Democratic Apartheid

Affirmative Action

Democratic Apartheid

Apartheid is generally defined as a policy or system of segregation or discrimination of a supposedly “minority” or “inferior” group based on race. Apartheid more deeply explored is actually the principles and ideologies architected for exploitation and abuses securing power, control, and narcissistic stature. Still, what are the doctrines of apartheid when the barriers are just as impenetrable as they are sustained by other ideologies camouflaging the intent by the method or justification? The ends often are justification for the means and the elasticity of morality allowing humanitarian abuses.

Although the brutally violent assaults on ethnicity are now usually the last resort, the subtle initiates of its replacements achieve the same results. It is not only a period in African history ending in 1994 but an act throughout American history expressed as an affirmative action of policy, society, and practice reflecting the subjugated delineation of a people to be dominated without violation of the perpetrator’s consciousness, religion, or morality. It requires a declassification of others humanity below the pedestal of a self-aggrandizing self-image of superiority or larceny of opportunity and resources.

This counterfeit social status is a construct of a narrative so propagandized to replicate the delusion as an entitlement associated with a biased concession by oppressive division. It prognosticates the separation of opportunity or rights enjoyed above those rendered. This very act of identity isolation is an allocation of humanity subsidizing the restrictions and tolerance metered out to maintain dominance by exclusion. The racially rationalized advantage of apartheid to the benefactors is now a discrimination against them when it is no longer the modus operandi of societal norms.

So, in essence any measures taken to offset the ill-gotten advantage is unfair to their continued abuses. Consequently, theoretically speaking by this logic any exclusion of a group based on expanded access or a “set aside” for another group is unfair despite the historical context or remedies sought thereof. Therefore, would not military service be such a “set aside” of unfairness to those who did not serve? There are many such “set asides’ such as job seniority, union membership, family legacy, senior citizens, adulthood, and virtually every societal absolution fits the exclusionary definition.

The only difference is not the act of recognition but the criteria of selection based upon a determinate such as the word “race” which makes it unfair. In the context of “race” it is not selective but corrective. If one child eats all the cake from the other child, would it not be fair to the child who has consumed more than their fair share to be curtailed from excluding the other’s consumption as a measure of DEI? The concept of DEI has its faults but not as many as the history or policies it seeks to remedy. Actions to perpetuate  social, economic, and political underclasses appeases a serenity of privilege but agitates the capitulation to injustice.

Injustice by coercion eventually is unsustainable and does not invite tranquility of society but instead sustainable resentment to subjugation. Ethnicity, gender, economics, and opportunity are measures of segregation restricting fairness but in all distorted fairness is promoted as having no disadvantage beyond the advantages not received. There are those hindered by the oppressions which others cavalierly dismiss as non-existent or discontinued. However, the advantage survives the gap created from its presence. The ideological virus of segregationist policies and practices infects the ascension of humanity by stifling contributions as an affirmative action to promoting confirmation of its unfair privilege.

The accusation goes from woke to radical left to Christian conservative values instead of subjective strongarming of ideologies beneficial to a biased agenda. So, affirmative is a conformation. Action is an activity taken. Democratic is a consensus. Apartheid is an abomination of humanity’s sovereignty. Combined they are a confirmation of activities agreed upon to execute an abomination against the sovereignty of a segment of humanity. When the moral check is due from the feast of oppression, the bloated diner cannot skip out on the bill or complain about its payment for a meal they consumed and thoroughly enjoyed.

It is not unreasonable and certainly expected that the provider is entitled to be compensated for the services they provided. There is no dispensation of self-determined nonpayment to avoid settlement or criminal culpability. By the way, it is also customary and expected that a tip accompany the payment. Absent reparations surely affirmative action, DEI, or other corrective measures to discrimination are a smaller domestic cost or social escrow than the billions sent abroad for foreign wars. What about an affirmative action towards funding the domestic war on the historical racial exploitations of America’s democratic apartheid of biblical proportions?

 

The Dreamer’s Dream

Delayed Delivery

The Dreamer’s Dream

Dr. King’s “I have a Dream” speech spoke of hope at daybreak after a long night of captivity. He spoke of the crippling continuation of segregation and discrimination even 100 years later. He spoke of us as an island isolated from prosperity by public policy and racist sentiment. He spoke of cashing a check issued on a promissory note. His civil rights speech questioned the inalienable rights, liberty, and pursuit of happiness promised to all but yet not delivered to us. He spoke of the urgency of the times, police brutality, ghetto conditions only varying in the size of the ghetto, voting rights denied, and the indifference to injustice provoking an interdependent fate of destruction.

