Cagle World

Free speech has been a core part of the American political mosaic since the nation’s dawn. There’s a reason the founding fathers protected it with the First Amendment.

Hundred of years later, who would have assumed a musician known as Afroman would end up a defendant in a legal trial involving free speech?

Last month, an Ohio jury sided with the musician, real name Joseph Foreman, after seven Adams County sheriff’s deputies sued him for criticizing and targeting them in music videos and social media posts. Fortunately, Afroman’s discharge resulted in a significant allegorical victory for freedom of expression. Had the government succeeded in its legal quest, such a victory would have been a most depressing outcome, sending the chilling message that recording and verifying government conduct and criticizing police could result in potentially damaging outcomes.

The admittedly amusing yet serious incident originated in August 2022, when deputies belligerently raided Afroman’s home. According to CNN, the deputies had a warrant to search for proof of drug trafficking and kidnapping. During the raucous search, Afroman’s wife and several security cameras recorded the officers breaking down the front door and rampaging through the home with weapons drawn.

The officers ultimately found no evidence of any wrongdoing or foul play but still confiscated money from the home. In response, Afroman publicly assailed the officers and developed a series of music videos including footage from his security cameras.

In March 2023, the seven deputies involved in the raid claimed they endured “numerous threats, including death threats” and “emotional distress” as a result of Foreman’s music and videos. They further claimed Afroman unfairly profited from their “likeness,” accusing the rapper of defamation and invasion of privacy. Together, these deputies sought nearly $4,000,000 in damages.

In response to the lawsuit, Afroman moved to dismiss, and the American Civil Liberties Union filed an amicus brief on his behalf, labeling the lawsuit as “nothing short of absurd.”

“This case is a classic entry into the SLAPP suit genre: a meritless effort to use a lawsuit to silence criticism. And not just any criticism, but criticism specifically of government actors,” the ACLU noted. “Plaintiffs do not identify the substance of any particular statement in the videos — or for that matter, anywhere else — that they claim is false. Instead, the central focus of their complaint is that Mr. Foreman is making money off of his video commentary and related merchandise and is criticizing Plaintiffs harshly in the process. That is not tortious conduct; it is protected speech.”

“No reasonable person would expect a police officer not to be criticized,” Afroman’s defense lawyer, David Osborne, said. “They’ve been called names before.”

Afroman appeared in court wearing an American flag suit, clearly demonstrating he was exercising his First Amendment rights when he released his music videos.

Dismissing all 13 claims against Afroman, Judge Jonathan Hein announced, “In all circumstances, the jury finds in favor of the defendant.”

Afroman quickly connected with social media to laud his victory, declaring it was “not only for artists. It’s for Americans.” He further opined, “We have freedom of speech. They . . . did me wrong and sued me because I was talking about it.”

The First Amendment protects social commentary, so he is indisputably correct. Afroman was exercising his rights as an American, and the court upheld the rule of law in this case.

Despite the fact he won (as he should have), such lawsuits could ruin individuals without the financial resources Foreman has. Moreover, even for those who do, such lawsuits might be financially insignificant but emotionally draining nuisances.

Now more than ever, our nation’s citizens must continue to combat and speak out against injustice wherever it rears its head. More cases like this one may arise in the future, and the next target may not be a famous rapper.

As Afroman reiterated, government is “for the people, by the people.” If our goal is to preserve freedom of speech and democracy, it’s something we still need to fight for.

–

Copyright 2026 Elwood Watson, distributed by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate

Elwood Watson is a professor of history, Black studies, and gender and sexuality studies at East Tennessee State University. He is also an author and public speaker.

Recently, the Miami Herald exposed the savage dialogue of a lengthy group chat for conservative students at Florida International University created by Abel Alexander Carvajal, the secretary of Miami-Dade County’s Republican Party.

The so-called chat rapidly degenerated into a despicable tirade of racism, violent fantasies, and praise for Adolf Hitler. The N-word was used more than 400 times, and the rant including advice on how to effectively murder Black American and intense, searing hatred toward Jewish Americans.

Yes, in the year 2026 there are still groups of young Republicans saluting Hitler.

In the not-too-distant past, embracing Hitler was one of those things you just did not do for obvious moral reasons. Murdering millions of human beings should never garner or inspire admiration. Nonetheless, such antics have been occurring with routine frequency among young Republicans in what has become an alarming pattern.

To add insult to injury, the College Republicans of America elected Kai Schwemmer as its political director. He is a self-identified “Groyper” with extensive ties to Hitler-admiring, far-right podcast host Nick Fuentes.

The problem isn’t being tamed. It’s compounding — from the Republican Party’s younger millennial and Generation Z segment, which will undoubtedly cultivate ample conflicts even in a post-Trump Republican Party. The Manhattan Institute, a politically right-leaning think tank, conducted a survey of national Republicans and found 17 percent could be defined as “anti-Jewish Republicans” — including pluralities of Latino, Black, and Republican men under the age of 50 believing the Holocaust “was greatly exaggerated or did not happen as historians describe.”

