03/31/2026
Oh, my Beautiful Black Diaspora…what is it that truly ails you?
With all the current focus upon Black celebrities like TLC’s Chilli, Nick Cannon, Niki Minaj, Nellie, et al being either direct or indirect supporters of our would be oppressors—it is simply stunning to me the amount of cognitive dissonance that still exists within the Black Diaspora, about political alignment and sociopolitical allyship. This narrative that keeps popping up and circulating within the Diaspora about “both parties are the same,” or some such thing. Or even those within the Diaspora who consider themselves to be “conservative” (QUWHAT does that really even mean? Do they even KNOW?!), and aligning with people who CLEARLY have said and shown them that they want to destroy them—is mind boggling to me.
But—lets start with acknowledging the fact that there has NEVER been a political movement that was truly benevolent and altruistic in its nature—from ANY political party—to address the injustices against, or secure the political, financial, and social equity of African Americans. NEVER.
As with Nick Cannon recently, some folks like to justify their misguided political alignments with statements like “Republicans ended slavery.” Yeah they did; the Republicans of 1862 (The Emancipation Proclamation), 1865 (The 13th Amendment) and 1870 (The 15th Amendment). More than a century and a half ago. But those were POLITICAL moves, not moral; Lincoln did those things in order to weaken the confederacy, and to gain the military support of Black Southern soldiers during the Civil War. And Lincoln, even though he was an abolitionist and was the leader of the “Party of Abolition”, DID NOT believe in the equality of Black people with white people. He still felt we were inferior—or at the very least, incompatible.
And yet right after promised Reconstruction Period began in 1865, Jim Crow still happened in full swing, also beginning in 1865, but going full bore in 1877. Why? Mainly because one of the conditions of surrender for the Confederates was state’s rights, which ended up giving Southern Democrats an outsized amount of political power, which they readily used to create new forms of slavery through indentured servitude (Sharecropping), violence and intimidation, repressive laws, and outright theft of land allegedly allotted to Blacks during Reconstruction. In 1877 President Elect, REPUBLICAN Rutherford B. Hayes made a deal with Southern Democrats to pull out federal troops that were protecting Reconstruction laws put in place to benefit newly freed Blacks, in exchange for Dems not blocking his election certification by Congress. Once he did that, Reconstruction came to a screeching halt.
“Black citizens’ hopes that the federal government would provide them with land had been raised by Gen. William T. Sherman’s Field Order No. 15 of January 1865, which set aside a large swath of land along the coast of South Carolina and Georgia for the exclusive settlement of Black families, and by the Freedmen’s Bureau Act of March, which authorized the bureau to rent or sell land in its possession to former slaves. But President Johnson in the summer of 1865 ordered land in federal hands to be returned to its former owners. The dream of “40 acres and a mule” was stillborn.”
And those 19th Century Southern Democrats who gained that political and economic power? Decades later, they came to be known as the Dixiecrats—the ones who made it possible for Jim Crow and segregation to flourish for the next hundred years.
Again acknowledging that they were in fact Democrats—yes. But now—if you’re still with me, then PAY ATTENTION…
In 1948, Dixiecrats came into existence after President Harry S. Truman ordered integration of the military in 1948. They didn’t like the idea of ANY integration at all, even in wartime of both the Korean and the Vietnam wars. But almost simultaneously, Republicans—you know, the party that “freed the slaves”, created the so called Southern Strategy, a political movement designed to siphon off disgruntled Southern Democrats. And in 1968 Southern Democratic Party leaders went for the Southern Strategy en masse, and they became Republicans after President Lyndon B. Johnson supported and passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Those landmark changes came to fruition NOT for altruistic reasons; but once again, because the Democrats were trying to hold on to their political power. All of course, because of the growing political and socioeconomic pressure brought to bear by Dr. King and the entire Civil Rights movement.
Here’s the truth of the matter about the Democrats of the early 1960s; the closest they ever came to an altruistic political move towards the equality of Black People in America, came in the form of one John F. Kennedy, and his brother Robert Kennedy.
And we ALL know what happened to them…
Wikipedia says this:
“President John F. Kennedy’s views on Black Americans evolved during his presidency. Early on, he was cautious about civil rights to avoid alienating Southern Democrats, but he became more supportive as the civil rights movement intensified. By 1963, he publicly acknowledged the moral urgency of racial equality, calling civil rights “a moral issue” expressing empathy for the struggles of Black Americans and support for ending segregation and discrimination. He introduced the legislation that became the Civil Rights Act of 1964 after his death.”
My point is that there will NEVER be an altruistic, morally perfect politician or political party. The very nature of politics itself prevents that, which is the practice of power for favor. Thats it. Because even those who get into politics with the best intentions—the higher up politicians get, the more of their soul they will have to sell. Because the price of gaining power is that EVERYONE will want something from them in exchange for helping to move them up the ladder. It cannot be avoided. And even if they do manage to stay morally intact on the way up to the top—once they get there, it will still be a game of trading for favors and influence. That is LITERALLY the definition of politics.
The question will ALWAYS be—which “sinner” do I have the most chance of converting; the one who ambiguously desires to do good somewhere within their soul, but still sometimes may do bad things; or the one who has openly and unabashedly embraced the devil, and has SHOWN and TOLD you in no uncertain terms, that they want to destroy you?