However, he did not speak of becoming docile and we should not let the interpretation of his words convert us into doormats for those who say his words were those of passivity. He was emphatic about there can be no rest or contentment until we are recognized and treated equally as first class citizens.  He did indeed speak of a color blind society but have we achieved it yet? If not, many interpretations and assertions regarding his speech are still delinquent in their realization. As such, the racial utopia of his dream is a society we are working towards but still have a considerable ways to go.

The unrelenting echoes of his voice ring loud and true as if he is giving that speech today. Many of the conditions he spoke of still exist as challenges of today. Sure, apologist, revisionist, and the treasonous historically ignorant point to gains amounting to meatless bones of patronization comparative to other segments of society. He also warned us of contentment fatiguing us to complacency. It is also true that our complacency has now led to our conditions just as much as the forces against us have. Patience is a virtue only when it is not used as a crutch propping up alibis of inaction and deficits of fortitude.

Where is our bus boycott or march on power mentality insisting our demands are met? We whimper in celebrations of causes which allude us disguised as a tribute to the man himself. They are separate. Celebrate the man but the fight for the cause, his cause which has always been our cause is still waging far from over and constantly under siege. Any factual revelation of discrimination is labeled anti-American, anti-white, divisive, and well, racist. It absolutely is exactly that if judged by the metric of Jim Crow and those who would hold themselves to a delusional entitlement of superiority.

But that was the point of his speech. He was, and I am also very clear to state it is not a reference to all white people or people of any “color” who do not hold racist sentiments. Much like in home room when they call names at roll call. If it is not your name, you don’t answer because they are not talking to you. Same for acts of racism not committed by you. Counter claims of racism because we assert our humanity may just have to be the price of doing business and should not deter us from our appointed duty. This counter claim of racism from pointing out the elephant in society amounts to playing the dozens and you can’t play with me in a way I don’t play.

Label it as you may but it does not change the nature of the historical accuracies by the whining “white victimization” petition when social change or accountability hounds your privileged fragility of a fractured identity. The reimbursement of our claims are met with entitlements of moral bankruptcy or written off as an uncollectable debt of justice. But, why? A large part is the psychology of assimilation where we must shun any association or resemblance to those of us still stereotypically marginalized based on our indoctrination of them as memories of inferiority. Our Judas approach to denounce them to appease others and pacify ourselves maintains our separation and our collective ostracization.

It is an adoption of an ideology mimicking an identity conditioned upon us similar to the squabble between house and field personnel. An immigrational surrender of our identity to gain acceptance. Dr. King spoke of governors, some now are freshly minted immigrants I might add, as vicious racist whose lips are dripping with, well their hypocrisy of racism or the eradication of it. Frankly speaking, presidential candidates can be included as well until their ethnicity is challenge as not “white” and then they cry racism which they say does not exist.

However, I would bet white is what they self-identify as on an application when it suits them. This code switching is a form of discriminatory privilege many fail to admit but routinely use such as the term minority or person of color. These minor practices do not obscure the awareness and denial of much more significant normalities and fluctuating definitions of unnecessary labels. They protest the restrictions of racism and subjugated labels only when directly applied to them. Why would it exist for them but not for us when we have a documented archive of its existence for us? They can ban books but history, memories, and truth is a much different story. 

So, August 28, 1963, was the date of Dr. King’s historic speech and more than 60 years later the runway is still not clear for equality to land. Advocates of freedom are not voting for something. We are voting against our forever intertwined destruction. Our collective survival. This is especially true for Blacks, the enemy of those who opposes our interest is a friend not to us but to our interest. Assimilation surrenders an identity which many believe was taken from us centuries ago, but as Dr. King said this is a beginning and not an end.

Our salvation will be our dignity, content of character, and fortitude persevering as our sword to tremble the sentiments of injustice from the ideological delusion of Stone Mountain in Georgia to whatever rock of ideology racist hide behind or under. We have tried a soul force of faith more appropriate for that time. It has proven that the beggars tool benefits only time. So, don’t discredit Dr. King’s dream turning it into a nightmare by our empty talk and celebration. Celebrate his life and legacy sure, but don’t succumb to the relaxation of a partial achievement. Dr. King warned us of this with his words and life 

Nevertheless, his legacy is best celebrated by the actions of people who embody his calls to arms by being about it instead of talking about it. Standing on the ideological business about it. To not be deceived about his dream we must learn about the Dreamer and his speech from his words beyond the sensationalism of a few of the more famous verses. It will inspire you to a greater appreciation for his significance as a sociopolitical force so dangerous he had to be silenced. READ the speech to consume the magnitude of its message so it can never be silenced. Please, don’t sleep on the Dreamer’s message. Humanity has no color only where racism has no place. Hopefully one day we’ll have a Happy MLK Jr Day which is not a dream but a reality!

Thurston K Atlas

Creating a Buzz