The Black’s Plague: How Liberal Apologists Ensure Inequality for African Americans

For years, the relationship between blacks and whites in America has been uneasy. Starting with the introduction of African slavery to the Americas in the 16^th century, blacks had been viewed by their white counterparts as an inferior species unworthy of the God-given rights bestowed on all Americans by the Constitution. Blacks were enslaved, beaten, starved, worked to death, and tortured for the color of their skin and culture of the “dark continent” they came from. Thankfully for African Americans, much has changed since these brutal times in American history. Today, blacks hold positions of power all over America including company CEOs, stock market brokers, judges, police officers, pilots, army colonels, and even president of the United States. Laws have been created to ensure the fair treatment of African Americans as well. Affirmative Action supporters have created regulations that require certain companies and educational institutions to seek out ethnically diverse populations in order to maintain equality in the United States. Many people believe that the societal advancement of blacks has progressed quickly since the 1960s and Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech about equality and brotherhood. Unfortunately, America will never realize King’s dream of a truly colorblind nation until liberal apologists stop giving blacks a reason to be the underdogs of America. By making excuses for why some blacks don’t succeed because of their destructive past, today’s liberals do the black community a great disservice by keeping that destructive past alive as an excuse for African Americans- making them the political pets of that very same liberal political agenda. Through this pampering and conditioning, today’s liberals widen the race gap in America and contribute to the worsening of race relations between whites and blacks.

To fully understand the scope of this argument, people need to understand the history of African slave trade to the Americas. It is fairly well-known that the first Africans arrived in the Carolinas with the Spaniards in 1526 (Loewen 137). After popularizing this new land to Europeans, Americans needed people to work their fields and do other manual labor in order to turn a profit on their plantations and farms. So, they turned to the “dark continent” also known as Africa. The African warlords there were more than willing to sell their own people into slavery for the Americans in return for guns and gold, regardless of the fact that the warlords were known as people who “maintained the goodwill of tribal ancestors, sought divine guidance for the people and protected them from evils” (Lewis 58). This betrayal of their own people in return for money and guns is an ugly blemish generally avoided in black history conversation. The Americans continued to buy black slaves from African warlords for years to come, beating them, starving them, and killing them because of their skin color and culture. Then, as America entered into the third year of the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation that freed all slaves in America (Archives 22). Now, it must be noted that the freeing of slaves was only valid in the Union, Border States and the South still kept a strong grip on their “property” until the victory of the Union in 1865. The signing of the Emancipation Proclamation was not only good for the freed slaves, but also a brilliant political move by Lincoln since almost 200,000 African American soldiers signed up to fight for their freedom in the war. The Union then won the Civil War with the help of the newly freed African Americans and the abolition of slavery spread slowly throughout the South.

With the Civil War over and slaves freed, the future was promising to many blacks. According to Special Field Order No. 15, all freed blacks were to be given “40 acres and a mule” (Ogletree 2) to help them jump-start their new free lives. Unfortunately, this order was rescinded by President Andrew Johnson when the time came for it to be paid (2). This act was a perfect example of the bad feelings between blacks and whites following the emancipation of slaves from their white masters. This backlash came about because of their skin color and unrefined behavior due to their lack of education, since almost all slaves were deprived of education and shunned by society during their enslavement. Many freed slaves could not read or write and were at a severe economic disadvantage for finding jobs other than manual labor towards the end of the 1800s (Shipp 3).

Though blacks were looked down upon and had a hard time finding jobs, they had still come a long way from plowing fields and being whipped or beaten to death for the smallest mistake. During the early 1900s, though, blacks suffered most in the Great Depression and lived in ghettos with little to no food and sanitation. Interestingly enough, racism took second chair to poverty during this period. Many scholars agree that because blacks and whites were both in such terrible economic situations together, racist feelings diminished a bit (Bindas 183). This makes good sense, considering that it would be difficult to find the energy and time to get a group of people together to beat a black man when people were scavenging for food and waiting in line at the food bank for hours a day. As Americans began to pull out of the Great Depression though, racist feelings worsened until the Civil Rights Movement erupted in the 1950s.

