I heard a lecture once, that when the Declaration of Independence expressed for the first time in history the concept that all men are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights by their Creator including Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness, that the writers (Jefferson principal among them) knew exactly what they were saying and put into motion an "aspiration" (knowing it was not a reality at the time).

To understand the Declaration of Independence fully, one must study the history of liberalism which emerged from the Reformation. Luther broke with the Church by emphasizing that the relationship with God was a personal one and the church existed to facilitate that, not a hierarchical one. Without going into the theological aspects of this, it was radical. Bottom line, man (and woman) came first as individuals and institutions existed to support them. Keep in mind, the feminist movement was a "liberal" movement in western countries and to some extent remains absent in most of the world.

This is not the same as saying that everyone agreed. The Catholic Church today still holds that it has the power to separate people from God through ex-communication. Governments routinely trample on the rights of individuals and did so at the time with both whites and blacks being slaves initially, until white slavery was outlawed first and then black slavery. Women's rights came even later. But all of these "ideas" were present before our founding documents were written even if not universally embraced.

So even though our Declaration of Independence declared every human had unalienable rights, it would be a lie to say that everyone agreed with that belief. What is true, is that since it became the founding document of our nation, it has guided us toward the eventual freeing of the slaves and the extension of equal rights to all citizens and that extension was met with resistance at every step along the way.

As proof, the Constitution was ratified in 1788 and before then several states including Vermont had already pass laws ending slavery. In the very first year, that Congress had the authority to ban the importation of slaves, it did. Also, the Constitution makes no reference to slaves intentionally, instead it avoided the term by referring to slaves as "such persons" or "other persons".

Many people misunderstand part of what MLK was saying in his famous "Dream" speech. When he says he looks forward to the day a man will be judged by his character and not the color of his skin, he is repeating the core values of our nation... we should judge individuals on who they are... not what racial identity group they belong to.

Interestingly, progressive liberals today embrace "Marxism" as did civil rights leaders like Malcolm X. This ideology is the opposite of MLK's beliefs.

Central to Malcolm X and today's progressive liberals' ideology is the concept of identity groups. Under this ideology every "group" is entitled to share power and wealth on an equitable basis. People think Marxism is about socialism and communism, but those are simply derivatives of the underlying ideology, that the world is comprised of collective groups (Marx focused on the wealthy class vs the poor class of his time). Wokeism which emerged in the 50s and 60s took Marx's concept of groups and expanded beyond economic class and applied to any identifiable group... classifying them as oppressors or oppressed groups. The ultimate form of racism and bigotry, even if they would argue they are using racism and bigotry to achieve equity.

I find it strange, how progressive liberals can embrace "racism" as necessary to achieve equity. Harvard University has used racism against Jews and Asians in order to achieve "group" diversity... but why does any individual deserve to be discriminated against because of their ethnicity? Shouldn't we focus on the underlying reasons, why Jewish and Asian children are better prepared for college than black children. My brother did that, by creating a Charter School in Jersey City. Starting with 1st grade, he added a grade very year, and last year was the first graduating class of the school. 100% of the seniors graduated, 94% were accepted into college, 75% came from families below the poverty line, and their test scores were competitive with suburban schools. That is how we need to address inequitable outcomes... rather than use "race" to balance things, we need to address the underlying access to opportunity through better education.

The use of "race" runs against the grain of who we are as a nation, it did in 1789 and it still does today. But there has always been an element within our society that is comfortable using race either to hold people down or to lift them up. I just think that anytime people feel race is being used against them, they get angry. It should come as no surprise that both Asians and Jews are suing Harvard over their "racist" practices.

We are blessed as a nation, that our country is largely "not racist". There are racists in our country, but from the beginning our core values rejected it. We have to continue to teach children to reject racism (in any form) in favor of each individual being judged as an individual and having the rights of life, liberty and the right to pursue happiness and to make that more acceptable to minorities, we need to address the failure of our education to produce better outcomes for children from poor families.