The problems of employment, dealing with the poor, and those wanting to promote their own leadership positions is a recurring theme in history. The following selection taken from the Britannica, may serve as an illustrative example because of the social-situational repetitions being played out within present contexts, and will be seen by some readers as being directly analogous:
The problem of labour in the New World
One of the greatest problems faced by settlers in the New World, particularly in the southern colonies, was the shortage of labour. Within a few decades after the settlement of Jamestown, planters had established indentured servitude as the main form of labour. Under this system, young men (and some women) worked for masters, to whom they were indebted for their transportation, normally for a period of four to seven years. They were paid no wages, received only minimal upkeep, and often were treated brutally.
By the mid-17th century a wealthy few had encumbered virtually all lands not under Indian control and were attempting to work these lands using indentured servants. The working poor and those eventually freed from servitude had little on which to survive, and their dissatisfaction with the iniquities of colonial society led to riots and numerous threats of revolt. After 1619 this group of poor servants included many Africans and their descendants, some of whom had experience in the Spanish and Portuguese colonies, where slave labour was widely used.
The social position of Africans in the early colonies has been a source of considerable debate. Some scholars have argued that they were separated from European servants and treated differently from the beginning. Later historians, however, have shown that there was no such uniformity in the treatment of Africans. Records indicate that many Africans and their descendants were set free after their periods of servitude. They were able to purchase land and even bought servants and slaves of their own. Some African men became wealthy tradesmen, craftsmen, or farmers, and their skills were widely recognized. They voted, appeared in courts, engaged in business and commercial dealings, and exercised all the civil rights of other free men. Some free Africans inter-married, and their children suffered little or no special discrimination. Other Africans were poor and lived with other poor men and women; blacks and whites worked together, drank together, ate together, played together, and frequently ran away together. Moreover, the poor of all colours protested together against the policies of the government (at least 25 percent of the rebels in Bacon's Rebellion  were blacks, both servants and freedmen). The social position of Africans and their descendants for the first six or seven decades of colonial history seems to have been open and fluid and not initially overcast with an ideology of inequality or inferiority.
Toward the end of the 17th century, labour from England began to diminish, and the colonies were faced with two major dilemmas. One was how to maintain control over the restless poor and the freedmen who seemed intent on the violent overthrow of the colony's leaders. There had been several incidents that threatened the leadership of the fragile colonies. The aforementioned rebellion led by Nathaniel Bacon in Virginia was a high point in the caustic relations between the planters and leaders of the colony and the impoverished workers. Although that rebellion failed, discontent continued to be expressed in riots, destruction of property, and other forms of social violence.
The second dilemma was how to obtain a controllable labour force as cheaply as possible. Tobacco was the chief source of wealth, and its production was labour-intensive. The colonial leaders found a solution to both problems: by the 1690s they had divided the restless poor into categories reflecting their origins, homogenizing all Europeans into a “white” category and instituting a system of permanent slavery for Africans, the most vulnerable members of the population.
Source: "Race." Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite,2013.
The eager attempts of Black Leaders to generate a following to promote a cause they know exceeds the grasp of those who betray their genuine longing for redemption of the scars weathered by the soul of the Black Community... and their honest desires to address sociological issues within the box of the current governing structure, is like being a perceived madman beating their head against a padded wall inside a regulated room that has originated the problem of an expressly desired, but inadequately defined freedom, needed liberty, and pursuit of happiness. As Einstein is mentioned to have quoted (with variations) the idea that we can not solve problems by using the same mind which created them; it acts as a precedent for us to reflectively recognize a new path of consideration to free us from those conservatives whose ideas foster a peripatetic (back and forth) sojourn [like a ball in a sports contest], instead of pursuing the "road not taken" without having to look back at a past with a self-defeating sentimentality.
The assigned interest in a "Tea Party" styled governing restoration articulates an approach centered around some assumed Constitution-engendered reformative inclination that has been lost because of an over-bearing government wrought by being too big. It rests on a perspective which wants to generate an accommodation to the ideal of an early Republicanism which promoted the idea that a limited government would serve the people, as a nation, in the best way. However, it is this truncated formula of governance defined as a democracy, which entitles a few to determine the course for the many, even though these few are generally elected in an atmosphere of the public having to choose between the lesser of two evils... but are in any case, not necessarily the best and the brightest... but electoral ballots do not provide the people with the selective option of choosing "none of the above", in order to be provided with a selection of better candidates. The Tea Party's formula of democracy is in fact a shallow representation of a possible depth awaiting to be explored in order to invigorate the imagination of the public into a new Renaissance of purpose, performance and possibility— as a promise to itself— by way of adopting a New Government... a Cenocracy.