The Civil Rights Movement was a beacon of hope for the black community in America. Protests and marches were organized to fight for African Americans’ equal rights, and they worked in the long run. Influential speakers and protesters such as Rosa Parks, Malcolm X, and Martin Luther King Jr. made a very strong case for blacks in America and, as a result, found support in the white community. At King’s “I Have a Dream” speech at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C., the crowd was spotted with whites who believed that blacks should not be treated differently because of the color of their skin (King 1). To think that these protests and speeches did nothing for race relations in America would be foolish. Within two years of King’s famous speech, Robert C. Weaver was made the first African American to serve as a Cabinet Member. Also, in 1966, Edward Brooke became the first black U.S. Senator since Reconstruction then Carol Mosely Braun was appointed as the first black female U.S. Senator in 1992 (Brunner 14). These occurrences were not handouts or feel-good prizes for being black. These people earned their positions in a cynical country with the help of King and other influential figures to show that blacks and whites are equals.

It can be seen that the tribulations of blacks in America have been long and hard in the past but, as of late, both the white and black community has done much to contribute to the equality of blacks in the United States. Furthermore, blacks and whites have worked together to create laws that ensure blacks cannot be discriminated against in the workplace or when being hired, as well as extracting a formal apology for slavery by the United States government (WCCO).

Recently though, African Americans face a dangerous and corrupt adversary that seeks to derail all the progress that has been made for race relations in America. With the issues of slavery and equality already fading away, liberals are finding an important political foothold disappearing before their very eyes. Without the excuse of slavery for African Americans who don’t excel in society, liberals find themselves devoid of an important voter demographic. By pampering the black community, liberals are gaining the trust of these people and, therefore, ensuring more votes for their party. Shelby Steele, an acclaimed African American writer and university professor put it best when he said: “liberals still are defining the terms by which African-Americans are acknowledged as human beings-with their depiction of blacks as hapless victims perennially in dire need of the preferential racial remedies orchestrated by the barons of the Democratic Party. A self-serving political strategy that rewards them by creating solid Democratic majorities at the polls” (Thomson 19).

This “self-serving political strategy” is exemplified by liberals like Randall Robinson who argue that because some blacks don’t excel in American society, they should be paid reparations for the wrongs wrought by slavery that put them in the poor societal position originally (Robinson 109). In his book The Debt: What America Owes to Blacks, Robinson claims that African Americans should be paid for the injustices done to their ancestors by whites. He goes even further to say that the final amount should not only include what it takes to “repair the long-term social damage to blacks” but also “the psychological injury to Black Americans today, caused by a century or more of state-imposed discrimination and state acquiescence in private discriminatory actions against blacks” (93). Robinson’s attempt at a payout is admirable. According to his biography on the TransAfrica web site, Robinson has sold over 250,000 copies of this book. Impressive, especially because he puts neither a final dollar amount on what America supposedly owes African Americans, nor a formula to possibly determine this sum using any concrete figures. “Social damage” and “psychological injury” are sad effects of slavery on the African American community, but they are intangible and amateur reasons to call for a very real, very serious paycheck.

Robinson is one of those people who want the race gap to widen in America. It is obvious that he sees a chance for social recognition and power slipping away as equal opportunity for blacks and whites becomes more of a reality every day. With his book, he is exploiting blacks who have fallen on hard times or are just plain lazy. By giving them a reason not to excel and keep working hard like their peers, he is essentially ordering them to be the underdogs of society. Kevin Hopkins, a black writer for the Georgetown Journal, gives further credence to Robinson’s liberal plan to keep blacks from excelling in America. In a review of The

Debt, Hopkins agreed with Robinson’s stance and even went as far as to say that: “Even more detrimental to blacks, however, would be the implication that any payments agreed upon would constitute a full satisfaction of the debt and thus, blacks and whites would-for all purposes, including economic ones-be on par with one another.” (Hopkins 2548) If this isn’t concrete evidence, nothing is. Here, an esteemed liberal author is writing that the most detrimental event that could befall black America is equality. Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, and millions of slaves from before 1863 must be rolling in their graves over that one. Worse, is that Hopkins does a disservice to his race and the true heroes of black America with that comment. But, in avoiding questionable assumptions like Robinson’s reasons for reparations, it can be said that this comment provides a strong example that today’s liberals will go to any length to achieve political success; even if that means abandoning a dream held by their own race for centuries.