Since Donald Trump’s election as president in November 2016, the Republican Party has increasingly embraced racial identity as its political brand. Trump’s acute focus on supposedly violent “illegal” immigrants resulted in a 21st-century nativism digestible to many voters, including numerous Latino voters who turned out in record-breaking numbers for Trump in 2024. Many of those same voters have come to view Trump’s second installment as thoroughly horrendous.

More than a year after Trump’s return to the presidency, public sentiment appears to be dramatically moving away from MAGA nativism. The president’s dropping poll numbers on immigration — initially one of his signature and politically advantageous issues with voters — suggests Americans do not condone the gestapo-like tactics or his deportation agenda’s vile brutality in disproportionately targeting non criminals. Perhaps some American citizens have awakened to the more truthful realization that MAGA nativism is less concerned about tackling supposed “criminality” than about focusing on reversing if not outright nullifying the increasing diversification of America.

Trump has been at the forefront of denouncing the nation’s foreign-born population of 50 million people, including its 25 million-plus naturalized citizens. In his incoherent, conspiratorial-minded Thanksgiving speech, Trump unambiguously stated his nativist agenda targets all immigrants — period. While he singled out entire ethnic groups such as the Somali communities in Minnesota and Ohio, the president derided most foreign-born people of being parasitic and criminal entities sent to America from “prisons” and “mental institutions” in their native countries.

The recent escalation in rhetoric against legal immigrants and naturalized citizens demonstrates the true power of the far-right’s control of the Republican Party, whose more prominent leaders unabashedly espouse white nationalist talking points and conspiracy theories.

Despite fierce infighting, today’s GOP is the most uniformly nativist it’s been since the early 1920s, when Calvin Coolidge signed the Immigration Act into law to keep America “American” (that is, majority white and preferably Anglo-Protestant).

We can trace the GOP’s real civil war to the early 1990s, when Patrick Buchanan challenged then incumbent President George H.W. Bush for the 1992 Republican nomination. Buchanan was the original MAGA candidate, as many have since noted. From the border wall, protectionism, and his famous, or rather infamous, Cultural War speech at the 1992 Republican National Convention to his virulently racist attacks against Mexican immigrants, Buchanan provided the bridge for Trump to cross three decades later.

A decade after Trump’s first election, there doesn’t appear to be a sizable group of Republican voters who don’t think immigrants are invading our country or that wealthy globalist oligarchs are attempting to disrupt Western civilization by supporting non-white immigrants in an effort to remove white populations. Their agenda is far from monolithic, and stark differences exist. Certain white nationalists perceive Islam as the major menace, while others are more psychologically unsettled with the increasing Latino population.

The indisputable truth is hardcore nationalists have seized control of the Republican Party. Paradoxically, these same white supremacists are waging demonstrably intense battles among themselves to decide what brand of white nationalism will reign supreme. It is a disturbing and alarming phenomenon that we must combat at all costs.

–

Copyright 2026 Elwood Watson, distributed by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate

Elwood Watson is a professor of history, Black studies, and gender and sexuality studies at East Tennessee State University. He is also an author and public speaker.

The undefined war the U.S. and Israel are fighting in Iran has reached its third week, with no signs of stopping. Social media continues to be dominated by riveting images of exploding oil tankers and refineries, alarmingly skyrocketing prices, and the remains of an annihilated Iranian elementary school.

Leaders and military experts have provided no cogent or feasible explanation for why we embarked on such risky and futile endeavor, and President Trump’s motives for the attack lacked clarity from the outset. They are no clearer now that he declared the war “very complete.”

Supreme leader Ali Khamenei was assassinated and succeeded by his son, whom President Trump deemed “unacceptable.” Although regime change was the end goal, Trump and his advisors made the curious decision to alter their strategy and revise their plans. What began as a long-haul commitment to reverse the decades-old Islamic Revolution has become a military exercise to neutralize Iran’s military power.

Trump has not yet declared “victory” or stated, “mission accomplished.” He argues he has won, but also that he has many more victories in mind. His egoism has no space for the nation’s physical and economic well-being. His actions have provided a stark demonstration of what one man’s exercise of the armed forces, unrestrained by the rule of law and devoid of any concern for potential economic consequences, can bring about.

That is the significant dilemma of the MAGA movement. Appeasing Trump’s imperialistic psyche is leading to the unraveling of American exceptionalism. In usurping power to himself, the president has weakened the pillars of the nation’s influence throughout the world and jeopardized the safety and stability of our allies.

As of this writing, nearly 2,500 people have been killed, including almost 200 Iranian schoolchildren and several U.S. service members. More than 150 U.S. service members have been physically injured, several severely so. Such statistics are no doubt a sobering precursor to the final total.

The amount of resources being spent on this war — at the moment, roughly $1 billion per day, or $41,666,667 per hour and $11,574 per second — is obscene. Such money and resources would be much better served assisting and augmenting American people’s quality of life.

Millions of Americans need health care, decent and affordable housing, stronger K-12 education, quality childcare, and eldercare for an ever-growing elderly population. Just a fraction of the money that the United States has spent on misguided or ineffective wars would help mitigate many of the nation’s infrastructure issues. Instead, they have spent more than $1 trillion on the Pentagon, and Trump has argued that it needs $500 billion more.

