richardmurray

Book Review of Freedom at Dawn: Robert Smalls’s Voyage Out of Slavery by Leah Schanke @Leah Schanke from Richard Murray https://aalbc.com/book-review/freedom-at-dawn-robert-smallss-voyage-out-of-slavery #bookreview #book #freedomatdawn #robertsmalls #leahschanke #rmaalbc #aalbc #richardmurray #hddeviant #richardmurrayhumblr

I Argue it could had been. what say you?

@Pioneer1 no, I am a black person whose forebears were enslaved by whites to these lands [ canada to argentina]. I am in the usa because white people wanted me here. It is that simple. Now if I had the means to leave I would. My forebears were enslaved, they didn't have means to leave. My forebears who were allowed a level of freedom while under constant white abuse didn't have means to leave. Did some want to leave? yes. Did some of my forebears become part of the usa? yes. But it is a choice every Black DOSer has to make, and when adult they will make it. I don't comprehend your reply, are you saying far east asia was more technologically advanced than the rest of humanity white europeans dominated? No, if anything the usa military endangers all on earth by their actions. I am stateless. Every single Black DOSer is stateless until they choose not to be. What do you think enslaved people are? My forebears were enslaved, that didn't make them citizens of the english empire nor citizens of the usa later. An enslaved person isn't a citizen of anywhere, that is the point, they are enslaved. Are you suggesting in 1776 the 90% or more of black people in the usa that are completely enslaved are citizens of the usa? If you are, that is fine, I am not trying to change your damn mind. And I know many black people concur to your thinking. BUT I oppose that. That is not my thinking. And I know many black people concur to my thinking. Stateless people don't have a government to connect to. Now black people who have chosen to connect to the usa have, I have no problem with that. That is the free choice all Black DOSers have. stateless people exist all over the world. the romani are stateless. BEing stateless doesn't mean you don't abide by whatever legal code you live under. You don't comprehend statelessness properly. yes, yes luck, nature or fate are funny aren't they . Don't always try to make the past a machiavellan thing. I think too many blacks create in our own minds a controlled world, just begging for the right genious to make it happen. No, luck is a powerful force and yes, some people, some groups can be lucky a long time and in many ways. It happens. that is an equivalence you believe, I don't see it that way. Multiversification isn't a sign of intelligence. Implemention is the key to any ideas qualities, not the idea itself. Monoversification can be implemented better than multiversification. So by your own words, faith is invalid. The USA has one of the most religious populaces in humanity, arguably only second to india. Religious populaces base their actions on faith, by your own words, illogical or unreasonable. Majority in the usa are overwhelmingly religious. But how can you prove a way of organizing humans can't be implemented? How is it possible for the past to have every single method of implementation tried? Your suggesting if an example of human organizations can't be displayed in a history book, then that method of organization can't exist in the future. That is dysfunctional, unless you know the future? Your basis for something not being possible is because of the past from 2026:) You think a hell of lot more of modernity than I do. Well again, I argue, that they haven't tried. if you read my words, I clearly say they didn't try. Lenin and MArx theorized, made an idea, but the Russian socialist, which started as a fiscal capitalist group in russia whose sole path to implementing their idea was violence never tried to implement socialism. Russia itself was a fiscal capitalistic monarchy, so it had no space for socialism to be tried within it. And after the reds and whites fought, the russian socialist became communist, and again, communism is merely fiscal capitalism. I reword, the russian socialist, never tried marx and lenin's ideas but implemented fiscal capitalism with two