Hopkins’s view supports the idea that liberals are willing to contribute to the brainwashing of African Americans in order to maintain political power. By assuring blacks that the whites, the government, and the world owe them something, liberals create a society of frustrated African Americans. This frustration undermines even the best efforts of everyday people who seek to leave the issue of slavery at rest. It is important to remember that whites are not the exclusive supporters of this point of view; many well-known blacks think it is time to move past what is long past and build a country free of bias for political gain.

E.R. Shipp, a Pulitzer-Prize winning author, wrote an opposing viewpoints piece in Essence Magazine with Charles J. Ogletree, a professor at Harvard University, on the subject of black reparations. It should be noted that both Shipp and Ogletree are African Americans and grew up in similar households. Both authors were born into middle-class black families in the Midwest and rose to popularity and recognition in their fields through hard work and perseverance (Shipp, Ogletree 126-127). Interestingly, they have very different views about the payment of reparations to blacks for the institution of slavery in the U.S. In his article, Ogletree supported the idea of reparations being paid to blacks for the “lingering effects of the broken promises of equal treatment.” He was an avid supporter of the recent Millions For Reparations Rally at the National Mall where blacks and whites who demanded reparations marched together in protest. One of Ogletree’s best points was that Africans shipped to America “240 years ago…were responsible for establishing our nation’s vital economy.” (Ogletree 128) This was a very good point and might have built a strong foundation for the reparation argument if he had expanded upon it. Instead, he decided to skip through most of slave history straight to the Civil Rights Movement and give reasons why blacks should be paid reparations for the “great injustices” that happened during America’s slave era and beatings at rallies during the 1960s (127). Then, going back to the Millions For Reparations Rally, Ogletree admitted that even the most liberal and “sympathetic” whites in the crowd would be concerned with the aggressive chanting of “They owe us!” He even went as far to say that this chant “seemed to confirm the worst suspicions of those who object to reparations as a ‘free’ payout to people who have never experienced slavery by people who have never had anything to do with slavery.” (126) By second-guessing the rally held by his supporters, Ogletree gave credibility to the opposition’s “worst fears.”

Shipp, on the other hand, called for blacks to stop looking for an easy way out and, most importantly, to avoid becoming the puppets of liberal politicians at all costs. She wrote of her refusal to believe America has not “honored, or begun to honor, that promissory note” (mentioned in Dr. King’s famous speech). She added that “Unfortunately, too many black Americans today, often egged on by politicians and preachers and professors who don’t mind dazzling their audiences with sound-good inanities and foolishness, are running around hollering ‘They owe us!’” (Shipp 128). This statement is a powerful one, coming from such a well-decorated writer. In that statement, Shipp acknowledges that liberal politicians use the black community to further their own agendas using empty promises to essentially trick their audiences into becoming a rabble of fools “hollering ‘They owe us!’” Perhaps the most important aspect of Shipp’s argument, though, is that she hints at the fact that by complaining and keeping the idea of slavery alive, liberal apologists are most certainly widening the racial gap in America. She mentions in her conclusion that “Rather than wasting time on this ridiculous reparations movement, we’d be better off joining forces with other Americans to resolve the issues that affect us all.” (129) Unfortunately, this goal will be hard to attain with liberal politicians holding such influence over a large part of the black community, using them for political gain while widening the racial gap between America’s citizens.

The argument between Shipp and Ogletree in Essence gives great insight as to how different African Americans view the issue of reparations and the reasons why liberal politicians have continued to do a disservice to the black community. Not only do these politicians widen the race gap by convincing the ancestors of black slaves that the world owes them something, but also that blacks are not accepted by anyone except the liberal apologists who only want to help them make it through such a racist, biased, hating world.

