
From George Floyd to Jacques Beauregard: America's Racist Rebound
Come, go back with me to the summer of 2020.
Millions of people from all backgrounds flooded America's streets demanding justice for George Floyd and the long-dead victims of American racism. During this period of racial reckoning, something extraordinary happened: old statues fell. Confederate generals were pulled from their pedestals. Slaveholders were toppled from marble thrones. Base names, school plaques, and public memorials were reexamined and, at last, rejected. Even Aunt Jemima got fired.
It was extraordinary not just because these relics had stood for so long, but because they were never supposed to fall. These monuments had been carefully built to last, not just in stone, but in story. They were erected not in the immediate aftermath of war or glory, but decades later during Reconstruction and Jim Crow, as part of a larger campaign to rewrite history and reassert white supremacy. For generations, they stood unchallenged, unexamined, normalized. They didn't just commemorate the past; they distorted it, insisting that the Confederacy was honorable, that slavery was an unfortunate 'necessary evil' or just a 'dark chapter' in American history, and that white dominance was eternal.
So, when those statues fell, they didn't just crack concrete; they ruptured a national mythology. They forced this country to ask: What kind of stories have we been telling ourselves? Whose version of history have we honored? And who has been erased, silenced, or trampled in the process?
And then, the backlash came swiftly.
Politicians, pundits, and self-anointed defenders of the 'real America' started foaming at the mouth and sprinting to pass legislation. They accused activists of erasing history, even though what had actually been toppled was propaganda. School boards started banning books. Governors began defunding diversity programs. The phrase 'Critical Race Theory' became a scare tactic. All of it—the removals, the debates, the bans—revealed just how fragile the American memory really is when forced to confront the truth.
Because these weren't just arguments over monuments. They were battles over meaning. They exposed the deepest fault lines in this nation's relationship to its own past and made clear that history in America isn't just taught. It's fought.
Now, flash forward to this week in Louisiana.
While the rest of us are out here trying to survive climate collapse, student loan debt, and whatever new judicial hell the Supreme Court has cooked up, Governor Jeff Landry decided the real emergency was… a military base not being named after a Confederate family.
With full-throated arrogance, he announced that the Louisiana National Guard Training Center in Pineville will once again be called 'Camp Beauregard,' a name previously stripped for its ties to the Confederacy and white supremacy. Beauregard was one of several Confederate figures, along with Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis, whose monuments were targeted for removal or recontextualization in New Orleans. But Landry, ever the political illusionist, insists this isn't about honoring General P.G.T. Beauregard. No, no—it's about honoring his father , Jacques Toutant Beauregard, a sugar planter and enslaver whose name never once graced a military base until now.
What makes this move so brazen is that Landry didn't just resurrect a Confederate name; he found a new way to venerate the same old system. He skipped the general who fired the first shot of the Civil War and went straight for the man who owned people and passed that legacy down. Jacques Beauregard wasn't a national military hero. He didn't lead any major campaigns. His only enduring historical significance is the fact that he enslaved Black people and raised a son who fought to keep them that way.
That's who Gov. Landry wants Louisiana to remember with pride. That's who he's asking soldiers, including Black soldiers, to salute. This isn't about history or reverence. It's about spite. It's about power. It's about turning back the clock on racial reckoning and reminding Black people exactly where we stand in the state's racial hierarchy: underfoot, beneath the boot, behind the name etched into government signage.
Landry's stunt is not isolated. It's the latest chapter in the white nationalist scrapbook of American memory. Under Trump's influence, politicians like Landry are waging a full-blown war on the historical record. It's not just about books or bases. It's about declaring that the Confederacy never really lost. That even when the statues fall, the spirit behind them can still be revived through policy, propaganda, and PR.
This is about Making America Great Again, and that requires restoring the myths that once held America together, even if they were built on bondage, theft, and mass murder. Landry's move to rename the base isn't some quirky homage to his state's past; it's part of the MAGA mandate to resuscitate the lost cause under a new name. It's about putting a fresh coat of patriotism on the same old plantation logic.
They're not even hiding it. Landry paired his announcement with a gravestone meme reading 'WOKEISM.' He wrote in a Facebook post: Today, we will return the name of the Louisiana National Guard Training Center in Pineville to Camp Beauregard. In Louisiana, we honor courage, not cancel it. Let this be a lesson that we should always give reverence to history and not be quick to so easily condemn or erase the dead, lest we and our times be judged arbitrary by future generations.'
As if restoring the name of a plantation-owning family is some brave act of historical preservation instead of a petty, ahistorical tantrum against progress.
