Islam and Christianity sitting in a Black tree

A question was raised about religion adherents of different tribes in the village, the following was my reply

hahah @Pioneer1 namaste:) never all:)

In your experience it seems black people who are , what some call, devout, gardless to the religion they adhere to, fit a lifestyle model you accept as positive. ok

At the end of the day with the tens of millions of black people in the usa alone, the experiences black people have with religions or the religious, gardless of their adherences, is a wide thing. IT isn't hard to find a black person whose had a very negative experience with someone who calls themselves devout. Now you can argue, as you suggest in your comment, that the issue is who is devout who is in the spirit of a particular religion. But, I will argue history proves that argument, while honest, one that only manifest as an unending rabbit hole in terms of results. 

@ProfD

The fiscally wealthy rarely have a personal adherence of zeal for any religion... while they use the communal influence or financial halls of religious clerics and their places of worship to potent effects. The fiscally poor tend to have a personal adherence for a religion... while they rarely use the churchs halls or communal ability to improve their finances. 

Since you are a Statian I can see the logic of your separation of church and state position to the religiously devout in the black populace. 

But I don't think the answer needs to be exoduses from religion as much as changes into how the fiscal poor relate to religion. As any harlemite knows , harlem is full of churches, and every sunday all the black church members whose kin used to live in harlem and used church funds to aid their particular church group have a higher level of fiscal wealth, ala the Black one percent. But, the fiscal poor who will chagrin speaking ill of god and use the churches midweek, spend most of their time laboring, to make ends meet, to buy food, they don't use the church for non spiritual affairs. 

The fiscal poor need to embrace the church as a place of commerce, cause the fiscally wealthy arguably, use the church too much as a place of commerce, and yes I know jesus overthrew the money changers.. but, anyway

I end with, as you are also an individualist, your solutions speak to that line of thinking. but as I am a communalist, I have to say the clerics, preachers/pastors/imams are really most to blame over members of the flock, cause they have the power and have a better crowd to influence their financial behavior or how they live through various places of worship. 

And you have given me a good addiiton for an edition of the Economic Corner I am formulating, I have some others editions I have already written up completely but thank you.

@harry brown the questions of who is worse among the abused? who is worse among the inheritors of a negative culture? are valid for the history book but dysfunctional for getting results. 

The question is, how do religious populaces, gardless to the religion , improve their positive functionality internally plus externally? Specifically, to the global black village how do the black populaces in what I will call the six religious zones, improve: 

USa+Canada

South of the USA [Caribbean+Mexico+South America]

Continent [ Africa]

Asia [Iran to the Phillipines]

Europe

Australia+ Oceania

Blacks in Australia+Oceania , like the aborigine who are first peoples to australia while also black, don't have a religious issue simply because the abuse they have survived and are still under is quite potent. In my eyes, they are still in the enslaved phase of the Black history book.  PRe Slavery/Slavery[Complete and then Jim Crow]/Integration

The aborigine is in a Jim Crow phase. Yes, they are not completely enslaved but the shackles are there, australia mocks the aborigine as a free peoples. 

Blacks in Asia , like the habshi or kalo in india , the negrito who are also first peoples of asia while also black, the kokuchin in japan are in the jim crow phase. The problem with Black Asians in Asia is that outside White European power, they have to also deal with White Asian power so it is a double. Yes, they are not completely shackled in irons, but they are in late 1800s jim crow, which even by white european accounts was worse than complete enslavement. Yes even though slavery is illegal in jim crow [jim crow eras defining aspect], whites historically use legal means to make so many legal non physical shackles it is from a functional perspective harder. because while blacks can fight to illegalize slavery, it is hard illegalizing negatively engineered fiscal environments. 

Blacks in Africa are in the jim crow phase, the end of colonialization was the boundary in africa between the complete slavery phase and the jim crow slavery phase. But like in asia, Jim crow of africa is hard. Because yes, black countries exist but their entire design is a jim crow. And because of that, and the fact that unlike in the other continents where an integration era will eventually come, the next era after jim crow has to be a black power phase so it is very challenging to get from a jim crow country to a black power country.

