richardmurray
-
Posts
2,415 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
91
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by richardmurray
-
-
-
Quote
Can YOU offer any credible proof that Crypto proved a viable investment tool for Black people? You never provide proof of anything, just baseless and ludicrous opinions.
Can you provide a link of when i ever said crypto was a viable investment for black people ? I will help you.
The following is a link to all post from me with the word crypto in it, in aalbc.
https://aalbc.com/tc/search/?&q=crypto&quick=1&author=richardmurray&search_and_or=or&sortby=newest
QuoteA few feature stories in the NY Times about White dudes are NOT proof that Crypto benefited Black people. Let's see some links to a credible news source discussing how Crypto proved a boon for Blacks.
The only truly credible proof is a private financial investment ledger which I am not privy too. Cause I repeat , I have never personally supported investing in crypto. And if I was privy to such information I doubt i would display it without the permission of the people it relates to. Now, I have never suggested I can provide irrefutable proof on anything. And regardless of my offline information, which I wouldn't convey online anyway, that isn't proof.
QuoteI remember your past nonsensical bullcrap:
How you wanted me to help you write a post extolling the virtues of NYC Subway Terrorist Frank James. You admired James because as you told me, he made Black NYC Mayor Eric Adams look bad. And James was, according to your rancid thinking, striking a blow against homelessness. I have no idea how came up with that garbage. I replied James had been little but a crazed dumbf-ck for years who would be sentenced to a long prison term. And that's exactly what happened.I wanted you to help me write something. I don't recall I ever wrote anything like that.
Here is one half of my proof , these are all the posts with frank james concerning me. Never once did I ask or desire you to help me write anything. You like proof, check yourself.
The following is the other half. I don't usually submit a private multilog, but your lies force this.
If you notice, you started this private message, not me. I never asked you for... anything. I never wanted anything from you. And I refuted your view toward me. You kept suggesting your assisting me by communicating to me.
QuoteRichard,
If you want to become a good blogger, then never assume of pontificate without evidence to back up your claims.
This is what you wrote: Sequentially, a black party of governance will have to oppose Black leadership in nearly all sectors.
Do you even know what sequentially means? It means chronologically or one after the other.
What you mean is a Black Political Party, not a black party of governance. In this country, Blacks don't govern chit, which is what governance means.
NEarly all black elected officials in the USA will oppose it. Again, did you survey Black elected officials or are you projecting your own personal biases? Because what you wrote again cannot be proven.
NEarly all black fiscally wealthy will oppose it. You mean wealthy without the fiscally. Wealthy defines an individual with a high net worth. Because rich means someone who has a lot of available money and probably spends a lot. Which means they could also carry a lot of debt. Trump is rich, but not wealthy.
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. Again, you are assuming. Explain how a Black Political Party would challenge most successful Black people.
These are questions your readers will demand answers to.
Now, you know why I was such a damn good editor. I never allowed bullcrap or bad writing to fly. And all those young White writers with Master's Degrees from Ivy League universities eventually learned to ask me for help before filing bullcrap copy.
I will try to help you if you really want to write. Just let know.QuoteStefan, thank you for your critique.
I used the word sequentially, referring to the fact that after a Black party to governance is started, it will face the following things instantly, based on the current scenario. Can I prove my future claims? no. I can't. But I am willing to challenge anyone who suggest otherwise come with their reasoning. I can provide mine.
No, I meant a Black party of governance. A Black political party is merely a gathering of Black people. The Black panthers of self defense is a political party. The nation of islam is a black political party. The KKK is a white political party. The Party of Abraham Lincoln or the Party of Andrew Jackson are parties of governance. These are gatherings of people for the purpose of control in government.
I admit I haven't polled all I assert to. But I think everything I wrote is supported by history.
Black elected officials existed in the USA for over 150 years. In that time, a Black party of governance has not succeeded in gaining a seat outside of one potential example, in mississippi. In 150 years I am certain many Black people uttered, lets have our own party. The fact that it hasn't been tried by a largess of Black elected officials tells me all I need to know about that community. Now, can I be wrong ? yes. But, for me to be wrong, it means that a large number of black elected officials, combined from the POAJ or POAL , are eager to have a black party of governance, but never did in 150 years. PErhaps, I can be wrong. but I don't think so.