Many people, including yours truly, have been shouting at the top of their lungs at MAGA voters that Trump does not care about them. He cares about only one person, “THE DONALD,” to quote his late ex-wife, Ivana Trump. He is reckless and impulsive. He spouts numerous falsehoods to deflect the overwhelmingly justified criticisms directed at him and is forever shifting the narrative.

Honesty, transparency and credibility are crucial factors in times of war. The public needs to be assured it can trust and verify the information being fed to them by the government.

Attempting to promote war without adequate public support is a futile effort. After decades of ongoing international conflicts, the American people are justifiably weary about nation entering another global conflict. We have been in enough wars with no feasible exit strategy. Remember the end result of Afghanistan after almost 20 years of U.S. involvement? President Trump, who fiercely railed against forever wars during the 2024 presidential campaign, should be astute to this fact.

Fortunately, many Americans are finally waking up. The polls have routinely shown Trump has low approval ratings, including for his handling of the Iranian conflict. Yet a clear majority of Republicans support the war – the diehard, largely MAGA faithful who are laboring under the delusion Trump is concerned for their welfare, despite rising gas and food prices.

It is apparent the president has no feasible exit strategy. He has failed to provide a concrete statement about what victory will require, claiming he will do so when he “feels it in his bones.” It is a ludicrous state of affairs.

Those of us who ascribe to the principles of multilateralism, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law continue to strenuously resist an administration that represents the antithesis of moral values. Democracy is more than “on the ballot.” It is on life support.

–

Copyright 2026 Elwood Watson, distributed by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate

Elwood Watson is a professor of history, Black studies, and gender and sexuality studies at East Tennessee State University. He is also an author and public speaker.

Kristi Noem is witnessing the blunt reality she too was not immune from being terminated.

President Trump gave Noem her walking papers last week, dismissing her as director of Homeland Security. She was the first cabinet member fired in Trump’s second term, in direct contrast to the routine dismissals of cabinet officials that occurred in his first administration.

As was the case with most Trump administration officials, she had assumed loyalty to the president would make her impervious to any consequences for her performance. But from the outset Noem was over her head and desperate for attention

Rather than advance Trump’s definitive political issue, she turned immigration enforcement into a significant political liability. After her deplorable and pathetic performance before Congress last week, it was clear that Trump had enough and decided that she had to go. Noem was insultingly performative, evident in the flashy attire she occasionally adorned for the cameras when she joined agents on immigration raids.

The former secretary arrogantly posed in front of a group of shirtless, tattooed men behind bars during a visit to a notorious El Salvador prison, where the Trump administration sent people accused of being violent gang members, rapists, and murderers. Additionally, she derisively referred to immigrants convicted of crimes as “scumbags.” Just as disturbing, during her tenure as Homeland Security secretary, horrid levels of terror occurred when masked immigration agents randomly unleashed wanton violence against individuals and businesses in cities such as Minneapolis, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Washington, D.C.

Initially, Trump did not react, supporting the ruthless approach. But Noem was out of control, and the crackdown exploded in Minneapolis with rampant and ruthless raids that often ended with tear gas in the streets. Being the savvy media connoisseur he is, Trump was astute how adversely such gut-wrenching drama affected the ratings for television, his major weapon.

Noem despicably stated that Renee Good and Alex Pretti, U.S. citizens whom federal immigration agents fatally shot in Minneapolis, had committed “domestic terrorism,” an irrational assertion that irrefutable video evidence obliterated. Soon afterwards, Trump replaced Greg Bovino, the originator of the debacle who reported directly to Noem, and replaced him with border czar Tom Homan, with whom Noem had an antagonistic relationship.

Her spending habits riled many people across the political spectrum. Noem faced fierce criticism for the DHS’s spending of billions of dollars allocated by Congress — including her purchase of two Gulfstream G700 luxury jets for almost $200 million during a government shutdown — and over the snail’s pace of emergency funding ratified through FEMA for disaster response.

Her department leased an opulent plane with a queen bed, a kitchen, four televisions, and a bar. The official explanation was the vehicle “will serve dual missions — both as ICE deportation flights and for cabinet level travel,” a dubious expenditure for a department that seemingly took perverse pleasure in torturing and terrorizing detainees.

Her public personal scandals included long-running gossip of an extramarital affair with former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski, (talk about a bad kept secret) who was also dismissed. The story of a coast guard pilot allegedly being dismissed because one of Noem’s personal blankets was accidentally left behind on another plane, only to be reinstated because no one else was available to fly the plane, was another example of her disturbingly uncontrolled prima donna antics.

Her nonsense came to a head when Noem endured a two-day grilling on Capitol Hill and was subjected to rare, yet intense criticism from both Democrats and Republicans. One particular point of contention was a $220 million ad campaign that included a scene of Noem riding horseback at Mount Rushmore in her native South Dakota. Noem told members of Congress President Trump had been aware of the campaign in advance, but Trump denied it. “I never knew anything about it,” he responded.