In such a depth of examination, it is of need to address the long-standing issue of whether a Democracy is best if run by a collective -or- singular Majority or a collective -or- singular Minority voice. To such an end, let us provide a Britannica excerpt which takes up this discussion (with brief interejected comments in blue)... and please keep in mind the era in which the ideas were framed, and that the "Fore-Fathers" of the country's government are not gods whose ideas have to be worshipped:
Majority rule, minority rights, majority tyranny
The fear of “majority tyranny” was a common theme in the 17th century and later, even among those who were sympathetic to democracy. Given the opportunity, it was argued, a majority would surely trample on the fundamental rights of minorities. Property rights were perceived as particularly vulnerable, since presumably any majority of citizens with little or no property would be tempted to infringe the rights of the propertied minority. Such concerns were shared by Madison and other delegates at the Convention and strongly influenced the document they created.
(We don't actually ever "own" property... So called "Ownership" is a long-term leasing program... that acts as an extended formula of Socialism or Communism.)
Here too, however, Madison's views changed after reflection on and observation of the emerging American democracy. In a letter of 1833, he wrote, “[E]very friend to Republican government ought to raise his voice against the sweeping denunciation of majority governments as the most tyrannical and intolerable of all governments.... [N]o government of human device and human administration can be perfect; ... the abuses of all other governments have led to the preference of republican government as the best of all governments, because the least imperfect; [and] the vital principle of republican governments is the lex majoris partis, the will of the majority.”
(Again, this is an example of the "logic" for accepting the lesser of two... or more evils.)
The fear of factions was eased and finally abandoned after leaders in various democratic countries realized that they could create numerous barriers to unrestrained majority rule, none of which would be clearly inconsistent with basic democratic principles.
(The "not inconsistant with" perception used as an argument against providing Blacks their Rights equal to all others (such as Whites), is what caused Blacks to have to strive for more and more clearer definitions of rights that were being denied them. From the 13th, to 14th, to 15th Admendments, and then again by way of a Civil Rights Act... and now the need for a New Government to be formulated and adopted.
Thus, they could incorporate a bill of rights into the Constitution (see the English Bill of Rights and the United States Bill of Rights); require a supermajority of votes—such as two-thirds or three-fourths—for constitutional amendments and other important kinds of legislation; divide the executive, legislative, and judicial powers of government into separate branches (see separation of powers); give an independent judiciary the power to declare laws or policies unconstitutional and hence without force of law; adopt constitutional guarantees of significant autonomy for states, provinces, or regions (see federalism); provide by statute for the decentralization of government to territorial groups such as towns, counties, and cities; or adopt a system of proportional representation, under which the proportion of legislative seats awarded to a party is roughly the same as the proportion of votes cast for the party or its candidates. In such a multiparty system, cabinets are composed of representatives drawn from two or more parties, thus ensuring that minority interests retain a significant voice in government.
However, the problem with using various formulas of "separation" in and between government entities, is that the people themselves become excluded from having even a minority voice of opinion with respect to discussing and then voting on any and all issues the public deems pertinent. The collective Will of The People is being as a minority in the days of yore by having denied to them a means of direct government participation with its own "Peoples Legislative Branch" to act as a purposive addition to the Checks -and- Balances formula. The whole of the public is in fact being treated as a minority that has not significant voice in government, because of the obstructiveness the current model of governance has in permitting the people to have the government they see fit to collectively decide on by a Constitutionally guaranteed model of Referendum not yet in practice anywhere... the likes of which can be fully explicated in a Cenocratic film.
Although political theorists continue to disagree about the best means to effect majority rule in democratic systems, it seems evident that majorities cannot legitimately abridge the fundamental rights of citizens. Nor should minorities ever be entitled to prevent the enforcement of laws and policies designed to protect these fundamental rights. In short, because democracy is not only a political system of “rule by the people” but necessarily also a system of rights, a government that infringes these rights is to that extent undemocratic.
The problem with a "fundamental rights" definition is that it is is often elaborated as having the same thing everyone else does... and yet even the most basic of needs in our present age are not being addressed for everyone. For example, as noted elsewhere herein, when the people pay for basic entitlements that military personnel receive, and yet the people themselves are denied such... such a simple fundamental right of equality is not practiced. When the basic rights of the public are infringed on by such a government practice, dealing with the question of majority and minority dominance is placed into a role of absurdity until the question of fundamental rights are actually resolved and agreed on by the whole of the public... and not by some ridiculous nonsense of vicarious "Representation"... particularly when no such representation actually takes place.
Source: "Democracy." Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite, 2013.