I define wealth as that which is valuable. It can be fiscal, ala money or in other ways.
I said in my post, most Black people deemed successful have a positive relationship with whites, an integrated relationship on a personal level with whites and by default a Black party of governance is not an integrated institution and unlike Black collegiate sororities or fraternities is not within the confines of historical black institutions.
Now, will many readers, maybe most or maybe not most, contest each poistiion? yes. Do I have irrefutable proof to any position I make? no. Do I think I need irrefutable proof? no. I can accept anyone saying, none of this can be proven, therefore none of it is true.
I end with praise for you Stefan. You are an excellent editor to the majority literary standard in the USA. I don't comply to said majority standard in my: literary structure, use of words, reader considerations, or personal guidelines.
If I ever want to emit work to comply to the standards that you are a master at putting forth, I will definitely contact you.
QuoteI said I would help you. Keep it simple.
The average person reads at 8th grade reading level.Quotegood point
Now, for your next positions
QuoteYou also swore that it would have been ideal for Blacks to create an all Black Political Party in the year 1865. Although in a subsequent message to me, you labeled it a Black Party of Governance. There is no Black Party of Governance and creating one in the U.S. in the year 1865 would have gotten so many Black men lynched. (Because remember, it took many decades before women were officially granted The Vote).
Again, I never said ideal. I have never said offline or online that at any moment in the history of the usa or the european colonies that proceeded it that anything was ideal concerning black people, no plans no situation no ideas have ever been ideal for black people in the usa.
What I said, and here is your proof
is the following
I want you to quote when I said anything was ideal
some of my earliest quotes, say nothing about ideal situations. And you can use the link above if you want more proof. I messaged in a public post that it is a Black party of Governance. And I never said one existed , I said one was needed, and hasn't been tried. And for the historical record, so many black men were lynched , black women raped, black towns burned completely, I don't comprehend why a Black party of governance would had made more of a negative difference, when even whites will admit that violence against black people after slavery in those early years was worse than during slavery.
https://aalbc.com/tc/blogs/entry/194-richard-murray-creative-table/page/5/?tab=comments#comment-495https://aalbc.com/tc/blogs/entry/194-richard-murray-creative-table/page/5/?tab=comments#comment-496
https://aalbc.com/tc/blogs/entry/194-richard-murray-creative-table/page/5/?tab=comments#comment-498
https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/5787-black-party-to-governance-after-listening-share-your-thoughts/
https://aalbc.com/tc/blogs/entry/194-richard-murray-creative-table/page/8/?tab=comments#comment-898
And lastly, your position of black ignorance of the past.
QuoteFor the most part, Blacks could not freely vote in the United States in 1865 and in fact, most Black Slaves in the South never had any inkling they had even been freed by the Emancipation Proclamation. When they found out, they created the beginnings of the Juneteeth Celebration. There would have been precious little benefit to creating an all Black political party back then.
The articles are all cited. And clearly show the idea that black people were ignorant to their condition in the past is a lie, or that they were disengaged. I repeat, black leadership made a choice and that choice led to the changes black leadership wanted in the black community but they had other options that I think were better and still today, the black community in the usa has elements it lacks which its leadership isn't supporting.
https://aalbc.com/tc/profile/6477-richardmurray/?status=2346&type=status
My only problem was I went against what I said and I replied to you. That was my mistake. I will not make it again.
-
@ProfD No I meant luck. Inside knowledge isn't luck, that is a cheat. Which always occurs . but I meant true luck. Some people made fortunes in crypto without inside knowledge Prof.
-
@ProfD yeah:) and the usa has seen this story many times: The gold rush or the oil rush in the late 1800s early 1900s, the original stock market boom in 1920s, the dot com boom, the crypto boom, the usa is the home of get rich quick schemes. the luckiest invest a lot before the stampede but get most out before the winter. the lucky invest the same way with affordable funds. while most, overwhelming majority, have bad timing or investment and lose money.
I imagine extraterrestrial mining will have a similar fate.
-
My comment
based on the articles, and my own comprehension beforehand. Many people had the idea for a memorial day at the end of that war. Who originated it is functionally a hard question cause that will require knowing who was the first to make plans as many celebrations at the end of the war between the states to memorialize the soldiers was present. But, while the first conceived is hard or near impossible to answer, the first on record can be achieved.