That was apparently the straw that broke the camel’s back. Soon after, he announced on social media Noem would become special envoy for the Shield of the Americas while Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) would take over at DHS.

Many will no doubt declare Noem the most incompetent Homeland Security secretary in American history. Along with other members of the administration, she denounced, demonized, and terrorized immigrants and inflicted abject harm by targeting noncriminal, hardworking families. The number of deaths in immigration detention rose to a two-decade high during her tenure, while personnel in DHS oversight offices were brutally reduced.

“Kristi Noem will be remembered for treating the American people like she treated her dogs,” noted former Trump administration member turned critic Miles Taylor, who was chief of staff at the DHS during Trump’s first term. It is a sad state of affairs.

–

Copyright 2026 Elwood Watson, distributed by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate

Elwood Watson is a professor of history, Black studies, and gender and sexuality studies at East Tennessee State University. He is also an author and public speaker.

The fallout continues after activist John Davidson, who is white and has Tourette syndrome, shouted the N-word at actors Michael B. Jordan and Delroy Lindo at the The British Academy Film Awards last month.

Davidson attended for “I Swear,” a movie that explains his life of enduring hostility triggered by Tourette syndrome, which was nominated for several awards. BAFTA issued an apology, and Davidson eventually delivered a latent apology the following day.

They didn’t go over well in the Black community.

Academy Award winner Jamie Foxx called it “Unacceptable.” Former ESPNer Jemele Hill wrote on social media, “Black people are just supposed to be OK with being disrespected and dehumanized so that other people don’t feel bad,” and actor Wendell Pierce commented: “It’s infuriating that the first reaction wasn’t complete and full throated [sic] apologies to Delroy Lindo and Michael B Jordan. The insult to them takes priority. It doesn’t matter the reasoning for the racist slur.”

Sinners’ production designer Hannah Beachler said she had racial slurs directed at her and denounced what she referred to as the “throwaway” apology. “I know we must handle this with grace and continue to push through. But what made the situation worse was the throwaway apology of BAFTA ‘if you were offended’ at the end of the show.”

Tourette’s Syndrome is a challenging disability, and those who suffer from the affliction should be granted some degree of leeway. If John Davidson was genuinely contrite, then that is good to hear. If his response was disingenuous, it confirms the comments most of his critics have publicly stated.

The BAFTA awards are hardly the only place where people have used the N-word, and Davidson is far from the only White person to have uttered the term.

I’m reminded comedian Michael Richard’s vile, crude, and viciously racist outburst almost two decades ago, when he hurled his racist diatribe toward a racially mixed group of twenty-somethings who he felt were overly loud and “disrespectful” to him. Paula Deen, MAGA Trump blowhard Ted Nugent and the always verbally irascible Bill Maher are just some of the white men and women who have employed the word as part of their verbal arsenal. In the case of Nugent, it was done brazenly and without apology, while Deen’s public act of contrition more than a decade ago appeared less than genuine.

More often than not, many people with right-wing views have no compunction directing their racial ire toward Black people, who they love to objectify, marginalize, and deeply despise. Black people, in their minds, are not seen as fully human. Pretty much every opportunity he gets, President Donald Trump spreads blatant racism for his overwhelmingly white, right-wing conservative fans to gobble up, a reminder he, like them, despises Black people.

There are those who attempt to defend the use of the N-word, which they point out is permissible among Black people. Whataboutisms include the use of the N-word in rap and hip-hop songs, the routines of Black comedians, and in the locker rooms of Black athletes. And on and on and on.

While there is some truth in such allegations, there’s just no justifiable reasons for any white person to use the word.

It is a racially loaded word wickedly and maliciously employed by more than a few whites in a sinister effort to psychologically malign and dehumanize Black people. There is nothing positive or redeeming in its use because it specifically related to Black people. Within the Black community, the word is more nuanced and varied. Thus, debate regarding the term is ongoing. The all-Black jury is still out, so to speak.

Even more disturbing is some white people are so adamant in their unhinged efforts to make perverse justifications for using the word. My question and response to them is, really? Are you serious? Why would you even want to use the word? Is it a free speech issue?

I can use derogatory words to describe women, but that doesn’t mean I should. The same would apply to wanting to use other racially demeaning terms to verbally assault and insult other ethnic groups. No thanks, not my style.

The fact tyou would argue so fiercely in defense of having the right to use such a less than flattering word is questionable and profoundly disturbing. Moreover, for those who fall into this category, I doubt the main reason for taking such an ardent stance is free speech, but rather, speech of another variation.

–

Copyright 2026 Elwood Watson, distributed by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate

Elwood Watson is a professor of history, Black studies, and gender and sexuality studies at East Tennessee State University. He is also an author and public speaker.

Donald Trump’s approval ratings are at a historic low.

Polling aggregators have his ratings in the low 40s, with 34 percent satisfaction over the economy and 30 percent over affordability. In independent polls, his approval plunges into the mid-30s. The last time his numbers were this poor was directly following the seditionist attack on the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.