principles derived from socialism. One being the one party idea, which is based on socialism's no tiers idea but isn't a direct relation. Having one party of governance in my view doesn't mean no class/race/rank exist. The second is the government as the lone business, which is based on socialism's idea of equal wealth share. But, only having one firm doesn't mean equal wealth share because the people in the upper administration have various types of wealth, maybe not in strict dollars but in influence. So fo rme, the russians never tried. You suggest they tried because of a name, of a label. The USA people call democratic/rule of the people , which is also a lie. How can the people rule when you have reservations or enslavement? Don't tell me native americans want to be on reservations and abiding by the ways of non native americans. Don't tell me Black people wanted to be enslaved? please don't do these things. please. The USA is a fiscal capitalistic white manoralistic country. The USA went from land based manoralism to stock/shares based manoralism. And replaced the white regals of Europe with the white populace, while the white peasants/people of the land in europe were replaced with all the non white european peoples of the usa. The big deletion was religion, where religion was considered a standalone body in europe, the usa cut religion out of the system of manoralism, allowing all religions or faiths or none at all to exist. Countries do shift ideas over time but the intentional while poor labeling, of ideas in countries is why you get miscomprehensions today. The USA is not a democracy , Democracy has never been tried in the USA. The usa is a manoralistic country, that likes to lie about itself. As england its forebear did and does. As fellow anglophone creation india does. India says its the biggest democracy in the world. Here is thing, this is a country where the peoples are battling each other violently ever day. The rule of the people. How can a people be considered one people when they battle violently ever day? India is a loose confederation of fiscal capitalistic tribes. India is a lot like the Holy roman empire . Holy roman empire wasn't really one country. It was a loose military alliance of various small states for their collective protection surrounded by large militaristic empires: france west/austria-hungary south/russia east. The scandanavian kingdoms were above them, who shifted power between themselves. India has pakistan to the west, a religious state, china to the east whom india still contends kashmir plus tibet with, russia or some stans of former russian empire north who , and the sea south where the usa has vessels. I apologize, india also has bangeldesh to the east, another muslim state, pseudo caliphate. So I don't chagrin, Russia or china from similar lying. India's lying, USA is lying. Why can't russia or china lie? @ProfD I'm just black. I have said it before in this forum many times. I'm just black. I have no allegiance to any country. I am not a native american. I have traveled to various countries in africa, I am not a member of any of them. It is said I have to use zionists , cause the romani or my enslaved forebears are better, but zionists are easier for most to comprehend. Zionist came from all over the world, but what are zionists. Zionists are jews who felt the countries they are or were in are not theirs. It didn't mean zionists didn't pay taxes or work. I don't know why, connection to a country is assumed when one follows the law. Zionists worked to have their own country which is modern israel today. But not all stateless people have to take others land or kill others. My forebears were enslaved, I am not interested in slavery or killing others really. Do I like everybody ? no. Do I trust everybody? no. But I am not interestedin taking someone elses land cause I am stateless. This doesn't mean I don't work or follow the law of the usa? I always have. I have never broken the law in the usa. Not for love or allegiance or connection , simply cause that is what one does anywhere on earth, well most folk:) @Pioneer1 Exactly, all black people whose forebears were enslaved from africa to somewhere outside africa are DOSers, which