richardmurray

MY COMMENTS

The reason why black people in the usa are unable to act as whites is because of white people, this is a historic as well as modern fact, so joining white organizations in the usa which is dominated throughout its entire history by whites,  is a double hindrance. 

@Stefan thank you for your reply, my only addition is the notion has been around since circa 1865 but White financed Black Leaders , to be blunt, opposed it functionally. 

Sequentially, a black party of governance will have to oppose Black leadership in nearly all sectors. NEarly all black elected officials in the USA will oppose it. NEarly all black fiscally wealthy will oppose it. 

I think we all know a Black party of governance hasn't been tried with vigor cause it represents a challenge for most Black people who are deemed successful in the usa. 

To your points about finance or agenda, both will be interesting challenges. 

@Stefan not a fantasy , but a difficulty, nothing is impossible, but the question is, how many black people are willing to do whatever it takes. 

How many Black people circa 1865 were willing to kill black people who didn't vote for a black party? Is it right or wrong, I don't know about that. Is it difficult, 100%. Circa 1865 these are death by the hands. But,  In the war between the states, many white families hurt their own household members. Whites were willing to kill each other for an agenda. Was it right or wrong?  I don't know. Was it difficult? 100% 

Historically, your very correct. From the infancy of the usa the Black community has disagreed on what tomorrow needs to be, when one section of free black people fought for england, aside the other section of free black people who fought for the colonies, aside the final section of black people who were completely enslaved and is the largest group. All three groups wanted freedom.

The enslaved blacks, 90% of us:) , didn't want the colonies of england to win,they didn't want the english crown to win,  they wanted to kill or somebody to kill that white master and all other whites around them and flee far enough to be away from whites forever. 

The blacks who fought for the usa, wanted the colonies to win, figuring the whites they fought next too would invalidate slavery. Sadly for them, benjamin franklin and company re-enslaved most of them. 

The blacks who fought for england , wanted the english crown to win, figuring the whites they fought next too would invalidate slavery. In defense of the british, they did give their loyalist freedom, hard freedom, bootless freedom, but freedom, 

So, your point is correct, but the problem is greater than acknowledgement. It is that from circa 1865 Black leaders in the church and elected made individual accountability the majority accepted opinion on how to accomplish, one black person at a time as citizens of the USA.

The advantages of individual accountability by Black people in the USA is: nonviolence thus whites can't use simple legal means to harm  or blackade or ostracize,less to no communal activity thus whites can't use black communal activity to spur on their communal activity which is better financed, freedom for blacks to act anywhere in the usa thus black people can be president of the usa or ceo's of whites firms or in the various occupations or places or positions in the usa that don't benefit black people in a direct way but can benefit a black person alone, Black individuals are free to be themselves thus a Black person can harm other black people and it is not up to the community to erase that individual but it is up to other black individuals to decide how they want to relate to that person. 

The disadvantages are many, but the most potent is lack of speed. It moves to slow and thus, while trickles of black people slowly become better from 1865 to today, the majority of black people are unable as individuals to succeed. Thus it means, the black community in the usa, with the current plan started in 1865 by black leadership will take a very very long time to reach a place where a majority of black people will be positive. 

@ProfD @Stefan any ideas on an agenda? I concur that a Black party of governance needs to have an agenda first. 

@Stefan great link, I still wonder what you think , but thank you. I can't imagine you don't think anything.

@ProfD the following link will take you to an article where you will note many ukranians dissenting. If anything your prose prove that black people take too much stock in how white owned media presents us. Black people in the usa don't own white owned media but live in a white country.

https://aalbc.com/tc/profile/6477-richardmurray/?status=1883&type=status

@Troy I will be blunt, many a black person I know older than you or me by distance said the same thing about their time when our age, referencing a book written by a black person. .... What do you want Troy for the Black community in the USA? Do you want Black owned book publishing firms to dominate the market? what goal do you want for the black community in the USA? 

@ProfDI want to amend your statement, not just russian counterparts their russian kin/family/clan. That article's primary point , in my view, is the lack of comprehension or media admittance on the relationship between ukraine side russia. 

I bet most ukranians have russian ancestry. You think so professor? I think so. This russian/ukranian war is a intra-clan war. That is being sold as two separate peoples, by the usa goverment who has an agenda to offer other news than the fiscal downturns or virus and wants to push the european union into something. 

of course, most people from the USA who didn't fight in the vietnam war,living in canada or somewhere outside the usa, who are alive still feel a similar guilt or shame to ukranians who have not fought in the russian ukranian war. Same to whites who didn't fight in the war between the states, based on what was spoken through transcription in my memory.  Humanity loves to make men feel bad when they don't fight in wars, as if wars are ever as straight or simple as advertised. They never are.  

