America’s Greatness: A Question of Perspective

To learn more about Catalyst Coaching & Transformation’s resources, programs and upcoming events, sign up for the newsletter here:? https://www.chasitywells.com/#newsletter.

As Election Day draws near, we must confront the meaning behind the slogan “Make America Great Again.” What does it mean, and who has benefitted from America's supposed greatness? When rapper T.I. challenged Candace Owens to name a time in U.S. history that was great for Black Americans, she struggled to respond. For many communities—particularly Black and Brown Americans—the historical narrative of greatness is marked by exclusion, systemic oppression, and racial violence. The reality is that Black Americans built wealth and communities—only to have them destroyed or devalued by systemic racism and violence.? So when the slogan, “Make America Great Again” is stated, it is important to acknowledge that it is rooted in White supremacy and equates to “Make America White Again.”? ?

The Reality of Emancipation: A Global Context

During the panel discussion with rapper T.I. and Candace Owens, when asked about the time period that was great in America for Black Americans, Candace started her response stating, “Slavery was going on all over the world and the United States was first in abolishing it.”? While it may be a misconception, revisionist history, or a blatant lie? that the United States was the first country to end slavery, the history tells a different story. The British Empire abolished slavery in 1833, while France officially ended it in 1848. In contrast, the United States did not formally end slavery until 1865, with the ratification of the 13th Amendment—a mere 159 years ago.? However, emancipation provided freedom in name only, as newly freed Black Americans were denied land, compensation, and access to quality education. Left without resources, many had no option but to enter sharecropping—a system that perpetuated economic exploitation and kept Black families in poverty for generations.

The barriers did not end there. Under Jim Crow laws, Black children attended separate and grossly underfunded schools, leaving them with limited educational and economic opportunities. This inequity persists today, as school funding relies heavily on property taxes. Communities with higher property values, predominantly white and affluent, generate more funding for their schools, providing better resources, teachers, and facilities. Meanwhile, schools in low-income, often racially diverse areas remain underfunded, perpetuating cycles of disadvantage.

In addition to educational and economic barriers, Black inventors faced severe discrimination in protecting their intellectual property. Although Black Americans contributed valuable inventions, they were barred from owning patents for much of U.S. history. Denied the legal rights to their creations, Black inventors were frequently exploited, with their inventions and intellectual property stolen or credited to others. This exclusion from patent ownership prevented Black families from building wealth and passing down generational assets, representing a direct denial of both personal and communal wealth-building opportunities.

Legally, Black Americans were granted the right to own patents with the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which extended citizenship and certain legal protections to all people born in the United States, including the right to enter contracts and own property—patents included. However, systemic racism and barriers to enforcement meant that Black inventors continued to struggle to secure and protect patents well into the 20th century. Despite having the legal right after 1866, discrimination and institutional biases often prevented Black inventors from benefiting from their creations, effectively blocking them from yet another path to economic stability and advancement within society.

Red-lining and the Destruction of Black Communities

While Black Americans built thriving communities across the United States, they were consistently met with systemic efforts to dismantle their progress. Redlining, a discriminatory housing policy introduced in the 1930s, systematically prevented Black families from buying homes in prosperous, white neighborhoods. The federal government’s Home Owners’ Loan Corporation (HOLC) graded neighborhoods based on racial demographics, labeling Black and racially mixed areas as "high-risk" or "undesirable." This practice denied Black communities access to loans, leading to a decline in property values and severely limiting wealth-building opportunities. Redlining contributed to lasting racial wealth gaps that are still felt today.

Beyond redlining, Black communities that managed to build economic success were often targets of White violent mobs, leading to the literal destruction of towns and wealth. Here are a few notable examples:

• Tulsa, Oklahoma (1921): The Greenwood District, also known as "Black Wall Street," was one of the most prosperous Black communities in the country. On May 31 and June 1, 1921, a White mob attacked Greenwood, killing hundreds of Black residents and burning the district to the ground. This violent attack destroyed over 1,200 homes, businesses, churches, and schools, wiping out generations of wealth and stability.
• Rosewood, Florida (1923): Rosewood was a small, prosperous Black town that was destroyed when a mob of white residents, fueled by unfounded accusations, attacked and burned the town in January 1923. Over several days, homes and businesses were looted and set ablaze, displacing families and erasing years of economic progress. Survivors were forced to flee, and the town was never rebuilt.
• Wilmington, North Carolina (1898): In what is now considered the only successful coup d'état in U.S. history, White supremacists overthrew the elected, biracial government of Wilmington in November 1898. White mobs attacked Black residents, killing dozens, destroying Black-owned businesses, and forcing Black leaders and residents to flee. Wilmington had been one of the most politically active and economically vibrant Black communities in the South.
• Atlanta, Georgia (1906): Known as the Atlanta Race Riot, this massacre occurred in September 1906, when a White mob attacked Black neighborhoods, incited by racist propaganda and unfounded rumors. Dozens of Black residents were killed, and many homes and businesses were destroyed. This event significantly disrupted Atlanta’s thriving Black business community and contributed to increased segregation in the city.

