By Nyan Reynolds

News Americas, NEW YORK, NY, Tues. June 23, 2026: There are chapters of American history that sit quietly in the shadows, not because they lacked importance, but because remembering them forces society to confront uncomfortable truths. One of those chapters is the story of the Deacons for Defense and Justice in Natchez, Mississippi, freedom fighters whose sacrifices have too often been omitted from the larger Civil Rights narrative.

Who among us has truly heard the story of the Deacons for Defense?

When most people hear the word “deacon,” they immediately associate it with the church, a quiet spiritual figure dressed in Sunday clothes, helping guide worshippers into the sanctuary of God. But long before the term became confined to the walls of the church in the minds of many Americans, there were deacons in places like Natchez, Mississippi, who represented something far greater in the struggle for survival. They were not simply leading people to pews; they were helping lead families through fear. They stood watch while crosses burned in the distance. They guarded homes while children slept. They protected meetings where Black citizens gathered to discuss whether they would live long enough to vote, organize, or demand equality.

These men understood something history often refuses to acknowledge faith alone did not stop bombs from exploding or mobs from gathering outside homes in the middle of the night. In many Southern communities, deacons became protectors of both spirit and body. They prayed with their communities, but they also defended them. Their role extended beyond religion into resistance, survival, discipline, and protection during one of the most dangerous periods in American history.

I must admit that until recently, I had never even heard of Natchez, Mississippi. It was only after watching a Frontline-produced documentary released several years ago that I became aware of the history that unfolded there. And perhaps that is part of the problem with history itself. We walk into bookstores every day, into places like Barnes & Noble, searching through shelves filled with historical texts, biographies, and stories of America, yet somehow places like Natchez rarely enter the conversation. Even for those of us who live in the South or in regions closely connected to that history, many of these stories have slowly faded from public consciousness.

And that is dangerous.

Because when history is omitted, people lose more than information; they lose connection. Entire struggles become invisible. Entire communities disappear from memory. The sacrifices of ordinary people become buried beneath simplified narratives that are easier to teach, easier to market, and easier for society to digest.

That is why this generation of conscious writers, historians, and storytellers carry such an important responsibility. We must learn these stories and tell them honestly, so they are not erased by time.

In places like New York City, the memory of Medgar Evers is honored with a school bearing his name. Americans remember him as a martyr for racial equality and justice after his assassination in 1963. Yet far fewer people know the story of his brother, Charles Evers, who became director of the NAACP field office in Natchez and helped organize Black communities living under the constant threat of racial terror.

Natchez was one of the most dangerous places in America for Black citizens during the Civil Rights era. It reportedly had one of the highest per capita concentrations of Ku Klux Klan membership in the country. Racial violence was not occasional; it was systemic. Black families were harassed, followed, photographed, threatened, and bombed. The Klan attended meetings to intimidate local citizens. Crosses burned not merely as symbols, but as warnings. Churches and homes became targets. Men, women, and children lived with the understanding that their lives could be destroyed simply for demanding basic human dignity.

History is ugly. It is painful. But if historians are willing to expose atrocities committed across the world, then we must also preserve the sovereignty of our own past so future generations understand the magnitude of what people endured for freedoms many now take for granted. To soften the brutality of history is to erase the courage of those who survived it.

The story of the Deacons for Defense challenges the popular perception that the Civil Rights Movement was fought solely through passive resistance. While organizations like the NAACP petitioned for desegregation through legal avenues, communities in Natchez faced an enemy unwilling to surrender white supremacy peacefully. The Klan viewed Black advancement as a threat to the racial order they sought to preserve. Ironically, although the Klan was often the aggressor, they framed themselves as defenders of Southern tradition while terrorizing innocent citizens.

That is one of the greatest problems with history: whoever controls the narrative often controls memory itself.

Figures like James Jackson became central to protecting Black communities because survival itself required organization, discipline, and courage. The Deacons for Defense did not emerge from hatred; they emerged from necessity. They understood that in many Southern towns, local law enforcement either ignored racial violence or actively participated in it. In such an environment, self-defense became intertwined with survival.

The reality is difficult for many Americans to confront because it complicates the sanitized version of history often taught in classrooms. The movement for civil rights was not merely speeches and marches. It was fear. It was bloodshed. It was families sleeping with weapons nearby because they did not know whether their homes would still be standing by morning.

Even today, remnants of that trauma remain embedded in the psychology of Black America. There are older generations of Black citizens who still fear police dogs or instinctively move away from barking dogs in public spaces. Those fears did not emerge from imagination. In places like Natchez and throughout the South, dogs were weaponized to instill terror into the hearts of protesters, organizers, and ordinary citizens fighting simply to exist as equals under the law.

So why are these stories not told more often? Why are the Deacons for Defense treated as a footnote rather than a critical part of American history?

Perhaps because their story forces America to confront the reality that freedom was not handed to Black Americans through goodwill alone. It was fought for economically, politically, spiritually, legally, and sometimes physically.

The citizens of Natchez used multiple methods to force change. They organized boycotts against white-owned businesses, understanding that economics could pressure institutions where morality had failed. When business owners began feeling financial losses, many were eventually forced to reconsider their opposition to civil rights reforms. Economic resistance became a powerful weapon against segregation.

Schools slowly became integrated. Public spaces gradually changed. Progress came, but it came on the backs of people who endured unimaginable suffering. Every gain carried the weight of sacrifice.

The men of the Deacons for Defense were more than historical figures hidden in archives or documentaries. They were defenders. They were protectors of families, communities, dignity, and hope during one of the darkest periods in American history. They were fathers, veterans, laborers, ministers, and ordinary citizens who decided their families deserved protection. Their existence reveals something profound about the American struggle for democracy: oppressed people are often forced to defend freedoms long before society is willing to acknowledge they deserve them.

