Tag: white supremacy
White Hot Rage: What Really Happened At Ol' Cracker Barrel

White Hot Rage: What Really Happened At Ol' Cracker Barrel

You may have been shocked when the Cracker Barrel restaurant chain’s corporate redesign became national news in mid-August. I certainly was. I’ve never eaten at a Cracker Barrel, before or after the 1990s LGBT boycott. If I’m going to eat at a chain restaurant, I go really low: think Burger King, Subway, or McDonalds. And I really dislike restaurants that market themselves through a generic familiarity: places that pretend to be a Mom-and-Pop Italian place, like Olive Garden, or a New England chowder house, like Red Lobster

All of these places are incredibly fake, but they depend on manufacturing something that will make people loyal to them: a “feeling,” as today’s Cracker Barrel warriors put it—of family togetherness, vacations by the sea or, in the case of Cracker Barrel, marketing a generic, white-themed southern comfort that lays a false claim to American national identity.

So, to my mind, the new Cracker Barrel logo—which ditched a character sometimes known as “the Old Timer” and sometimes as “old Uncle Hershel,” and redesigned the restaurant’s interior as the modern restaurant it is—seemed reasonable. Founded in Lebanon, Tennessee in 1969, a moment when the white supremacist South had definitively lost to a well-organized and determined Black civil rights movement (and was redirecting itself into the New Right), the restaurant is, among other more benign things, one big dog whistle to the Lost Cause.

Cracker Barrel was a culture war waiting to happen. As its executives should have known, MAGA hates change, whether it is losing its Native American mascots, or gay marriage, or contraception. MAGA particularly hates changes that displace White authority over the national culture. Notably, a significant part of the restaurant chain’s customer base is concentrated in the former Confederacy. Seventeen percent of the restaurants are in Florida and Texas, Trumpy states that led the charge in promoting unwanted pregnancy, teaching biology out of the Bible, censorship of books and curricula, and the repression of LGBT people.

On one level, who is surprised that Cracker Barrel fans went into full scale cancellation mode against a corporate restaurant chain that they seemed to view as a national MAGA clubhouse? “We gotta bully them till they cave y’all,” one person wrote on Cracker Barrel’s Facebook page. “You can't say it's `the Cracker Barrel for tomorrow,’ and at the same time say it's `nostalgic,’” another critic wrote. “You can't have it both ways. Sorry.”

Yet, it’s also hard to know whether, if right-wing social media influencers had not seized on another opportunity to divert attention from the Jeffrey Epstein controversy, Cracker Barrel would have gotten away with making its ugly restaurants merely homely. “Of the dozens of people I spoke with over two days, there were a few who told me they didn’t care too much one way or the other about the changes,” David Marcus wrote at Fox News. “But nobody said they liked the idea, and of those who didn’t like it. Boy, how they didn’t like it!”

What Marcus doesn’t acknowledge is that the loudest voices in this debate were not ordinary Americans, but politicians and MAGA engagement trolls. “Cracker Barrel should go back to the old logo, admit a mistake based on customer response (the ultimate Poll), and manage the company better than ever before,” that great restaurant entrepreneur Donald J. Trump wrote on Truth Social. “They got a Billion Dollars worth of free publicity if they play their cards right. Very tricky to do, but a great opportunity.”

In fact, Cracker Barrel has for some time been an undercover touchstone for southern White authenticity and calling out metropolitan snobbery. Although he has been absent from the recent controversy, Vice President JD Vance used Cracker Barrel as a key signifier of liberal disdain in his 2016 memoir, Hillbilly Elegy. “When you go from working-class to professional class, almost everything about your old life becomes unfashionable at best or unhealthy at worst,” Vance wrote. “At no time was this more obvious than the first (and last) time I took a Yale friend to Cracker Barrel. In my youth, it was the height of fine dining—my grandma’s and my favorite restaurant. With Yale friends, it was a greasy public health crisis.”

My sense is that Secretary of HHS Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., would probably agree that Cracker Barrel is a greasy public health crisis. Many things can be true at once, of course. To name a few: a particular restaurant can be awash in unhealthy food choices, it calls up fond memories of a cherished relationship, and some friends you will make on your climb up the class ladder are asshats.

For MAGA, however, being sad about change, or being butt-hurt because someone doesn’t get it that you go to Cracker Barrel to remember a beloved ancestor, isn’t good enough.

It’s got to be war.