South of the USA has a form of integration.  The legacy of the conquistador, the east india company, the caribbean black states, is south of the USA historically has been better for blacks in terms of opportunity, and arguably still is. BUt, south of the usa is very tied to the idea of clans, lineages. I argue if a black person has money south of the usa they will deal with less restrictions than in the usa. But, the black populace south of the USA never had the jim crow battle because they already had a form of the integration so once complete enslavement ended they were into said form of integration.

Europe never had a robust slavery phase. And because blacks are the most minor in Europe , they have a form of integration. The problem in Europe is unlike the USA which allows for individualism to bind varying peoples, European countries don't have that. And, they are also not in the same place culturally when it comes to multiracial situations. so, I argue europe is as good as it will get until the EU goes from an articles of confederation form to a constitution form. Right now the EU is an articles of confederation style so they have a union without military bite and absent the desire to bond tighter, and the USA doesn't help because Europeans like history and they can see that the constitution dwindled states cultures in the usa such that now, whereas each state in the usa was supposed to be self sufficient, they all are welfare states to the federal government in modernity so... 

The USA as First People lands before 1492 was pre slavery, from 1492 to 1980 in which the usa went from white european colonies to indepenent white european colonies in a egal union was the slavery era [ complete from 1492 to 1965 jim crow from 1965 to 1980] and then integration which is the only phase in which the usa existed at the beginning is from 1980 to today. 

So, what is my point? any slavery situation deletes the discussion between variants of black christians because black people are enslaved. So, of the six regions that leaves three. 

USA+Canada

Europe

South of the USA

Now in those three regions where does religion sit? 

In South of the USA , religion is powerful. Religious communities have real power. The separation of church and state does not exist, don't let anyone fool you. The zeal or fanatacism possible in South of the USA is the kind that burns the vestial virgins alive, if you know your Roman imperial history. So I will make south of the USA exempt from your argument, not cause black people are enslaved, but because the potency of religion is too strong to treat like something that can be easily bent or allow for peaceful discourse.

In Europe, the french would say the religion of the state has replaced religions and this is  a parademographic truth. part demograph, image of the people, truth. what do i mean? The sad reality of religion in Europe is immigrants brought a fervor to religion that has hurt  the religion of the state. One of the most negative legacies or heritages of the white european imperial era which I argue we are at the end of is the religiosity in humanity.  White european empires [muslim + christian] forced religion onto those they conquered , used religion to control those they conquered, even before they conquered them or after they lost total control such that religion is embedded in many human populaces. Such that when they immigrated to europe,  they were never going to join the religion of the state. Now, in time I think the religion of the state will win out, but it needs more time in europe. to that end, blacks in england and france whose bloodlines were before the second white european imperial war commonly called world war 2  tended to mulatto themselves such that they are usually disconnected to the post world war 2 immigrant populaces whose quantity allowed for a maintenance of phenotype. So in europe, the equivalent to Black DOSers are smaller in quantity but also have become a mulatto demographic. they are like the coloreds in south africa, not white or black but at this time their own branch. So the religious of the modern black immigrants are only amongst themselves , they don't have descended of enslaved variant in Europe of any significant size.

LAstly, that leaves the USA:) 

So after eliminating three because black people in said regions are still enslaved. One through the religious environment not allowing for a religious tolerances. One through the lack of a comparable Black Descended of Enslaved populace, it leaves the USA+ Canada. In the USA + Canada who are worse adherents of religion Black Descended of Enslaved of Black Modern Immigrants post 1965 ?

Honestly I don't think either can stand on a hill above the other. But how can both improve , I have some ideas. 

What they both have in common is a big place in their community. 

