MLK jr was born January 15th 1929 on a tuesday but the celebration is on the third  monday of janaury by the uniform monday holiday act [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Monday_Holiday_Act ] 
His actual birthday is the fifteenth of january but the federal holiday is in a monday for three day weekends, like others. It is celebrated on the third monday in the month of january in every year since its inception in the Statian Empire. I ask you to share , historical fictions/prose/graphical artwork in any style concerning MArtin Luther King jr....I do wonder why Blacks in the U.S.A. can not come together and demand a true day off for this federal notice. And also share, officials days in a country outside the usa for a black person in history?  
In Amendment  
Why the holiday is on his the third monday and not his true birthday?  
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Monday_Holiday_Act  
MLK jr's views on Financial Accountability  
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnKP__N7MNI 
 MY 2020 speech  
https://aalbc.com/tc/blogs/entry/194-richard-murray-creative-table/page/7/?tab=comments#comment-820  
MLK jr on Movies that Move We 
[ https://aalbc.com/tc/profile/6477-richardmurray/?status=1785&type=status ]
 
ON FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

 
MY PROSE
 
MLK jr day 1/20/2020
 
Many presented videos or text concerning M.L.K. junior today, the twentieth of January. As a point of note, Martin Luther King junior's birthday is on the fifteenth of January, not the third Monday of every January. I am not interested in trying to rewrite the legend of MLK junior. MLK junior like most other historical figures in the USA was made legend after doing legendary things by others, not themselves, by those with agenda. It is more important to change the message in current media than to try to change the influence of past media using current media.   
My issue is ownership. Martin Luther King junior, asked a simple thing to the black statian, the black community in the USA. Do not use the ways of whites on the path to ownership. It may sound simple but, it is not, historically the ways of whites have never been undone concerning ownership.  
Comprehend a simple historical fact. People of white European, white is a phenotypical label while European is a geographic, descent are not the majority owners in the united states of america based on positive merit, or decency, or any positive angle. Every inch of land in the u.s.a. today is owned or controlled by the u.s.a. government, itself ranked mostly with whites, or in private white ownership, through various transfers after it was originally taken by killing native americans. Absent land how many firms will exist in the USA? What will the banks or the agricultural firms be in the u.s.a absent slavery? For all the technological modifications by usa based agricultural firms or investments in Silicon Valley in the stock markets, where will any bank or agricultural firm be in the usa without their original fiscal activities involving slaveholders accounts or slave labor for growing produce. Notice I did not refer to an individual person. I am speaking to the white community. The white community in the usa used negative means to become owners and then become financially successful owners.  
Martin Luther King junior spoke to Black people, grow, be strong, become owners of your own community and beyond; but don't kill another for their land, don't take another person's land, don't enslave another, do not do for yourself, your bloodline, your community by harming others. This is the reality of ownership in the u.s.a. White people help themselves, their community, built on their forebears originally harming others or themselves continuing to harm others. 
Martin Luther King Junior did not want black people to develop a negative character, a negative legacy, to be unmerited while trying to help their own. He asked a very challenging thing. Martin Luther King junior once said, it is a crude jest to tell a bootless man to lift himself up by his bootstraps. But he also felt the bootless man should not lessen his character by stealing another man's boots. He felt the bootless man should be strong enough to merit his boots through craft, labor, or another's kindness. As a black kid growing up, in a black community, incorrectly labeled but widely labeled, the black mecca, I realized how little the black community in Harlem owned. And in parallel, I knew how much various white communities in New york city owned, more importantly how they owned them. What would the Irish or Italian or white Jewish communities be in new york city absent their mobs, correctly glorified in constant movies. It was the white jewish, italian or irish mobs, the gangsters, the rum runners, the extortionists, the thieves, that had a largest or initial role in the development of ownership in those communities in New York city.  
I end, with a simple truth, the Black community in Harlem, a cultural district in Manhattan in new york city in new york state, in the united states of america, owns little to nothing in Harlem, yesterday or today. The history of the u.s.a. proves all ownership in the u.s.a. comes from those who were willing to negatively, or through negative actions, earn it. MLK junior asked black people to reject that historical truth, even when we own so little.  
If the Black statian can keep that hope of MLK jr. alive and one day exist in a u.s.a. where Black people own more than all others, or at least enough to not need another community. It will be a testament to MLK junior’s faith. And make the Black community have a pride, worth more than all the years whites owned far more. 
https://youtu.be/RnKP__N7MNI 
 Poetry or more audiobook series https://www.kobo.com/us/en/search?query=Poetry or More&fcsearchfield=Series&seriesId=06baba96-5af5-5d24-9b8a-f06360287dc9
 
MLK jr on Movies that Move We 
 
Movies that Move WE- Selma 

 
 
MY COMMENT
odd that this year, MLK jr day is the same time as Marcus Garvey's birthday.. I think the contrast between marcus garvey's long term vision as opposed to the long term vision of MLKjr or his predecessors, WEB DUbois when young or earlier Frederick DOuglass , concerning the relationship of blacks in the americas americas  to whites  in the americas.
Now to the video...
6:40 yes, MLK jr was not a fool about being an advocate . He knew it wasn't financially grand nor had a great chance of true success. But, the identity of a christian baptist preacher was important to regaling. 
8:04 yes, black businesses had a huge role in financing the civil rights movement of the 1960s, I wonder if they got their money's worth
9:01 black christian women have always been the backbone or the administration or communal arrangement of the black church.
9:32 My home had people who were at the march on washington. I concur to Nicole, having people who were in the home who experienced the history is key, but only truly matters if they convey it
11:10 yes Nicole , the disconnect is the communities fault. Every community in the usa, from the embattled native american to the afghanistani's from the iraq war have to teach who they are to their children and all who fail to get the proper results
14:14 good point, Nike, the illusion that the past is so far from the present. Like the racial is so far from the post racial
15:35 good dialog, Nicole/Nike about the progression of black history in the usa and how the black community has changed very fast while also very irratically for various reasons
16:47 You two offer the question many have asked before and many will ask after... how did the black community not maintain a highly serious collective tone from circa 1850 to circa 2022 ? 
19:47 Nicole, urgency from whom? How many black people, who are in elected office, are millionaires, feel the sense for urgency seriously? they all will say urgency is needed. but, how many truly feel that?
26:41 MLK jr is a legendary speaker, funny how Malcolm is also the son of a preacher man 
27:55 the last speech from mlk jr in harlem was at the riverside church, which has the largest carillon in the world
https://www.democracynow.org/2022/1/17/mlk_day_special_2022#:~:text=We play his “Beyond Vietnam” speech%2C which he,Copy may not be in its final form. 
where do we go from here
https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/where-do-we-go-here
29:35 yes, but history books in mass education generally soften history. Histories details are by default, not a quick thing. Histories details, show how jews helped the naziz. How hong kong was the epicenter of domination by the united kingdom over the entirety of china. Histories details, show the good or supposed innocent are not that good or innocent, how the bad or supposed hellish are not that sinful or devious.
In conclusion, you two made a lovely dialog, but I will suggest you made one potent absence. All to often, black people say, what are we not doing? but answer in your own way, what do we need to do?
I know a number of black men who went to the million man march and the reality is, black men showed up to what the black organizers had planned, but the black organizers had no plan whatsoever? Black men came from around the usa to be guided with functionality or purpose not words or chastizement.
I will give an example, if a million black men came together, and asked me what to do. I can suggest, make a credit union. Each man who is here put a dollar into a collection and give each man a vote over how the money is used. Is it a brilliant plan? no. It is very simple. but it is function/purpose. It isn't a "do good fellas" speech.
What do you two black women want black people to do specifically, name one thing?   
A last point, Haile Sellasie offered land before his ousting by the communist party of ethiopia , only a third of it was given by the communist government of ethiopia , but it went to rastafarians, who grabbed the opportunity. I am doing research to see how the black people of HArlem Selassie had originally offered the land did not know, reject it or failed interest while black people from jamaica jumped on it. The town is called Shashamane. 

 
1/15/2026
 
 hmmm
@Pioneer1
first thank you for stating where you think he went wrong. of the three comments your the only one which means 33% I ponder how many black people are unwilling to question the likes of mlk jr in 2026 ? I have no way of getting a statistic but by this simple post the potential is frightening. 
I know I haven't spoken on your judgment but it's funny in this community we can bicker with each other so easily and then some of us in here can't speak a judgement against dead leaders. It is a revealing balance. 
Now you said you loved MLK jr so your critiques are not condemnations. Just assessments all should have in the future to any past. 
 
now to your critiques, 
Well what leaders talked before mlkjr talked about empowered separation? they were the exodusters[based on collective land ownership to make base black towns first, not black people owning land in white towns]+ the garveyites[based on business ownership initially, then geographic distance{far east asia is the farthest from western europe so the garveyites had a point about distance}]+booker t washington[black colleges which were extensions of the black education movement immediately started at the end of the war between the states]
MLK jr was born in 1929. By 1929 all the strongest empowered separation movements in the black populace had lost much of their momentum. None died, arguably none are dead, but their momentum wasn't what it was in the late 1800s. 
So MLK jr didn't have a reference growing up of empowered separation. The only reference he had was integration in various forms. From atlanta, to morehouse, to the greater georgia integration was the system about him. 
Could he had focused on empowered separation ? 100% yes. Would it been a bad choice? no idea, but it could had succeeded. Was an example around to compel him? no. He needed a successful example. MLK jr like most leaders is thoughtful. The reason something isn't present isn't because it can't work but because it will take more time or more effort to do.  
 
The usa government has a very big problem in terms of federal application, in equal access and opportunity. The power of states rights. It is the year 2026 and Schrumpt is the first president after circa two hundred and fifty years to try and actually impose the federal government on the states with the resources to actually do something.  Not merely cause of federal power but states in the usa are lower than they are ever been, all are welfare recipients. the original idea was states would never need the federal government. Andrew jackson, Abraham Lincoln, even FDR for all of their fervor, didn't have the means to actually make a federal imposition on the states like Schrumpft today. What does this mean? states got away with a lot of federal crimes within themselves, because the constitution clearly gives states freedom to be themselves and forces citizens to take a state to court for changes.  This is why white people burned black people out of the south, because by deleting our voting power, it meant we couldn't use the vote to change the states, we could only use the legal system which is very slow compared to a state wide elections. The constitution is clear, states are not to be ruled by the federal government, which means what. If you are black in mississippi, and white people have raped your wife, burned your children, put your elders in jail without due process or with laws that are uneven in design. If all the actions are finalized within the legal designs of the state of mississippi, you can only take missisppi to court over each action toward the supreme court. That is the only nonviolent solution in the usa for any person from a populace with a minority in a state. The black populace in misssisippi doesn't have the numbers to push people into government and get laws to support it by MLK jr's time. MLK jr was a pastor, third generation, of a black church. No black christian congregation in the 1900s would accept preaching about collective violence. Protecting oneself? 100% but being in a violent mob? no. 
So what your suggesting was doable by him, but he would had to stop being a preacher to do that. Because nonviolence in the usa means taking whomever your suing to the supreme court,a very lengthy process , one that is not guaranteed to get to the surpreme court, and one most importantly, that doesn't necessarily stop the person/entity being sued from continuing their actions. While the said black man in mississippi is suing, white people are harassing or worse constantly. 
Your top down is doable, but It isn't impossible. The NAACP was full of lawyers for that reason; their strategy was take every federal crime at the state levels to the supreme court. But so many crimes at the state level occurred. The volume was i argue insurmountable. 
 