And so it was that activist Christopher Rufo, Hillsdale College, and the entire right-wing media apparatus spent days accusing Cracker Barrel executives of not just trying to impose a left-wing vision on middlebrow dining but also defying the will of the people more generally. “Had the leadership at Cracker Barrel just taken the drive down [Virginia’s Interstate] 81 that I did over the past few days,” Marcus opined, “instead of holding focus groups in Brooklyn and studying data analysis, this debacle never would have happened.”

Did Cracker Barrel executives hold focus groups in Brooklyn? Who knows? But I don’t see why they would: there are no Cracker Barrels in the five boroughs: you have to drive to Roxbury, New Jersey, 40 miles from Brooklyn. New York, that is: Brooklyn Ohio boasts one.

Long story short, having spent $700 million on the rebrand, Cracker Barrel execs retreated in terror from the online mob, restoring the familiar Cracker Barrel sign as a gesture of good faith. “We thank our guests for sharing your voices and love for Cracker Barrel,” the defeated corporation announced last week. “We said we would listen, and we have. Our new logo is going away and our 'Old Timer' will remain."

The one thing these critics, including Vance, are right about is this: the intensity of your feelings about Cracker Barrel probably has something to do with whether you want to live a portion of your life in the past or not. Aficionados of the chain say yes. For them, Cracker Barrel is a pleasurable return to a life in ye olde South that is real for them, whether they have a claim to it or not. It’s like the people who go to Disney’s Epcot, spending as much money as they would spend on a trip to Europe, and who feel they have had the experience of going to Europe.

The “old-timey southern charm” that Marcus describes, and that Cracker Barrel sold for almost 50 years, was and is utterly manufactured, an invented tradition that perpetuates the fantasy that the United States is, and should be, a white nation. Romancing the Southern past requires writing an awful lot out of the narrative, as historian Karen Cox has detailed in Dixie’s Daughters: The United Daughters of the Confederacy and the Preservation of Confederate Culture (2003). That project hasn’t changed much in the 150 years between the end of Reconstruction and the rise of MAGA: creating cultural oases where white people can experience the United States they want to live in, a nation that is not immigrant, not queer, not Black, not brown.

I mean this literally, because that is also a version of what Cracker Barrel is, and among the “feelings” at least some MAGAs cherish about the restaurants. What they don’t talk about is the facts. About 100 miles south of where the chain was founded is Pulaski, Tennessee where six former Confederate States of America veterans gathered around a cracker barrel, or something like it, and decided to form a “social club.” The club just happened to meet at night, and the club’s activities included beating, killing, raping, and otherwise terrorizing Black people if they tried to vote, refuse their labor to white people who had formerly enslaved them, or exercise independence of mind and spirit in public.

In any case, the idea these old timers had—which they named the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan—really caught on, not once, but three different times between 1865 and 1960. It survives today in a range of extremist organizations that are armed, very dangerous, and intent on re-establishing white supremacy in culture and politics. What Cracker Barrel has always sold is a sanitized, nostalgic version of a white nation that doesn’t say the quiet part out loud.

Let me be clear: not all forms of nostalgia are bad, but none of them are true either; and some of them (like Disneyland and Disney World) are huge moneymakers. Christmas and Thanksgiving, for example, have a lot going for them, but it is also the case that, even when it snows on December 24, it is unlikely that Christmas is going to be “like the ones we used to know.”

Similarly, many customers apparently perceived Cracker Barrel’s “old-timey design,” the rocking chairs on the porch, and the gift shop with corny tchotchkes, not as a reproduction of some vague Southern past, but as the real thing. “For 55 years you’ve been the charming restaurant that reminds us of our grandparents house, change that and you probably won’t last 55 more,” a self-identified customer wailed.

But oddly, much of the commentary on Cracker Barrel has also disappeared prior culture war controversies that have swirled around the company. In 1991, Cracker Barrel went to war with gay activists when it implemented an employment policy precluding people “whose sexual preferences fail to demonstrate normal heterosexual values” from being employed by its restaurants.

At the same time, the company was listening to what many customers wanted. Some customers feared that they would “catch” AIDS from gay employees; others just didn’t want to see mannish women and girly men. Some managers tried to protect their staff from being fired, telling them (as one worker explained) that “the policy was really aimed at effeminate men and women who have masculine traits who might be working as waiters or waitresses.”

Sound familiar?

The LGBT Cracker Barrel boycott was launched in response to this bigotry. Carl Owens, of Queer Nation Atlanta, wrote a story in a southern gay newspaper about 12 Cracker Barrel employees who were handed termination notices under the new policy. They read: “This employee is being terminated due to violation of company policy. The employee is Gay.”