definitely includes modern day Canada to Argentina. And to that thinking. When you look at the rastafarians who left jamaica and live in various parts of africa today, like zionists, who are jews who felt the only country they have was a jewish one that didn't exist until they took over the palestinean protectorate. That is the point. Not all jews are zionists. Not all black people in jamaica are rastafarians. why is a black DOSer somone mandatorily of the usa? You ask for examples of things. Zionist + rastafarians are examples of sections of two groups: jews in all humanity or black people in humanity/not all rastafarians come from jamaica, who view their true home as not where they live. why did I need to explain this to you? that is my question. Or do you just like this kind of debate. I argue your reading of extremely modern history is incorrect. The problem isn't immigrants. I argue, from the immigration act of 1965 to 2026 90% or more of immigrants to the usa, all phenotypes, all religions, all genders, all age groups[even the kids though they have the most resistance ], all languages, all geographic descendency, have been two things. 1) totally allegiant to the usa, as their home, once they arrived, betraying the homes they came from in various ways 2) adhering to the hierarchy of white power that existed before they came that exist today. As I said before about the immigration act, the problem is, white people in the usa, specifically, the whites before the immigration act of 1965 and their descendents today, never considered the immigration act would yield the horde of fiscally poor people into the usa, it has. I asked this in the 22nd edition of the economic corner https://aalbc.com/tc/events/event/553-economic-corner-22-10222025/ Full speech from Lyndon b johnson https://aalbc.com/tc/profile/6477-richardmurray/?status=2785&type=status ICE is not about immigrants but whites in the usa who have a history of burning black towns and villages with its people in it, taking the scalps and hunting down for sport native americans. Whites are simply trying to bully immigrants, it is immgrants turn to join the Native American + Black DOSers as survivors of white violence. The problem today, is the USA is 250 years old. From 1492 to 1980 are the past, that time of enslavement and then jim crow is passed. Not all whites in the usa want to bully the non white into a form of slavery. Not all the non whites in the usa, are so impotent they can only watch their people be assaulted or hounded. Time has moved on from the kind of usa where white power can completely eradicate the non white. Abuse? yes. Take advantage of? yes. Kill? yes. Harm? yes. But not completely kill. Not completely harm. ICE will not get the immigrant peoples to flee the USA, or stop immigrants from coming. Yes, some people will be frightened away. But not enough for what whites... some whites... most whites want. it is interesting that you blame this on immigrants. Did not Lyndon B Johnson, a white man from texas with a nearly all white congress, save one yella black man, adam clayton powell jr, and a handful of other black elected officials make the immigration act of 1965 into law? Did not states who never had anything but white governors, invite immigrants, including the likes of texas? By your words Pioneer, someone will think immigrants tricked somebody. The USA didn't demand a patriot test? the usa didn't demand an english test? the usa didn't put great limits? I found this website from the white pew research center. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/07/22/how-the-origins-of-americas-immigrants-have-changed-since-1850/ 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 So, the people you say , Pioneer, who need to pick a side or be american are really, Mexicans, whom militaristically have a claim to half of the usa, behind the native american of course. Now regionally, I did learn something so thank you. The Dominicans, from Dominican Republic , man They really focused, between cubans flooding in florida and dominicans flying into new york wow! ok. Although this also proves somethingI have said a long time, that most whites are german americans. wow! this is the proof. well...