Nobody erased the dead. We just stopped pretending they were heroes. We stopped letting traitors to the United States, defenders of slavery, and men who fought to keep Black people in chains stand unchallenged on our public pedestals and government signs. That's not cancel culture, that's called accountability. That's a long-overdue course correction in a country that's spent centuries gaslighting its victims.
And that line about how we shouldn't be 'so quick to condemn or erase the dead, lest we and our times be judged arbitrary by future generations?? Please. Chile, I'm a whole historian and I am absolutely here to condemn colonizers, rapists, enslavers, lynchers, and every power-drunk architect of racial violence who thought Black life was disposable. That's called ethical clarity.
The Confederacy wasn't misunderstood. It wasn't unfairly maligned. It was a violent, racist rebellion whose leaders chose war to preserve slavery.
I get so tired of people who argue, 'But we can't judge men of their time,' as if our enslaved ancestors weren't judging them in real time. You think they were sitting on cotton bales thinking, 'You know, Master really needs a DEI training and maybe he'll stop whipping us and give us our freedom.' These weren't confused or misguided men. They made deliberate , violent choices to dominate, exploit, and brutalize. And they built systems that still haunt us. Refusing to condemn that isn't neutrality, it's complicity.
Judgment is how we learn. It's how we draw moral lines. If we can't say that enslaving people was evil, regardless of what century it happened in, then we have no business calling ourselves civilized. You want reverence? Give it to the ones who resisted. Give it to the ones who survived. The rest can stay condemned and thrown into the dustbin of history.
The irony, of course, is that if Jeff Landry had actually read a history book, or even skimmed past the plantation chapter, he'd know that General P.G.T. Beauregard, the very Confederate his office is avoiding by name, went on to support Black suffrage.
After the Civil War, General P.G.T. Beauregard, yes, the same man who ordered the first shots at Fort Sumter, actually did a political about-face. By the early 1870s, Beauregard became a prominent supporter of the Unification Movement in Louisiana. In 1873, he joined forces with a group of white and Black citizens to promote racial reconciliation and political cooperation, publicly advocating for Black suffrage and biracial governance. He gave speeches urging white Southerners to accept the political reality of Black citizenship and warned that continued resistance would doom the South to economic and moral ruin. Source: Win McNamee / Getty
In fact, Beauregard's postwar rhetoric was so conciliatory that it drew criticism from former Confederates and Lost Cause diehards. He openly denounced Jefferson Davis and distanced himself from efforts to resurrect the Confederacy's ideology, calling instead for peace, unity, and pragmatic cooperation between the races.
So yeah, it's wild that Jeff Landry and his people are bypassing that Beauregard, the one who tried, however imperfectly, to reconcile with reality, and instead resurrecting the plantation-owning father, Jacques Toutant Beauregard. But I get it. The son doesn't play well on Fox News. That Beauregard doesn't troll the libs. Landry needed a name that wouldn't complicate the white nationalist narrative. The general who advocated Black suffrage doesn't work for MAGA optics.
So, what does this tell us, really?
It tells us that we're in a new era of historical gaslighting. That the erasure we were warned about isn't coming from activists tearing down statues, it's coming from the state, putting them back up under different names. It tells us that white supremacy no longer needs to shout to be heard. It just needs to legislate. It needs to rename, reframe, and wait for the news cycle to move on.
The press, for the most part, is missing the point. The coverage frames this as another skirmish in the culture war, a 'controversial renaming' or a 'reversal of a federal decision.' But too few are asking the deeper questions. Why make this move now? Why pour state resources into resurrecting the name of a man who profited from the forced labor of Black bodies when Louisiana remains one of the poorest, most underfunded states in the country? The answer is simple: trolling liberals and appeasing racists is more important to Jeff Landry than solving real problems. Bigotry is his budget. Spite is his agenda.
This isn't just about one man's nostalgia or a misplaced reverence for 'heritage.' It's a coordinated strike in a broader campaign to whitewash American history. We are living in a moment where Black history is under siege. School curricula stripped of truth, DEI programs dismantled, and Critical Race Theory demonized as if it were some contagious affliction rather than a framework to understand systemic inequality. Naming a military site after a man whose fortune was built on human bondage isn't a tribute to courage. It's a provocation, a middle finger to those fighting for historical clarity and racial justice.
This renaming is happening in the shadow of a larger, more sinister project: the attempt to rewrite the American story from the top down. Under Donald Trump's revived influence, we are watching the rise of a new Confederacy, not one built on cotton and cannons, but on false memory and white grievance. From banned books to curriculum whiteouts, from the demonization of 'wokeness' to the glorification of insurrectionists, we are being led down a path where historical violence is repackaged as patriotism, and those who name it are branded as enemies of the state.