The decline is distinctly dramatic among younger voters. While the majority of 18–29-year-olds voted for Kamala Harris, a notable percentage of Gen Z voters (born from 1997 to 2012) voted for Trump. Political data from the March 2025 Cook Political Report indicated Trump’s net approval rating with voters of this age demographic was at negative 7. A Harvard Youth Poll showed Trump had a notably low 29 percent approval rating among Gen Z voters, in contrast to the national average that currently hovers around 43 percent. The same poll indicated Democrats in Congress had a barely higher approval rating over their Republican cohorts among voters under 30–27 percent to 26 percent — and a significant advantage when it came to which party young people preferred to control Congress: 46 percent to 29 percent.

A Yale Youth Poll, conducted by surveying outfit Verasight, found Trump had a 34 percent approval rating among voters 22 and younger, and a 32 percent approval among those aged 23 to 29. Voters between the ages of 18 and 34 also preferred the Democratic candidate over the Republican on a generic congressional ballot by between 15 points and 20 points, compared to a 2-point edge among surveyed voters of all ages. Almost one year later, in February 2026, such disapproval has risen to an alarming negative 31.8. Such data indicate young people are rejecting Trump faster than any other voting group.

The reasons for such a decline are complex. He has certainly forfeited ground on issues spanning the economy, immigration, international affairs, and health care. Nonetheless, such a reality could indicate bad news for the Republican Party in the midterm elections in November, shattering the myth a massive cultural shift had occurred in 2024. The decline in young men’s approval is particularly notable because Trump was victorious in winning this gender demographic in 2024 when his campaign made valiant efforts to recruit what was seen as a disengaged and marginalized voting bloc. The president himself made appearances on Joe Rogan, Theo Von, and other podcasts popular with male voters.

Not surprisingly, Republican operatives are sounding the alarm. Republican strategist Ron Bonjean argues such statistics “should be very concerning to Republicans,” though he countered they’re not entirely surprising for the president’s party in a midterm year. Adam Pennings, executive director of Run Gen Z, a group that Trump appointee Joe Mitchell founded and that supports young Republicans running for office, voiced similar sentiments: “It’s really the curse of the majority, right? That it’s ‘the curse of being in charge.’” He further suggested younger Republicans could be put off with the president for abandoning his 2024 campaign promises.

These were the young people receptive to Trump’s message about lowering prices and subduing inflation, fixing America’s broken health-care system, providing affordable housing, and abolishing numerous economic dilemmas virtually strangling young voters entering the job market.

There is no doubt crushing student loan debt, out-of-reach housing, and AI’s potential disruption of the job market could easily render many jobs tenuous. Young voters are facing a colossal state of uncertainty on numerous fronts There is ample reason why this generation is highly distrustful of both major political parties.

That fact aside, the million-dollar question is this: can the Democratic Party rise to the occasion, shatter current myths, and successfully address Gen Z’s real concerns? Time will tell.

–

Copyright 2026 Elwood Watson, distributed by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate

Elwood Watson is a professor of history, Black studies, and gender and sexuality studies at East Tennessee State University. He is also an author and public speaker.

Whether it was the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s gut-wrenching assassination in 1968, Barack Obama’s initial address as president-elect in November 2008, or any other historic moment relating to Black history over the past sixty-plus years, the Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr. was a major force and presence.

The fact the nation lost such a profound, transformative, and consequential leader this month — Black History Month — at a juncture when Black Americans’ contributions to this nation’s history are being obscured and threatened with eradication, only magnifies his passing.

Jackson possessed a trio of formidable characteristics: moral fearlessness, immense intellect, and ample empathy. He was a global humanitarian whose voice for justice and equality echoed across the world. His work across continents was deeply etched in the impervious sense that civil rights, economic rights, and human rights were inseparably intertwined. Whether he was speaking before heads of corporations or acting as a mediator negotiating human rights issues, Jackson fiercely employed his faith and moral conviction as instruments of diplomacy, justice, and freedom.

His landmark organizations Operation PUSH and the Rainbow Coalition successfully managed to create a movement that united diverse factions throughout the US. His “one inclusive tent” vision brought together Americans from all walks of life under the banner of justice and opportunity. His style and message of leadership provided representation for millions who had long been politically exiled from the nation’s economic and political circles of influence and expanded the democratic process in a manner that continues to affect the nation today.

Jesse Jackson’s 1984 and 1988 presidential campaigns were significant moments in American political history. They transformed the Democratic Party’s public face as well as the structure of global politics. Both campaigns introduced proportional representation into the Democratic delegate system, an act that dramatically transformed how presidential nominees were chosen and who got the opportunity to have a voice in that process. Devoid of such revolutionary changes, it is highly unlikely we would have witnessed the historic election of Barack Obama as the nation’s first Black president in November 2008.

But Jackson’s campaigns also transformed down ballot political contests throughout the nation. His legendary grassroots organizing brought fresh energy, voter participation, and much-needed infrastructure to campaigns for city councils, county commissions, and state legislatures.