It was perfectly legal to fire someone for being queer in the 1990s, and thanks to Donald Trump, we are probably returning to that world, so do pay attention to what happened next.

“Gay rights activists staged protests and sit ins at Cracker Barrel locations across the southeast, but Owens had another plan,” Morna J Gerrard wrote at the Georgia State University Library blog in 2017:

The Buy One Campaign. If enough people bought a single share, and then pressured Cracker Barrel to adopt a policy that protected gay employees from discrimination, it would be a “vivid example of our presence and power.” Remarkably, at a time when no federal laws, and only two states, protected gays and lesbians from discrimination, the campaign gained real momentum. Owens’ fight also attracted allies, some of whom came from surprising places, like churches.

When Buy One began, Cracker Barrel had 4,500 shareholders; two years later, that number had more than doubled, to 11,500—and half the shareholders only owned one share. Then the battle was really on. The campaign to change the company’s personnel policies through shareholder voting included various angels like the Catholic Sisters of Mercy, which apparently had a killer pension fund, and the massive New York City Employee Retirement System. NYCERS went to war with the Securities and Exchange Commission, which sided with Cracker Barrel’s argument that shareholder votes that affected the company’s day-to-day operations were illegal. In 2002, when 58 percent of the shareholders supported nondiscriminatory hiring, the company’s board capitulated without taking a shareholder vote.

But Cracker Barrel’s problems didn’t go away. As it turns out, the chain also showed systematic bias against Black customers and employees. In 2004, the Department of Justice settled a discrimination case in which Cracker Barrel agreed to pay $8.7 million and end policies that included

allowing white servers to refuse service to Black customers and segregating customers by race were revealed after the DOJ investigated 50 Cracker Barrel restaurants. As a result of the settlement, Cracker Barrel was forced to adopt new policies and procedures to prevent discrimination from taking place.
At a similar time, approximately 12 Cracker Barrel employees claimed that Black employees were segregated from white employees and were often given non-customer-facing roles.

And there’s more. In 2013, Cracker Barrel pulled Duck Dynasty souvenirs from its stores after anti-gay remarks on the show, restoring them after customers complained. Then things got worse. In 2020, “a customer called Tamra Hawkins visited a Cracker Barrel in East Windsor, Connecticut, and took a video of the ceiling. In this video, what looks like a noose can be seen hanging from the ceiling. After public outcry, the offending item was removed from the store.”

Coincidentally, it was this incident that caused the company to propose “a multi-million dollar redecorating plan that encompassed every Cracker Barrel establishment in the United States.” Stalled by the pandemic, the redesign was supposed “to make Cracker Barrel restaurants into spaces that were welcoming to all” and also include “memorabilia that reflects Black American history.” In 2024, a Cracker Barrel in Waldorf, Maryland refused table service to 11 special needs students and seven staff members, perhaps reminding the corporation that their rebrand was more urgent than ever.

But I think that isn’t the only thing that prompted the new designs: on closer inspection, Cracker Barrel, which thrived during the gay boycott, never got its mojo back after it was forced to become inclusive. MAGA Republicans may be the loudest voices in the room when it comes to policing a restaurant chain they view as their own private clubhouse, but there aren’t enough of them to maintain, much less grow, the business. Shares of the company trade at a third of pre-pandemic levels. As importantly, revenue has almost flatlined since 2004, and the number of customers served has not grown since 2018.

In other words, the company rebranded, not because it is “woke,” but because it is in financial trouble that may intensify under current federal policies. The 2024 annual report warned potential investors that Cracker Barrel was “currently experiencing, and has in the past experienced,

inflationary conditions with respect to a variety of costs, including the cost for food, ingredients, retail merchandise, transportation, distribution, labor and utilities, and we may not be able to increase prices or implement operational improvements sufficient to fully offset inflationary pressures on such costs, which may have a material adverse effect on our results of operations.

Cracker Barrel is also almost uniquely vulnerable to tariffs because around a fifth of its income comes from selling souvenirs. The gift shop accounts for about 17 percent of annual revenue. Cracker Barrel purchases one-third of these “old timey” objects directly from China, and the rest from U.S.-based vendors—who probably also buy them in China.

But MAGA bullies seem to be aware of none of this; nor do they get it that you can’t love the restaurants and hate the company at thee same time, Instead, they are whooping about the fact that Cracker Barrel is more financially fragile than ever. The company has lost $143 million in market value since this nonsense began. On the other hand, they know exactly what is at stake, and it’s not about the signs or the decor.

It’s that a Cracker Barrel that welcomes everyone is not a place where, like their “old-timey” ancestors, MAGA wishes to eat.