@Pioneer1 this forum is a place of discourse, each topic is started by one but the path need not stay on the topic started. you use the word thrown, do you know all the people in your bloodline? you shouldn't if you are a DOSer, and if you are a DOSer then are you suggesting the people with a phenotype , you call mixed in 2026 who were completely enslave pre 1865 are what then? true , that is true, BUT not all things can be defined explicitly. phenotypical labeling can not be reduced into a numerical form. Carbon is called element six but carbon is merely a name. it isn't a false name, but if I call carbon fingerplus, that isn't invalidated because it has no consensus. but labeling someone black isn't explicit. Fire, all types of fire, come from chemical or physical reactions that generate a chemical reaction commonly called fire. But the name fire isn't explicit. In the same way, naming someone black isn't explicit. Fire like race is always real, but the labeling is not rigid, and you have prescribed the label black a specific way which is not bound by anyone else. Nor is my definition for black bound to anyone else. But both are real. And going beyond the two of us, it matters how the black group defines black. Well.. When you say recently, Miss Black America started 1968. Again , Alice was enslaved 1963.. Malcolm was murdered 1965, mlk jr was murdered 1968... You say recently? when exactly? My reason for asking what time period because for me, Jim Crow was 1865 to 1980. Financially I don't see black ownership in that time period in the usa. YES, MAdame CJ walker was in the 1930s. But black people owned businesses in the lands that made up the USA before the USA was founded. Look at the American Revolution transcripts, I can't remember which off the top of my head. https://aalbc.com/tc/events/7-rmcommunitycalendar/week/2025-11-22/ Black owned media that could reach wide swaths of black people in the usa for me truly started from 1980 onwards. Every black town or city, or black neighborhood in a white city had local black owned media but none were strong enough to stretch across. Black Newspapers are black newspapers, newspapers don't usually do fashion, that is magazines. I know, I checked to makebsure, Ebony was started in 1945 and Jet was started in 1951 but most black people didn't have the money to buy jet or ebony. Jet or Ebony original audience was the black 1% so... when you say black media between 1865 and 1980, what do you mean? and as for white media? well how was white media treating any black woman properly? when you say propers, you mean dark skin women as maids? that is proper? Yes, I am little confused by your statement. I clearly don't comprehend Black Media as you are using it. I need your help. What is Black Media to you? I ask because when you say black media, I don't think you see black media like I do. When I think black media I think black owned media, meaning the money or the producer is black. Black panther is not black media. it is white media with black people in it. BET is white owned, that is white media with black people in it. Black owned media is rare in the usa. BET was sold by a black man to whites, who then sold it to other whites, paramount to skydance. TVOne is black owned, by a black woman. I can't recall a black owned film production firm comparable to the likes of disney/paramount/warner bros et cetera. Like Obama being the black president of a white country. Black presence doesn't mean whites don't own or control. Black presence doesn't mean black people are enslaved to whites but it doesn't mean black people own or control. You have made me think about this, if someone ask me , what is black media in the usa, throughout my life. I have very little to say. I will brainstorm the following BET for a very short time, so not BET. Black Enterprise magazine, going strong. I didn't know about miss black america or miss black usa to a mature adult, but going strong. TVOne going strong. The OWN network, though I don't know if Oprah actually owns the OWN network, so no OWN cause I am not certain. Forty acres and a mule, spike lees production firm, though alot of his movies he doesn't majority finance,so I say no. I know Malcolm post production was financed by a collection of black people but the majority of production pre+filming was white. so , no forty acres and a mule Milestone comics, but how much money did dwayne mcduffie and company actually provide. at the end of the day DC financed those comics so.. no milestone, and I love, Blood Syndicate. It is my favorite comic from the usa. Amsterdam News, my local black newspaper, still going strng. Harlem Week in NYC, still going strong but that is local Jazzmobile, was once really great, but when billy taylor's spirit flew, that really reduced the vitality of jazzmobile, but it is still going on, albeit less potently. a show like like it is was local but financed by ABC. Killens Review is from MEdgar evers college, but again, Medgar evers gets alot of money as part of CUNY So white owned for me. it isn't a private college. and NYC, or NYS state's government is white, at least to me. The Olmec company which made Sun man, but they closed down. Ebony magazine or Jet MAgazine I admittedly, never saw my parents with an ebony or jet magazine. Some relatives would have them but it wasn't grandiose. and their firm went under and assets are owned by whites now to my knowledge, though I am not sure. if I look at my life and what is black owned media in the usa, which is what I think of is Black Media, that I was aware of and still around. Black Enterprise Miss Black America+ Miss Black USA TVOne Amsterdam News Harlem Week Jazzmobile independent local media efforts by blacks who had money at the time So half of those things are local to me. all but two are regional, north east. Black enterprise or miss black america. So, what region of the USA were you born in? Cause, the midwest and deep south have nothing in my view, even locally when it comes to black media. So.. I think dark skin black women locally in NYC have been very visible in local media. I remember many posters as a kid, local things, festivals fairs. That wouldn't reach far. Sun man was a toy but the audience was mostly NYC. So... What is black media to you ? Because once I comprehend how you view black media I can comprehend your statements better. In my life, white media is the dominant avenue for black presence in media, and I don't see any black presence in white media as indicative of anything black. Cosby show. Fresh prince of bel air. A number of those black romantic films. Yes, Black presence but we don't own those things. The truth is black people own very little in the usa, but again, that shouldn't be a financial shock if black people are honest about our financial history in the usa. Slavery + Jim Crow were very real. 1980 to 2026 is only forty six years and not even of financial opportunity but financial allowance. from 1492 to 1865, enslavement, and then 1865 to 1980, jim crow, the black populace was intentionally stopped or stymied by white power, by any means necessary, and the black populace had no violent means to stop it. Now, I do argue black people needed to have a legal pro bono movement to somehow match all of the white crimes or illegalities against us by whites but that didn't happen.