Like many African Americans, Jackson felt utterly betrayed by much of the Democratic Party’s abandonment of socially progressive issues and their capitulation to Reagan’s unchecked far-right neocon policies, which openly set out to undo the gains of the Civil Rights Movement. With a bloc of two million new voters, however, Jackson, who earned a reputation as Washington, DC’s “shadow senator,” also knew Black communities held the margin of victory for Democratic primaries in their hands. He knew that power could not be given away to white Democratic candidates who often made an about-face into center-right politics in their general races.

He was not without controversy. During 1984, Jackson punctured a hole in his presidential campaign when he made a private antisemitic remark to a Black Washington Post reporter, which was later included in a Post story. Though he eventually apologized — and went on to finish second behind Massachusetts Governor Mike Dukakis in the 1988 Democratic presidential nomination — in certain quarters his brash comment was never forgotten or forgiven.

In 1999, Jackson fathered a child with a woman other than his wife — he had an extramarital affair with a Rainbow PUSH Coalition employee — news that was released publicly in 2001. The press duly covered the revelations, which led CNN to cancel his show “Both Sides.” Jackson endured searing pain when his son, Jesse Jackson Jr., a former congressman, pled guilty in 2013 to misspending $750,000 in campaign funds for personal use and being sentenced to thirty months in prison. In 2017, he was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease, a neurological disorder in which mobility and speech decline over time among other adversarial challenges..

To me, it was heartwarming to see Jackson onstage at the 2024 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, the city that had been his signature home, paying homage to the first-ever nomination of a Black woman by a major party. He was wheelchair-bound, and his disease by this point had confiscated the greatest of his gifts — the ability to converse. Nonetheless, his presence alone personified dedication, determination, and legacy.

Jesse Jackson has now departed this earth. He was a dynamic figure whose courageous and unyielding efforts made life for Generation Xers like me a lot easier and helped us attain greater success than we might ordinarily have done. Thus, we are forever indebted to him. Rest in peace, Jesse.

–

Copyright 2026 Elwood Watson, distributed by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate

Elwood Watson is a professor of history, Black studies, and gender and sexuality studies at East Tennessee State University. He is also an author and public speaker.

For people who believe only straight, heterosexual white men should be in charge, these are interesting times.

Currently, the most powerful and influential social conservative in the world resides once again in the White House and seems as determined as a bulldog to expunge supposedly “amoral” and “unfair” diversity policies from American society.

In 2023, the Supreme Court outlawed affirmative action policies in university admissions. A growing list of American companies, from Ford to Goldman Sachs, have sharply relented from their commitment to previous corporate principles of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). Meanwhile, the Trump administration continues to wage war upon and dismantle DEI rules that have “supposedly lowered standards” and “limited economic productivity” in politics, trade, and education.

Promoting diversity has been a recent priority that emerged after the eruption of anti-racist activism that Black Lives Matter and George Floyd’s murder ignited in 2020. But DEI’s values have always been a tense fit within capitalism’s social Darwinist spirit, where humanitarian intentions are far less important than making money and satisfying shareholders. Now that the political climate has dramatically changed, such efforts are being aggressively dismissed.

After taking office in 2025, Trump targeted DEI initiatives and transgender-athlete participation in sports and is working to undermine safeguards in place long before DEI or woke became part of the vernacular. It’d shouldn’t have been much of a shock, since the plans were outlined before the election in Project 2025.

Last April, Trump signed an executive order to revoke the theory of disparate impact, an approach that allows policies to be assessed not just on whether their intent is to discriminate but also on whether their effect is discriminatory. Disparate impact has been a crucial weapon for civil rights enforcement since the mid-1960s.

The Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division is also being increasingly dismantled and has been redefined around right-wing causes, such as nonsensical, disproven claims of voter fraud during the 2020 election. And the administration is arrogantly attempting to erode post–Civil War constitutional amendments.

Andrea Lucas, the irascible head of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, posted the following on X to review complaints: “Are you a White male who’s experienced discrimination at work based on your race or sex? You may have a claim to recover money under federal civil rights laws.”

Trump isn’t the first to unleash attacks on diversity programs. During the 1980s, the Reagan administration attempted to abolish the federal government’s affirmative action program and slashed funding for the agency that ratified equal opportunity employment law. But his efforts were quickly stalled by fierce opposition from some Republicans, while big business provided ample support for diversity policies.

Today, the relentless forces of white male supremacy have a more ruthless right-wing media on their side. Trump and other reactionary populists have made their intentions clear to resist compromising their culturally exclusionary agendas compared to their more fair-minded conservative forebears.

However, with various facets of multiculturalism considerably more deeply etched into American and global society, nullifying diversity policies will be far more arduous to accomplish than Trump has arrogantly been trying to do with his executive orders. Although not given much mainstream media attention, opposition is successfully sustaining.

Numerous corporations have found ways to remain inclusive. From the outset, in 2025, Apple shareholders voted against ending the company’s diversity program. Other companies have simply rebranded their DEI initiatives, despite considerable consternation from certain right-wing outfits.

CEOs, corporations, and stakeholders are not stupid. If diversity policies increase profits, then even the most racially motivated anti-DEI campaign is unlikely to succeed.