MLK jr didn't spend enough time on the heritage/what is carried + culture/what is grown of DOSers. He clearly comprehended the importance, ala his plea to Nichelle Nichols. 
As an aside , I ponder your thoughts on the larger black church? from circa 1865 to 1965 arguably, the black churches in the usa, all denominations combined, are the center of black life. What hindered the churches from focusing on heritage+ culture? Chruches financed lawyers, got food together, helped make shelter, churches did many things, communally, but when it came to emboldening DOS heritage + culture they didn't do much. They didn't even make a book of negro spirituals standard in every black christians pocket. Cause, the negro spirituals is the earliest and purest black DOS christian liturgy or public work. Before black descended of enslaved christians had the bible they had negro spirituals.  Great point here. 
Your second part slightly answers the last segment of the first. I argue that MLK jr and others , many others, wanted the culturee of the black descended of enslaved populace to be as shepards to a better usa for all peoples, this goes back to frederick douglass and the 1800s black church. they knew the heritage was of a people who survived white terror but I think their culture was as a people who made the integrated future nonviolently. and thus by 2026 would become the heritage. Which arguably it has. IF you look at media, most non blacks in the usa view black people as the integrators in the usa. More than anyone else. 
They made that choice. And it even has precedent. Remember, the first three black tribes when the usa was founded were: the enslaved black folks who are chained while whites in the usa are gaining freedom circa 85%,the black freemen who are trying to stop the usa, with the promise of freedom, which oddly enough, most of them get even though england lost circa 10%, and then the black separatist, fighting alongside whites who publicly supported black enslavement to whites, who would circa 90% be reenslaved at the end of the war. The black separatist were circa 5% of the percent of black folk. 
So the black folk who fought for the usa to be born circa july 4th is the historical precedent for the pan human rights fighting of the 1960s. Arguably, the black freemen have always existed, whether called black loyalist who also fought in the war of 1812 or black legions fighting in french colors in the commonly called world war one,  but during after the commonly called world war 2, that for black alone became very small as a movement in the usa. 
 
01/16/2026
citation
https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/12293-mlk-jr-day-is-on-the-19th-in-2026/#findComment-79387
 
@aka Contrarian
MLK jr was a leader, not the leader of the civil rights movement. First the movement against Jim Crow started before MLK jr was born, and ended after MLK jr died so MLK jr was a leader, as much of a leader as Fannie Lou Hamer, or Frederick Douglass or Fred Hampton. Fred Hampton made the framework the entire donkey party mimicked.  Madame CJ Walker and her daughter I argue were the two biggest civil rights leaders , with only the black hotel owner who financed MLK jr as their peer financially, cause those three people positively influenced alot of black people in ways very few other black people had or will, take out marcus garvey and the garveyite movement, because they had money. 
My question is why do black people say MLK jr was THE leader of the movement against Jim Crow when all black people should know he wasn't. 
 
  16 hours ago, aka Contrarian said:
MLK didn't ask to be the leader of the Civil Rights movement.
No he didn't ask to be THE leader, but he wanted to be AN advocate for Black people and he was ... What your talking about is the difference between one's media role and one's true role. 
MLK jr was like MAlcolm like Stokely like Angela Davis, A leader. None of them were THE leader. 
Now in Media , which I Argue is the problem, MLK jr was posited in white owned media as THE Leader. And the Black Church at that time, who again, needs to be called out, pushed MLK jr in their aisles because he wasn't an areligious student: stokely, he didn't hold a gun : panthers, he wasn't a non christian: malcolm, he wasn't a non college educated woman: fanni lou hamer. So Balck churches did emphasize MLK jr to their forever dishonor for their own media agenda of attracting black people to the black christian church. 
  16 hours ago, aka Contrarian said:
It was a responsibility thrust upon him because he was so good at articulating grievances. It was like, he woke up one morning during the Montgomery bus boycott and all of sudden he was its leader!
no whites did that. Whites in media did that. The black church did that. They both whites + the black church saw in MLKjr everything they wanted in black leadership. 
And the proof he wasn't THE leader is he was never head of the southern black leadership conference. why does that matter? that post would had been better for him. But he was used as the media front man, as a leader.
  16 hours ago, aka Contrarian said:
He did not have time to map out a precise strategy or a long range grand plan, he and his cobbleled-together posse just kinda made it up as they went along, with Mahatma Gandhi's nonviolent philosophy as their inspiration.
But he wasn't alone, the way your describing this history is for me very false. If a black child reads your words, they will think MLK jr was walking around alone doing everything. That is a lie. Others made plans like Ruffin. The truth is Ruffin was always about integration because Ruffin was , like FRederick Douglass before him, viewing black empowerment as part of human empowerment. Ruffin was a faggot who knew very well most black people in the 1950s 1960s wouldn't accept his true self in public, even though they talk of rights, they woudl want to curtail his rights, same thing with frederick douglass who had a white mistress. both of them had lives that denied black in various ways and so they wanted black empowerment but they wanted black empowerment within a greater human allowance in the usa. 
 
  16 hours ago, aka Contrarian said:
The idea of making a lot of long-range, multi-faceted demands was out of the question at that time. The movement just focused mainly on equal opportunities, and King endeavored to appeal to the conscience of his oppressors.
This is not true. Your forgetting the movement was not in a vaccuum. The movement against Jim Crow which was from 1865 to 1980 , was being fought by black people absent weapons or an allowance of weapons aside whites with all the power. So, black people had to make everything as an arrangement with white desires and multifaceted demands were never going to happen in one whole phase with white people. 
For example, white people knew other whites would terrorize black people in the former confederacy but that terror led to a falsely incarcerated black populace rebuilding the south and kickstarting a financial boom for white people that kept down white on white violence. White people knew other white  people were terrorizing black people in the west, the exodusters, but white people needed that land for new white immigrants to increase the domestic market and didn't trust black people's position toward native americans, whom white immigrants killed in the bulkload. It is known Frederick Douglass  pushed black people on the underground railroad to not go to canada, which was best for those black people. But why? because douglass wanted black people in the usa to be tied to this country, he hated the idea of black people leaving the usa. So black people were definitely multifaceted, but white people only allowed simple wins. 
 
  16 hours ago, aka Contrarian said:
Integration was a counter to the separate but equal policy that was nothing more than subtle Jim Crowism. Integration represented fellowship and harmony where little black boys and girls would join hands with their white counterparts and partake of equality through tolerance. It was a dream; hence King's "I have a dream" speech. 
In retrospect , cheap , very cheap retrospect, years ago , which I talked about in this very forum, I oppose how people speak of integration in the usa. The people in the USA from 1492 to 2026 has always been integrated, never separated. Jim Crow is a form of integration. Did Black people work for non blacks? yes. Did black people buy from non blacks? yes. did non blacks buy goods from blacks? yes. Did blacks and non blacks have two separate theaters ? no, black people had to go to the theater white people owned. Did blacks and non blacks have two separate bus lines? no, black people had to use the bus line white people owned. Black people use the word segregated when they work for whites, live in a mostly white town, use a white owned bus, buy from white stores who are the only stores in town. Most  Black people in the usa live a totally integrated life with whites from 1865 to modernity, but it is rarely an even life an equal life. The truth is the USA problem was never separate but equal, ask the native american. The USA's problem was equal but uneven. Everybody is human in the usa, from the european colonial phase to 2026, but the opportunities, rights, armed power,  were never even or equal. The USA was never in majority application segregatory. Jim Crow was a form of integration. Enslavement before Jim Crow was a form of integration. The white massa in the house is not segregated from blacks pre 1865. Who cleaned massa's clothes? blacks . whose labor did massa profit off of? blacks. Who did massa fuck without payment? blacks. who cooked massa's meals? blacks. who cleaned massa's house? blacks. who played music and entertained massa or his guest? blacks. Massa say's he segregated from blacks while blacks are apart of every second of massa's life, that is not segregation. That is integration. Inequal, uneven? 100% but it is 100% integration. 
Integration isn't a dream. The form of integration MLK jr championed in speeches, or somewhat in appearance in fiction is star trek, is the hardest form of integration to acquire. Because that form of integration requires each individual to relinquish all biases, positive or negative, and that isn't easy. 
 
  16 hours ago, aka Contrarian said:
In hindsight, it's easy to criticize him for not embracing the militancy of those like Malcom X and the Black Panthers. But MLK was a man of his times and he was just beginning to re-think his goals when he was assassinated.
Many think his taking a stance against the Vietnam war was a mistake but his doing so was in keeping with his pacifism.   
yes, hindsight is always cheap because one in a future can never know what they will do in the past. 
But, hindsight isn't unwarranted. We all make mistakes. It is interesting you suggest a negative judgement from MLKjr for not being militant. Though , again I don't think MAlcolm or the Black PAnthers were ever truly militant. They weren't warlike. MAlcolm + the Panthers were demanding self defense over the court room. That isn't militancy, that is looking at all the black people who have been murdered by whites who flouted the law in the usa or the european colonies that preceded it. The law didn't and doesn't protect black people from white violence. has it? If a group of whites are hunting me, how can I protect myself? quote the constitution or the declaration of independence? how can nonviolence save a black life? Has nonviolence ever saved one black life? did it save emmitt till? sean bell? The brother chocked to death in NYC, I can't breath? the brother int he train a white man chocked to death? Did SOnya MAssey get saved by non violence? Did yusef hawkins get saved by non violence? Did breonna taylor get saved by non violence? Did clifford glover get saved by nonviolence? 
Malcolm + The Black Panthers were not telling black people to have a combined armed revolt. Stokely either. Did fred hampton get saved by non violence? 
Why do some black people think, when another black person says, have a gun for these whites, that infers some sort of plan to kill all the whites? 
Is it some desire by some blacks to deny their own true hatred of whites while condemning other black people for simply being honest about the black condition in the usa? 
As james baldwin said, his father worked for whites his whole life, was a christian man, and hated whites more than anyone. prayed to go to heaven to be free of whites. Heaven don't have to be happy. 
 
The funny thing about MLKjr's stance is nearly all black leaders in his time were against the Vietnam war. Poor Sammy is a complicated thing. 
Malcolm/Martin/Stokely/The Panthers/Muhammed Ali... name me five Black leaders in the usa during MLK jr's time who were for the vietnam war? White people in majority, thank you Ken Burns in PBS for the proof, were in majority for the vietnam war. The vietnam war made billions per year. So MLK jr being against the  Vietnam war was a mistake in that the white people who placed him in an elevated media position in white media, not equal to his functional position in the anti jim crow movement, were publicly for the war or profiting off the war.  
 