The reality is the Black 1% in the USA today are tied to churches. It isn't an accident that Obama was a member of a church in his rise. Nearly all Black DOSers or Black people with influence in the DOS part of the black populace in the usa has some ties to a black church. 

The reality is the Black 1% in each country in Africa are tied to religious groups. Every knows if you want something done, go to the religious groups in any African country and that will help gets things quicker than the fiscal marketplace. Build a church, build a mosque and the pastors or imams will find allies for your cause through the bureaucracy of the country. 

It isn't an accident that Malcolm + MLK were never the leaders of the most prominent organizations representing their particular religious molds: the nation of islam + the southern black christian leadership conference. 

IT was because malcolm + MLK had a pan black view to the black populace even as men who were both preachers to a particular religion, even though their backgrounds were quite varied. MAlcolm was the son of a Garveyite Christian Homesteader. The Black Homesteaders were about owning land, but also isolation from whites. Not total separation but isolation, they didn't trust integrated communities, and the Garveyites were the best black financial movement in Black history in the USA or the white european colonies that preceded it. So Malcolm came from a pan black communal financial independence heritage. The nation of islam was and is an isolationist religious group within the black populace. If you are not a member of the nation of islam, even while black, the nation of islam probably will not help you. 

MLK was a nepo baby, the son of the son of a preacher, the wealthiest black family in the local region. We blacks forget that the black church in each black community in the the usa was usually the fiscal center or fiscal wealthiest. Adam Clayton Powell jr, Abysinnian BAptist Church has the oldest Black money in harlem. Their eldership is a very powerful group. Remember the elders of the Abysinnian Baptist Church told Adam CLayton Powell jr who was the son of a preacher who was the son of a preacher at the same church that he had to stop his wife Hazel scott from touring and making more money than him and even though he was a member of the house of representatives, he did what they said and hael scott... battled but eventually gave in to the pressures. But MLK gardless of his background, didn't embrace the bootstrap, I got mine get yours, blacks are hurting blacks more philosophies that many or most black pastors had and maybe still have today. 

Sequentially, MAlcolm nor MLK were ever head of the most important organizations in guiding the larger religious communities they were the face of. 

So, I see two issues with Black religious groups whether Descended of enslaved or modern immigrant in the USA. 

1. They have to both be about Pan Black, helping another black person has to not be contingent on them joining your church or mosque. ... I will even add the Black Jews as another who have a very proselytizing position. When you look at Historical Black Colleges, or the financially wealthy black churches it is clear, they don't mind helping black as long as black is a member. That has to change, and change from within... so... 

2. They have to also be brave. I haven't yet found the list of black church leaders who voted on what the black church should emit to the larger black populace in the fist few years after the war between the states ended. I heard it was one vote that led to the black church going nonviolent, but the historical value is clear regardless of the exact names of the people or their scenarios. The stance to integration the black church had since 1865 wasn't the most positive functional stance black people needed before 1980. I argue the homesteaders strategy was the most positive functional stance for the black churches to take pre 1980, but...I also know that Frederick Douglass , Ida B Well and others weren't keen on homesteading. They wanted to integrate. and so it was an internal battle in the black populace and the black side that favored what was safer about whites won over the side that favored what was better for blacks. Nothing is easy, it is cheap to judge from 2025 on 1865 so I will not suggest cowardice or the simplicity of hindsight on them. But, the results are here.  The black places of worship have to be brave. And lets be blunt, the history of the USA proves, many Blacks or non Blacks in the USA talk a big talk about adhering to the law , and bootstraps until they are financially needy and then they show their true colors and kill and cheat and harm many others for their sole gain. And if they don't get caught and find financial footing go right back to their adhering to the law feces. Again,  The black places of worship have to be brave.

I never forget all sharpton saying that when he started his movement various black groups came about looking to swing him their way, he chose the nonviolent integration path through influence from coretta scott king, but to his credit he didn't say the other paths were wrong, he said he made a choice. 

URL to comment

https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/12056-african-christians-african-american-christians/#findComment-77851