Claire Bond Potter is a political historian who taught at the New School for Social Research. She is a contributing editor to Public Seminar and wrote the popular blog Tenured Radical from 2006 through 2015. Please consider subscribing to Political Junkie, her Substack newsletter.

Reprinted with permission from Political Junkie.


MAGA Heart Of Darkness: Tracing JD Vance's Favorite Nazi Troll To Canada

MAGA Heart Of Darkness: Tracing JD Vance's Favorite Nazi Troll To Canada

The MAGA universe is a big tent of incels and NASCAR fans and frat boys with rich daddies who “like beer.” Dear Leader’s bleats and Jesse Watters's insult comedy fluffs them up – but they’re not all paying close attention.

Then, there are the others – men with convictions and post-graduate degrees, who read European fascist texts and applaud each other’s ravings about the revival of a race of white men whose virility and mental force has been diluted by mixing with the lower orders and attenuated by feminism.

Most Americans, and probably many MAGA voters, have never heard of them as they go about amusing each other, advocating for eugenics, and translating dead fascist writers (IYKYK).

But they are the plutonium pit of the MAGA bomb. Racism and domination of the naturally inferior sex is not a casual pastime for them, it’s their raison d’etre.

Some of the most powerful men in America are tuned in to them. They are the brain trust, the moral – if you want to twist that word – nerve center of the Trump 2.0 movement.

Donald Trump famously amplified one of them, a Canadian millennial who tweets under the name @CaptiveDreamer7, which is a reference to a memoir by a fascist Frenchman during World War II who joined the Waffen SS, during last fall’s debate with Kamala Harris.

Trump shouting “They’re eating the dogs, they’re eating the cats” is a badge of honor that still makes this man who amplified that lie to the attention of the candidate’s debate briefers giddy with joy. He was still ecstatic during the Veep debate a month later, when moderators put the question about the lie to JD Vance, erupting into all-caps joy: “Springfield in the FIRST FUCKING QUESTION. MY FUCKING PRESIDENT!!”

Offline, @CaptiveDreamer7 is a low-brow Bartleby the Scrivener in a Canadian Christian university’s purchasing department. Online, like Clark Kent transmogrified to Superman, he spews white nationalist trash into the powerful American right-wing mainstream.

A pair of intrepid journalists at the Daily Dot outed him this week. Over here at the Freakshow, we’ve been following Geoff Martin, the man behind @CaptiveDreamer7, for some time in connection with a long project that required me and a researcher to dive into fascist Twitter. (FYI, yes, I crave a shower after just 15 minutes in their spew.)

Here’s a sample of what you will find in Dreamer’s disgusting oeuvre: In June 2024, Dreamer tweeted and has since deleted: “I believe in Hitler. In National Socialism, in Total N***** Death. They win [sic] about how I talk but that’s because I’m Aryan, I’m confident, and I’m not a fucking Mexican F***** like they are.”

With habits of self-expression like that, it’s no surprise Dreamer burned through dozens of Twitter accounts in the pre-Musk years. He was repeatedly booted off the site until Musk stepped in. Welcomed back on the platform, he promptly got on a Twitter space with fellow travelers and sighed: “Total Aryan victory. Total victory of the white man. We’re back. The white man is back. Total victory of the Anglo. Musk is not a Boer. He’s an Anglo like you and me. Total victory.”

Dreamer lives in a larger online network of fashy white nationalist social media anons who also sport PhDs or other post-grad credentials. Many have been outed against their will, like @CremieuxRecueil, a pseudonym linked to race-scientist academic Jordan Lasker. Along with America’s fashy brain trust, Dreamer has academic cred, having, according to his tweets, studied philology and philosophy. He has written that he was driven out of academia by “leftists” who forced him to read feminism. “The Thucydides to NS [National Socialism] pipeline” is what he’s called his journey.

His intellectualism flatters the Trumpy policy drones and maybe some of the “I like beer” crowd in D.C. “You have the comic trolls like [Nick] Fuentes, people recognize there is no seriousness to them,” says researcher Will Stancil, who has tangled with Dreamer on X/Twitter before. “They are treating it like a real intellectual movement, this ridiculous hallucinatory Nazi stuff, and these ideas are clearly driving policy at the White House level. If you are familiar with these ideas, you can see they are leaking out all over.”

So back to the Great White North: How does an intellectual millennial Canadian* go all Nazi?