  16 hours ago, aka Contrarian said:
A cigarette-smoking, scotch- drinking, womanizing King was not perfect, but he fought the good fight, and paved the way for those who eventually came to criticize him for not having more foresight. 
I lived through King's era, and to me and my contemporaries, he was a real live hero who died a martyr. 
My parents and a number of my blood relatives who i was able to learn of their experiences during  Kings life, older than king or younger than king, all spoke positively of him. None of them suggested any falsehood, but each was able to admit problems. As well as admit a more honest environment than you suggest. 
And I oppose the notion of MLK jr as a womanizer. Yes, I speak now as a heterosexual male. Yes, MLK jr like all heterosexual men gets a hard on for more than just the woman he loves with his heart. yes.  A man doesn't love a woman less because his dick gets hard for a woman not his wife. Womanizer. MLK jr loved coretta scott king with his heart. And it isn't a knock on coretta scott king that another black woman just might have a sexier ass than hers. 
And as for cigarette smoking or drinking alcohol, this was what nearly all adults did at that time , why is that a negative on MLK jr? 
 
AKA Contrarian, if you have reached this far, .. MLK jr was a great black leader, who was human and made mistakes, which we in the future should be able to admit to so that we can do better. But, MLKjr  was never the leader of the anti jim crow movement, he was one of many great black people who made intricate plans, but had to deal with white power which limited all results. 
 
@Pioneer1 
just from a labeling perspective, this goes back to my issue with people using the term communism. I said it already, but communism is a form of fiscal capitalism. 
Communism isn't a form of socialism because of one party of governance under a government plus a government having a larger role as a fiscal operator. Communism is merely fiscal capitalism with one party having overwhelming majority and the government taking 80% or more of the fiscal operation. The usa in its very history had one party at one time, the federalist.  Now the usa originally had a very financially impotent federal government who had very little of the fiscal operation , but the federal government of the usa today is without question the biggest fiscal operator in the usa, so barring two parties whose dysfunction makes them one plus the financial role of the federal government of the usa today? is not the usa communist? 
 
It is like I say with Troy
race/class/rank/order/classification/species/clan all have the same basic definition. Some arrangement of things  based on a factor. 
When black people or non blacks say, race doesn't exist? how? do humans being not look different? do human beings not have clan names? do human beings not call themselves by a religious label? race is ever present. Does this mean a consensus exist on race? no. 
No consensus exist on race. Yes, you will never get consensus on race, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. When you call yourself human, that is racist? 
And as always , for some reason, many humans hate the term bias. They love talking falsely on race and never like to use the word bias correctly, cause most instances of race is really bias. 
And that goes back to integration in the usa. White negative bias towards blacks mixed with white power means black people lived and most still live integrated while totally unequal or  uneven to whites based on white negative bias. 
 
It is 2026. we have to stop using words falsely. 
Race is real, race will never have a consensus of definition, nor should it, but it is real, and comes in more forms than just phenotype.
Fiscal capitalism has been the system throughout all humanity  , yes in variations with elements of other ideas but always fiscal capitalsm at heart.
The anti jim crow movement, was never led by one black leader because it lasted from 1865 to 1980, the entirety of the jim crow era which came after the era of slavery from 1492 to 1865 and was followed by the era of the rainbow coalition from 1980 to today. But slavery, jim crow, and the rainbow coalition eras are all forms of integration, with the levels of eveness or equality best in the rainbow, worst in slavert.  And, the limitations Black people have in the usa were and always tied to the integration with whites which is not even or equal but more positive in those two ways than ever before. 
 
Citation
https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/12293-mlk-jr-day-is-on-the-19th-in-2026/#findComment-79390
 
Posted just now
@aka Contrarian
  20 minutes ago, aka Contrarian said:
Be advised that I had no problem with King smoking and drinking and liking women because I'm not a prude.  And I was drinking Scotch and smoking his brand of Salem cigarettes myself.
are you a film noir lover?:) 
 
  20 minutes ago, aka Contrarian said:
To me, his indulgences made him more human. And he also had a very droll sense of humor which I related to.
well said:)
  20 minutes ago, aka Contrarian said:
I speak from the zeitgeist of my environment when I comment on his leadership. I lived in the  Midwest, not the Jim Crow South, and from our perspective, as spectators, he seemed to have just sprouted from nowhere, greatly helped by TV and his charisma.  You'd be surprised how much of a spectator many "negroes" were during the civil rights era inasmuch as we were not in the trenches but, instead, simply offering the activists our moral and financial support. To us, the Movement was an idea whose time had come, and we admired and supported both him and Malcolm. 
I didn't know you were from the midwest, I see:) No I wouldn't, my elders said very clearly when we were watching malcolm x, , the film, I paraphrase
"that is a lie, black people laughed at malcolm"
My elders were there. this country, the usa , loves near history rewrites doesn't it. From the very beginning, the european colonies made mythos out of themselves. In one generation from the mayflower, white european invaders had created a false heritage of good peaceful folk trying to make their way in the world beset by wild savages who dont't comprehend civilization, said wild savages supposedly all native americans. Hell, most people supported the vietnam war. if you look at films, you will think the vietnam war was hated by most or at least opposed. but that isn't the truth. 
So the usa has a very negative heritage of lying about near history, which tends to become commonly accepted in it. 
Not in AALBC of course:) 
 
1/17/2026
 
Citation
https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/12293-mlk-jr-day-is-on-the-19th-in-2026/#findComment-79431
 
 @ProfD
Well, first MLK jr alone didn't do anything. The idoltry to him I am 100% certain he would oppose cause  MLK jr wasn't the leader of the anti jim crow movement, he was a leader. HE was part of a group of Black people doing many things, often in concert to help the larger village. So no matter what one black person is doing, if they are not part of a group of people doing similar it will come to nothing.
where are the groups of Black people doing something together? Cause no one was a superman during the 1960s for black people. 
 
I don't think MLK jr would praise his activities or status so greatly. And not from modesty but honesty. How many black children have been killed by whites  since MLK jr died? I count many. How many black peple have been assaulted by whites from no provocation of their own, being nonviolent, since MLK jr died? 
You speak of what MLK jr did and yet what he did wasn't enough to stop the millions of assaults on black people from his death to now in the usa by whites. 
Mae Louise Walls Miller was freed side her blood relatives from enslavement pre jim crow style in 1963. Malcolm was murdered 1965. MLK jr was murdered 1968. So Both men and many other black leaders died less than five years from a known case of black enslavement  to a white in the usa... MLK jr was a great leader but the environment for the greater black people proved failures on the parts of those before him like boooker t washington or web dubois and the environment after mlk jr proved the failures on the part of MLK jr and his peers like malcolm.
 
well so could MAlcolm, so could medgar evers... the list is long. Your speaking of one man when a large group of black people in the time MLK jr lived warranted as much or more than hime, and  had as much or greater opportunity for personal financial betterment. 
 
1/18/2025
CITATION
https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/12293-mlk-jr-day-is-on-the-19th-in-2026/#findComment-79450
 
osted just now
@ProfD
  17 hours ago, ProfD said:
Nowhere have I written that Dr. MLK Jr. was Superman. Of course, he was the spokesman for a movement.
your correct, but he wasn't the leader, but a leader, and the spokesman role was given to him by others. 
  17 hours ago, ProfD said:
Because Dr. MLK Jr. was not a Supreme Being, there's nothing he could have done about those realities. 
exactly, but you presented a level of idolization to MLK jr that warrants anyone to state a less idolized opinion, which I did.
 
I quote you, I 
 
  On 1/15/2026 at 4:54 PM, ProfD said:
I dare not criticize Dr. MLK Jr.s non-violent approach
 
  On 1/15/2026 at 4:54 PM, ProfD said:
 
FBA/AfroAmericans and ALL Black people on the planet  owe a huge debt of gratitude to him. 
 
  17 hours ago, ProfD said:
Again, in hindsight it's easy to claim Dr. MLK Jr.'s efforts "proved failures". Civil Rights and affirmative action doesn't happen without his influence and effort. 
 
 
I also mentioned other leaders, it is interesting that you focus on the mentioning of mlk jr when i mentioned leaders before or after him with the same failures, and said leaders before mlk jr were needed for the black collegiate movement/naacp /garveyites and et cetera which was mandatory in the early anti jim crow era for the later laws to come into being. 
  17 hours ago, ProfD said:
Dr. MLK Jr.'s impact must have been significant from the number of schools, streets and other institutions named after him.
 
again, that is media, not truth. The movement by Black people made the impact, white owned media + the black church created the myth of mlkjr as THE leader when he wasn't, he was a leader, among many, but he was the only leader that fit everything white media or the black church needed. And as in all the schools named after george washington who was a leader not THE leader of the colonies freeing from the english empire. 
 
  17 hours ago, ProfD said:
there's nothing anyone can say or do that will ever make me question or minimize the impact Dr. MLK Jr. had on ALL Black people up to present and future.
so mlk jr is beyond questioning ? i question all peoples. I don't have an idolization of anyone in that way, though i wonder how many black people similarly idolize bond. And, I never minimize the impact of the movement of Black people. It is interesting you focus so much on mlkjr. hiding behind the theme of this post your own idoltry. which I oppose. 
 