These violent incidents, often ignored in mainstream histories, systematically robbed Black Americans of the wealth and stability they worked hard to achieve. Such acts of terror and destruction were not isolated events; they were repeated across the country, reinforcing a cycle of generational poverty and thwarting Black communities’ efforts to prosper.

The Impact of Recent Legislation on Middle- and Lower-Income Families

While much political rhetoric centers on promises to help “hard-working Americans,” recent legislation has had a disproportionately negative impact on middle- and lower-income families. Policies implemented during the Trump administration prioritized tax cuts for corporations and the wealthiest individuals, often at the expense of working families. The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, for example, provided significant benefits to corporations and high-income earners, reducing the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21% and giving wealthy individuals a larger share of the cuts. However, these benefits for the middle and working classes were far smaller and temporary, set to expire by 2025, while corporate tax cuts remain permanent. This legislation added trillions to the national debt, creating pressures that could lead to future cuts in programs that benefit low- and middle-income households, such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

In addition, rollbacks on healthcare protections and attempts to dismantle the Affordable Care Act (ACA) threatened access to affordable health insurance for millions. Repeated attempts to weaken the ACA endangered critical protections for people with pre-existing conditions, which disproportionately affect lower-income families who often lack employer-provided insurance options. For many, these protections were a vital lifeline, providing coverage options that did not previously exist.

Beyond healthcare, cuts to SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) and housing subsidies left many working families without the resources needed for basic living expenses. The administration also proposed changes to public assistance programs, implementing stricter work requirements and administrative hurdles that further limited access to essential benefits for families struggling to make ends meet.

These policy choices reflect a pattern of prioritizing wealthier Americans and corporate interests while placing additional burdens on middle- and lower-income families. For the majority of Americans, these decisions have meant fewer resources, reduced access to healthcare, and diminished support in times of economic hardship. This approach has widened income inequality and created barriers to upward mobility, undermining the promise of the American Dream for millions of families.

The Truth Behind the Stimulus Checks

One of the most widely discussed financial relief measures during the Trump administration was the issuance of $1,200 stimulus checks, which many Americans believe Trump personally “gave” to them. In reality, Congress controls federal spending and approved these stimulus payments through the CARES Act in March 2020. While Trump publicly took credit, he initially opposed issuing direct relief checks. After Congress passed the legislation, Trump held up the disbursement, insisting that his name appear on the checks—an unprecedented move that delayed the much-needed financial support during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic.

This was not the first or last time Americans received direct economic aid. During the Obama administration, as part of the 2009 economic stimulus package following the Great Recession, households received a tax credit of up to $800, helping to stabilize the economy and provide some relief for struggling families.

Under President Biden, two more rounds of stimulus checks were issued as part of the American Rescue Plan in 2021 to further support Americans hit hardest by the economic impact of the pandemic. These payments included $1,400 checks per eligible individual, in addition to the $600 payments authorized in December 2020, bringing the total to $2,000 in direct aid.

In each instance, the stimulus checks were the result of congressional legislation, not a presidential decision alone. The checks provided vital relief to middle- and lower-income families, helping them pay for essentials during times of economic uncertainty. However, the politicization of these payments, including Trump’s insistence on branding them as his own, often distorts the reality: that these relief efforts are the result of negotiations and legislative action within Congress, not unilateral presidential generosity.

Black Men Beware: Police Brutality and Trump’s Push for Unchecked Power

Donald Trump has a long history of supporting aggressive policing tactics, even when evidence points to injustice. In 1989, after the arrest of the Central Park Five—five Black and Latino teenagers wrongfully accused of assaulting a White woman in Central Park—Trump took out a full-page ad in several major New York newspapers calling for the death penalty for the boys. Even after DNA evidence exonerated them years later, Trump refused to retract his statements or apologize, showing a disturbing lack of remorse and an unwillingness to acknowledge the wrongful treatment of Black and Latino men.