Early Post Reconstruction articles
https://aalbc.com/tc/profile/6477-richardmurray/?status=2346&type=status
A QUESTION to the modern Juneteenth
-
Decent reading concerning the activity of black people at the end of the war between the states
https://aalbc.com/tc/profile/6477-richardmurray/?status=2346&type=status
-
@Stefan fair enough
Well, I have to first say, I opposed getting involved in the cryptos and didn't like what I knew in terms of financial stability or long term financial quality, and I spoke against getting involved with crypto to others.
But having said that I want to defend those who involved themselves in the crypto.
I remember three articles:
1) one where a white guy in his 20s living downtown manhattan boasted of being a crypto millionaire. He was highlighted in the new york times.
2) another white guy admitted he put millions of dollars, his life savings into crypto, he is trying to suit to get it back but the case isn't in his favor.
3) the ftx wall street journal advertisement where a side of a page was bought.
My point, lower rich whites was the fuel to this thing. Many of them lost money in it, but they fueled it, and those who got in early and sold before the fall made millions of dollars. Like the gold rush or oil rush, most lose money in these get rich quick schemes historically. But a minority always get lucky and are the stories people remember. ame with crypto. Yes, I advised against it. but I do comprehend why people were suckered in. Those who were purely lucky enough to gamble right in their timing made a lot of money.
-
1
-
-
-
In 2022 I asked what is the most common action during Juneteenth. This year it occurred to me that while the Black community in the USA has known of the end of the war between the states since it happened and has praised it , wrote books about it, no celebration is unique to the Black community in the USA, in particular the DOS tribe.
Now while it is sad that Juneteenth doesn't have a unique celebration for it after over one hundred and fifty years, talking with another privately, I realize the opportunity to create a unique celebration is present.
So, I ask all black people, whether DOS or not. Any ideas for a unique celebration for Juneteenth? I know people will cookout and go to beaches and et cetera, but besides what is done for every holiday, any ideas to something unique for Juneteenth?
The 2022 post
https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/9479-what-is-the-most-common-action-uttered-during-juneteenth/
-
@Chevdoveglad i helped
-
1
-
-
@Pioneer1 I want to quote myself
Quoteyou are a leader in any community when your resources, whether that is fiscal wealth or government position or communal following or other gives you the ability to influence the community you are native to.
From my own words my definition of leader includes: robert johnson or byron allen for their financial potency, while MLK or Malcolm for their communal advocacy. all four have when living the ability to influence many in the black community. Yes not the same way but the ways in which one can don't matter, the ability matters. And I quote myself again
QuoteOne isn't a leader because people know them or anyone says it publicly.
I know you oppose my definition or position on this and that is completely fine by me. I have no problem whatsoever, but when I speak on any leader it is based on the ability to influence a large number of others in their community by any means whether anyone state it.
In my view, many leaders can be poor, and to be blunt the black community in the usa has many poor leaders. No one is forced to be a good leader or bad leader, it is one's choices. The only thing one , like me, can do is when the opportunity arrives to be a leader they act better than the leaders they call negative.
yes I am aware of the various free black communities, notice I used the word communities, from the european colonial period. but two points. first, I never said I wanted anyone else to think like me. I am not suggesting you said i wanted you to think like me but I find comfort online repeating that as often as possible. BEcause saying one disagree's seems to be for many proselytizing, something I dislike a lot. second, I have always stated without any shame the variance in black tribes in the village in the usa or elsewhere . I repeat most free blacks during the cessation from the british empire fought on the british side, not the colonist.
I think I have always stated the inner multiraciality in the black community without negativity.
Now to your final assessment
QuoteHowever, it appears from some of your posts that you believe if we were to become (a monoculture) led by (who ), we'd achieve (something). I haven't seen any evidence of this claim in history. Maybe those who are American Descendants of Slaves might have a better shot at becoming a monoculture. However, that doesn't include every person of African descent in the USA - so that might be a sticking point.
I apologize. My poor prose led to said appearance. But that was and is not my intention.
My intention is to merely speak the truth of the past.