It's all a cowardly sleight of hand, a shell game played with history, and it tells us everything about where America is headed under Trumpism. If future generations judge us harshly, it'll be because we allowed men like Donald Trump and Jeff Landry to resurrect white supremacy and call it 'heritage.'
Dr. Stacey Patton is an award-winning journalist and author of 'Spare The Kids: Why Whupping Children Won't Save Black America' and the forthcoming 'Strung Up: The Lynching of Black Children In Jim Crow America.' Read her Substack here .
SEE ALSO:
Why White Folks Are Grieving Over Destroyed Relics to White Supremacy
'What Up, My Nazi?' Is Fox News Mimicking Black Reclamation
SEE ALSO
From George Floyd to Jacques Beauregard: America's Racist Rebound was originally published on newsone.com

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


New York Post
9 minutes ago
- New York Post
Pro-Trump group says Cracker Barrel's DEI programs violate federal, state civil rights laws
Conservative pro-Trump law group America First Legal (AFL) filed complaints Monday with the Tennessee Attorney General and the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (EEOC), alleging Cracker Barrel is maintaining discriminatory employment practices stemming from its diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies. The complaints point to public documents, internal reports, and Cracker Barrel's own language to allege the company maintains illegal DEI frameworks, such as race- and gender-conscious hiring, leadership and promotion pipelines, which provide benefits to employees on the basis of protected characteristics. AFL also slammed Cracker Barrel for rebranding its dedicated DEI website to 'Culture and Belonging,' arguing that the name change did not halt Cracker Barrel from using 'diversity' as a proxy for race or sex. Advertisement 'Americans are fed up with major American corporations serving up DEI as if it is entirely okay,' said AFL legal counsel, Will Scolinos. 'Treating people differently because of the color of their skin or their sex is not only wrong, it is illegal. AFL has fought DEI since the Biden Administration spent four years celebrating and encouraging its wholesale implementation across the country. Now, companies are retreating from the term 'DEI' but retaining their discriminatory policies. Cracker Barrel and other American corporations must take discrimination by any name off the menu once and for all.' 4 The complaints point to public documents, internal reports, and Cracker Barrel's own language to allege the company maintains illegal DEI frameworks. Christopher Sadowski AFL's complaint points to Cracker Barrel's Business Resource Groups (BRGs) as one example of alleged discrimination, outlined in public Securities and Exchange Commission documents, Cracker Barrel's website and other places. According to AFL, these groups offer employment benefits only available to employees belonging to certain races or sexes. Advertisement The 'Be Bold' BRG helps 'cultivate and develop Black Leaders within the Cracker Barrel organization utilizing allyship, mentorship, and education to create a path to continued excellence,' Cracker Barrel's website states. Meanwhile, the HOLA BRG 'promote[s] Hispanic and Latino culture through hiring, developing, and retaining talent within Cracker Barrel.' Other BRGs revolve around LGBT folks, 'neurodiversity,' and women's issues, among others. 4 According to AFL, these groups offer employment benefits only available to employees belonging to certain races or sexes. AP Another part of Cracker Barrel's alleged promotion of discriminatory DEI practices cited by AFL includes the company's focus on 'attract[ing], develop[ing] and retain[ing] high performing talent with diverse backgrounds, experiences and perspectives,' which is laid out on Cracker Barrel's 'Culture, Belonging and Inclusion' website underneath the heading 'STRATEGY TURNS INTO ACTION.' This focus on promoting and hiring based on 'diverse' characteristics can be seen in action via Cracker Barrel's categorization in internal company reports of board members as 'Diverse' or 'Not-Diverse,' AFL points out. Advertisement Per a public filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Cracker Barrel notes that when 'evaluating potential candidates for Board membership' the nominating committee 'considers, among other things … diversity of age, gender, race, and ethnic background.' 4 This focus on promoting and hiring based on 'diverse' characteristics can be seen in action via Cracker Barrel's categorization in internal company reports. Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images Cracker Barrel also proudly touts its Diverse Employee Leadership Talent Advancement (DELTA) program in public filings, which the company describes as an effort meant to identify 'diverse managers who have exhibited all the skills we value in our top-performing managers' and position them 'to advance to their next role.' 'Our new, robust diversity training includes education throughout all levels of the Company about unconscious and implicit bias and focuses on creating an inclusive culture and fostering a sense of belonging for all,' a Securities and Exchange Commission filing discussing the DELTA program also adds. Advertisement AFL argues that, in practice, these policies from Cracker Barrel appear to have achieved their intended effect, with the company's representation of women and ethnic minorities among Cracker Barrel professional staff, store level management and hourly workers, having each increased by at least 3% since fiscal year 2022. AFL said only women hourly staff remained constant across the same period, though Cracker Barrel touts in its Securities and Exchange Commission filings that 70% of its employee population is female. 