One thing we do know is if you poke at just about anyone on the MAGA fringe, you will find a wackadoodle religious upbringing. The parents and grandparents of Martin (AKA Dreamer) were members of the Worldwide Church of God, whose founder, Herbert Armstrong, was a mid-century radio preacher. Armstrong taught that white Anglo-Saxons are among the ten lost tribes of Israel and are the real Jews (maybe, one of my Israeli sources who interacted with them told me, because the word “Brit” in Hebrew means covenant).

The notion that white humans are the true ”chosen people” of the Bible was/is also a tenet of the Ku Klux Klan.

Former members of the Armstrong sect have described harsh child-rearing methods Armstrong advocated, listed in this guidebook by Armstrong’s son. They include beating toddlers in order to fend off nascent criminal impulses and ensure respect for authority.

After Armstrong’s death, the sect reportedly modified its views and renamed itself Grace Communion Church. Martin’s father is now president of Canada’s largest Christian university, where young Geoff – thanks, Dad! – has a job in the purchasing department.

Dreamer/Martin’s avatar is a picture of pedophile David Koresh in a MAGA hat. The Daily Dot reports Dreamer/Martin has advocated for lowering the legal age of marriage for girls to 14. David Koresh had a harem of wives as young as ten. Dreamer/Martin is apparently married – he has tweeted praise of a wife who thinks his Nazi bookshelves are “cute.” He may have spawned: He has tweeted pictures of a chubby (white) baby’s hand reaching for books about Hitler, to the delight of his followers, with one snapshot getting more than 2,000 likes.

It is no exaggeration to say that this man’s repulsive ideas intrigue, excite, and – if I may resort to our Dear Leader’s vermin metaphor – infest the minds of many extremely powerful men in America right now.

Dreamer/Martin has positioned himself as a white nationalist intellectual who offers strategies to mainstream his and his friends’ brand of fascism. In one recorded Twitter space in 2022, Martin chatted with Nick Fuentes (the odious white nationalist who has actually dined with Trump) and others. Someone mentioned “TND,” which is a code for “total n***** death,” as racist listeners in the space would know. Martin inquires whether the movement can “appeal to a middle America and portray your message in a way that is palatable to them?”

Dreamer has 71,000 Xitter followers in his radicalization pipeline, including major Trump administration figures and MAGA stars like Vice President JD Vance, Chris Rufo, Marc Andreesen, Curtis Yarvin, DOD deputy press secretary Kingley Wilson, and acting Washington, D.C. federal prosecutor Ed Martin. Elon Musk engages with and amplifies him. Trump’s Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs (and out-and-proud eugenicist) Darren Beattie has featured Martin's tweets under his many different usernames in his Revolver News, a site promoted by both Trump and Donald Trump Jr. Beattie appears to have consciously followed Martin/Dreamer across various X/Twitter bans. Late rightwing Justice Antonin Scalia’s grandson and namesake, who now works at Peter Thiel’s data and surveillance defense giant Palantir, is also a Dreamer follower.

If there is a segment of MAGA world that still finds Nazis repulsive, maybe the outing of Geoff Martin as an influencer to Musk and Vance will wake them up. But when even the Holocaust-remembering ADL and major media organizations call Musk’s Nazi salute just a gesture, I’m not holding my breath.

* Martin claims U.S. citizenship through his mother.

Nina Burleigh is a a journalist, author, documentary producer and adjunct professor at New York University's Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute. She has written eight books including her recently published novel, Zero Visibility Possible.

Reprinted with permission from Courier's American Freakshow newsletter


Tucker Carlson's Notes On The State Of Whiteness

Tucker Carlson's Notes On The State Of Whiteness

Former Fox News host Tucker Carlson has, with the recent exposure of an unredacted text message to one of his producers, done the American people a grand favor. He has unleashed for all to see the truth behind his, and racists’ like him, devotion to white supremacy.

You have probably read about the brouhaha Carlson caused. His text was first seen by Fox executives and board members on the eve of the Dominion Voting Systems lawsuit. Their discovery set off a rapid-fire chain of events. Apparently concerned that if the lawsuit went forward, the text would be revealed in court and expose the support of Fox News for Carlson’s racism. The very next day, the network fired their most popular and lucrative host and agreed to settle the lawsuit.

Those kinds of decisions at Fox are made by one man, Rupert Murdoch. He can’t have been happy about the consequence of either decision he had to make, because both cost him hundreds of millions of dollars. The lawsuit settlement alone cost $787.5 million. Because Fox News accounts for 70 percent of the parent company’s profits, and Tucker Carlson dominated cable ratings in his hour and supported the shows on either side of him, Carlson’s firing is likely to be even more expensive for the network. Ratings during the 9 o’clock hour fell by half the day after Carlson’s show was canceled and have stayed in the tank in the days since.