This pattern continued during his presidency. When George Floyd was murdered by Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin on May 25, 2020, sparking nationwide protests, Trump’s response reflected a “law and order” mentality that ignored the underlying issues of systemic racism and police violence. Rather than addressing the tragedy of Floyd’s death or the outcry from Black communities, Trump focused on condemning protesters, calling for military action in cities, and defending police actions. His response to Floyd’s murder revealed his priorities: upholding police power at the expense of justice and equity.

Trump’s administration did little to curb police violence and his policies emboldened aggressive policing tactics. The impact of this stance was tragically clear during his presidency, with numerous high-profile cases of unarmed Black men killed by police:

• Stephon Clark (Sacramento, CA) - March 18, 2018: Clark was shot by Sacramento police in his grandmother’s backyard. Officers claimed they thought he had a gun; he was holding a cellphone.
• Botham Jean (Dallas, TX) - September 6, 2018: Jean was fatally shot in his own apartment by an off-duty officer who claimed she mistook his apartment for her own.
• Atatiana Jefferson (Fort Worth, TX) - October 12, 2019: Jefferson was shot through her window by police responding to a non-emergency welfare check at her home.
• George Floyd (Minneapolis, MN) - May 25, 2020: Floyd died under the knee of Officer Derek Chauvin, who knelt on Floyd’s neck for over nine minutes as Floyd repeatedly said, “I can’t breathe.”
• Daniel Prude (Rochester, NY) - March 23, 2020: Prude, experiencing a mental health crisis, was asphyxiated by police who placed a “spit hood” over his head and pinned him to the ground.
• Rayshard Brooks (Atlanta, GA) - June 12, 2020: Brooks was shot in the back by an officer in a Wendy’s parking lot after a struggle during a DUI arrest.

These tragic incidents reveal the vulnerability of Black men under current policing practices and reflect the heightened risks they face in encounters with law enforcement. Trump’s Project 2025 proposes to expand these risks further, advocating for broad immunity that would protect officers from accountability, even in cases of clear misconduct or excessive force. This immunity would erode any remaining legal recourse for victims of police violence, further exacerbating the injustice families face when their loved ones are killed at the hands of reckless law enforcement officers who have no regard for Black lives.???

Trump’s support for police immunity aligns with his history of using law enforcement to project power. The Supreme Court has already granted Trump broad immunity for actions taken while in office, and now his proposals indicate a desire to grant similar protection to police forces—a move that could allow him to leverage law enforcement as a tool for suppressing dissent and punishing those he views as oppositional. For Black men especially, this means the possibility of even fewer protections from an already biased and flawed system.

This drive for unchecked power risks creating a climate where justice becomes secondary to the interests of those in power. For Black men and communities of color, a second Trump presidency, with Project 2025’s immunity policies, would mean facing greater police aggression and diminished pathways to justice. True safety and justice can only be achieved when police are held accountable for their actions, not shielded from consequence.

The Erosion of Women’s Rights Under Trump and His Running Mate

Donald Trump’s policies and rhetoric have led to a significant rollback in women’s rights, especially in reproductive health, autonomy, and gender equality. During his first term, Trump laid the groundwork for the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, effectively ending nearly 50 years of federally protected abortion rights. By appointing three conservative justices, Trump set the stage for stripping millions of women of their right to safe and legal abortion care, leaving reproductive decisions to individual states, many of which have since enacted extreme restrictions with criminal penalties for both women and healthcare providers.

Trump’s stance on reproductive rights has often been alarmingly punitive. In 2016, he publicly stated that women who seek abortions MUST be punished.? This perspective shows a lack of empathy for the complex realities that women face and has encouraged a wave of restrictive state laws, criminalizing abortion care and disproportionately harming marginalized communities. These policies jeopardize women’s health, safety, and autonomy.

Several women have died due to complications arising from these restrictive laws:

• Amber Nicole Thurman (Georgia, 2022): Amber was unable to obtain a timely abortion in Georgia due to the state's six-week ban. After traveling to North Carolina for the procedure, she developed severe sepsis from retained tissue and died during surgery. Glamour
• Candi Miller (Georgia, 2022): Candi experienced complications from a medication abortion at home. Fearing legal repercussions under Georgia's restrictive laws, she delayed seeking medical help and subsequently died from her condition. Glamour
• Josseli Barnica (Texas, 2023): Josseli suffered a miscarriage but was denied necessary medical intervention due to Texas's strict abortion laws. Medical experts stated that she should have been offered procedures to empty her uterus, but the delay led to her death. Newsweek

These cases highlight the dire consequences of restrictive abortion laws, where women are denied essential medical care, leading to preventable deaths. The fear of legal repercussions has also caused delays in seeking treatment, exacerbating health risks. The erosion of women's reproductive rights under such policies underscores the urgent need for accessible and safe abortion services to protect women's health and lives.