@Pioneer1
  11 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:
I know very few human beings who are so far "above" even a philosophical critique.
no human being is, because we are human being. But the problem is that, some people unfortunately, think negative judgement lessens the value of another, or questioning another lessers said anothers role. 
It is very jesus /pope/schrumpft like, that thinking.
  11 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:
it seems he should have known how possible or impossible it would be for Black people to get along with these people.
well, remember, black people when the usa was started still were able to get along, not all black people were enslaved. I am not suggesting, that anyone black should assume a peaceful life aside whites in the usa, but I Can see a black person coming to the conclusion that a peaceful coexistence can be a goal. Nothing is easy, but I can comprehend it. Would I have chosen it? no, but neither did nat turner, or assata shakur... so, I don't mind some black leaders having that path.
  11 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:
Federal law still always "trumps" (no pun intended) states' laws.
Federal law supersedes state law like state law supersedes local law.
right but this is why the congress is the only branch of government that can make law. the congress  is born from the states. it isn't executive. even though schrumpft is part of a change started since abraham lincoln
  11 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:
Because there was no threat to AfroAmerican culture to justify them doing so.
hmmm 
I get your demographic position. but since the black populace was minoirty to the white, even before the 1900s immigrant waves, wasn't the heritage or culture of DOSers always in need of attention. Maybe not danger, but I don't think the black church built up what needed to be carried/heritage, or tended what needed to be grown/culture. It is interesting that sinners comes out one year before the usa's 250 year anniversary, one of the messages in the movie is the black churches hindrance. 
The blues players father, is a hater.  a knocker. he doesn't want to help, he wants to knock. 
We all know how many black churches criminalized black people who didn't sing gods music, before 1940, as well as after. 
Your right, their wasn't competition among minoirty quantities in the populace  BUT why did the black church not try to bridge booker t and wed dubois/garvey and dubois/ garvey and booker t? why did the black church treat blues and jazz musicians so negatively? why did the black church treat hustlers so negatively?
the my way highway vibe of black churches before the immigrant waves came, i argue was very detrimental to the larger populace later. yes, cheap hindsight but it is clear. And i argue with their role, no excuse existed, no excuse. 
  11 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:
Capitalists AND Dictators by controlling the workers, not giving them a real say-so, and enjoying the fruits of the labor of the masses.
your wrong about china. China has an engaged bureaucracy. People vote, I argue china has more involvement of its people in its government than the usa does or a western european country does, not just in raws numbers but in percentage. Remember the current chinese government is a creature of the 19000s, and one born from being enslaved to the usa/japan/western union. Thsoe three groups taught china to dislike the media dysfunction of government. countries that have big songs and big flags that hide the ugliest realities. the usa calls itself the land of freedom, while in truth has only destroyed many peoples. the usa is a white european country trying to sell itself as it isn't. China is proud to be a chinese country, who at least is more honest to the immigrant than the usa by a mile. I know your a statian, Pioneer, you have a pride about the usa from the black history that supported it. And china as a white asian country, is an enemy of the usa, although why wouldn't china be when the usa at one time owned a piece of china. 
North korea is a monarchy. It isn't like china. And, because I don't find any government system sinful I will say, North Korea's has two problem. 
1st is the usa, who has put north korea, like iran , like cuba, under a severe strain on all fronts. The historically funny thing is iran + cuba+ north korea have one thing in common, they each insulted the usa, neither actually ever committed a crime to the usa while the usa committed crimes to them. the usa invaded cuba using cuban traitors and failed, the usa's murdering europhile puppet in iran failed, and the usa invaded korea when north korea had the whole peninsula but north korea survived. 
After 9/11 the usa talked about being invaded and axis of evil, and lied about afghanistan or iraq, but, based on the reaction the usa had to 9/11, cuba+iran+north korea have the right to bomb the usa. 
2nd, the kim jong clan have to embrace a simple truth, the usa took their fate, absent usa involvement all of korea is led by the kim jong clan, but the usa as a country of power meddled. tehe kim jong clan have to find a way to end the demilitarize zone. I know no koreans made the zone but that is the challenge. 
  11 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:
So next time me and Troy get into a fight over the existence of multiple races, I expect you to answer the call and pull up to the scene for some back-up....LOL
 
  10 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:
They should have started 30 or 40 years ago by vehently going after everybody....including other Black people...who were openly promoting what once were whispered rumors of his womanizing and cheating on Coretta.
we all know the truth, the panthers/naacp/baptist preachers/drug dealers, the fbi and cia had agents everywhere. in all organizations including white ones. 
I have always asked that the old files be made public. I think all of humanity could use every single agent of the 1900s whether dead or alive exposed. cause I think that would explain a lot but....
 
@aka Contrarian
  7 hours ago, aka Contrarian said:
that his people laughed at Malcom
I said my forebears saw black people laughing at Malcolm, not that my forebears laughed.  But yes, many people in harlem laughed at malcolm in the street. And your surprise shows the strength of media. media has created a myth of malcolm + mlk jr that is false. Two great leaders, more alike than different. each wanting integration or peace. Both eloquent speakers. their only true difference as leaders was mlk jr , from the christian baptist heritage, speaks through hope, while malcolm learned from his father, not elijah muhammed but his father, to speak through truth. white people in the usa historically hate any black person who speaks through truth far more than any other black person. the native american is irrelevant, the white american is a true sinner, black dosers are cowards, immigrant americans are foolish traitors. IT doesn't mean each has to be that way forever, or is that way in every single individual, but it is the majority truth. 
 
  8 hours ago, aka Contrarian said:
militant counterpart
how do you define militancy? cause I have never seen malcolm as militant? I think he was a garveyite like his father, I think he did believe in self defense which his father+ mother needed, but so did mlk jr? is exhibiting self defense a sign of militancy? or is not saying things to make others comfortable , militancy? 
when I think black militancy, I think of nat turner/jean jacques dessalines/the black loyalists/the quilombos in south america/ann zhinga against the portuguese. I don't think of malcolm or the panthers. 
 
1/18/2026
 
CITATION
https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/12293-mlk-jr-day-is-on-the-19th-in-2026/#findComment-79464
 
@aka Contrarian
  1 hour ago, aka Contrarian said:
you disagreed with my calling Malcom X "militant" and asked what I consider "militant". 
Malcom was famous for the  response he'd give when questioned about how he'd combat white aggression. "By any means necessary," was his adament response. And the Black Muslim quasi-military Fruit of Islam group presented the impression of being his back-up. This is a militant stance that  didn't align with King's passive resistance philosophy which is why I and a lot of others considered Malcom militant. He talked tough.
Wasn't Malcolm's father murdered by whites? around your neck of the usa in the midwest? He didn't talk tough, he talked from experience. The experience of a Black child who witnessed his nonviolent preacher father be murdered by whites for the crime of wanting black ownership and preaching to other black people to leave the usa if they are unhappy. A black child who witnessed his yella, black mother, be drove into a living prison by white power.  MLK jr's father was never murdered by whites even though Gerogia is full of violent whites. MLK jr's mother was never drove into a living prison even though the bureaucracy of georgia has done so to many black women. 
 
  1 hour ago, aka Contrarian said:
And I disagree with your implication that Malcom was in agreement with MLK on integration. He wasn't entirely opposed to white assistance but he was iinitially a black separatist advocate until he broke ranks with Elijah Muhammad later on. 
Malcolm was born from parents who were exodusters or garveyites or preacher folk? right? wasn't that malcolm's guidance as a youth. Exodusters aren't militant or segregated. yes, they want seperate places in the usa for black people , but they never advocated violence except in self defense. And isn't self defense eternally warranted by black people based on white actions? What year have whites not harmed a black person and gotten away with it in the usa? 
I argue MAlcolm , pre during or post elijah muhammed , always embraced that some black folk need to leave white countries all together in a true segregation/garvey, some black folk need to have their own seperate places in a white country/exodusters , but malcolm learned that some black folk can live amongst whites/integrated as in slavery or jim crow or now, but that doesn't mean they should not have the protection his parents didn't have. 
  1 hour ago, aka Contrarian said:
And it should also be noted that during the MLK and Malcom era, TV talk shows were all the rage. These 2 black spokesmen were popular guest panalists on these airings and what came out of their mouths during these discussions was what defined them. They made their positions clear on live TV and were very articulate in doing so.
Malcolm never wanted to be a cult leader, which is what elijah muhammed plus the other pastors of the nation of islam wanted by their actions. They used malcolm, the same way the southern black christian pastors, who were also cult leaders,  used mlk jr as a front man for their activities. as stokely carmichael said, can you imagine a black baptist preacher not accepting a cadillac. 
 
  1 hour ago, aka Contrarian said:
But their influence lives on and black Americans owe them a debt of gratitude.
100% true and I must add We black people in the usa and arguably all blacks in all humanity owe the whole movement of Black empowerment from the era of enslavement plus the era of jim crow , a debt of gratitude. And I hope we can learn from MLK jr teachings as well as Malcolms and many others. 
 
MAlcolm for me teaches a valuable lesson about early efficiency, don't let your idol ruin your plan. For me, MAlcolm had the best leadership skills among all black leaders in the usa when he lived, but he had one flaw he never recovered from, he allowed his idolization for an older black leader, in his case elijah muhammed , to cloud or manipulate his larger planning. That was a mistake. 
MLK jr for me teaches a  valuable lesson in handling handlers, 
 
two questions AkaContrarian  with a setup and amendment, and @ProfD + @Pioneer1  I ponder your thoughts to the three elements as well. 
 
Here is the setup
 
when Sean Bell's father was asked in media what he felt, after his son was murdered by law enforcement in the new york city through forty one bullet shots, sean bell's father said he wanted the law enforcers dead. And al sharpton, the white media, the lawyers for the bell family, didn't have him around for anything afterward... 
It is clear the form of passive resisitance many blacks in the usa adhere to seems a complete form, that doesn't accept violence in weapons or closed fists but also in discourse. 
 
my questions, 
1) has that interpretation of passive resistance broken up many black clans/homes? 
2) do black people who adhere to passive resisitance criminalize plus illegalize [both not just one, meaning make a return of violence criminal while also have an unwritten black legal code that illegalizes black people who don't adhere by excommunication in various ways] actions by black people or black people themselves who don't adhere?
 
in amendment, 
I think of two things. 1. amiri baraka who said the bussers were crazy getting ice cream and assaulted while doing nothing. 2. a black woman in texas, a matriarch, who told two nephews to leave texas after whites had assaulted their home and they wanted to act violently in return. 
 
I realize now, the language I need to have. And thank you three Contrarian/pioneer/profd for getting me to this place.  When contrarian you said passive resistance, it made me realize to what extremes you refer to. 
The words/phrase resistance or nonviolence or passive or militant or violent keep getting used. 
But the issue here is the faith in the rule of law. Not the "rule of law" but " faith in the rule of law" as opposed to "function based on the life of black people"
I see the lines
 
from crispus attics, the black people who embraced whites like george washington before during or after 1776 in the enslavement era + Frederick Douglass,  the black people who fought for the union or confederacy +MLK jr, the black people who nonviolently in all ways fought for black empowerment in the later years of jim crow era, Barrack Obama, the black people in the age of the rainbow, a set of black people have a "faith in the rule of law" such that even if the law is designed against black people, even if the law allows non blacks to terrorize black people, even if the law can't protect blacks from being terrorized by non blacks, each of said groups actions show a faith that the legal system, the law, in its processes and eventual result is satisfactory, even if the law fails during their lifetime to change for the better. They are willing to die in the courtroom, even as tulsa burns and black pregnant women are being hung. 
 
In parallel, 
from the black loyalists, black people who committed to vendetta against the whites of the colonies, white people of england didn't enslave blacks in the colonies, it was white colonist and colonialist before during or after 1776   in the enslavement era+ Nat Turner or Exodusters, the black people who retaliated when the law failed , wanted self defense, not isolation+ Malcolm who never felt black people should allow or invite harm from others which faith demands,  when the law didn't protect black people from white terror in the jim crow era, to Assata Shakur and the many blacks later who have left the usa in the age of the rainbow, a set of black people have a "function based on the life of black people" such that the historical facts of the law working against black people, law allowing non blacks to terrorize black people, law not protecting blacks from being terrorized by blacks, prove to said folks a need/demand/function to act outside the law which can not be denied for a truly free black peoples whether they have white neighbors or not, even if they know they are disadvantaged, maybe inevitably, or if nonlegal actions fail during their lifetime for the better. They are willing to die outside the courttoom, even if non black power  or black allegiances to the courtrom give advantages. 
 
I ponder if a bridge can be made between faith or function?
 
