Civil Rights – February 17, 2026

A bit of a sad day with the passing of civil rights leader and activist Rev. Jesse Louis Jackson, he was 84. In the history books he will likely be remembered along amazing company of several generations of people looking for a different future than the past they experienced.

Former member of Congress John Lewis, long-time leader of the NAACP Roy Wilkins, Coretta Scott King, first Black Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, “Mother of the Freedom Movement” Rosa Parks, assassinated NAACP field secretary Medgar Evers, and of course the face of a movement Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Just to name a few, there are plenty of others.

While each leader during their time had their own strategy, some focusing on the law where others on the economy or social change, as a collective their primary goal was to end systemic racial segregation and attempt to end intentional disenfranchisement of minorities in the United States.

The constant fight for equality under the Constitution and Rule of Law, the ability to vote without intimidation or restriction, economic and social opportunity, and simply put the idea of “personhood.” All of which, sadly, is far from over.

Question – Let’s get into it, why mark the event this way?

Because the quest to change how some look at others with prejudices and the intention to marginalize is far from over. All of the heavy-lifting to date, the efforts of so many, have brought us to a moment where divisions right down ethnic, social, and economic lines still exist today.

The politics of us vs. them still has an element of being devolutionary against the very goals many of the above civil rights leaders and activists did not live to see become realized. Said another way, it is worth considering that division oriented politics along social and economic lines always carried the inherent risk of adding in ethnic based additions to division methods.

One way to look at this is with philosophy.

Consider that a principle, of many and with plenty of dispute, that all human divisions boil down to motive and reason to categorize. Not necessarily confined to how Plato or Freud would try to explain this, just a fundamental societal and economic result of looking at self and then conditioned to by comparison by looking at others. That inherent “in or out” bias that is almost unrecognizable in some yet in others seems central to most decisions made. Not a light switch debate, it must be there or must not be there, but more a degree of realization and motivation.

The below is a quote, often cut down to just part of it, to make a point.

“Violence is not merely killing another. It is violence when we use a sharp word, when we make a gesture to brush away a person, when we obey because there is fear. So violence isn’t merely organized butchery in the name of God, in the name of society or country. Violence is much more subtle, much deeper, and we are inquiring into the very depths of violence. When you call yourself an Indian or a Muslim or a Christian or a European, or anything else, you are being violent. Do you see why it is violent? Because you are separating yourself from the rest of mankind. When you separate yourself by belief, by nationality, by tradition, it breeds violence. So a man who is seeking to understand violence does not belong to any country, to any religion, to any political party or partial system; he is concerned with the total understanding of mankind.” – Jiddu Krishnamurti

Nature or nurture as a debate misses the point, by oversimplification, but consider a complete upbringing no matter where and how that happened. At some point seeing differences became something to question then to perhaps ask about, for the most part that observance and inquiry is not the issue. Think, the explanation to a child that someone looks different than them, some ethnic based question from a child to a parent. The yearbook explanation is the crayon answer, that life would be boring if there was only one color, one ethnicity, therefor variety is favorable.

Where it goes negative is separation, as hinted at by Krishnamurti above, in that taking the concept of variety and adding in very dangerous social ranking.

The application of a pecking order to society and economy. No matter how passive the only other element is time, then superiority and inferiority set it. Our own nation’s history brings that to the table, both who was here at founding and who else was brought in against their will.

But it set the stage. As a compiling series of attitudes and events, dark chapters of this nation’s history, that became motivation for the important civil rights movement. A quest for a different outcome.

The positives…

The dismantling of Jim Crow, The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and The Voting Rights Act of 1965, to some extent the wage gap closure between ethnicity and the emergence of a minority economic middle class. Increasing high school graduation rates, from 1968 to 2018 by near double. And higher education graduation rates saw similar improvements for those most vulnerable.

The spilling over of civil rights for minorities into women’s rights, looking for accommodations for those with disabilities, making way for Native Americans and LGBTQ+ groups to have a voice against an overwhelming opposition. At least a chair at the table of discussion, often enough to see some degree of movement.

None of this means work is done, just means progress has been made even in the face of continued bigotry.

Challenges going forward

Despite the strong tendency, for Democrats especially, to engage in class and/or identity political warfare one could suggest the political landscape of the country today includes, and thus represents, a more multicultural America than it did 20, if not 40, years ago.

Jesse Jackson being one of those influences bringing that to fruition. Just as he took the baton from those before him, we look to the next generation of civil rights leaders to take the baton from all their work.

The next chapter for civil rights looks familiar.

A renewed battle between the right to vote and “election integrity,” the continued used of Executive Order to demand national voter ID rules and “proof of citizenship” requirements to vote. States are now having to consider options to safeguard their own Constitutional rights for handling national elections, in the face of the Trump Administration demanding voter rolls.

And almost conversely, the Federal Government under the Trump Administration is in retreat of civil rights and disabilities accommodation enforcement, leaving it to the states to determine on their own. Some states will keep up the effort and perhaps extend beyond, others not so much if not entirely ignore it. Not just abortion and civil rights as key terms, but even the ability for legal recourse from federal, state, or local law enforcement overreach. Moreover, some states are actively trying to ensure less vote and that some districts are that much more not competitive.

The digital landscape also presents challenge for the next generation of civil rights leadership, in that the emergence of AI in concert with existing data privacy concerns has seen new generations of victimization. Underaged kids being “undressed” via AI and shared, continued concern over social media algorithms and the encouragement of isolation mentality. Beyond means to bully, but to instill fear and encourage self-harm from the confines of online expression.

And we cannot forget the return of the “reverse discrimination” in an attempt to nullify the work to date in dealing with disparity among the most socially and economically vulnerable groups in our nation for opportunity and treatment.

In closing

There is still much work to do, and much more to be mindful of with opposition to looking at our society and economy without so much division.

Consider the difference between jumping on the next social media driven and political party approved identity or class warfare engagement, against what used to be the central message of original civil rights intentions. The betterment of all, not flipping pecking orders. The understanding that comes with empathy, not the cancel culture from the left or vilification from the right.

Evaluate your own stance on the concept of an inherent dignity of every human being, as recognized and protected by the Constitution and Rule of Law. The idea that moral authority is not achieved by authoritarianism force, but rather inclusivity means hearing things you will not agree with. Even be offended by, but that does not mean all of it is anti-civil rights or anti-multiculturalism.

If we are really “all in this together,” as they say on The View, that cannot mean just those you simply like from agreement. Those that give you a clap and cheer when spouting off something that belongs on social media as a meme, no different than dozens if not hundreds of hate posts from Trump on Truth Social. Otherwise, you have to commit to cancelling and isolating a whole lot of people. Just like what the opposition from today’s Republican Party wants.

Ultimately, “hate begets hate.” One may argue that is already realized.

A concept echoed and amplified by the ideology of Martin Luther King Jr. A civil rights principles that hateful, hostile, or violent words and actions will only generate further of the same from opposition. Add back in Krishnamurti’s thoughts on how separation is inherently violent. Takes inclusion, empathy, understanding, education, perhaps conditioning to help and no one claimed it would be easy.

Consider, a potential honor of those lost by not doing what the opposition is known all too well for.