The black community in the british colonies plus the usa as a collective has four phases:
1) Indigenous->Blacks were mostly native americans, not all or most native americans are black, born free. A minority of native european or native african ancestry blacks existed. Whites enslaved the indigenous people. Ending around the late 1500s
2) Enslavement->Blacks were mostly of African descent and enslaved to whites, deprived all freedom. This was from the late 1500s to 1865 the end of the war between the states
3) Nonviolent freedom-> Blacks went from having an overwhelming majority that are of African descent and formerly enslaved, circa 90%, at the beginning of this period to completely internally multiracial at the end of the period. But throughout this period rights are increasingly earned absent using mass violence through white allowance. I didn't say no blacks used violence , i am speaking of majority here. This is from 1865 to 1980.
4) Integrated-> Blacks have no overwhelming majority or majority internally and are becoming even more internally multiracial. The black community is integrated into all communal corners of the usa.
Now what was my intention.
Historically I will state a few.
1) The Black community in the usa or its british colonial past historically has an overwhelming majority, circa 90%, in itself that was one tribe in the village so to speak. This was the entirety of the second period below and the first half of the third period mentioned above. If you are going to talk about black leadership during that time you have to accept the condition of the black community then which isn't as it is now.
2) Black leadership at the beginning of the third phase was the first black leadership that had a majority of black people who were not completely enslaved, like today. But also had an overwhelming majority in the black community that was a monoculture, farthest from today.
3) Black leadership at the beginning of the third phase was most influenced by Frederick Douglass. and while Frederick Douglass wanted betterment for all black people, he firmly opposed internal multiracial variance in the black community while wanting most black people to go one way : ala his opposition to the exodusters, to black leavers (any black people who want to leave the usa to anywhere else and not embrace living in the usa, not just the later garveyites ), to black militants whom he felt would undo the potential of the usa to be a composite nation. And that disconnect between the majority of black leadership following the philosophy of someone whose plans or ideas or policies don't match the desires or wants of an overwhelming majority of the black populace at the end of the war between the states, is the simple truth that led to alot of losses of black lives. And in particular, the war between white and black people in the former confederacy, which most call jim crow.
4) Black people have mostly achieved what Douglass and the majority of black leaders , like the south carolina legislature, wanted.
They wanted black citizenry- most black people in the usa at the end of the war between the states had no connection whatsoever to the usa, in modern usa, they are firm statians.
They wanted integration- most organizations in the usa had no black representation at the end of the war between the states, the usa military got rid of the black soldiers who fought in the war between the states, in modernity every single governmental organization and most private or publicly traded firms have a black presence.
They wanted nonviolence- black communal leaders in majoirty preached nonviolence from douglass to eric adams today, and the majority in the black community obliged no matter what black people were harmed by whites.
They wanted financial betterment for black people- black people have continually risen financially in the usa, absent stealing someone else's land, absent enslaving another human community, absent a war machine, absent using positions of power to aid on blacks. From barely any black ownership at the end of the war between the states, to the many black billionaires plus multimillionaires today.
Black people did achieve, achieve alot. I never said black people didn't. The key is Black people achieved what a majority of black leaders wanted at the end of the war between the states, BUT not what the overwhelming majority of black people wanted at the end of the war between the states. The overwhelming majority of black people at the end of the war between the states had two things that Douglass and most black leaders since him opposed completely : hated whites with a violent passion, wanted away from the usa.
My point Mel isn't that Black leadership should be different in the past. No, not at all. My point is Black Leadership strategy at the end of the war between the states, like all leadership in human history, had prosequences plus consequences to the larger community based on the leaders position. The prosequences was: continual financial growth, abiding by the idea of usa citizenry <all men are created equal> with no abuse of power to hurt other communities, continual standard education, continual embracing of internal multiraciality<no community in the usa allows individualism more than the black community>. The consequences was: millions of black people relying on the dysfunctional or impotent law or legal system of the usa , embracing citizenship to all while trying to educate themselves or make money, which left them totally defenseless against white aggression. And said aggression caused immeasurable harm to every single black DOS bloodline, the DOS were once the overwhelming majority, in the usa. But the black leadership at the end of the war between the states was DOS too. So The DOS led to Black achievements while also led to Black pain being defenseless to whites. And that is fine. But we as a people don't say it enough when we talk about why we have current situations or how to learn from them going forward. We start talking about internal battles that aren't as strong or creating false variances between our tribes or other lies to the truth.
Black people today will do whatever they feel necessary. But when we speak of our past, we need to tell the truth. Yes, I can say I oppose Douglass or other black leaders, yes I can. That doesn't mean they should or I want them to change what they did and do. All that is needed is to comprehend the prosequences or consequences to their actions. And learn from this.