01/19/2026
 
CItation
https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/12293-mlk-jr-day-is-on-the-19th-in-2026/#findComment-79482
Posted just now
@aka Contrarian 
  
 
I am not trying to change your mind ,  I am trying to comprehend from your point of view where militancy ends or begins with black people in the usa. 
I assume, but you haven't been exact, that a black person in the usa is militant anytime they have any action, verbal or non verbal that is aggressive, regardless of situation. 
If I comprehend you correctly, then Sean Bell's father is militant for speaking ill to those who murdered his son. Protestors who throw bottles in reaction to being hosed or shot at are militant. I comprehend fully that Malcolm is militant from your point of view based on how i assume you define militancy, but based on your definition, I assume, you categorize many black people as militant. 
I don't view malcolm,sean bell's father, protestors reacting to violent attack as militant. To me, self defense does not suggest militancy. Self defense isn't nonviolent, but it isn't militant, to me. 
But I want to comprehend your thinking better. 
 
As for the first question, and I speak to @ProfD 
I wish I knew with the population of descended of enslaved  in the past or today how many in our homes have or have not schismed on the relationship on how to relate to whites, before the usa or after the usa, as the usa doesn't really matter in this issue. This issue is really about the white colonialist and their descendants and the black enslaved and their descendants. 
I wish I knew. IT would be very revealing. Cause, even if it is 40% or 30% that is a lot. Maybe it is 5% , tiny. I wonder when 1865 hit how was it? and it yields another question in my mind, why doesn't this question come up more? Every single black person knows personally, offline a spectrum of black people who relate differently to whites. Black comedians have a whole mountain of jokes on this topic. So why is it, black churches, black organizations, rarely speak on this? it isn't a secret. I have many questions and no way to get answers. 
 
The second question is in series to the first. I wish I knew the truth. I guess more so , you guys guess less, but what is the truth? No one will know sadly, unless someone has a time machine and a huge ledger. 
And of course, the problem is in the wording, what defines a schism in the home? what defines criminalization or unwritten illegalization? the details or definitions even with the same information can provide various results...
I don't know. I wish I knew , cause it matters. I argue how black people relate to white people in the usa , in black peoples own communal sphere, is a big thing. And shouldn't be some private issue or some shrugged issue because it is really an all black affair. Hell, even Tyler perry has mentioned this issue a lot in his work. 
 
As to the third, at least on the issue of faith to rule of law versus function based on black history, a schism exist between you, aka contrarian and profd as members of aalbc
And for me, the issue isn't about right or wrong but how important these stances are in the larger scheme of things.
Black people who believe in faith in the rule of law, are willing to be harmed and abused by whites, rather than break the law. That is a big stance in our populace, arguably globally. Cause black people globally are abused by non blacks. so black people anywhere in humanity who are willing to be abused rather than break the law, can never relate to white people the same way as black people who function for self defense or revenge or vendetta [three different things but all are violent] based on black history .
 
And as you both know I think of what to do tomorrow? 
I don't know how to bridge that issue.  I never forget telling a friend of mine. If I was a pastor of a church and a white man entered the church I manage, I would told that white man to leave immediately, and go to st patricks church down the street, this is a black church. in the usa, White people historically or modernly can not be trusted intermingling with blacks. whites will 99% of the time harm blacks. the quantity of events where whites harmed blacks proves this more than anything. Not 100% no, not 100% but 99% yeah. Look at black towns today, black farms today, black regions in white cities today? No, do whites kill blacks and brand blacks today? no, but harm still? many times yes. 
Obama sang amazing grace for that church that white man murdered people in. And while I know that church is open to all phenotypes, that nonviolent openness as closing based on phenotype is a form of violence based on how nonviolence is implemented by many, that nonviolent position is what got black people killed. and, the law will not heal that, the law didn't protect those people.  
 
So how can a movement exist among black people in the usa, holistically in populace, with such a divide of way of life? I argue near impossible. The usa is full of white peoples, white people [white europeans/white asians/white latinos/white muslims/white women/white jews combined are the majority] compared to blacks. so, any plan has to consider how white people fit. and ... 
 
1/19/2026
 
Citation
https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/12293-mlk-jr-day-is-on-the-19th-in-2026/#findComment-79486
@aka Contrarian 
  37 minutes ago, aka Contrarian said:
Just go with your assumptions. Why do I have to justify my sentiments to you?
 
All of this is hypothetical. 
Assumptions are worthless, comprehension has value and if I don't comprehend someone else I ask them, beginning with I don't know, which is wisdom. 
Comprehension has nothing to do with justification, a thing of justice, meaning a thing determining right or wrong. I am not thinking in terms of right or wrong. I am not asking questions of you to be right or wrong, but to comprehend. Now you may not want me to comprehend you or may think another comprehending you is unimportant, but I don't live like that so I ask, with no demands of an answer. But I will continue to ask anyone to comprehend more.
all of this is under an idea, maybe, the discourse in this post is about how black people relay to each other, and it is proof, at the least, that black people in 2026 have a lot we don't comprehend about each other and more importantly, the lack of comprehension makes collective action inevitably faulty. 
 
1/19/2026
 
Citation
https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/12293-mlk-jr-day-is-on-the-19th-in-2026/#findComment-79495
 
ed just now
@aka Contrarian 
  2 hours ago, aka Contrarian said:
You are much too subjective. It's always about you and your compulsion to be omniscient, and ultimately omnipotent.  You obviously want to solve all the problems of the world. 
 Good luck with that goal.
 
no I don't want to solve all the problems in the world.
first, because some problems can't be solved, they have to be lived through. They have to be given their time, even in full gruesomeness. I learned that a relative long time ago. 
second, because I know exactly what I want, and comprehend the prosequences plus consequences of any action.  I was fortunate enough to have the time and space to learn that, and what I want isn't what you say I want.
 
I don't want to know all, oomiscient, or have all power, omnipotent. first, because either is impossible. To know all you have to know not merely about all today, but all yesterdays and all tomorrows... for any finite being, that is impossible. And you can never have all the power unless you can become all, and no finite being can become all. My rearing by my parents taught me that as a child.  
 
I do enjoy communicating and learning through communication. And I was taught as a child to always expand my knowledge as much as I can. Limiting the value of nothing. 
 
Thank you for the luck:) 
 
1/20/2026
 
END OF MULTILOG FOR 2026 
At the end of the multilog for 2026, discussing MLK jr and non violence, I thought about nonviolence effectiveness and came to a realization. The nonviolent movements problem isn't the absence of violence. The nonviolent movements problem is inability of admitting what is needed to get results. 
The nonviolent movement says all acts are violence: verbal/tactile/financial/explosive or other are not permitted as actions. But the question is how can one be effective nonviolently. Many suggest turn the other cheek but if someone raped your sister, killed your father, slapped you with metal knuckles. You turning the other cheek doesn't generate punishment to the abuser. You turning the other cheek allows the abuser to get away with abusing. 
And I thought about various violent actions:  a black girl flung to the ground by a law enforcer, the mountain of domestic violence cases that the new york police department doesn't try to solve but allows to stack, my own personal interactions with law enforcement trying to intimidate or approaching violently to me absent any provocation from me. 
And I realized, the NAACP probably never took to court even one percent of the cases of white violence[from terrorism to spitting] against black people in the united states of america. Alice , the black woman enslaved in the 1960s means, the number of crimes by whites to blacks in the 1800s was astronomical. 
Nothing can be done about the past, but arguably half of the white populace in the usa and a higher percentage in the south, never faced any legal proceedings for their violence. 
And that impotency in results is the weakness in nonviolent philosophical supporters. 
Responding by violence can come in many forms but responding nonviolently can only occur through the court of law. But, the usa will require millions of lawyers acting pro bono, for good or absent pay, to even get near 25% of the cases of white violence to blacks. 
But now I know what to tell nonviolent adherents. Because no idea is evil or good, the only issue is implementation. MLK jr plus others felt nonviolence could change the usa for the better through changing laws. But I realize the flaw in that thinking. Changing laws doesn't change habits. Doesn't impose the rule of law in regions. 
The civil rights act of 1963 hasn't protected one black person from white violence. But if fifty percent or above of incidents between nonblack violent actors to black people in the USA was sent to court, I can't be certain the usa will be better quickly, but I am certain it is the only way, nonviolence can lead to betterment. Fiscal capitalism will fail black folk cause having money doesn't deter white violence, ask tulsa. Being law abiding will fail black folk cause abiding by the law doesn't protect you from those who do not, ask trayvon martin or sean bell or abner luima or many others. Turning the other cheek will fail black people because the person who needs to turn the other cheek is the white abuser/enslaver/terrorist.
The court room is the only place that will aid black people because the cost from verdicts in favor of blacks , whether criminal or civil, allows white terrorist/enslavers/abusers to pay nonviolently. But it has to be at an unprecedented level in the usa. I read somewhere that the NYPD's criminal behavior costs New York City hundreds of millions of dollars. If I combine the reality of most cases of white abuse to blacks not making the courtroom and the cost of verdicts in black favor being quite expensive to the government, I see that taking white violent behavior to court is the only way Black nonviolent people can plan to get results from their philosophy, in the usa. 
 
1/23/2026
 
Citation
https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/12293-mlk-jr-day-is-on-the-19th-in-2026/#findComment-79554
osted just now
@Troy 
  3 hours ago, Troy said:
Race is purely an arbitrary social construct with no basis in genetics.
I will change the adjective to inevitable. but even enough:)
 
1/23/2026
Citation
https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/12293-mlk-jr-day-is-on-the-19th-in-2026/#findComment-79567
osted just now
@Delano 
Before you can ask if one is free you must define freedom. 
So, I ask you to define freedom and then I can easily answer your question are Blacks, whether descended of enslaved or not, free. 
But, if anyone answer a question of freedom absent defining freedom first it will only give an uneven answer. 
 
1/23/2026
 
Citation
https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/12293-mlk-jr-day-is-on-the-19th-in-2026/#findComment-79577
osted just now
@Delano
  6 minutes ago, Delano said:
In every conversation words generally have two meanings, the dictionary and the personal. Define it however you wish. @richardmurray
You didn't ask me the meaning of freedom. YOu asked me
  On 1/23/2026 at 4:48 AM, Delano said:
Would you say US Blacks are free?
And I replied, when you ask whether anyone or thing is free, define what it means to be free in the question and then I or anyone else  can easily answer. I didn't ask you, you asked me. But you want me to define words that you used in your question however I wish. No, that is bad communication. You tell me how you define freedom and then I will answer your question... I seek to improve how i communicate always. 
 
1/24/2026
 
Citation
https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/12293-mlk-jr-day-is-on-the-19th-in-2026/#findComment-79617
 
Posted just now
@Delano 
how do you define freedom? 
I will like to know. 
do you define freedom as thing for the living or a thing for the living plus the dead? 
no answer you make is wrong or right. 
 
1/26/2026
 
Citation
https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/12293-mlk-jr-day-is-on-the-19th-in-2026/page/2/#findComment-79744
 
sted just now
@Delano @Pioneer1 @ProfD 
nice trilog on the question of the quality of freedom when one is dead. 
It is full of thought, as death plus freedom don't have universal definition, nor is communication to the deceased proven to those who never experienced it or comprehended  robustly enough to those who have experienced it to clarify freedom's quality to those who are dead. The living can only guess how freedom , however defined for someone living, is to those who are dead, which isn't the dead communicating their position. A guess isn't wrong, but a guess isn't right, itis a thesis. In this case three thesis, well done. 