4 Cracker Barrel also proudly touts its Diverse Employee Leadership Talent Advancement (DELTA) program in public filings. AP 'Cracker Barrel's policies openly discriminate against heterosexual, white, and male employees in favor of diverse employees,' AFL's complaint, which asserts the policies violate Tennessee's Human Rights Act and Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, argues. 'Discrimination advocates — under the guise of 'diversity' and 'equity' — have for years claimed that straight white men must be treated differently than diverse individuals by holding them to a higher evidentiary standard; however, the Supreme Court has directly addressed this claim, holding that 'Title VII does not impose such a heightened standard on majority-group plaintiffs,'' the complaint continues. 'Decades of case law hold that — no matter how well-intentioned — policies that seek to impose racial balancing are prohibited by Title VII.' Through its complaint, AFL is calling for Cracker Barrel and the EEOC to launch investigations into the matter, including a review of internal communications and a probe into whether the company used contractors with 'reckless disregard' to circumvent civil rights laws. AFL is also requesting the Tennessee Attorney General and EEOC enforce state and federal laws that would compel the company to halt its allegedly discriminatory DEI practices. Cracker Barrel did not respond to repeated requests for comment in time for publication.


Newsweek
10 minutes ago
- Newsweek
What if the Parties Struck a Truce on Self-Destructive Gerrymandering?
America's two major political parties are about to exchange the next salvos in a decades-long battle where—as is typical of trench warfare—they both stand to lose. Texas Governor Greg Abbott is under severe pressure from President Donald Trump to restart one of the most craven and self-destructive practices of American politics in the 21st century: predatory gerrymandering. California Governor Gavin Newsom has made clear that, if Abbott goes through with it, he stands ready to retaliate. If you're thinking "gee, this sounds like a boring, technical issue for government nerds to fuss over," it's not. It's been a poison that's seeped further into our political life than most realize. Here's what happened. Partisan gerrymandering—drawing legislative and congressional districts to maximize your party's power—goes back literally to the birth of the republic. But for most of the 20th century, state political leanings were so stable that parties kept their maps in place. Even after Supreme Court rulings in the mid-1960s forced change, the parties settled into a fairly anodyne process, forming districts once every ten years after the new national census with only minor angling for political advantage. In 2003, then-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay broke the tacit truce. After Texas drew its districts following the 2000 census, he waited for Republicans to gain complete control of Texas government, and then maneuvered an ambush: a sudden redraw that gave Republicans six more congressional seats. Once DeLay started this new predatory approach—grabbing for power at any opportunity—others followed. Republican-dominated states started to copycat Texas, and Republicans saw an opportunity if they were really willing to push the envelope. Political strategist Karl Rove crafted a project called REDMAP to win key state legislative seats all over the country in order to drive an even more aggressive round of congressional redistricting. It worked: in 2012, Democrats won 1.4 million more votes for the U.S. House than Republicans, but Republicans won the chamber 234-201. In the Wisconsin legislature, as just one state example, Republicans won less than half of the statewide vote but took 61 percent of the legislative seats. These outrageous power tilts still exist around the country. US President Donald Trump (L) listens to Texas Governor Greg Abbott speak during a meeting with local officials and first responders in Kerrville, Texas, on July 11, 2025, following devastating flooding that occurred in the... US President Donald Trump (L) listens to Texas Governor Greg Abbott speak during a meeting with local officials and first responders in Kerrville, Texas, on July 11, 2025, following devastating flooding that occurred in the area over the July 4 weekend. More BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP/Getty Images Most Americans might dismiss all this as another instance of all's-fair-in-love-and-war political skullduggery. Why was it actually so bad? For Republicans, gerrymandering helped drive the MAGA-fication of the party. To achieve the 2010 backlash that would fuel their predatory gerrymandering scheme, Republican leaders engineered an angry populist movement—the Tea Party. That Frankenstein's monster came alive and helped Republicans shellack Democrats in the 2010 midterms, but then escaped lab containment. Feuds between Tea Party-aligned activists and establishment Republicans roiled the party in 2012 and sank them in 2014, leaving the party rudderless, confused, and ripe for Trump's takeover. Then the Trump faction became a force inside America's gerrymandered districts. Since his endorsement was seen as the critical factor in winning Republican primaries, and with almost all Republicans districts being "ultra-safe," the majority of state and U.S. House elected officials became Trump acolytes. Democrats in turn became both politically neutered and schizophrenic: in a few places successfully depoliticizing redistricting through independent