What set it all off was a single sentence in the Carlson text: “It’s not how white people fight.” I’m not going to bore you by reprinting more of Carlson’s disgusting racist jeremiad, but some context is useful here. The text was sent on Jan. 7, 2021, the day after a violent mob of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol building, assaulting police officers so badly that 140 of them had to be treated for their injuries, with some hospitalized. Five officers died as a result of the insurrection.

Carlson clearly watched the coverage of the violence at the Capitol on Jan. 6, but that wasn’t what he wrote to his producer about. Instead, he recounted having seen footage of three men he described as “Trump supporters” savagely attacking “an antifa kid” at a street demonstration two weeks previously. He went on to describe how he hoped the three-man mob would “hit him harder, kill him.” He then spasmed into a moment of what for him must have been uncomfortable self-reflection, lamenting that “I shouldn’t gloat over his suffering, I should be bothered by it…. if I reduce people to their politics, how am I better than he is?”

Commentators, largely on the left, launched into insta-psychological analysis of Carlson, focusing on what they saw as a mini-crisis of conscience as he appeared to identify with the plight of the antifa kid.

But look at his concluding sentence more closely: the “he” Carlson refers to is the antifa kid, not the Trump supporters who attacked him, so it’s not the attackers he’s comparing himself to, it’s the victim. The key word in Carlson’s statement here is “better.” He’s worried that if he condones such a brutal beating, how can he be “better” than the kid, who as the victim of the attack, hasn’t done anything more than absorb the beating. As for the vicious Trump supporters, well, you can’t do any better than them.

The clear implication of Carlson’s overtly racist observation, “It’s not how white people fight,” is that Carlson believes that white men, because of their whiteness, fight better or more nobly than non-white men. Carlson is clearly implying that those to whom he is comparing White men are Black men, given Carlson’s obsession on his show with attacking not only Black Lives Matter demonstrations after the death of a Black man, George Floyd, but the sentiment and belief of the slogan itself. In Carlson’s political world, Black lives do not matter. White lives matter in his world because white people are better than Black people, especially the White men Carlson appears so worried about.

This is the essence of white supremacy. Where do these ignorant, ignoble, execrable notions come from, that white people are superior to Black people in this country?

Well, they come from none other than Thomas Jefferson himself. Not only did Jefferson write the Declaration of Independence and its words, “all men are created equal” at the same time that he owned about 200 enslaved Black people, he wrote the founding document of white supremacy, “Notes on the State of Virginia.” In his 83 years on this planet, eight of them as President of the United States, Jefferson wrote thousands of letters but only one book, commonly referred to by Jefferson scholars as “Notes.” And so, as citizens collectively descended from Jefferson’s ideas about democracy, it is incumbent upon us that we should pay his one and only book the attention it deserves.

Jefferson wrote the book in 1781, five years after he wrote the Declaration, two years before the end of the Revolutionary War, and eight years before the founding of the country with the signing of the Declaration of Independence. In his book, Jefferson attempted to set forth a description of why he thought his state was a repository of what comprises a civilized society and makes it good and worthy of enduring. He discussed his ideas of governance, including a separation of powers, individual rights, freedom of religion, and other ideas which would find their way into the Bill of Rights, which he and Madison insisted be included in the Constitution as a condition of their signing the document.

A good portion of Jefferson’s book is devoted to a chapter he calls “Laws,” in which he sets forth literal laws and punishments for breaking them, as well as a theoretical framework for solemnizing marriages, settling debts, registration of land sales, inspections of goods such as tobacco and flour and turpentine before sale, defining citizenship and other matters of state.

In a chapter of about 7,000 words, Jefferson devotes nearly 3,000 of them to the subject of slavery, emancipation, and race. Nearly the entirety of his discussion argues against emancipation. He is afraid that freeing slaves, because of the harm that had been done to them, “will divide us into parties, and produce convulsions which will probably never end but in the extermination of the one or the other race.”

He quickly moves on from the existential crisis that would be caused by freeing slaves to the reasons he feels Blacks should not be free. They are “inferior” in every way: “Whether the black of the negro resides in the reticular membrane between the skin and scarf-skin, or in the scarf-skin itself; whether it proceeds from the colour of the blood, the colour of the bile, or from that of some other secretion, the difference is fixed in nature, and is as real as if its seat and cause were better known to us,” he writes. Not done yet, he launches into as racist a description of the physical characteristic of Blackness that exists: “Is it not the foundation of a greater or less share of beauty in the two races? Are not the fine mixtures of red and white, the expressions of every passion by greater or less suffusions of colour in the one, preferable to that eternal monotony, which reigns in the countenances, that immoveable veil of black which covers all the emotions of the other race? Add to these, flowing hair, a more elegant symmetry of form, their own judgment in favour of the whites, declared by their preference of them, as uniformly as is the preference of the Oranootan for the black women over those of his own species.”