And that is why these stories matter. American history cannot simply celebrate victories while ignoring the cost of achieving them. The truth about Natchez, Mississippi, and the Deacons for Defense is not comfortable, but history was never meant to comfort us. It was meant to teach us.

And if we fail to tell these stories honestly, future generations may inherit the freedoms won by these men and women without ever understanding the terror they endured to make those freedoms possible.

The defenders of Natchez were amazing human beings who did amazing things in the face of unimaginable fear. They stood between terror and their communities when many institutions refused to do so. Their sacrifices deserve more than a passing mention in documentaries or forgotten footnotes buried within textbooks. They deserve remembrance.

And perhaps remembrance itself is one of the greatest forms of justice we can still offer them today.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Nyan Reynolds is a U.S. Army veteran and published author whose novels and cultural works draw from his Jamaican heritage, military service, and life experiences. His writing blends storytelling, resilience, and heritage to inspire readers.  

RELATED:

The Brown Paper Bag Rule: The Segregation We Don’t Talk About

The British Empire They Carried: The Fractured Identity Of Britain’s Caribbean Generation

By Dr. Isaac Newton 

News Americas, NEW YORK, NY, Mon. June 22, 2026: Every generation is confronted by a question that reveals what kind of nation it wishes to become. Antigua and Barbuda’s government now faces one of those questions. Prime Minister Gaston Browne has proposed a windfall tax on exceptionally profitable companies to help fund national development initiatives, including higher education. The debate, however, is not really a question of taxation. The real issue is whether extraordinary wealth created within a society should help create greater opportunities for the people of that society. Before citizens decide whether to support or oppose the proposal, they must first understand what a windfall tax actually is.

Antigua PM Gaston Browne

A windfall tax is an additional tax imposed on profits that are considered unusually high or unexpected. Imagine two farmers. One farmer increases his harvest because he invested in better equipment, worked longer hours, and improved his techniques. The other farmer receives an unusually large harvest because perfect weather conditions produce an exceptional crop. Most people would agree that the first farmer’s success comes primarily from his effort. The second farmer’s success comes partly from circumstances beyond his control. A windfall tax is based on the belief that when companies earn extraordinary profits because of favorable conditions, market advantages, or unusual circumstances, a portion of those gains can be used to advance the public good. The principle is simple. When fortune smiles unusually on a few, society may reasonably ask whether some of that blessing should help the many.

The strongest argument in favor of a windfall tax is fairness. Antigua and Barbuda must continuously invest in education, healthcare, infrastructure, and youth development. These investments require resources. If a nation can raise revenue from exceptionally profitable companies instead of increasing the burden on ordinary workers and struggling families, many citizens see that as fair. Consider a simple example. Suppose a bank earns profits far above its historical average during a particular period. Citizens may reasonably ask whether a small portion of those exceptional profits could help finance scholarships for hundreds of young people who otherwise could not afford higher education. This is where the windfall tax gains its moral force. It attempts to convert concentrated prosperity into shared opportunity. As a nation, we must always remember that wealth has its greatest value when it expands possibilities for others.

Yet fairness is only one part of the story. A wise policy must also pass the test of sustainability. Imagine a family that receives a large inheritance one year. It would be unwise for that family to assume the same inheritance will arrive every year thereafter. Windfall profits are, by definition, exceptional. They may appear one year and disappear the next. If permanent programs become dependent on temporary revenue, future governments may find themselves facing difficult financial choices. This is why economists often warn that unpredictable income should not be treated as permanent income. Revenue may come and go, but obligations remain. The challenge is not collecting the money. The challenge is building a system that remains strong long after the windfall has passed.

The second concern involves investment and economic confidence. Businesses generally do not fear taxes as much as they fear uncertainty. Investors want to know the rules before they commit their capital. If the definition of a windfall is unclear, companies may wonder whether future success will be rewarded or penalized. That uncertainty can discourage investment, expansion, and job creation. This does not mean a windfall tax is inherently wrong. It means the rules must be transparent, objective, and consistently applied. Citizens should evaluate the proposal using four simple questions. Is it fair? Is it transparent? Will it encourage or discourage investment? Will the money be used in a way that produces measurable benefits for future generations? Public policy should never be judged by intentions alone. It must be judged by results.

The better way forward is not to choose between taxation and development. It is to connect them intelligently. A carefully designed excess profits tax could be used during periods of extraordinary profitability, but a significant portion of the revenue should be placed into a protected national education endowment whose investment earnings support future generations. At the same time, tax administration should be strengthened, private sector partnerships expanded, and universities encouraged to develop additional sources of funding. Such an approach transforms temporary gains into permanent opportunity. Ultimately, the debate before Antigua and Barbuda is larger than a tax. It is a question of national vision. The measure of a society is not how much wealth it creates, but what it chooses to do with that wealth. Great nations are not built when money changes hands. Great nations are built when prosperity is transformed into possibility, and possibility is transformed into progress.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Dr. Isaac Newton is a leadership strategist and governance expert specializing in ethical leadership, institutional reform, and transformational change. Educated at Harvard, Princeton, Columbia, and Oakwood University, he advises governments, boards, and institutions across the Caribbean and internationally. He is the co author of Steps to Good Governance and coauthor of the forthcoming books Daring to Hope and When Nations Kneel.

RELATED:

Father’s Day – A FATHER’S FOOTSTEPS IN ROOMS HE WILL NEVER ENTER

What Makes A Caribbean Teacher Unforgettable