Event details

CENTO Series episode 87
Unfortunately they mostly go
You need not worry, you need not fret
But perhaps you'll recover, try as you may
Unfortunately they mostly go
https://www.deviantart.com/marciceman/art/People-Come-And-People-Go-1014772295
let's make progress every day
to bring equality to light
with a strength that most can't maintain
that would have others throwing a fit
https://www.deviantart.com/rtnightmare/art/Positive-Feature-Poem-Black-Beauty-1019725270
 

Epub series 
https://www.kobo.com/us/en/series/richard-murray-short-story-collection

Audiobook series 
https://www.kobo.com/us/en/series/richard-murray-tip-jar-audios

To get a microcalligraphy signature go to the following pay page 
https://www.deviantart.com/hddeviant/commission/Microcalligraphy-signatures-1487995

Event details

AALBC end? - January 18th 2025
https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/11429-openpulpit-the-day-aalbc-has-to-close/

 

Event details

Lucy Worsley on William the Conqueror - Janaury 18th 2025  
https://aalbc.com/tc/profile/6477-richardmurray/?status=2830&type=status

 
MY THOUGHTS
The Bayeux Tapestry [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayeux_Tapestry ] was lovely to see. The episode focuses on a truth we all know. Conquest is never as simple as the history books put it. It usually far more bloodier and far more complicated. 
William is a conqueror not because the simplicity of hastings but because he destroyed the multiculturalism south of scotland or the picts back then , destroyed the allowance of the welsh or northumbrians/scandanavian cultures and pushed the normans in. At the end of the day the saxons wasn't all of england but just the south of england.  The saxons on one side of the channel plus the normans on the other side were cousins. But the other regions of england were different, welsh or northumbrian. William defeated the saxons but needed to defeat the other cultures in the land commonly called england, and he did by fire and starvation. And thus made england two cultures, Norman + Saxon , with the saxon being a blend of welsh/saxon/northumbrian merged under a norman identity. The name of the child going from Tostig [ pronounced Tostee]  to Williams says it all.
On a side note, it is very interesting hearing how the welsh/saxon/northumbrian women went to convent, tried to evade being married to normans whose entire purpose in being with non norman women was making halfbreeds, ala the spanish conquistadors in central america/caribbean/south america/mexico. It explains a key point, that the women of the various cultures the normans conquered worked hard to remain with the conquered peoples. Willing to marry to any but a norman, thus the multicultural set of women made the saxons, and over time the saxons + normans became the english.
 