Agreeably, the movie did point out that Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton and the NAACP are viewed by members in the Black Community as providing a disservice because they act as an oppressive leadership which binds the mentality of blacks to an antiquated age of mental disposition so as to perpetuate themselves in some assumed leadership role. In other words, their efforts are directed more towards self-preservation than improving conditions for Blacks. Talk is cheap and is cheapened more-so by not accomplishing anything unless it serves their own interests... like charities which start out doing a good deed, only to become institutions of self-representation because they are systems of fund generation. Charity is big business, just as is war and social strife being used by economic opportunists. While some Blacks are just discovering the hypocrisy of Jackson, Sharpton and the NAACP, it is a perspective already having been recognized by many non-blacks. Being part of the Black Community has its down-side because like so many efforts of total immersion, objectivity is often obscured by subjectivity. Whereas the nonsense practiced by whites is often readily seen by non-whites, so too is the nonsense exhibited by non-whites seen fairly easy by Whites. It's too bad all of humanity is not able to readily grasp its collectively practiced nonsense to create a better global society.
An example of reinventing oneself for the conditions of the present age, is to use the title of "Inter-national Association for the Advancement of All People" (IAAAP) so as not to perpetuate antiquated ideas attached to the perceptions which had developed the "NAACP" label by adopting the word "colored" as an embraced distinction to not be ashamed of, though it had been wielded as a notation of disparagement by non-blacks in a former age. Continued usage of the word "colored" is an orientation of a former racist consciousness being kept alive and defined by antiquated standards of individualized group comparisons... leaving less room for other distinctions of a more profitable character to be viewed. If so-called "colored" people are not willing to increase their perceptual view of the social landscape, their territorial mental boundary becomes relegated to those sharing a very limited world-view acknowledgment of a populace that can not realistically live within the confines of so small an area. Fortunately, not all Black and non-black peoples are this near-sighted, cross-eyed or cataracted. In addition, the usage of an image where scales are held in place by a book entitled "NAACP (founded 1909)" describes a balancing act determined by an ego-centrically defined book contents. It is as erroneous a balance as the "scales of justice" held in place by a blind-folded female holding a sword. Both metaphorized symbolisms are duplicitous and the tell-tale signs of a socially disabling mental illness that is pervasive with many in the human community.
Along with the above two images can be included the Jessie Jackson-derived "Rainbow Push" Organization's logo, which displays yet another formula of the "colored" idea, and leads some observers to suspect that there is a recurring obsession of some Blacks' preoccupation with themselves... with their "colored" kind; particularly when the so-called "color" variations are singularly limited in appearance at any rally, "convention" or get-together. As such, if the Black community actually came face to face with different colored humans (or sentient extra-terrestrial humanoids), they would be scared out of their wits and forced to re-think the ignorance they now display— but have had no incentive to look beyond their own "colored" spectrum. Imagine if a crystal prism only presented us with the spectrum of "color" seen through the eyes of these two organizations! Needless to say... but American Blacks might find a dominant society of green, or blue or purple people to be just as anti-"colored" as the dominant White society is... at least from their practiced perspective. The true ideological "color" of both the NAACP and the Rainbow Push, is not a very pretty one... of which many viewers concur.
The Runaway Slave Movie, aligned with some purposeful attempt to fuse Black self- interests with a socially exhibited political ideology in a gesture of enhancing self (black)-promotion by way of a symbiotic exercise; is little different than the stark evidence presented by the homosexual community with its self-absorptions, self-indulgences, self-interests, and other self-loving masturbatory intellectualisms... with its diminished inclinations towards helping the whole of the species, unless it is defined from some ego-centric vantage point of self-relativity of expected self-preferential "equality" treatment... of being able to exert their ideology as the mythology to be observed and honored in this day and age. In this line of thinking, the theory... as some claim is based on interpretations from personal experiences; not unlike the homosexual community using the word "homophobic" as an alternative weapon or shield with a mirrored surface when set against a defined snake-haired non-homosexual community— many Blacks like to use the negative stereotyping of their "Blackness" to badger, harasses, intimidate, cajole and brow beat their way to some assumed success, sex or simply making others be submissive to their self-absorptions. It is a type of self-love found in the absorptions of racial, gender and ethnic self-absorptions.
This "self-absorption" is found equally prevalent amongst those who view themselves, "their kind" as a chosen people of God. Feelings of inadequacy prompted by diminished self-esteem very often seeks out some sort of compensatory avenue of over-valuation. If one defines commonality as mediocrity and that it does not serve a longing for recognition because one feels stifled by routinization and expected compliant acceptance; an over-indulgence of one or another kind may take place as a means of attempting to force a wedge, a break, a change of direction... which very often relies on some oppositional stance regularly based on a dichotomy... or doing something opposite to a standard purview... such as homosexual activity, or pitting oneself against a perceived opposite such as white/black, democrat/republican, tea-totaller/alcoholism, law abiding/criminal, etc... Different people employ different logic, and a labeled "community" can be attributed with a singular perspective even if most members of a group are highly independent in their thinking. Let us look at three variations of logic involving religion, homosexuals and Blacks... keeping in mind these are general expressions though some readers may find them particularly insightful to their own feelings:
While some readers may agree with the above portrayals as representing some unassailable truth, others may be offended. And let us not overlook that any number of professions and occupations could likewise be included to define some perceived instance of hypocrisy for a given person in a given situation. Other readers will simply be amused and look upon them as cartoon strips which often reveal some measure of validity, but do not readily produce a large following of like-mindedness to create a revolt of condemnation... nor intent to correct social circumstances so that such events do not take place... instead of trying to force the public to see things in only one way by way of imposing how events are to be subjectively interpreted simply because a given community doesn't want its hypocrisies revealed... and recognition, much less articulation, must be oppressed at any cost.