It also doesn’t help these regressive policies seem devoid of clarity. Are supporters advocating for a society where straight white men dominate? Do they accept the reality of a diverse society, as long as diversity doesn’t influence it?

Even the bigoted Trump occasionally acknowledges American diversity’s presence and importance. Last year, during his inauguration speech, he elatedly recited his “increase of support from . . . young and old, men and women, Black Americans, Latino Americans, Asian Americans, and other traditionally democratic groups . . .” Not surprisingly, all of these groups returned to the Democratic Party in November 2025.

Given the economy’s current state, renewed outrage concerning the Epstein files, and the increasing infighting on the political right, many conservative factions are probably feeling politically anxious at the moment.

Things are in the early stages, but people’s emotions and wallets are in high gear and appear to be poised for rapid change. Such political restlessness more likely than not does not bode well for Republicans.

–

Copyright 2026 Elwood Watson, distributed by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate

Elwood Watson is a professor of history, Black studies, and gender and sexuality studies at East Tennessee State University. He is also an author and public speaker.

It’s worth pausing for a moment to recall just a few days ago, President Donald Trump shared a racist clip on his social media account that showed the heads of former President Barack Obama and former first lady Michelle Obama transplanted onto a monkey.

And if there was any question of the clip’s intent, walking next to Trump’s lion body in the video is Pepe the Frog, a popular internet meme added to a white supremacist symbol database during the 2016 presidential election.

It was the latest in a long litany of the president promoting offensive imagery and negative commentary about Black Americans and others. Speaking to reporters on Air Force One last week, Trump claimed he only saw the beginning of the video and tried to pass off responsibility for posting it.

“I gave it to the people, generally they’d look at the whole thing but I guess somebody didn’t,”Trump told reporters, defiant when asked if he should apologize. “No, I didn’t make a mistake.”

The racist post drew bipartisan outrage, a rarity during Trump’s second term. South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott, the only Black Republican senator, urged the president to take it down, calling it the “most racist thing” he had seen from the Trump White House. Scott should probably consider paying closer attention to Trump’s verbal tirades, since such retrograde rhetoric regularly flows from the commander-in-chief’s mouth in abundance.

It would be disingenuous to refer this latest, sordid episode as a revelatory moment, because there is no degree of sophistication with Trump. He has referred to Somali immigrants as “garbage,” ranted on about supposedly “s–thole nations,” and referred to COVID-19 as the “kung flu.” He launched his 2016 presidential campaign by disgracefully attacking Mexican immigrants as drug dealers, criminals, and rapists. He questioned Obama’s birth certificate and perversely ignited his political career by claiming Obama wasn’t American. The list of racist and xenophobic remarks is notably lengthy and robust.

Referring to Black Americans and people of African descent as monkeys, apes, and other primates has long, deeply-etched historical roots. From the time of our arrival to this nation, Black people were immediately and routinely characterized as a subhuman species. Correlations between Africans and apes without tails was a common myth and legend propagated by the English in the early 17th century. Equating Black people with animals was commonplace. Throughout the century, many writers did not hesitate to imply that Africans were the descendants of apes or unknown African beasts or vice versa.

Closer to home, on American shores, similar regressive ideas were commonplace as well. Founding father Thomas Jefferson, (yes that Thomas Jefferson) wrote without any degree of hesitation in “Notes on the State of Virginia” that Black men were a lower species who lusted after white women and expressed deep misgivings about interracial relationships. Mind you, this is the same Jefferson who would later produce a number of children with one of his slaves, Sally Hemmings. Such a level of rank and obscene hypocrisy speaks for itself.

By the mid-19th century, equating Blacks with animals was par for the course. Even more chilling was the fact the ideology of Darwinism emerged into the public sphere rearing its disturbing, derisive, and dangerous message. In 1859, Charles Darwin published “On the Origin of Species.” Although revolutionary, the book did not disregard or discredit prior scientific racial literature. On the contrary, Darwinism would become just one more ingredient for eugenics-minded racists to weaponize in their bigoted arsenal to bolster and justify the retrograde rhetoric of white supremacy.

It was due to such vile and negative rhetoric equating Black people (in particular, males) as vile, animalistic, savage beasts that resulted in centuries of dehumanization for people of African descent. Such mistreatment manifested itself in the form of Jim Crow, chattel slavery, lynching, wanton violence, and other abominable forms of marginalization. The reductive 1915 film “Birth of a Nation,” produced by D. W. Griffith, assisted in propagating this horrendous, intellectually dishonest mythology.

Well into the 20th century, such attitudes continued to flourish during the civil rights movement when Black marchers and demonstrators were frequently referred to as monkeys, apes, baboons, and other sorts of primates by virulently violent white racists and segregationists. Oftentimes, such verbal animus was accompanied with physical violence. In fact, a favorite nickname for Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., among many such mentally unhinged rabid bigots, was “Martin Luther Coon.”

In our present day 21st-century culture, we have witnessed countless numbers of white people engage in and employ similarly vile rhetoric toward Black people. From law enforcement to academics to k–12 educators to attorneys to entertainers to politicians and so on. The already warm temperatures have only gotten hotter, and there seems to be no cooling down in the forecast.

