The Modern USA's lack of advocacy

The problem with most non white european male groups in the usa is white male europeans forced their leadership to be financially impotent advocates. Who didn't work in th ebureaucray or have the money to lobby the bureaucracy, which made their advocacy pure. Their was no profit. But, in modernity, all the non white male european groups have bureaucratic members who have replaced the advocates of the past but lack the advocates of the pasts qualities in poignant agendas, earnestness in desire to help their specific populace.

And that has created in many non white european male populaces in the United States of America a rift between their masses an their elected officials.

MY THOUGHTS

@undefined @undefined @undefined the key is what separate black leaders in the past from today.

Sharpton is a leader, Obama is a leader, but all of these people are employees. The key to Colonel Tye to MAlcolm X is that for most of the 250 years of usa history and most of the 500 years since the white european colonies in the modernly called american continent, black leaders were unpaid financially disconnected advocates. They never made money, didn't have any money to make, and always had a hill to climb whether violently or nonviolently with whites, which usually meant they died in terms of agenda, unhappy.

Post 1960s, the Black advocates were killed or stymied and the Black elected official came to be the primary leadership in the black populace of the usa today. Modernity has more black, female, asian, latino, native american elected officials and yet, blacks, women, latinos, native americans don't have advocacy in the government.

Sequentially, the styles are very different. Malcolm side MLK jr side Fannie Lu Maher were the last era of a majority of black leaders as advocates for black folk.

No money in the advocacy, no payment in the position. Pure what do black people need. And whether it was through violence like Nat Turner or demographic identity like Marcus Garvey or all the various other movements through the centuries, the advocates always were thinking about black betterment.

Sharpton had or has a show. It doesn't make him corrupt but it is different.

If you are going to be an advocate for black people, you can't be employed by whites or financed by whites of employed or financed by the usa government which primary agenda is the betterment of the white populace in the usa. Regardless of what non white fiscal wealth or opportunities arise. And all those who are financed by whites, ala a thurgood marshall/Sharpton/Obama/david dinkins have impotencies. But all those who are in the system ala Adam clayton powell, can't advocate for black in the system . Adam Clayton powell fr, great acts in harlem happened before he was an elected official. Once an elected official he was impotent, but the reason isn't negative, simply structural.

Government in the usa is controlled by lobbies. What is the point? Lobbies pay to get the laws they want. Who has the money but whites.

Black success tends to be financially opposed by most lobbies , but the reason is even, cause most lobbies are white and their white financier is more than likely making money through suffering in the black populace.

So, I restate all to say, No black leader today is like black leaders in the past, but that is because the past demanded/allowed for advocacy by Blacks leaders as a primary tool. The primary tool for black leadership in the usa today is bureaucratic activity. Today, a black leader can want advocacy but usually operates within the bureaucracy so they never have a black agenda in their role. And I think the black populace in the usa, especially the descended of enslaved, wants their cake and eat it too.

And the reason is many Black DOSers in the USA want the Black community to grow and thrive while they also want the USA to be this land of individuals. and that is a very hard thing to achieve. And the reason it is hard isn't negatives but truth.

What the Native American needs, even for those that do not want, in the USA is to the detriment of all others in the usa. I rephrase, Native Americans should be given large tracts of land back all over the usa plus tons of back owed money. But that can't happen unless everyone else takes a financial and communal loss.

What Black Descended of Enslaved needs, even if they do not want, in the USA is to the detriment of all others. I rephrase, Black DOSers need what they have been denied by white violence constantly and that is their own governing space, along side like the native american , a ton of back pay.

What Whites want, not need, in the usa is to the detriment of all others, but is historically the sole point of why the usa was created. I rephrase, The usa wasn't created for everyone to benefit or for each individual to have, the USA was created for a set of white europeans descended from various fiscal poor of continental europe , to fiscally succeed no matter how.

What modern immigrants want, they don't need as well, is to the detriment of all others and potentially all humanity. I rephrase, what they want is a country that will allow a stranger to come in and have opportunities or advantages said stranger doesn't have where they come from, and to embrace their children as part of the country for no other reason than being a human being.

These four paths do not work together. Thus all the populaces in the usa are being poorl led today. None of the leaders can satisfy all four paths through the bureaucracy of the usa government

REFERRAL

https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/12875-march-on-washington-2026/#findComment-83280