richardmurray

Hi @richardmurray in your blog post questioning Ebony's viability you wrote, "...in the usa people, all races, are buying less and less books in any form."  I was wondering where you got that stat?

No I do believe a print version of Ebony will be wrought with challenges. I just don't think a lack of potential readers will ne their problem.  The need to publish substantive articles.  Celebrity fluff will not cut it -- at least not with me.

It they follow the mainstream media's lead, in the way Black people are covered, they will fail.  Ebony needs to elevate itself above the fray -- the way they did in the past.

 thank you to Troy < https://aalbc.com/tc/profile/9056-troy/ > , I said all forms, I meant all forms of paper based books, pbooks:: magazines on the rack, newspapers, retail paper books similar. Audiobooks/ebooks are always upward. and libraries are in heavy or growing use. So I misspoke:) 

I Said

you argue that black people forgot or lost sight of ourselves with the push to integrate as equals to whites, but who was ourselves? Your words suggest a unity or communal organization that did not exist. Remember, Frederick douglass/nat turner/web dubois/booker t washington were in each others lifetime; they did not have similar minds about various questions to the black individual or community. Do most black people want better for black people? yes. But the definition of what that means has never been agreed upon in our community. Sequentially, what you say was a mistake was what many black people wanted. Not all black people, not me, not you or cynique, but in a population of tens of millions, many. 

Troy  <  https://aalbc.com/tc/profile/9056-troy/ > said

The disagreement between the likes of  Frederick douglass/nat turner/web dubois/booker t washington was between individuals.  I'm talking about a people.

There certainly was greater unity in the past than there was today.  The unity was required for our very survival.  Here in Oklahoma I'm aware of many thriving Black towns that existed because white folks refused to let us live in their communities.

That does not mean everyone in those communities agreed on everything -- that would be impossible.  N=They however agreed on enough to create wealth in the face of constant existential threats.

Today it is questionable if we can generate enough unity to maintain a magazine that provided the agency to speaks to our needs and tell out own stories ... and that is sad.

So yes I look to the past the lament the lack of solidarity that we had in the past. 

My Reply

each one of those men had many black people who aligned to their philosophy.  Is that true or not? If it is not true, then as you say, their philosophical variance is merely individual. If true, then it is a communal issue. 

Unity is not organization, they are not the same thing. In the comments sections in this forum most black people , you+ me+ mzuri+cynique, all are unified. we all support this black owned website, but are we organized? no. The key here is the difference between unity or organization. If unity is organization to you then you are correct. 

The word agree means to like. The word accept is to take something, whether you like it or not. For this phase in my response. I will use the word accept , in place of your word agreement. Why? Agreement isn't about organization, a thing of the body. Organization is about acceptance. When the irish mob relented to the italian mob in NYC, it wasn't agreed it was accepted. Getting all in a group to like a thing is near impossible. But getting all in a group to accept a thing is mandatory if it is to function positively. To your point, black people whether we liked it or not accepted, the situation under white power. Thus we collated into towns and , proving my point, the second white people allowed blacks in their towns, the exodus of many blacks from our towns. Those blacks never liked or agreed to living side other black people, but they accepted it, under white power. But a strong organization isn't when the body is formed under pressure from outside but when it is formed from balance within, ala the irish mob and italian mob in NYC. 

And that leads to my point. You question if enough unity exists. I know enough unity exists. Most black people want better for black people, ala this website's mere existence. But unity is not organization. And that was why I said the better stratagem for Ebony is to focus on fiscally wealthy blacks, all throughout humanity. Yes, most black people, including me and I think you, are not part of the fiscally wealthy black group. But, that group's members have a lot in common. All are fiscally wealthy, thus absent the difficulties being fiscally poor brings. Most, over 90%, have a positive relationship to some whites. Now they do not all speak english, are not all african, but the Ebony magazine can bridge those bounds.  My original comment suggested ebony can succeed. But not by catering to the entire village, it must cater to a tribe in it. And why? cause the village in the usa or beyond it is not organized. And never was. 

Fair enough, we had a solidarity in the past, but that was under white duress. The future goal, is to see what kind of solidarity we can make without pregnant black women being hanged, without black children being electrocuted for living, without formerly enslaved illiterate black men signing their lives away for bread, without black towns at the mercy of the white towns next to them. Black people being forced side other black people cause all of them are afriad of whites is a solid thing, but I rather black people want to be side other black people cause we want to be. And we have yet to prove that, in the usa at least.