Ala why I say, to Black Militants in the usa that they will never get most black people today, but it isn't because that was always so. And it isn't because black people like to be abused by whites or are cowards. Most black people in the usa today believe in the base principles in its system of law, not that the law reflects the base principles but the base principles have a presence that they want to believe in or act faithfully in. So kill whites if you want but comprehend the truth of the situation and don't criminalize blacks who have chosen a different path.
Why I say to Black donkeys or elephants, that they have to make policy to attract black people, but it isn't because black people never showed faith in participation en masse. that happened in the past multiple times. but, black people today want policy to help them, and if need be exclusively. It isn't that most blacks today want to harm others but most blacks today know the black community has unique problems non blacks don't have and they need unique policy issues. So vote and gain office but comprehend the truth and don't criminalize blacks who have chosen a different path.
Yes, I do make assessments to black communities globally when applicable. Mandela and the majority of black leaders in south africa in modernity is the same as Frederick Douglass and the majority of black leaders in the usa at the end of the war between the states, and south africa's black community is going through the same process the black community of the usa did. Over one hundred and fifty years from now if the black community stays on the path, maybe less time, maybe more, the black community in south africa will gain more power and take a superior position on all things without abusing or assaulting or annihilating the colored or afrikaner which is what mandela or tutu or most the black leadership in south africa wanted, not Winnie Mandela, not others. And if the path stays the same like the usa their will be blacks who hate whites with a passion in the future while most blacks, a majority of blacks, in south africa have a positive relationship to the local whites.
But I do not suggest anything should change in the past, the past can not be changed. I find it silly to go into that. You can say where leaders go wrong or negative, but leaders have positives too.
More than likely I increased your miscomprehension to my words but...
-
@Pioneer1 Well... my military assessment is different from yours. In my view, the problem with italy is christianity, religious race, not phenotypical race. First, Constantine whose letters, are in latin but can be rough translated, clearly states that christians are a menace in the roman empire and was part of why he moved the capitol of the roman empire to Nova Roma, outsiders called constantinople, now called Istanbul. Christianity post Jesus as a religion breeds violent multivisions, more than divisions, historically. And that is the core to italy's problem militaristically. Remember, the Crusades while advertised as about christianity versus islam, functionally, christians harmed christians more during the crusades, i think five of them, than any muslim group. Justinian, a roman emperor took over the italian peninsula again, but eventually the italian peninsula was lost as the roman empire was absorbed by the series of caliphates of the muslims. And that is why italy was impotent militaristically. Italy + Portugal+ Spain had to deal with centuries of two continuous raiders. Whites, with no black in them continually raiding or pillaging or crusading from the north while a multiracial empire was in the south, first the continuation of the roman empire capitoled at nova roma and then the muslim caliphates until the latter of the ottomans. They were squeezed and were the bastion of catholic christianity , whereas the south was muslim and the north was anti catholic,remember, even before martin luther, you had the knights templar of the crusades who while unsuccessful in conquering muslims, freed themselves from the european regals or the catholic church, which is why friday the 13th happened.
-
1
-
-
I comprehend.
If I gain fifty billion dollars tomorrow morning all mine, no tax needed. What will I say.
Richard Murray has the most intramultiracial community of black people in the usa.
NYC circa 2.5 million black people I am a leader of. and yes, I am also a leader of the black community in the larger usa, over night.
Does anyone know me? no.
But that doesn't matter. One isn't a leader because people know them or anyone says it publicly. you are a leader in any community when your resources, whether that is fiscal wealth or government position or communal following or other gives you the ability to influence the community you are native to.
If I am in NYC and I have fifty billion dollars, I am a leader. Is how I will lead be known? no.
People will have the right to do to me what I do to Douglass or others and judge me on my results.
If I do nothing then anyone can say I was a poor black leader. if I leave NYC immediately and do things elsewhere a black person in NYC can say, Richard was terrible as a black leader in NYC.
I quote myself
QuoteFrederick Douglass had an overwhelming majority in the black community, over ninety percent, that was truly monoracial in many racial ways.
I don't see the connection to people knowing Douglass with the condition of the black community at douglass's time having an overhwhelming majority in itself.