Some people do not like to give any credit whatsoever to any Blacks, Homosexuals/Lesbians, or religious adherents... because in so doing this may then be perceived as an acceptance of a life style, culture or philosophy that, for the most part, is disagreed with... even if one's animosities are without actual merit. Very often, as when a citizenry speaks negatively about authority without being specific in order to avoid being accused of discrediting those or that which practiced a perceived wrong or general hypocrisy, the word "they" is employed. By using "they" or "them" or "it" in one's finger pointing, personalization with affection can be excluded in order to carry out acts which will not discomfort one's consciousness. Likewise, Calling a person a beast or animal permits one to exercise whatever cruelty and non-civility they can muster forth in removing a perceived threat. Yet, all in all, the cycle of differing hatreds continues and nothing is resolved.
From one century to the next we witness one culture talking disparagingly about another, whether or not relevant points are brought forth... and that one may speak of dreams, hopes and aspirations we can all identify with from our own vantage point... yet, the underlying conditions which help to promote the cyclic nature of the phenomena is not comprehensively addressed with any sincere intent or attempt to make corrective changes. Again, talk is cheap and cheapened by our insistence of bringing our points of observation to be discussed, only to have them discussed with the intent of dismissiveness because they are intended to resolve issues and not perpetuate dead-ended conversations which continue decade after decade, after decade by those using the same topics to posture their ego for the sake of some social leadership position designed by government statues to keep the same discussions going because it is self-serving. Resolving issues means to dispense with a form of governance that is out of step with the reality of human needs in an evolving age that the public is growing out of. So many Blacks, like so many Whites, Native Americans, Hispanics, Pacific Islanders, and Asians, don't want to participate in something that is focused on solving recurring human issues; they want simply to be in a lucrative position that enables them to participate in the maintenance of things as they are in order to be provided position-specific entitlements that few others have.
The Runaway Slave Movie, although providing insights into negative aspects of a practiced White dominant government-directed culture by way of an objectivity that escapes many non-blacks, it also shows us that the Black Community is alive and well in its interests of self-promotion portrayed with the illusion that their perspective is better for the Nation... though "Nation" is interpretively defined as the "Black Nation". With such an orientation, the perception of an underlying message in the movie suggests that America would be better off if all positions of employment... particularly leadership and authoritative roles that are presently occupied by non-Blacks, were substituted with Blacks... because we are all to assume that Blacks, if given the same advantages as non-blacks, would exhibit a far greater intelligence, wisdom, and insight... resulting in a world without the degree, depth and dimensional array of social problems that now plague humanity because it persists in holding onto antiquated governing practices.
The Tea Party wrongly interprets the idealization of an enhanced society by choosing an agenda which reeks of insecurity against allowing the Will of The People to collectively debate and decide on policies, regulations, and laws. Instead, it describes social problems as symptoms of a disease originating from the effects of a burdensome BIG GOVERNMENT... though this label is rarely explicitly defined. The Tea Party does not appreciate that a Democracy, by its very nature (if defined by the dictum "Of, By, For All The People"), is a HUGE GOVERNMENT because all of us are given the avowed, Constitutionally provided legal means to collectively direct the course of our own history as a Nation. As it stands, the Tea Party wants to preserve the right of a Few to dictate terms to the Many, by enforcing guarantees of limited citizenship participation through adopted principles which conserve a Constitution that prevents the collective Will of The People from directing the course of their own choosing; by diverting from a path of recurring economic disparity and desperation that the governing elite have chosen to follow— because of some gold-glittering mirage in the sands of a desolate governing one-eyed economic philosophy... steeped in the superstitions of a practicality that is anti-thetical to a desired cultural flourishing that can be embraced by all of humanity... but are fruits whose foliage is too vigorously trimmed by current governing systems controlled by self-centered interests.
Though it is without question that the government can and does do many wonderful things for millions of people, the fact remains that its current formula is not up to the task of dealing with issues that cause millions to suffer needlessly. It is particularly pathetic that the people are forced to pay for the entitlements of government workers that the public themselves can not share in... like the fruits of labor produced by those in the days leading up to the French Revolution; because the people were expected to maintain the lavish entitlements of the aristocracy that they themselves could not enjoy, since such entitlements were used as part of the definition of one's so-called "Betters".