Got that? He’s comparing the preference of white people for others of similar appearance to the preference of an “Oranootan” for Black women rather than Oranootan females.

It gets worse, and yet even more familiar. Blacks are stronger, “they seem to require less sleep,” “they are more ardent after their female,” yet their “love seems with them to be more an eager desire,” as compared to, say, white people’s “tender delicate mixture of sentiment and sensation.”

And worse: Blacks are not as educable as whites. “In reason they are inferior;” “they will crayon out an animal, a plant, or a country, so as to prove the existence of a germ in their minds which only wants cultivation.” It would take mixing the races, to which Jefferson expresses strong opposition, to improve the lot of Blacks. “The improvement of the blacks in body and mind, in the first instance of their mixture with the whites, has been observed by every one, and proves that their inferiority is not the effect merely of their condition of life.” But by implication can be blamed wholly on their race.

Finally, Jefferson gets to the nub of his discussion of slavery and race. If slaves are freed, “What further is to be done with them?” He discusses how the Romans did it with their slaves, who had the advantage of being white: “Among the Romans, emancipation required but one effort. The slave, when made free, might mix with, without staining the blood of his master.” But not so Black slaves: “This unfortunate difference of colour, and perhaps of faculty, is a powerful obstacle to the emancipation of these people… with us a second is necessary, unknown to history. When freed, he is to be removed beyond the reach of mixture.”

See that? There is no hope for them because of their Blackness. Jefferson, in his time and by historians known as a man of Reason, cannot see through his own prejudice, born as he says, “of observation.” An engineer, architect, scholar, scientist, and horticulturalist among his other talents, Jefferson was convinced that while anecdotal evidence proved his racist observations, scientific studies would prove his racist theories: “To justify a general conclusion, requires many observations, even where the subject may be submitted to the Anatomical knife, to Optical glasses, to analysis by fire, or by solvents,” he wrote.

His “general conclusion” was the founding statement of white supremacy in this country: “I advance it therefore as a suspicion only, that the blacks, whether originally a distinct race, or made distinct by time and circumstances, are inferior to the whites in the endowments both of body and mind.”

Some of these ideas no doubt had their roots in systemic racism in other societies in earlier times. But Thomas Jefferson put it all down for posterity here in this country. As one of the two or three most important of our founding fathers, his words still carry great weight and can be made to affect our lives every day. The Supreme Court, for example, is in the process of tying the First Amendment, of which Jefferson was one of two authors, into a pretzel to justify discrimination against entire categories of American citizens because of religious beliefs of some.

Jefferson’s disgusting ideas about race still find an eager audience in America. Carlson and his ilk, outright white supremacists such as those Carlson went so far as to invite as guests on his show, embrace Jefferson’s ideas even to this day. Carlson may have lost his platform at Fox News, but he and his ilk are still out there pushing their ideas of white supremacy couched in intellectual batting like the so-called great replacement theory. That fact is all you need to know about the struggle ahead. To end slavery took the Civil War, and yet the war against the Tucker Carlson’s of this world and their not yet dead ideology of race is still to be fought.

Lucian K. Truscott IV, a graduate of West Point, has had a 50-year career as a journalist, novelist, and screenwriter. He has covered Watergate, the Stonewall riots, and wars in Lebanon, Iraq, and Afghanistan. He is also the author of five bestselling novels. You can subscribe to his daily columns at luciantruscott.substack.com and follow him on Twitter @LucianKTruscott and on Facebook at Lucian K. Truscott IV.

Please consider subscribing to Lucian Truscott Newsletter, from which this is reprinted with permission.

When Will Congress Call Domestic Terrorism By Its True Name?

When Will Congress Call Domestic Terrorism By Its True Name?

I can’t imagine how Garnell Whitfield Jr. did it, how he appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee to demand some sort of action from the country’s leaders on gun violence and on the domestic terrorism wrought by white supremacy. But as I was riveted by his testimony, I realized the strength and courage he must have drawn from the memory of the mother he will never stop grieving.

Ruth Whitfield, at 86, was the oldest victim in a shooting at a Buffalo supermarket that left 10 people, all African Americans, dead. It was May 14, not even a month ago. Yet there have been so many shootings since, it sometimes seems as if the rest of the world has forgotten. An 18-year-old white man is accused of carrying out the racist attack, accused of driving hours to hunt and murder as many Black people as possible.