One point in history
QuoteBlack population....those down South working in the fields?
Juneteenth is coming up and I think many black people or people in general in the usa really don't define reconstruction more functionally.
At the end of the war between the states blacks in the south are happy, whites in the south are sad. And a ten year war between blacks in the south and whites in the south was waged. Black people lost terribly. Ten years after the end of the war between the states, blacks in the south are sad plus demoralized, whites in the south are happy plus invigorated.
That switch was so extreme that black people in the south could say they were born enslaved to whites, hated whites, were free from whites, tried to befriend or befriended some whites, went on a path of individual + communal improvement involving voting or communal activity that the black community hasn't performed as strongly since, had whites derail their entire communities improvement which is why the black community hasnt been as invigorated ever since and derail their individual lives all in one lifetime, leaving them bitterly hateful to whites with a total fear of violent action against whites.
You said working in the fields as if most black people in the south simply continued enslaved, that isn't true, the gatherings of black people, movement of black people like the exodusters, the work of zora neale hurston getting first hand thoughts from blacks at that time prove that is far from the truth.
But, Black leaders led by Douglass made their choices. Remember the black church leaders had a vote on what to do, go violent or go peace, I can't provide you with exact names of who voted and no one can prove what exactly happened in the 1860s in a private meeting but, nonviolence reportedly won by one vote, and from then to today was set.
-
Quote
But how are they ALL...as a community...treated why White New Yorkers?
We acknowledge differences among ourselves, but do Whites acknowledge our differences as far as their treatment of us?
The quick one word answer is no. But that isn't a sufficient answer. In NYC, Whites acknowledge differences among themselves. One of the problems when black people talk about how the white community treats the black is the idea that the white community is unified against us, while unified in itself.
What is my point?
Before that, I have seen a muslim woman with a hijab holding hands lovingly with a jewish man with the jewish cap on very happy, so.. you see instance of everything in new york, i am speaking of majority here. Plus, I will use the phenotypical adjective for religious races, though I comprehend italin or irish are not phenotypical but geographic heritage labels.
Now, what is my point.
In NYC at the least, and I think all over, The italian doesn't like the white jew, the white jew doesn't like the irish , the irish don't like the dutch. They all are whites who treat blacks as the enemy historically in a communal sense. But they are not united, they are against each other. The proof. I don't know if you know NYC history but their is blood on the streets in NYC from all the bloodshed these communities have spilled against each other. My point? Black groups in NYC, like White groups oppose each other, all the time. I argue, Black groups oppose each other less than white groups. The variance. White groups tend to treat all black groups the same while black groups don't tend to treat all white groups the same. But, this goes into the difference between the black community side white community in the usa. Never forget pioneer. The white community in the usa for most of its history or the european colonies that preceded actually had complete power. The black community has never in the european colonies or today, had complete power over itself, and never another community. So... the black community in the usa does have a different heritage from the white community and just because I think it is warranted to say, the native american community also had a unique heritage. Said three people's are not in the same in their heritage concerning the usa in large ways. It can't be reduced to, all humans are human, that isn't sufficient. the native american is not the whites, the whites are not the blacks, the blacks are not the native americans. yes, hybrid examples or situations occur but the majorities are not the same in key ways.
The question is why can't a majority of black leadership in the usa, implement a cognition of said variance in their ideas or policies. I actually have an unproven thought on that. A majority of black leaders in the usa have a position of human equality, individualism as a unifier that blocks said cognition. If you are frederick douglass or martin luther king jr or barack obama and one of your principles in your mind is a human unity a human equality that is pure or at the root how can you accept or implement ideas or policies that at their core accept human disunity or human inequality?
Now you said the following with more
QuoteOne of the reasons for this is, unlike most White people who CLAIM to be different politically and religiously....Black people actually ARE different and are SINCERE about their differences.
White people may CLAIM to be Jewish or Christian but at the end of the day they both share the same values and ethics.
A few ritualistic differences but they pretty much dress and talk the same.Well, concerning whites if what you said is true, then the commonly called Civil War, World War I , World II, Balkans war, the troubles < which is really another round of the irish-english wars> , the current ukrainian/russian war, the january 6th incident <which can be argued is an incident in the long line of post civil war incidents between whites in the usa> where many white people have killed or harmed or threaten to harm other white people more than any other with pride or happiness are merely hoaxes or deceptions. If you do, that is fine, I don't want you to change your mind, but I oppose that view.
