(ThyBlackMan.com) Self-limiting pursuits that serve only to retard personal growth and reject modernity have plagued blacks in America uninterrupted, in the form of identity politics, since the collapse of the oppressive eras of subjugated inequality, i.e., slavery, the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) and Jim Crow laws that were instituted and maintained by the Democratic Party.
No people as a group have been more harmed by the ruthless constructs of identity politics than blacks. I contend that W.E.B. Du Bois, with the admonition of Vladimir Lenin, introduced identity politics at the beginning of the 20th century, and it continues today as an industry – second only to abortion in its destructive effect on blacks.
Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society initiative and Richard Nixon’s skin-color based affirmative action programming can be argued as nails in the coffin that contained the abandonment of personal 
responsibility, true self-esteem, civility, and propriety, for many, if not most blacks. And as referenced, this decline continues unabated today.
Tragically, most blacks base their identity upon the color of their skin and the inculcated immiseration born out of their self-induced theology of victimology associated with same.
For the overwhelming majority of blacks, being a skin color is not only sacrosanct; it is paramount to their identity above all else, including God Almighty Himself. Skin color is foundational to all they aspire to be to the point of harboring visceral contempt for anyone who doesn’t share their debilitating fixation.
Perhaps one of the most overlooked, indeed most unknown facts, is that blacks were not brought to America as a color. That is a difficult fact to digest for those fixated upon being a color. It is the deadly truth those making an industry out of marketing skin color do not want known or understood because it threatens the skin color narrative. Specific to said point, if that understanding is embraced, then it logically follows that people will begin to question when and, more importantly, why did skin color become important.
Africans were hunted, captured and sold as a form of commerce, just as slavery was with every other group of people spanning history, beginning in the Old Testament book of Genesis. People were not selected to be slaves based upon skin color; they were conscripted into slavery vis-a-vis war and/or commerce, which understandably resulted in people being born into slavery.
Another myth many Americans as a whole buy into is that slavery was about being a skin color. Slavery was not about being a skin color. Rather, as I have argued, it became about being a skin color because that fit at first a social narrative, and later a socio-political narrative.
I have argued many times that the Civil War wasn’t fought based upon the skin color of the slaves. Slavery was only a tangential reason for fighting the Civil War. The primary reasons had to do with states’ rights versus what several Southern states viewed as an overreach of federal authority in violation of the Constitution. Other causal factors included expansionism and nationalism that led to calls for Southern secession, which the Northern states were unwilling to abide. These factors, while not exhaustive, played a large role in launching America into war with itself. Specific to that point, skin color only became the issue when the Democratic Party employed same as a means to continue slavery and as a reason to punish “free Negroes” for supporting Republicans.
It is also important to note that the terrorism and mistreatment of “free Negroes,” as persons of color were called in America at that time, didn’t start until slaves were freed. It was at that time the KKK and Jim Crow laws were used by Democrats to subjugate blacks because blacks had turned to the Republican Party in vast numbers. Democratic consternation had to do with political control, and skin color identity politics was the most expedient way to accomplish the party’s objective.
This fact was attested to by “freed Negroes” themselves:
Why were blacks so often the target of Klan violence? According to African American U. S. Rep. John Roy Lynch: “More colored than white men are thus persecuted simply because they constitute in larger numbers the opposition to the Democratic Party.” African-American U. S. Rep. Richard Cain of South Carolina, a bishop of the AME denomination, agreed, declaring: “The bad blood of the South comes because the Negroes are Republicans. If they would only cease to be Republicans and vote the straight-out Democratic ticket, there would be no trouble. Then the bad blood would sink entirely out of sight.” It was these Democratic and Klan “inhuman outrages” to which Republicans here object. (“Democrats and Republicans In Their Own Words,” page14)
It cannot be overlooked that neither of these men said they were persecuted for being black. Both men stated quite clearly that they were persecuted because the “free Negroes” in vastly greater numbers supported the Republican Party. Democrats weren’t concerned about skin color as such; they were concerned about the preservation of slavery at any cost. Skin color was simply the vehicle they used to disenfranchise the “freed slaves” and advance their Erebusic agenda, just as Democrats and progressives are doing today.
Written by Mychal Massie
Official website; http://mychal-massie.com