Additionally, Trump’s current running mate, J.D. Vance has expressed equally troubling views on women’s rights and roles. Vance has dismissed women without children as “childless cat ladies,” a derogatory remark that invalidates women’s personal choices about family and career. His stance on reproductive rights is equally harsh; Vance has argued that abortion should not be available even to victims of rape, claiming that “two wrongs don’t make a right.” This rhetoric wrongly suggests moral fault on the woman’s part, placing her in a position of guilt despite the violence and trauma she has endured, while entirely sidestepping the accountability of the perpetrator.

In his approach to childcare, Vance promotes a vision where older family members, like grandparents, are expected to provide primary childcare. This stance assumes that grandparents should be held to a perpetual cycle of caregiving, disregarding their right to enjoy retirement or pursue personal goals. It burdens older adults with responsibilities for decisions made by others, often in a phase of life where they have already completed their roles as primary caregivers. This perspective further underscores the restrictive view of women’s roles within the family, as it often falls to grandmothers rather than grandfathers, reinforcing traditional gender expectations without addressing the broader societal need for accessible childcare solutions.

Together, Trump and Vance’s stances promote a retrograde vision of women’s roles and rights, seeking to curtail women’s autonomy and choices. Their platform not only impacts reproductive rights but also threatens progress in gender equality across healthcare, workplace rights, economic empowerment, and personal freedom. The erosion of women’s rights under this vision highlights a critical moment for advocates of gender equity. Preserving women’s rights to make decisions about their own bodies, families, and careers is essential to a society that values choice and freedom.

The Politics of Division

In recent years, certain political narratives have tapped into nostalgia for a past that is often romanticized as a “better time.” This rhetoric suggests a return to an idealized America—one without the challenges and complexities of today’s diverse, evolving society. But for the growing multicultural population in the United States, calls to “Make America Great Again” are deeply concerning. When people long for the “good old days,” it often implies a return to times when Black Americans, women, and other marginalized groups had fewer rights, resources, and opportunities.

The strategy behind this nostalgia-driven rhetoric is to stoke division, encouraging some groups to believe that their struggles stem from the advancements of others. This politics of division is often used to redirect attention away from systemic issues, placing blame on immigrants, racial minorities, or other groups. Such rhetoric does more than deepen social rifts; it signals a desire to uphold the status quo rather than address the needs and rights of America’s increasingly diverse population.

As the United States nears a demographic shift where non-Hispanic Whites are projected to become a minority by 2045, the desire to “return” to a past era is incompatible with the reality of a multicultural future. This mindset ignores the growing contributions and needs of Black, Latino, Asian, and other communities who are integral to America’s present and future.

To thrive, America must embrace this diversity, acknowledging that its strength lies in progress, inclusion, and equity—not in looking back. The politics of division and nostalgia for an exclusive past undermine the progress we have made and disregard the rich potential of the generations to come. For a truly great future, we must build a country where all people have the opportunity to succeed and are valued equally, regardless of their background.

A Call to Action

As we head into Election Day, each of us has the power to shape this vision of America. I encourage you to vote, uplift your communities, and support leaders who believe in equity and inclusion. This is our opportunity to build a legacy for ourselves and for future generations. As Michelle Obama said, “Do something.” So, this Election Day, I’ll be doing my part, heading to Wisconsin to knock on doors, uplift women’s leadership, and support the first woman to be elected President of the United States.?

Here’s how we can take action:

1. Educate and Engage – Understand the history of systemic racism and share it widely. Conversations about these uncomfortable truths are essential to driving change.
2. Support Fair Housing Policies – Advocate for housing reforms that address the racial disparities in homeownership and appraisals.
3. Elect Leaders Who Unite, Not Divide – Vote for leaders who seek solutions rather than scapegoats, and who promote unity across racial and economic lines.
4. Create Inclusive Spaces – Build communities where diversity is celebrated and where policies uplift marginalized groups instead of excluding them.
5. Invest in Future Generations – Support education, community development, and wealth-building initiatives that empower BIPOC communities.

We must decide what kind of legacy we want to leave behind. The question is no longer whether America can be great, but whether we are willing to challenge ourselves to build a future where greatness is measured by opportunity, justice, and unity. Let this election be a turning point — a moment when you and I made a conscious decision to? collectively choose to build a more inclusive America for ourselves and for the generations that will follow us.

Visual Capitalist