Concerning Blacks, I don't think internal black friction is any different in emotion than in any human group. In india, muslims ad being burned alive by hindus. In former yugolslavis as we speak, croats and slaves are battling each other, no differently than the factions of sudan. But I will say this, Black internal communal friction in the USA, the usa and to some extent the entire american continent, is mostly nonviolent. To me, white internal communal friction in the usa is historically quite violent, while said black friction is not. But again, that goes back to the people's heritage being different.
Now is white internal communal unity in the USA unlike other white people? yes. Brexit didn't happen because whites of england hated black people. BRexit happened because white of england didn't want whites of eastern europe populating rural england anymore. In Italy or Spain you see many incidents of friction between catalonians and basque or sicilians and neapolitians. But in the usa, after the commonly called civil war and the end of the commonly called world war II , the white community in the usa has a greater sense of white unity. But as january 6th proved, it isn't that strong.
I end with, you and many black people before have claimed that whites are one big happy family who unite against all others, ala the hellenistic example, while all others lack the same. but I oppose that view. I think many black people and to be blunt, black leaders like to suggest black people are more caught up in our variances than whites. but the million man march, the black community in NYC proves that assertion false for me. I think the problem is the black community in the usa has a problem getting results, and in frustration blames itself because blaming itself is easier than blaming itself aside its environment equally.
-
@Chevdove the italians invaded for the same reason germany or austria hungary hd similar plans and eventually invaded their european neighbors or made war machines. The Ottoman empire plus Russia are other stories.
Spain/England/France/Holland/Portugal for hundreds of years , since the 1400s had gone outside of Europe and dominated non european peoples. Making huge fortunes for each of their fiscal elite beyond their dreams, manipulating < in some cases terminally or permanently> all non european peoples, all non european peoples. But in Europe their neighbors in the center: italy/austria hungary/germany all looked with envy or desire. Italy's ethiopian campaign or Togo to germany are examples of this desire<italy's case> or sated envy<germany's> playing out. Which couldn't be enough and led to the commonly called world wars, I personally call that war, the war of european empires. All in humanity wasn't at war, european empires were and at the time of the first war of european empires an overwhelming majority of governments outside Europe were controlled or managed by England/Spain/France/Holland/Portugal/Italy/Germany/Austria-Hungary/Ottoman empire <whom I consider european albeit muslim> / Russia <whom I consider eurasian at its heart>/USA <a european country not in europe> .
Few governments were not completely controlled or managed by one of those European powers.
Ethiopia was one of them, Japan was the other. All others were completely controlled like china or brasil , or managed like a haiti or egypt.
Italy in its desperation to be a european global player gambled. The worst time to gamble is when you are thinking desperately.
Ethiopia unlike any other government in Africa had a few things that made it unique in all of africa. One, unlike most of Africa which is usually plains or hilly, Ethiopia is very mountainous. And absent modern, 2023, air warfare possibilities, mountainous areas are huge deterrents. The mountains will force any large ground assault to break up and that weakens it naturally in the favor of the defending position. So, when the muslim imperial growth in africa started, before the christian imperial growth, Ethiopia had learned to protect itself and because of ethiopia's bordering islamic empires, they were aware of all the latest militaristic inventions, like the gun or tanks.
And when the christian imperial growth started in Africa, ethiopia was already more prepared and even had a native christian heritage.
So italy to be blunt, made a bad gamble, bad leadership, and paid for it.
-
1
-
-
@Pioneer1 in my offline circle and including myself, I didn't expect something to not be done. But my reasons were not because the government of the usa is playing a game as much as the dysfunctions in government demand certain actions.
And for the record I never said they wouldn't do a deal. and please find a quote where it is said I did. I did say it was possible and it still is technically. The congress has to mull this thing. It isn't certain yet.
The problem is simple. The USA is an empire, like all empires it's military dictates affairs. The USA military governs global trade. No problem. But, the system the usa set up for governance + financial wealth maintenance intergovermentally, has to be blunt, dysfunctions. In Modern humanity every single government has a financially wealthy caste whose money is secure, traded in the light of the USA empire. In parallel, all governments are part of an intergovernmental web designed by the usa who we all see working with the inability to actually blockade russia today. The problem is, the intergovermental global system the usa developed is... dysfunctional at least, poor at best. Outside unknowables, negative inevitabilities will occur in the future throughout humanity based on said global system the usa engineered.