TRANSCRIPT
 
♪ Lucy Worsley, voice-over: Christmas Day, 1069, Northern England. ♪ A warrior king makes his way through the ruins of York Cathedral. The king's name is William I of England, but you might know him better by his later name-- William the Conqueror. [Men shouting] Worsley, voice-over: Most of us think the Norman Conquest of England happened in 1066 at the Battle of Hastings-- one battle won, and the defeated nation bent the knee-- but actually, that was just the beginning, so how do you go about taking over, conquering an entire country? In this series, I'm reinvestigating some of the most dramatic and brutal chapters in British history. Oh, yes. Here we go, Man: And now you're face to face with William the Conqueror. Woman, voice-over: They know that sex sells and that violence sells. Worsley, voice-over: These stories form part of our national mythology. They harbor mysteries that have intrigued us for centuries... Worsley: It turns very dark here. Clearly showing us-- Refugees. There's such graphic images of religious violence. Worsley, voice-over: but with the passage of time, we have new ways to unlock their secrets using scientific advances and a modern perspective. He was what we would now call a foreign fighter. Worsley, voice-over: I'm going to uncover forgotten witnesses. I'm going to reexamine old evidence and follow new clues... The human hand. Worsley, voice-over: to get closer to the truth. It's like fake news. Worsley: You're questioning whether we can actually take that seriously as a piece of evidence. ♪ Worsley, voice-over: 1066 is one of the best-known years in British history. We know this date because of the Battle of Hastings, but very few of us know the whole story. ♪ The Norman Conquest was the biggest land grab in Western medieval history. This prosperous, stable country called England was just taken by William, Duke of Normandy, seemingly overnight, and stone castles like this one sprang up all over the land. ♪ Worsley, voice-over: This is Pevensey Castle, the first Norman castle on English soil, but it's actually a repurposed Roman fort. Of course, England had been invaded before. There were the Romans, but they eventually left; then the Vikings, but they never gained complete control. But when the Normans invaded in 1066, they created a regime that lasted. They transformed the country, and they left traces that we can still see to this day. ♪ Worsley, voice-over: In fact, we can trace a line from William the Conqueror to our current monarch King Charles III, but this belies the truth of how difficult the conquest really was. It took two decades for William to cement Norman rule, so how did he do it, and was William a conqueror or a war criminal? ♪ I think I'll begin my investigation in the place where William's master plan for conquest was originally formed-- Normandy in Northwest France. [Bells tolling] Worsley: Duke William built his castle here at Caen in 1060. He did it to consolidate his control over all of this part of France here. He was a Norman, the word coming from "Northman" or even "Norseman" because William's ancestors were warlike Vikings from Scandinavia. They came down here, and they settled, and once they'd made this their home, they renamed it as Normandy. ♪ Worsley, voice-over: At this point, William wasn't known as William the Conqueror, but William the Bastard. He'd risen a long way as the illegitimate son of Robert I of Normandy. Now he wanted to expand his territory and conquer the lands across the English Channel. If William ever came up here himself, I think he'd have spent his time looking in that direction because a hundred miles over there is the English coast, and on the 5th of January 1066, the English king Edward the Confessor died without leaving an obvious successor, and William believed that he was the rightful heir to the English crown. Worsley, voice-over: There's one astonishing historical artifact just a few miles away in the town of Bayeux which might explain exactly why William believed this. It's not a book or a manuscript. It's nearly 230 feet long, and it's over 900 years old. It's kept in the dark, quite literally, for its own protection. Oh, there it is-- the Bayeux Tapestry. ♪ Worsley, voice-over: This tapestry shows the invasion of England and the Battle of Hastings in 1066 as a heroic enterprise. ♪ Worsley: It's basically a medieval movie. It tells the story scene by scene from beginning to end, and did you know it's not actually a tapestry at all? The pictures are stitched on, which is embroidery. This is women's work, and I suspect that the men who give names to things like this don't necessarily know what they're looking at, but the first thing that strikes me is the sheer scale of it. Look how long it is, and it goes off right round the corner. It's just a stunning piece of work. ♪ Worsley, voice-over: And here's the scene I'm looking for. It depicts a pact which allegedly took place between two of the main contenders for the English throne: the hero of the tapestry-- that's William-- and Harold, King Edward the Confessor's brother-in-law. Worsley: This is Harold, and you can tell because of his ginger mustache-- the Anglo-Saxons have mustaches; Normans are all clean-shaven-- and what's happening here, it says in the caption, this is the bit where Harold, he fecit a sacramentum. He makes an oath to Duke William of Normandy, who's that chap there, and Harold is touching a casket full of holy relics to make the oath even more powerful, and in his oath, he swears he will support William's claim to be king. Let's see what happens next. Well--ah, here we go-- Edward the Confessor dies. There's his dead body. He's defunctus. He's defunct, and in this scene, ah, Harold has made himself king-- "Rex: Anglorum," "King of the English," it says. Huh, so--in this version of the story, at least, the Norman version of the story-- Harold has betrayed William. This is why William is justified in invading England. ♪ Worsley, voice-over: But, like all historical sources, the tapestry has an agenda. It was commissioned by William's half-brother Odo, Bishop of Bayeux, and it was basically propaganda justifying William's invasion of England. On the 28th of September 1066, William's fleet of hundreds of ships carrying thousands of men landed here at Pevensey on the south coast of England. ♪ This is the very beach where the Normans landed, but the battle took place a few miles away in that direction at Hastings. It was a brutal fight. It lasted for more than 9 hours. [Men shouting] [Swords clanging] Worsley, voice-over: You could be forgiven for thinking that, although William's victory was hard won, it was basically inevitable. The tapestry suggests that the Normans had enormous military superiority. [Shouting continues] [Horse neighs] Worsley: Here are the Norman knights, and what's brilliant is the way that you see them moving off. They're starting to gallop. They're off. It's really exciting, and here are the Norman archers. It's really striking that the Normans have got better weapons. They've got these horses. They've got bows and arrows. The poor Anglo-Saxons have only got things like axes and clubs. You do get the impression of this indomitable Norman war machine. The stormtroopers are coming. ♪ [Men shouting] Worsley, voice-over: The Bayeux Tapestry famously ends with the death of Harold. An arrow from a Norman archer hits him in the eye. ♪ It's a heroic end to the story. Harold is dead, and William, the rightful king, is triumphant, but is this what really happened? There's another source that historians now believe to be one of the earliest depictions of the Battle of Hastings. This Latin poem, probably dating from 1068, has a very different story to tell about Harold's last moments. It's called the "Carmen," or the "Song of the Battle of Hastings," written two years after the battle, we think, and, according to this version, it took 4 Norman soldiers to finish him off. It's quite hard to read, but I've got some notes here from the translation. It says the first of them did the job of shattering his breast through his shield. The second, by his sword, severed the head. The third of them, by his spear, ooh, poured forth the body's entrails, oof, and then the fourth of them hewed off a leg-- some other translations say it was a different body part than that-- and then, being removed, he drove it afar. He threw the body part away, so that makes it sound like Harold was really difficult to kill, and there's no mention at all of the arrow going into his eye. Worsley, voice-over: Unlike the tapestry, the poem is an unsanitized, hyperviolent account of the battle. [Men shouting] [Swords clanging] Harold's body was so mutilated, it could only be identified by some marks on his skin. One of those 4 Normans who killed Harold was William himself. I wonder if this poem is the more accurate predictor of the violence still to come after the battle. Worsley: When it was over and William had won, he wasn't automatically King of England. He was kind of in limbo. He waited for the English to formally surrender to him, but nobody came. Worsley, voice-over: Somebody was coming, but they weren't coming to offer William the throne. They were coming for a fight. ♪ Hundreds of miles from Hastings in the North of England, two brothers would play a significant part in this resistance. Edwin, Earl of Mercia, and Morcar, Earl of Northumbria, saw William as a foreign aggressor who was trying to take over their country. Their rightful king was the teenager Edgar AEtheling, and they were gearing up to lead the counteroffensive in his name. Rrgh! ♪ Worsley, voice-over: I'm meeting a medieval specialist to find out what happened next. ♪ It's just after the Battle of Hastings in 1066. What does William the Conqueror now need to do to consolidate his win? There's a lot of unrest still within the kingdom. People have fled the battlefield, so there's still warriors around, fled the battlefield. political elite gathering in London. He's killed one king on the battlefield, but there is a contender still for the throne. It's the teenage boy Edgar AEtheling, and he is in London with Edwin and Morcar, and they come with the crucial thing-- military force, so William needs to get himself to London, and he needs to get the support of a bishop so that he can get himself crowned, ideally an archbishop. Hmm. How is William going to hold the land in Kent and Sussex that he's he's already gained control over once he sets off to London? So part of that is through the castles that he builds, so quick, wooden castles put up really just to secure the area as a place of fortification and defense for his men, and they are a way of holding power over the local area because you have your garrison, your troops, positioned there in order to perhaps fight off any disturbances that arise. What was in store for the local people living in Kent and Sussex? Yeah. I think it must have been a really terrifying time for them. They must have seen William's troops committing atrocities around them-- burning houses, taking crops, livestock. There's also the reinforcements that William calls from Normandy who come to another part of the south coast, possibly around Chichester. Those communities en route are clearly having houses burnt. There's pillaging of supplies and livestock in order to feed the army as they go. There's a picture on the Bayeux Tapestry that actually we can have a little look at-- a mother and child fleeing from a burning building. Oh. It says, "Hic domus incenditur," "Here this building is being burnt," so this is probably depicting the scenes at Pevensey or Hastings. The torch is setting alight to the roof, where you can see the flames rising. And this poor, little boy, I think he's got his mouth open because he's crying his eyes out. He's being led away by his-- Do you think that's his mother? She's saying, "Come on. Get out of here." Yeah... "It's really dangerous." and I think it's a really moving scene. It's clearly showing us... Refugees. yeah, refugees, the women and children who lost their homes as part of this conquest. I can understand why the Normans took the food, but I can't understand why they burnt the houses. Was there also just an element of pure intimidation in doing that and destroying the homes of people, do you think? I think there must have been, and I think William needs to use this kind of intimidating factor in order to remove pockets of resistance and also as a warning to other communities and a clear statement that William means business, that William is not going to go lightly. If there is opposition, he's going to go in all guns blazing. ♪ Worsley, voice-over: What was meant to be a quick operation was becoming a brutal campaign of intimidation, and these castles were key. They were a way of crushing local resistance and securing a strong supply line from Normandy. So this is a map of Southeast England. It's not a brilliant map, but you get the idea. You'll recognize it a bit better when I put in France and Normandy, and this is the Channel, and William landed pretty close to here and quickly built a castle at Pevensey, where I am right now. It was just over there. Quite quickly, another castle sprang up at Hastings and then one at Dover, just along the coast there, but where he really wanted to be was over here at London. ♪ Worsley, voice-over: London was the political heart of Anglo-Saxon England, but getting there wasn't as simple as it looked. With Edwin and Morcar in London, William realized a direct assault from the south was too difficult, so he marched west, devastating the land as he went. He secured the strategic crossing of the Thames at Wallingford and advanced to Berkhamsted. This was where he waited for the Anglo-Saxon earls, Edgar, and other leaders. ♪ At this point, Edwin and Morcar realized they'd been outmaneuvered. ♪ William promised leniency and protection to those who submitted immediately, so they surrendered and bent the knee... ♪ for now. ♪ William finally marched on London in December 1066. ♪ He was crowned William, King of the English, on Christmas Day. ♪ He then set about building his most notorious castle-- the Tower of London... ♪ but William only controlled the southeast. ♪ None of this made the whole of England his. ♪ I want to examine William's next move, and it wasn't a military one. There's something that's nearly a thousand years old, and I'm so eager to see it. It's a world-famous treasure, and it lives in a super secure vault. It's the Domesday Book. ♪ Worsley, voice-over: The Domesday Book was compiled later in William's reign, but I think it might reveal his political strategy after 1066. ♪ Worsley: I'm about to see the most precious document in the National Archives that I think means it's the most precious document in British history, and it's just in here. ♪ Ah. Oh, yes. Ha ha ha! There it is. It's amazing to see it... ♪ not in a case. If it ever comes out of this strongroom, it would be displayed with high security, the real thing. ♪ Worsley, voice-over: This is the volume of what's called Great Domesday. It's made up of more than 800 pages, handwritten by just one scribe. I think a lot of people will have heard of the Domesday Book without being aware of what's actually in it, and seeing it laid out like this in the columns is making me realize that it's basically a spreadsheet detailing who owns all the land. ♪ Worsley, voice-over: It's a survey of nearly every town and manor in England down to the last peasant, plow, and goat, and the reason for doing this--money. William wanted to know how much tax he could get out of his new country, but the book also reveals something more sinister. I asked if I could see the entry for Grimsby, the town my dad's from. Now, at this point, my medieval Latin is letting me down, so I'm going to get a bit of help from the translation copy I've got here. There is land for 4 1/2 plows. There is a church and a priest. There's a mill that produces 4 shillings, and a ferry that renders 5 shillings, and before the conquest, it was owned by an Anglo-Saxon lady called Eadgifu. After the conquest, it's owned by a man called Richard. That's a Norman name, so it's gone from an Anglo-Saxon lady to a Norman man, and this incredible detail is replicated throughout the whole book. There are 13,000 settlements, from little villages to towns, and in each case, the story is the same-- the transfer of ownership from the Anglo-Saxons to the Normans. Worsley, voice-over: So it looks like William's confiscating people's land for at least a decade after 1066. At first, some of the English had been able to keep their property by acknowledging William as king, but by 1086, the majority of Anglo-Saxons were disinherited. Domesday means the Day of Judgment. There's no arguing with this book. This is the last word in Norman power. ♪ Worsley, voice-over: William's brutal tactics are now becoming clearer to me. ♪ Firstly, there was the military victory at Hastings. Then there was the building of castles to keep people under control, and now, by seizing Anglo-Saxon property and assets, William was further reducing their ability to resist. The Domesday Book is more evidence of a conquest taking shape. ♪ Worsley, voice-over: But you can't conquer a country with hard power alone. As well as subjugating people, you also have to win hearts and minds... ♪ what's known as soft power. I'm meeting a specialist in medieval women's history. She's unearthed a source that reveals how the Normans used this power in ordinary daily life. Do you think it's possible that when William was looking at the future management of the country of England, he saw marriage, intermarriage, as something that would be a tool at his disposal? I think he certainly at the start of the conquest had that plan, but from the first, say, 10, 15 years after the conquest, we don't have that many, and the reason for that is, we think, that the women were obviously very reluctant to be used as pawns in this game of the Conquest. From an Englishwoman's perspective, if your parents had to arrange a marriage for you, you much rather be married, presumably, to an Englishman, than to one of these bullies who came from the other side of the Channel because, you know, you couldn't be sure that you would be safe. What did the Anglo-Saxon women who were in that position feel about it? What did they do? They obviously were very anxious about this, and some of them took matters in their own hands, and... Oh. I have here this absolutely fascinating piece of evidence, which is a 12th-century manuscript, and interestingly, the text refers to