This belief is corroborated in an article entitled “Understanding Unconscious Bias and Unintentional Racism” by Jean Moule in the Phi Delta Kappan International journal. Moule makes an interesting argument by using examples from his very own life experiences in the introduction to his work. He opens the article with a statement that exemplifies the type of feelings liberal apologists have instilled in the black community: “In the blink of an eye, unconscious bias was visible to me, an African American.” (Moule 321) First off, could Moule start his essay with a slightly more accusatory and dramatic remark? Secondly, if his aim was to make a case against unconscious bias for all African Americans he had already failed. This opening line shows no attempt at making an ethical argument or solving the problem Moule presents in anything other than a totally self-centered fashion. He continues by listing a string of events that he claims occurred as a result of people seeing his dark skin including when “A man saw my face as I walked into the store and unconsciously checked his wallet. On the street, a woman catches my eye a half block away and moves her purse from the handle of her baby's stroller to her side as she arranges the baby's blanket. In the airport, a man signals to his wife to move her purse so it is not over the back of her chair, which is adjacent to the one I am moving toward” (321). Accusatory statements like these are the manifestation of the attitudes liberal apologists have injected into the lives of countless blacks in America. Moule’s example also gives credibility to the idea that liberal apologists give blacks an excuse to act however they want and be rewarded for it. If he were a white man writing “In the blink of an eye, unconscious bias was visible to me, a Caucasian American” he would be laughed right out of the editor’s office. Instead, his skin color permits him to complain about chance happenings such as these (that have a hundred more likely causes) and be rewarded with a publication in a prestigious journal. In return for his willingness to take offense at innocent actions, Moule plays right into the liberal apologist’s political agenda by becoming a poster-child for further division of races in America. Is that the kind of behavior Martin Luther King Jr. had in mind when he said “In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity…?” (King 3) No, it obviously isn’t.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was arguably the most influential African American in history. He has been credited with uniting blacks and whites alike for the common goals of freedom and equality. His most famous speech entitled “I Have a Dream” is known worldwide because of the moving oratory and themes presented within it. Around the time of King’s speech at the Lincoln Memorial was when blacks and whites in America started to see the tunnel that would eventually have the light at the end of it. Unfortunately, liberal apologists have, in recent times, worked hard to keep this light from appearing. By stifling the cries of a divided America with niceties, excuses, and calls for reparations for African Americans, liberals have twisted the once humble and honest wishes of black America into greedy, unreasonable demands-many of which Dr. King preemptively rejected on behalf of the African American population over 40 years ago.

Dr. King demanded change in an extremely segregated America, but did so with only the simple requests of equality and justice. As King put it: “And so, we've come to cash this check, a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice” (King 3). Perhaps those who push for reparations misheard King’s minute-long section about cashing this check of freedom and justice. Today, it seems that they heard “…a check that will give us upon demand the fiscal amount equal to 240 years of psychological damage and other intangible sums.” Martin Luther King and millions of other African Americans wanted equality, not money. Again, perhaps Moule mistook the words of the greatest African American leader that ever lived when assuming the worst from people in the airport and in the store (Moule 321). After all, King made a point of saying that the acts of some racists “must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny.” The most powerful part about King’s speech, though, is that it was given over 40 years ago. America has become a much more tolerant place since the 1960s (AP) and King’s calls for civility by his supporters then should only be augmented by the passing of time and increased tolerance.

Liberals who claim to support King and his historical movement also overlook the true value of what he called for during the “I Have a Dream” speech. Today, liberal influence has pressured blacks into thinking their country owes them something when, in fact, King had always maintained that equality was all the black community wanted. Instead of letting America progress into a truly colorblind society, liberal apologists have coerced much of the black community into scheming for more than “the ‘unalienable Rights’ of ‘Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.’” (King 1) Martin Luther King’s groundbreaking speech was not about putting African Americans in the limelight and showering them with unearned gifts. The theme of Dr. King’s speech was brotherhood. He explicitly said “I have a dream that the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.” And “I have a dream that… one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.” As well as “With this faith, we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood.” (4-5) Brotherhood and equality were King’s messages, not pampering and conditioning for a life spent taking exception to the smallest gestures as “racist” or “prejudiced” (Moule 322).