In my view, the russian ukranian was is inevitable or necessary. I will defend my position professor, with the following, i wonder how my defense holds up.

1st. the russian government was already installed in two regions in ukraine that the current ukranian government never officially accepted. The eastern border provinces of ukraine that border russia, I think called the donks. And Crimea was under russian suzerainty, like guantanemo is to the usa. So, the russian government saw a need to control crimea which is the biggest seaport in the region and support plus liberate the donks, which is the pro russian , east section of ukraine. Based on the western kiev based ukranina reply to current events, russia acted in fair necessity. 

2nd. The ukranian goverment before the current was pro russian and the usa side other western european countries, manipulated things in ukraine to overtunr said government. Thus, the usa meddled in ukraine to place a pro usa government. But the pro usa government in ukraine didn't seem to realize that all their neighbors had a military alliance but them. bellarus has a military alliance with russia, poland and west of ukraine are all in nato for the most part. so...the ukrainian government foolishly thought it could evade being a proper neutral country while not joining a military alliance. they performed a dangerous dance between two powers and any time a government does that they make war in their land inevitable. 

@Stefan for the record, the black party of governance in the usa isn't my agenda. I want to see it, I advocate for it, but on a simple grounds, it has never been done. 

Black people starting business, supporting black businesses, going to college, having educational pushes gardless of college in the usa have been done multiple times ias collective pushes in the black community in the usa. But the black community in the usa has never , ever , had a black party of governance. I advocate doing new things when you have tried the same old things multiple times. 

Black people i know in south africa, tell me about, voting, and I inform them. over 95% of black people voted for mandela and company, and in the first eight years, over 90% of black people participated in voting. The fact that the percentage of black vote is lower now can't be blamed on black voters when in my lifetime black people voted over 90% in south africa. I tell them, do new things, forget about black parties of governance, ala ANC forget them. 

To the usa, I have never been a member of the donkeys or the elephants and I have no intention of joining a black party of governance in the usa , but I know it is something that hasn't been done and so instead of hearing ten more years of black people complain about the party of andrew jackson or abaraham lincoln, i advocate those complainers making a new party. 

You know the forums in this community, you read the comments, this forum is full of black folk, at the least people I think are black,  complaining  about the two parties, so leave both of them and start a new one. 

To your point about soliciting information from others , fair enough

@Troy   for men of the sun, that may be the hardest achievement for our rocks to make 

as you said, the individualism has to go... the day most black individuals have an idea of where they want the black community to go, will be the day , communalism is stronger in the black community

@ProfD is power for nothing? is the path made from power unnecessary? I argue the history of the USA , at the least the white european people in it, proves using violence/war/getting the death of millions/being barbaric/having greed is for everything, not for nothing. Without said negativities the white european community in the usa has little to nothing of what they have, thus said negativities are the most necessary to those who have the most. If anything, the questions are, what value is peace? is peace for nothing?  Is peace unnecessary? Are native americans living peacefully in the USA necessary to native american betterment , growth? What has living peacefully brought the native american? 

I think whites know history very well, and they know that those who are in control have the forebears who acted negatively without shame, for they comprehended their descendants will be better off inheriting more, by any means, not less. 

well said @ProfD and fair enough

@Stefan @ProfDI  concur that all humans beings can do negative or positive things, the words sin/evil/good/wicked  I don't know about all that. 

People do negative things for reasons. 

Rwanda or Tigray didn't happen cause of evil or wickendess or badness, they were inevitable because of the situation that two groups of people were set up in. Again, I can take White european examples, to show it isn't about Black people, it is a merely human thing. Ireland was dominated by the english for thousands of years and with all the miscegenation, intermarrying, in the end, the irish still wanted freedom from the english. the tigray/ oromo/eritreans/the falasha have been fighting each other since ancient times. And they never had a set of leaders at the same time who wanted a peaceful union. The tutsi and hutu before the english got to tanganyika were not one people and battled each other. the british got their and they still didn't like each other. The british made rwanda, and absent leaders who wanted to merge, they eventually had it out. The Black community in the USA has over 150 years of a majority of its leaders, dysfunctionally or functionally, stating they peacefully or positively embrace whites. Not all leaders, but most. That is how you get multiracial peace. 

And that is why Black folks argue over this issue Stefan. The question is what do you want the Black community to be tomorrow. The white community is still battling over what they want the white community in the usa to be or the usa itself to be. For any group to improve they need consensus, but consensus can be hard to achieve without violence. Cause with violence, you can kill the people in the group who aren't in consensus and thus consensus is reached. Is it a sin or evil? I don't know, but I know it is very functional. Can every community do it? clearly not, but absent consensus in a group , what canany group positively  change for itself?