@ProfD knowing Sammy's wild personal behavior at times, he may be:)

https://www.tumblr.com/communities/filmnoirpigeons/post/806241150065410048/noir-city-photos-and-videos-curated-by-gary-meyer

Of the quote from Profd , I want it publicly said, I concur Webster did something. The rest of what Profd said I struck through as a lie or false praise or a misrepresentation of communal action.

@aka Contrarian what is your favorite memory involving in any way, the chicago bears?

@aka Contrarian 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:)

@aka Contrarian It is rare i do the following but I will paraphrase the white enslavers commonly called the founding fathers, concerning the peoples use of things: the people are stupid. Yeah black slang and ebonics while black people let the gullah dialect become endangered, the patios of new orleans be the same. Black people emphasize slangs we made, which are very figurative over , literally more potent forms like the gullah dialect or the patois of new orleans or florida. It is a taste thing, admittedly. Well, what word would I replace perfect with in the following phrase you wrote "In a perfect world, as the adjective "perfect" suggests, there are no problems. Life is ideal." I would replace two words: a and perfect and make adjustments to the following "In my ideal world, no problems exist" In a world I have an idea to no problems exist. Perfect meant a total work. As the zen say, it is the sunny side of the hill side the shady side of the hill. Problems must be in the world for it to be total. Yes, oonmoptopia I spelled it wrong. It's funny when webster was a boy, in england, people couldn't comprehend each other in various regions of england because their diction was so various. This was the same in france or germany. Meaning when webster was a boy there wasn't popular usage of words in england. every single region spoke differently in england, often incomprehensibel to each other. He comes up with this idea of a "standard" book of rules of words and speech for the english language. a dictionary for english. Dictionaries are as old as the royal bloodline of the nile, but never before were they advertised as a standard. And then with the advent of public school which wasn't common either in humanity. School historically was something paid for by individuals, it wasn't for the public , it wasn't for all. but with the idea of the public school plus dictionaries came what you call, very correctly, the popular majority usage of certain words certain ways as de facto official. Webster himself, made up words:) but post webster, now we have popular usage. So, yes I don't feel obliged to adhere to webster. But I want to defend my individualism, I am not looking for a flock. I simply admit myself. The popular usage will remain, will be adhered, but I don't care if I am alone with 999,999 other people I will be my way.

@aka Contrarian I know of it, I have always felt the heritage webster started in the anglophone and unstraightly all humanity was an error. His implementation of a book of speaking based on figurative definitions was the beginning of a literal horror show in linguistics, cause now throughout humanity, most, an overhwhelming most, preference to the idea f figurative definition which only harms the positive quality in communication. I wish someone black with money with my thinking had been around circa 1865 in the usa cause black people in the usa had a unique opportunity to have a much wiser sense of diction but.. it wasn't meant to be. Unfortunate, I hope you feel better sooner rather than later

@aka Contrarian perfect comes from the latin per- meaning totally, ala perview is when something is viewed totally absent any part not viewed fect - means work. A total work has all in it. Perfect never suggest an absence. Problems are part of what makes the world whole, are part of the total world, absent problems the world can't be perfect, a total work. What you call ideal, a thing of an idea, in not perfect. It is the idea of a world without problems, that is not a perfect world, that is an ideal world, an imbalanced world. I have etymologically proven my position. I have always opposed the USA heritage derived from the english of using words figuratively. It weakens all words. We do like each other, as much as near total strangers can. We do not concur on definition. if you have a video collage of sweetness running about, give it a view and lift your spirits