commissions, in other places trying (unsuccessfully) to even the score after the 2020 census with their own aggressive gerrymanders. So they remain boxed out of power in most states, still trying to land a feeble counterpunch. It's left them with a severe case of "don't wrestle a pig in the mud; you get dirty and he has fun." And we Americans ended up with a mess. Trump's gerrymandering-enabled leveraged buyout of the Republican Party—and now the U.S. government—means his faction of MAGA Republicans (which represents only 16 percent of Americans) gets to drive a radical agenda that the majority of us oppose. So everyone has lost—Republicans as much as anyone, as their party has been coopted and as their ultra-aggressive tactics have sometimes backfired. But, addicted to a toxic formula that has worked out well for him so far, Trump is now looking for even more aggressive gerrymandering, and California Governor Gavin Newsom is threatening to retaliate with some partisan redistricting of his own. So the cycle will restart, and the screws will continue to tighten. But what if the few remaining adults in American politics said, "enough?" There's actually a model in 20th century political history for one way it could work. In 1940s and 1950s, it was common for U.S. senators of opposing parties to form a "voting pair" on a bill. Since their votes would cancel each other out, they would skip the vote together. Greg Abbott could call Gavin Newsom and say "hey, we're a couple of Washington outsiders with national ambitions—let's pair up on a ceasefire. I'll carve out a little space from Trump, you'll show that you can work with Republicans. Our parties will breathe a sigh of relief, and we'll do our country a lot of good. We could even start a trend for other states to follow." Likely? No. But possible? Absolutely. It wouldn't undo the damage that's been done. But the first rule when you're in a hole is to stop digging. Matt Robison is a writer, podcast host, and former congressional staffer. The views in this article are the writer's own.
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Speaker Johnson reverses course on Epstein transparency, realigns with Trump
When it comes to Jeffrey Epstein and disclosing Justice Department files, arguably no congressional Republican has gone further than Rep. Thomas Massie. In fact, the Kentucky Republican took the unusual step of helping spearhead a discharge petition that would force a House vote that would direct the DOJ to be transparent on Epstein-related materials. Just as importantly, Massie is taking aim at his own party's leadership over its handling of the controversy. 'Whose he gonna pick?' the congressman told Punchbowl News, referring to House Speaker Mike Johnson. 'Is he going to stand with the pedophiles and underage sex traffickers? Or is he gonna pick the American people and justice for the victims? This is the ultimate decision the speaker needs to make. And it's irrespective of what the president wants.' It was against this backdrop that Johnson effectively answered Massie's rhetorical question. The New York Times reported: Speaker Mike Johnson said on Monday that he would not hold a House vote this summer on whether the Justice Department should release files related to the accused sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, retreating from his demand last week that the material must come out. Six days earlier, the Louisiana Republican appeared on a prominent far-right podcast and said, in reference to the Justice Department's Epstein investigation, 'We should put everything out there and let the people decide. I agree with the sentiment that we need to — we need to put it out there.' But as this week got underway, the GOP leader's interest in "putting it out there" evaporated. Johnson added, in reference to possible congressional action, 'I don't think we're at that point yet, because we agree with the president.' The House speaker didn't elaborate as to who was included in the word 'we.' Barring another unexpected reversal, Johnson's new position suggests the House won't touch the issue until September, at the earliest, in light of the chamber's upcoming August break. And in case the House speaker's retreat didn't add enough drama to the broader mess, developments in the House Rules Committee made matters worse. Politico reported: House Republicans will scrap several votes this week as internal party drama over Jeffrey Epstein derails a key committee that handles legislation on its way to the floor. The House Rules Committee came to a standstill Monday night as GOP leaders struggled to contain rank-and-file Republicans and their Democratic allies clamoring for a floor vote to compel the publication of materials related to the late disgraced financier and convicted sex offender. In case this isn't obvious, the House Rules Committee has a boring name but an important role: Most legislation has to go through the panel before reaching the floor. With this in mind, Republicans had lined up action on some bills this week, which meant a Rules Committee meeting that would clear the way for votes. Committee Democrats planned to use the opportunity to force another vote on Epstein transparency, which prompted GOP leaders to scrap this week's legislative work altogether. In other words, Republicans were so desperate to avoid a vote on Democratic amendments related to the Epstein files that the party's leadership decided they would rather do nothing, effectively leaving the chamber temporarily frozen. There's a simple lesson in Political Strategy 101: Divide your enemies. It's a lesson House Democrats appear to have learned quite well. This article was originally published on