women taking refuge in monasteries. It refers to those women who, not out of love for the religion-- "non amore religioni, sed timore francigenaro," but out of fear from the French, have taken refuge in these institutions. So these poor women going to the nunneries, they were feeling vulnerable sexually, you know, in the immediate physical sense and also perhaps vulnerable if they own land to being sucked into marriages so that the Normans would be taking their land off them. Absolutely. It's really hard to hear the voices of women in the whole story of the Norman Conquest, but here we've got a little echo, and it's a chilling echo. You're absolutely right. That is what this very important document shows us, and it's not generally known. The Norman Conquest is not only a story about soldiers and battles, but it is about mothers and sisters and wives. ♪ Worsley: It's so distressing to think of these Anglo-Saxon women hiding themselves away out of fear of being forced to marry these Norman men. They would have understood that marriage was part and parcel of a wider strategy of conquest. Anglo-Norman marriages would lead to Anglo-Norman children, which would mean that the Normans' claims to the lands they'd taken would be legitimized forever. ♪ Worsley, voice-over: William tried this soft-power approach in his own court. In 1067, he brought Edwin and Morcar home with him to Normandy and promised Edwin a marriage to his daughter. It was a strategy of "keep your friends close but your enemies closer." ♪ Outwardly, they were guests, but in truth, they were hostages. William wanted a trouble-free takeover of England, but the Anglo-Saxons were still mobilizing. ♪ That same year, a revolt began in the Welsh borders... ♪ and Exeter in the southwest rose up, forcing William to besiege the city for 18 days. In the end, Exeter surrendered, allowing William to build a castle in the city and consolidate his hold over the West Country. ♪ The farther you ventured from the center of William's power in London, the more the insurrection intensified. ♪ In 1068, sensing it was now or never, Edwin and Morcar escaped William's court and raised rebellion in the Midlands. Williams suppressed this, but by now, the flames of revolt were spreading northward. Morcar and a growing gang of other English nobles started plotting another rebellion against William. One of the English chronicles tells us that they were motivated by hatred of William for the injustice and the tyranny he inflicted upon the English. ♪ I know that the northerners mounted a much tougher and more prolonged resistance against William, but what was it about their rebellion that made it so difficult to extinguish? Hello. Hi, Lucy. You'll be Katherine. Yes. Worsley, voice-over: I'm meeting a cultural historian in a village that Morcar used to own--Middleton, which in the 1060s was in his earldom of Northumbria. ♪ There's an ancient sculpture here that she wants to show me. ♪ Gosh, look at these. They're amazing. The shape of the cross is such a potent... symbol of kind of mystic power. So this is a grave marker or some sort of commemorative monument for the person depicted on the front. Who is this little person with the pointed hat? Look at that. It might look cute, but he's meant to look quite terrifying, I think, because if you look closely, you can see that he is dressed in military gear. He's surrounded by weaponry, so I think that this is somebody who might have been a Viking. Is that his sword I can see there? That's his sword and shield here. And he's got a kind of a chopper here? So that's his ax. We can see he's got a knife, as well, that's slung up to his belt. We can see somebody who comes from a military background, power and strength are shown through military imagery. He has settled here, and he is now the lord of the local area. ♪ Katherine, what was our Viking warrior doing here in this part of England? Well, we often think of Vikings as raiders, but from the middle of the ninth century, they came to England in much larger armies. And did they settle down? Yes. They conquered and settled the lands, so if we think about it, in 1066, there had been 200 years of Scandinavian influence in the North of England, and so we can see from lots of different kinds of evidence that they grew together and became one community, so some of the words that we still use today come from Old Norse. A nice example is "window." "Window"? It means wind eye. "Husband" is another one that comes from the Old Norse "husbondi," which is sort of the master of the household, and one that is quite well-known and really frequent, is place names that end in -by, which means, really, a farmstead, so we can think of Whitby, for example, or Selby near York, Grimsby. So Grimsby is the farm of Mr. Grim from Scandinavia. Yeah, and we even see this in, like, small landscape features, as well, like a beck or a fell or a dale. These all come from Old Norse. So is it fair to say, then, that when the Normans arrived in England, this area of the North, Yorkshire and so on, it had its own quite distinctive culture? Yeah. I think that's definitely fair to say. I'm getting the impression, Katherine, then, that these people would have been particularly not keen on the Normans coming in and taking over. Is that fair to say? Yeah. I think that's true. I wonder if William the Conqueror knew what he was getting into when he tried to subdue these folk up here. ♪ Hmm, so I've learned that the people who lived in Northumbria had a different center of gravity. It wasn't London down south. It was Scandinavia. The region had its own separate identity, and the English rulers before 1066 kind of went along with that. They were happy to have a hands-off relationship with the North, but when William, Duke of Normandy, came along, he intended to change all that. ♪ Worsley, voice-over: According to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, the king was informed that the people in the North had gathered together and planned to make a stand against him if he came near. ♪ In 1068, William marched first to Mercia, where he suppressed all revolts, and then on to York, where he built a castle. Then he installed one of his Norman enforcers as Earl of Northumbria, but his control was illusory. ♪ In January 1069, the Northumbrians killed William's Norman earl in Durham and marched to York. Then they brought in Danish reinforcements. In September, these combined forces stormed York... [Men shouting] and torched William's two Norman castles were. ♪ Almost all of the Norman garrison was slaughtered. ♪ They then proclaimed Edgar AEtheling as the true King of the English. William now faced a serious challenge to his conquest of England. He was on the back foot. Was this the moment to go hard or go home? I want to know how William is going to respond, so I'm going to turn to one of the key key sources for the period. This is the work of a monk called Orderic Vitalis. He was one of these Anglo-Normans-- he had an English mum and a French dad-- and these pages are from his most famous book-- the Historia Ecclesiastica. The bit I want is about York, so I'm looking in the Latin text for "Eboracum," which is here. That's what I want to read, but for ease of reading, let's go over to the translation. They approached York looking for rebels. The king-- that's William himself-- "cut down many in his vengeance; "destroyed the lairs of others; "harried the land, "and burned homes to ashes. Nowhere else had William shown such cruelty," so this is William's vengeance, his punishment upon the North for having rebelled, and this word "harried" is very significant. It means to lay waste, to devastate, and in this context, it forms part of one of the most resonant phrases in British history-- the Harrying of the North. ♪ Worsley, voice-over: But these are just words on a page. I wonder what it was like to experience harrying as a weapon of war. ♪ I've come to York Castle to meet a senior curator at Yorkshire Museum... Hi. Nice to meet you, Lucy. Worsley, voice-over: who has some unusual archeological evidence. Worsley: Why did you suggest that we meet here at the top of the tower? Well, the tower is perhaps the best example of William the Conqueror's attempt to pacify York and across the region, really. This building, the motte underneath it was built in 1068 for William to try and control this unruly part of the country, so this is perhaps the best symbol of the Harrying of the North still standing. Rebellious people in Yorkshire, right? I mean, hard to believe, right, but, yes, Yorkshire and most of the North is in open rebellion against William for most of the late 1060s. And what have you brought here? They look very precious. I have brought you 3 coins, which are the protagonists of 1066. On the left here, you have Edward the Confessor, so his death in early 1066 sparks all of the events that happen later. I do that. Hopefully, you get a good chance-- Ooh, I can see his little face, yes, and is he wearing a crown, Andy? He is wearing a crown, so he's looking off to the right with a sort of pointy nose, and he's wearing this rather elaborate crown and holding the scepter, so the symbols of state. OK, so that's the ruler before the Battle of Hastings. It is. What's the other ones that you've got? Sure. This is Harold Godwinson, now, slightly less clear portrait, but hopefully, you can see he's looking the other way. He's looking the other way, isn't he? He's got quite chubby cheeks, has Harold. He has. Is that really rare? Yeah. We only have two of Harold Godwinson. We don't often bring this one out, so I'm pleased to be able to share it with you today, actually. Oh, what a treat, so who's this one? Now you're face to face with the man himself-- William, Duke of Normandy. I have to say, I feel intimidated by being face to face with William, Duke of Normandy. I think he's made a very clever choice there to be looking right at me. I find him more scary than Harold for that reason alone, maybe because I know about the Harrying of the North and what he did-- I'm extrapolating here-- but I just don't like the look in his eyes. ♪ So did all of these 3 coins belong to the same person? No, so these are from different hoards, so we get groups of coins buried in the ground, and we call them a hoard. And why would they be burying their coins in the ground? In a world before banks, you buried your money in times of challenge, times of crisis, and you come back and dig it up when the crisis blows over, but the crucial question in some ways is, why didn't they come and dig them back up again? And I guess if you're in York in the 1068 or '69, you know, there's an army coming towards you. You bury your wealth. You might escape town, and you might not ever be able to come and dig it back up again. Gosh, that's horrifying to think of-- people in fear and panic thinking the Normans are coming, and the people who buried these little coins never came back to get them. Yeah. In some ways, the evidence of the coins, particularly the hoards from York, is some of the best archeological evidence we actually have for the Harrying of the North and its effect upon the people. There are more coin hoards buried within the city walls of York than there are across the whole of Southern England at the same time. The reason these were buried in the ground, the reason that we're looking at them today, is all because the person who had them was probably terrified of the arrival of the Norman army, and may have lost their life to it. ♪ Worsley, voice-over: In times of conflict, international alliances are forged and broken. In late 1069, William bought off the Danish allies who'd come to the aid of the northerners. He then took back the city of York. On Christmas Day, exactly 3 years after his coronation, he paraded through the ruins of York Cathedral... ♪ but William didn't want the northerners to be able to use any of their lands to raise another army against him. ♪ He ordered the systematic destruction of villagers' homes, livestock, and crops in all the land north of the Humber River. [People shouting] ♪ I'm going to one of the places that experienced William's wrath, Levisham in the Yorkshire Moors, to see if I can glimpse the human impact of this. ♪ I'd like to see what these different chronicles have to say. Here's my friend Orderic Vitalis, oh, but he says that in his anger he--that's William-- commanded that all the crops and food be burnt to ashes so that there was no food left in the whole of the region, "regione," beyond, "trans," the River Humber, "Umbrana," my goodness, and he says that 100,000 people died in a famine. ♪ This chronicle's by another monk, Simeon of Durham, and he says people were so desperate for food that they ate the flesh of horses and dogs and humans... ♪ and this chronicle is from the Abbey of Evesham, which is in Worcestershire, so that's not in the North at all, but they were getting refugees from up here, from Yorkshire, and some of these refugees were so famished that when the monks gave them food, "cibum," they ate it so ravenously that their bodies couldn't handle it, and they died. I really feel that William has got blood on his hands for this. ♪ Worsley, voice-over: William had obliterated the rebellion in the North, but he'd also engineered a famine. ♪ Inflicting violence like this on people leaves a legacy, as I think the Domesday Book might be able to show us. ♪ This page covers Eurvicsciure, or Yorkshire, the biggest county in the North, one that was right in the firing line, and I'm going to pick out this little place here within Yorkshire called Asulvesby. Before the conquest, it was worth 10 shillings and 8 pence, but now, after the conquest, it's worth nothing, nothing at all, and that's because it's in waste. It's been laid waste to, and now I've spotted that tiny word "waste," it's catching my eye. I can see it's coming up again and again-- this place and this place and this one, too. It's like Yorkshire's been wiped off the face of the earth. At first sight, you think that this book is about accountancy and taxation, but actually, there's also a story here about a huge amount of destruction and human suffering. ♪ Worsley, voice-over: The Harrying of the North marks the end of Edwin and Morcar's power. Morcar and other die-hard rebels joined the last desperate resistance to the Normans at Ely in Cambridgeshire, but it was quashed. As far as we know, it was in a Norman prison that he died. ♪ As for his brother Edwin, he was ultimately betrayed by fellow Englishmen. They took his head to William himself as a tribute to the Conqueror's power. ♪ For some, the Harrying of the North was a step too far, even by medieval standards, and many of William's supporters now turned on him. Here's the monk Orderic Vitalis once again. Now, Orderic's generally on William's side, but not when it comes to the Harrying of the North. Where are my notes from the translation? Here we are. He says, "But for this act, which condemned innocent "and guilty alike to die by slow starvation, "I cannot commend him. Such brutal slaughter cannot remain unpunished." ♪ Worsley, voice-over: In the 1070s, the concept of war crimes as we understand them obviously didn't exist, but there were early codes of conduct that guided how wars should be fought and how soldiers should make amends. ♪ This giant book is from the 17th century, but it's got in it a record of a much older document that was drawn up by Norman bishops just after the Battle of Hastings, around 1067. It's a list of penances for those who kill in bello, in war. A penance is kind of like a punishment. It's either praying or giving alms or fasting, and this is what you have to do if you've committed different sins. This is if you kill somebody in the magno praelio, which is the great battle, the Battle of Hastings. You have to do one year, but--this is interesting-- if you fought in that battle as an archer, as a Sagittariis, then you might be ignorant of how many people you'd killed with your arrows, so your penance was less, just a matter of months, so there is some kind of a moral code that exists in Norman heads, oh, and this next one's interesting. If you killed somebody for praedandi-- so that's loot or for plunder-- then you got the worst punishment of all. You had to do 3 years of penance, tres annos. It's fascinating. It's like looking inside the minds of the Norman bishops who drew up this list of penances. You get an insight into what they thought was acceptable, what was good, what was bad. ♪ Worsley, voice-over: This code of conduct was written before the Harrying of the North, and William violated its accepted standards. ♪ It's become clear to me that William destroyed the North because he failed politically. ♪ Having utterly alienated the Anglo-Saxons, he could only rule through violence. ♪ The Harrying of the North didn't completely extinguish resistance. William would face further invasion threats from the Danes, but by 1071, he was the Conqueror of England. ♪ Even today, we still feel the impact of how the Normans took over England. We see it in our landscape, our laws, and even in our names. This is from the biography of a Norman celebrity-- a famous hermit, actually-- but he started out in life as a little boy in Yorkshire, one of the bits of Yorkshire that had a very strong Viking influence, one of the parts that had been harried by the Normans, actually, and the little boy's name was Tostig. You pronounce it "Tostee," and that's a very Anglo-Saxon, Scandinavian-sounding name, so what happened to Tostig? My notes from the translation will tell me, when his youthful companions mocked the name Tostig, "Tostee," his parents decided to change it, and what did they change it to? Well, the very Norman name of William. It's just a tiny, little detail, isn't it, about a little boy, but I think it speaks volumes. ♪ Worsley, voice-over: If the Normans hadn't broken Yorkshire and Northumbria, it's possible that the language and culture of Northern England would be even more distinctive than it still is from the South. ♪ William's conquest meant the North would no longer look instinctively across the North Sea to Scandinavia. Now it would look south and be part of a more tightly controlled England bound to Normandy for centuries. ♪ Before I started investigating the Norman Conquest, I think I'd assumed it was straightforward, almost inevitable, but I come to realize just how difficult it was for William to do it, and the human cost. Now, England was invaded before the Normans came along but never successfully afterwards. Perhaps that's William's legacy. ♪
 

Event details