There is nothing “humorous or lighthearted” about Trump’s post, despite what some misguided, mentally disturbed people believe. Such rhetoric, especially coming from the president, provides the false message that Black people are not fully human. Such sinister dialogue cannot be allowed to continue in a nation or diaspora that is becoming blacker and browner on a daily basis.

–

Copyright 2026 Elwood Watson, distributed by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate

Elwood Watson is a professor of history, Black studies, and gender and sexuality studies at East Tennessee State University. He is also an author and public speaker.

To paraphrase Queen Elizabeth II, 2025 is not a year we’ll look back with undiluted pleasure

It was indeed a challenging year, or as the late queen said in 1992, an “annus horribilis,” for postsecondary education. It was a particularly distressing year for many historians, especially those of us who focus their scholarship on racial, gender, social, and cultural history.

Since his inauguration, Donald Trump wasted no time dismantling many progressive and apolitical institutions benefiting a wide variety of Americans. Organizations such as the National Institutes of Health, the US Institute of Peace, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts have witnessed Trump’s callous destruction of their institutions.

The Trump administration also attacked the 179-year-old Smithsonian Institution, authoring a disingenuous executive order titled “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History.” Trump argued (without proof) the Smithsonian had come under “the influence of a divisive, race-centered ideology” and had attempted to “rewrite history” in an effort to discredit various segments of the population. Interestingly, although not surprisingly, Trump specifically targeted the National Museum of African American History and Culture and the forthcoming Smithsonian American Women’s History Museum for derision and criticism.

More recently, the Trump administration dismantled a display featuring nine Black people whom the nation’s first president, George Washington, enslaved in Philadelphia. The exhibit was removed from the president’s house in Independence National Historical Park in accordance with a White House directive to remove or obscure material that “inappropriately disparages Americans.”

Yes, you read that correctly.

Let’s be honest. For centuries, large segments of white Americans described slavery as a benevolent institution developed to improve the behavior of and civilize supposedly “savage and heathen-like” Africans. Such reductive and intellectually dishonest rhetoric was routinely taught in churches, schools, private clubs and memorialized in statues.

Such retrograde mythology was largely easy to promote in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, when slavery had only been abolished for a few decades and President Rutherford B. Hayes and his Vice President Samuel Tillman effectively dismantled Reconstruction (1866–1877). White southerners made ample excuses to defend the institution.

For many individuals below the Mason–Dixon Line, slavery was not the issue. Rather, it was the “the War of Northern Aggression” aka the Civil War that bestowed freedom on Black people, who, according to this perverse historical narrative, neither desired nor were worthy of any sort of emancipation.

When I began teaching at my local university, I could walk into certain bookstores and see titles like “The South Won the Civil War” and “The War of Northern Aggression” promoting the institution of slavery. Discussions with some of my students were intense, revelatory, and riveting. The truth is, in many ways, one could make a relatively feasible argument that the south did indeed win the Civil War, particularly after Reconstruction was dismantled and the region returned to its previous practices of blatantly subjugating, discriminating, demonizing, terrorizing, and humiliating Black citizens for the better part of a century right up until the late 1950s. From a historical perspective, that is comparatively recent.

Our current political and cultural climate virtually necessitates the need for such reinforcement. Right-wing politicians are adamantly igniting the flames of racial and cultural animosity and division. Since the time of this nation’s inception, Black Americans have had to wage a long and arduous battle, fighting to obtain rights that the constitution was supposed to guarantee and that many other groups have taken for granted. The mountains and minefields that our ancestors faced head-on and, in many cases, triumphed over  —  despite seemingly unrelenting adversity  —  are a testament to their indomitable strength and spirit.

Racism is deeply ingrained in our culture’s fabric and is as American as apple pie. What we have witnessed over the past several years is blatant, undisguised bigotry  —  the type that many white people had to keep disguised and leashed since the 1950s or at least the early 1960s  —  that is now unapologetically permeating various sectors of our society, in many cases without consequences. We are enduring the same bigotry today in the 21st century. Being Black in America often means waging an ongoing battle. It means dealing with history and people that blood, sweat, tears, pain, occasional dashed dreams, setbacks, and periodic victories have defined.

Black history should not be confined to discussions about servitude and feel-good stories to assuage the frail and fragile sensibilities of those who desire to avoid the dark and sordid chapters of our nation’s history. The history of Black people, like other ethnic groups, is one that deserves full and unalloyed acknowledgment.

Despite sinister efforts by some on the right to suppress and nullify Black history, such efforts will never reach fruition. The history of Black Americans is one that is deeply interwoven and firmly etched in the political, social, cultural, religious, economic and all aspects of the nation.

No amount of perverse revisionism or fierce efforts to whitewash the stoic, powerful and esteemed history of a fiercely impervious and undeniably resilient peoples will succeed.

–

Copyright 2026 Elwood Watson, distributed by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate

Elwood Watson is a professor of history, Black studies, and gender and sexuality studies at East Tennessee State University. He is also an author and public speaker.