. California Governor Jerry Brown refused to give them asylum.106
The goal of the civil rights movement was to put to an end these ‘separate but equal’ laws and practices. It is important to note, however, that many blacks did not want to fully integrate with whites. The problem with separate but equal is that the separation was one way and there was nothing remotely resembling equality about it. White facilities were nicer, more abundant, and better stocked. Blacks had no equal alternatives to department stores, hotel chains, or restaurants.
Where they were allowed entry, they were treated poorly. Many places had separate entrances. In department stores, blacks had to guess what size to buy because they were not allowed to try on clothing. Once they bought the items, they could not return them to the store. Black entertainers were allowed to perform in white venues but couldn’t eat in them, stay at the hotel, or enter the venues through the main entrance.
Separation even looked different. Blacks sat in the back of the bus. If there were no seats in the front, a white man could sit in the colored section, even if it meant a black passenger had to stand. While blacks could not sit at the lunch counter at Woolworth’s, a white man had every right to go to the black owned restaurant or bar. If things in practice had been as the name stated, few would have complained. The point here is that the movement was about ending the practice of subjugation. It was never a full-throated plea for integration.
The country had reached a crossroad. It took nearly 100 years to go from the revolution that started a nation, one whose founders knew that slavery had to end but didn’t believe they could end it and successfully achieve independence, to the war to end slavery and save the union. By the mid-1960s, the country was 100 years removed from the Civil War and nearing its bicentennial. Though significant progress had been made, we had yet to achieve the meaning of Jefferson’s decree that “all men are created equal.”
Since that time, we had held slaves, forced Native Americans onto reservations, enacted laws that suppressed freedom, interned Japanese citizens, and completely ignored women. After waiting hundreds of years for slavery to end and enduring another hundred years of intimidation, murders, and subjugation, blacks were not willing to wait another one hundred years for full equality. Something had to be done.
The passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was supposed to complete the journey. Jim Crow laws were repealed and protections were put in place to prevent discrimination against people on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. But like with the 15th amendment, which gave blacks the right to vote, discrimination didn’t stop; it just became covert.
People found creative ways to continue their discriminatory practices. Racism was not going to disappear overnight because of the passage of a couple laws. Blacks were still not welcomed in most of white society. Many employers simply went from posting signs telling blacks not to apply to accepting their applications and throwing them away. If pushed, they would interview some black candidates but find a reason not to hire them. This hindered the full effect of the law.
In addition to this, there was another obstacle to overcome; a skills gap. For many years, blacks were excluded from many jobs and industries. Even the public jobs were highly restrictive and often segregated. There were limited opportunities for blacks to learn trades or enter licensed careers like medicine and law. This would make it difficult for blacks to increase their status even with the new laws. Nixon took the first step to close that skills gap.
In 1969, President Nixon signed an executive order known as the Philadelphia Plan.107 In it, he set goals for employment of blacks. This was a major change in approach. Before this, the goal was to remove the legal barriers to entry that were preventing blacks from attaining full access to all of America’s opportunities. This executive order w
as saying, rightly so, that blacks had been at a disadvantage for so long and many were finding ways around the new laws protecting them, so ‘affirmative action’ needed to be taken.
Nixon’s executive order was challenged but the court dismissed the challenge in Contractors Association of Eastern Pennsylvania v. Secretary of Labor (1971). This victory led to a series of Supreme Court cases that shifted the court into a gray area. Was their role affirming the constitutionality of laws or legislating the feelings and thoughts of the citizenry?
In United Steelworkers of America v. Weber (1979), a white employee sued, claiming he was passed over for a training program by less qualified minorities. The employer and union had agreed to make 50% of the positions available to blacks. Positions were filled by seniority within each racial group. The court held the practice constitutional for private parties “to eliminate traditional patterns of racial segregation.” It was also intended to be temporary. The justices said there was no undue burden suffered by the plaintiff. I’m sure the employee who sued felt differently.
In Fullilove v. Klutznick (1980), the Supreme Court upheld a congressionally-enacted 10 percent minority business set-aside of federal funds for state and local public works. Here, the Court stressed the remedial nature of the set-aside. In US v. Paradise and Johnson v. Santa Clara County Transportation Agency (1987), the Court upheld a promotion requirement that stated for every white candidate promoted, a qualified African American would also be promoted. This was basically a quota, which the courts contend is unconstitutional.
Lastly in Johnson v. Transportation Agency (1987), the Court upheld an employer's affirmative action plan that allowed gender to be considered as a positive factor when choosing among qualified candidates for jobs in which women were severely underrepresented.
What the courts, and Nixon’s executive order, tried to do had the right intent but the wrong methodology. In Jim Crow laws, black codes, and poll taxes, we saw legislators pass unconstitutional laws based on their racist views and desire for an unequal outcome. The way you correct unconstitutional laws is to strike them down, not to pass equally unconstitutional laws. If the courts were wrong, as in Dred Scott, the decision can be challenged and a later court can overturn it.
We Want Equality Page 4