The Constitution promises to protect fundamental rights and liberties for all citizens within Amerikkka, however this has continuously failed for Afrikans in Amerikkka. There are endless false promises of freedom of speech, freedom to protest, and the freedom to just exist within a country we and our ancestors have been forced to assimilate into. The government, especially the branch in charge of interpreting the Constitution, is a tool to continue to protect the privileges that come alongside being a white citizen in the United States. Being white in Amerikkka, or at least being perceived as white, opens the door to a wide array of benefits within society. Through the government’s eyes, whiteness must be protected no matter what. Ruling against whiteness and instead for those who are supposed to be disadvantaged takes away power from those in charge.
In the case of Plessy v. Ferguson, the Supreme Court decided to rule to uphold the constitutionality of racial segregation laws as long as they were “separate but equal” accommodations. This ruling is a prime example of how the Supreme Court has worked to uphold whiteness and keep it away from the grasps of those who are deemed “not worthy” of the advantages of being white. Even with separate “equal” accommodations, the fact that Afrikan people need to be separated from their white counterparts shows how precious it is to keep distinct separation between the two.
Another example is within United States v. Cruikshank, with the Court showing their favoritism for protecting whiteness by jumping through loopholes. The Court did not want white militiamen to go to jail for murdering Afrikans who were attempting to protest. The white men had done exactly what the government had wanted, wanting to shut up outspoken Afrikans who went against the status quo. The Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment only applied to state action and not the action of private individuals, creating a way for those who murdered the Afrikans to get away with it. This was simply because these Afrikans protesting posed a huge threat to the typical social order of Amerikkka, therefore there was no reason to prosecute those individuals who committed this heinous crime.
Brandenburg v. Ohio continued to perpetuate hatred towards Afrikans by allowing a KKK leader to walk away from an Ohio court who had found him guilty of spewing hate speech. The Supreme Court ruled that his freedom of speech was violated by Ohio’s criminal syndicalism law since his speech did not incite a clear and present danger. It’s unfathomable to believe that speech from a KKK leader that calls for the removal of Afrikans from Amerikkka as if they were a parasite does not constitute speech that is a clear danger.
It is through the study of our legislative histories that we begin to undo the political amnesia that often gives us hope in surviving and reforming our political sphere. In reflections on these cases and many others, we are forced to begin challenging ourselves and the empire that suffocates us to radically change and therefore be destroyed.