Now, the African American community is not absolved from their part in being coerced by today’s liberals. Given the fact that anyone can be persuaded when presented with enough gifts and praise, combined with the obvious hardships African Americans have endured for decades in the past, it can be hard to admit that blacks have let this liberal malady affect them.

While not playing an active role in the corruption of black America, the African American community has not had either the courage or knowledge to stand up for their own well-being. By continuing to be the playthings of the liberal political agenda, African Americans do their ancestors and themselves a great disservice. Instead of swallowing every excuse and compliment fabricated by a lying liberal, blacks should take a little pride and ask themselves if they are being handed gifts that are not theirs to take. In fact, the “gifts” liberal apologists offer blacks in the form of excuses for not being accepted into colleges or reasons why a man would check for his wallet in a store are nothing more than sad attempts to further groom an entire race of people into further servitude for new masters.

If African Americans still hold the ideals of Dr. King and other visionaries paramount to their success in America, they need to make a stand against these liberal apologists who infect the minds of the black community. Standing up to these apologetic politicians will be the straw that breaks the camel’s back for race relations in America. When blacks and whites can say, in truth, that the color of a person’s skin has no meaning whatsoever (in a positive or negative way), then America can truly realize the meaning of Dr. King’s colorblind nation. Today, the only way to achieve this end is to put an end to the abuse of African Americans at the hands of their liberal masters. As Dr. King said so many years ago: “I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed…that all men are created equal” (King 4). With the sickness of liberal apologetics removed from the African American community, blacks and whites alike will be able to find light at the end of the long winding tunnel of race relations in America and finally “join hands as brothers” (King 3).

Archives, US. "Featured Document: The Emancipation Proclamation." Www.archives.gov. June 2002. Web. 16 Nov. 2009.

Bindas, Kenneth J. "Black Liberation and Socialism." African American Review 41.1 (2007): 183-84. ProQuest. Web. 13 Nov. 2009.

Brunner, Borgna. "Famous Firsts by African Americans." Www.infoplease.com. Pearson Education Inc., 2007. Web. 18 Nov. 2009.

Bureau, American Program. "Human Rights Speakers." Apbspeakers.com. The American Program Bureau, 1 Sept. 2005. Web. 14 Nov. 2009.

Hopkins, Kevin. "Forgive U.S. our debts? Righting the wrongs of slavery." Georgetown Law Journal 89.8 (2001): 2531-557. ProQuest. Web. 14 Nov. 2009.

King, Martin L. "Martin Luther King, Jr. "I Have a Dream"" Www.americanrhetoric.com. 1 Jan. 2001. Web. 14 Nov. 2009.

Lewis, Lester. "Slavery: Time for some home truths." New African 414 (2003): 58-59. ProQuest. Web. 13 Nov. 2009.

Moule, Jean. "Understanding Unconscious Bias and Unintentional Racism." Phi Delta Kappan 90.5 (2009): 321-27. ProQuest. Web. 14 Nov. 2009.

Ogletree, Charles J., and ER Shipp. "Does America Owe Us? Point/Counterpoint." Essence Magazine 33 (2003): 126-31. ProQuest. Web. 13 Nov. 2009.

Press, Associated. "House Issues Formal Apology For Slavery." Wcco.com. Associated Press, 29 July 2008. Web. 14 Nov. 2009.

Press, Associated. "Race and Ethnic Policy Issues." Www.newsbatch.com. July 2008. Web. 16 Nov. 2009.

Shipp, ER. "Pulitzer Prize Winners-Bios." Www.pulitzer.org. Pulitzer Committee, 25 Apr. 1998. Web. 14 Nov. 2009.

Steele, Shelby. "From Emmitt Till to Skip Gates." Wallstreetjournal.com. Wall Street Journal, 1 Aug. 2009. Web.

Thomson, James W. "Pres. Obama Goes Over the Top on Affirmative Action." USA Today 138.2772 (2009): 18-21. ProQuest. Web.