“I would ask every senator to imagine the faces of your mothers as you look at the face of my mother, Mrs. Ruth Whitfield,” Garnell Whitfield testified on Tuesday.

Would they be able to do that?

“Ask yourself,” he said, “is there nothing we can do?”

The track record isn’t great.

I’m not sure what Whitfield was expecting from lawmakers who have a hard time even naming what happened. How, then, could they put themselves in his shoes?

Garnell Whitfield is far ahead of our elected representatives, many of whom want, have always wanted, to distract and downplay, to accuse others of bad intentions, to look everywhere but into the eyes and the broken heart of a man whose life has been forever changed.

Whitfield’s plainspoken speech must have startled those reluctant to call out “domestic terrorism” and “white supremacy” for the dangers they are, despite the warnings from FBI Director Christopher Wray’s March 2021 testimony before the same committee about the connection between the January 6 attack on the Capitol and right-wing “domestic terrorism.”

They would rather, as Republicans such as Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas have done and continue to do, point to acts of violence by those on the left and accuse Democrats of using any effort to counter domestic threats as an excuse to go after political opponents.

This is the same Cruz who walked back his comments earlier this year describing January 6 as a “terrorist attack,” a sign of how dishonestly hearings by the House Select Committee are going to be received in some partisan quarters.

In Buffalo, the intent was clear. Did the shooter want to terrorize more than the people he is charged with gunning down? Were Black people enjoying weekend shopping human beings in the shooter's eyes? Or were they merely players in his racist conspiracy theories about nonwhites in America usurping the white majority’s rightful place at the top? It is a hateful theory that is taking root, even in the rhetoric of some tasked with governing an increasingly diverse country.

“Be very afraid,” was the clear message in Buffalo to all African Americans. That’s the point of any hate crime, to target a group, especially when the hate is spelled out, chapter and verse.

It was the message of those who murdered Black Americans exercising the right to vote not that many years ago, or in the case of World War II veteran Medgar Evers in 1963, murdering an American hero just for daring to register fellow citizens, for insisting on being treated equally in the country he fought for.

Yet, despite a history with more cases of intimidation and violence than can fit in one or 1,000 columns — a history our leaders in Washington could view at the city’s museums open to all, if truth were the goal — Senate Republicans recently blocked a bill that would have the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and the FBI establish offices focused on domestic terrorism. This comes as five members of the far-right Proud Boys have been charged with seditious conspiracy for their role on January 6, with televised hearings promising much more.

Just as any gun violence research by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was prohibited for more than two long decades because of an amendment to a bill that prevented using federal funds to “advocate or promote gun control,” a 2009 effort by the Department of Homeland Security during the Obama administration to report on increasingly radicalized and violent right-wing groups was ended before it began.

Republican members of Congress and right-wing media outlets led the charge then and now to reframe any such attention as an attempt to smear police and the military and shift attention away from the perceived more urgent threat of foreign actors. Echoes of that could be heard in GOP Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky’s recent remarks about the 2022 proposal. “It would be the Democrat plan to name our police as white supremacists and neo-Nazis,” he said. Former President Donald Trump, the man who found “fine people” on both sides in Charlottesville, Va., moved the government away from any investigation of white supremacist groups during his time in office.

Of course, there are legitimate reasons to be skeptical. How do you distinguish between hate speech and free speech? I understand the reluctance, and am reluctant myself, of too many investigations, too much surveillance, and how easily that can turn into the monitoring of “certain” groups. Past federal crackdowns to stop hate too often have been subverted to instead persecute and spy on those fighting for justice.

But there is definitely both smoke and fire when so many law enforcement officers and military veterans were caught attacking the very government they were sworn to protect on January 6, when shooters bond online over lies and hate.

America has a white supremacy problem, despite the reluctance of members of Congress to admit it, with support across the political spectrum for “threatening or acting violently against perceived political opponents,” according to a recent poll from the Southern Poverty Law Center that spares no one.

In that context, Garnell Whitfield doesn’t seem to be asking too much when he tells the senators that his mother’s life mattered, and asks: “Is there nothing that you personally are willing to do to stop the cancer of white supremacy and the domestic terrorism it inspires?”

Mary C. Curtis has worked at The New York Times, The Baltimore Sun, The Charlotte Observer, as national correspondent for Politics Daily, and is a senior facilitator with The OpEd Project. Follow her on Twitter @mcurtisnc3.

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World