-
Well... am I sure?
The question is of what.
Am i sure that most black people during the end of the war between the states were monoracial in many ways? yes.
At the end of the war between the states, most black people in the usa, were: enslaved to whites at birth whether they escaped to freedom like douglass or not /were english speakers -or a dialect like geechee/had a negative relationship to white people/ had a form of christianity , I didn't say chrsitian but a form of christianity/had no sense of being an american citizen nor saw themselves as american citizens, they saw themselves even if they couldn't say it straightly as black residents in the usa/they saw the usa as a white country.
I am 100% sure of the prior sentence, which reflects the point I made.
Now, am I sure of a point I didn't make? no I am not sure that most black people knew of frederick douglass circa 1865 but I didn't say most black people did, and your word s admit you aren't sure either.
Now I am sure a majority of the black leaders in the usa at the time of frederick douglass knew who he was plus was influenced by him after the war between the states, from black christian leaders like the one who gave him the podium he was booed at in ohio, to black business people ala douglass's time at the head of the freedman's bank, to black elected officials like the south carolina black majority senate to black advocates like sojourner truth. And the proof is in their own words. And what do these people have in common, besides being a majority of black leadership circa 1865 , they are the people you called, not me, educated.
The two paragraphs put together make my point. Douglass was the biggest black leader and a main influencer among other black leaders at that time. And the black leadership, as all leadership to any community, influenced the black masses you called rural plus illiterate plus local plus uneducated.
And my point I made about his influence and more importantly how his positions or philosophy, has been regurgitated a lot since his passing , hasn't yielded positive results. It is that simple. What you said was what he said and unlike you he had many black leaders listening to him, guiding their thinking but in cheap hindsight, yes cheap hindsight, it was dysfunctional to the betterment of black people during those times. And I repeat, even though it was bad leadership by the black community, the goal of frederick douglass was achieved. In that the black community in the usa today is one where the racial loyalty or racial identity can not be applied from leadership to the masses as in the past, when it was far more appropriate than what douglass did and you do now suggest, of ideas plus policies absent the racial two.
Pioneer...no problem exist in admitting that black strategies of the past failed. And no problem exist that black leadership in majority has supported and led by the principles that you , troy , mel , and many others keep stating falsely as new or untried. My problem is Black people in the usa don't want to admit that the majority of black leadership has been going a different way than the majority in the black populace since frederick douglass in the USA. A majority of Black leadership in the usa has been leading by the strategy you suggest. @Mel Hopkins with her financial positions, the same. @Troy with his universality of humanity. and many of the other regulars on here. Your positions are standards of black leadership over 150 years. But it hasn't yielded results to the majority , while it has increased or strengthened since frederick douglass to now, a black minority , a black one percent. And I don't have a problem with the existence of the situation, i have a problem with black people not admitting it. And for the record I am not suggesting as some keep asking in this forum that black people in the usa go on a violent rampage or all leave to somewhere in africa or have a coordinated war against whites in the usa. I am not. And the reason isn't a love for white people or some nonviolent belief, it is far more honest. As I told and will tell to black militants/nationalists/garveyites <which I publicly admit I am more aligned to philosophically, than the nonviolents or integrationists or proud black statians> that the time in the usa's black community for black militaristic movements against whites or making a black state in the union or turning a white state to black in the union or a mass exodus to anywhere else have all passed. When the DOS community stopped being an overwhelming majority of the black populace in the usa, all those prime ideas of the militants, nationalists or garveyites ended.
I penultimate with the following, I am not suggesting Pioneer that you are wrong. The overwhelming majority or majority in the black community in the modern, 2023, usa can not be united on racial identity or racial loyalty as you worded it. That is 100% correct. But the majority of Black leadership has led the black community in the usa since 1865, when it was dysfunctional to the body of blacks, on a strategy based on ideas or policies against racial loyalty or racial identity, which hasn't yielded positive results for a majority of black people, even though in modernity it is now functional to the body of blacks.
I conclude with the following, a question.
Since most black leaders from frederick douglass to ... eric adams the current mayor of nyc or barack obama former president of the usa or kamala harris current vice president, all lead based on ideas or policies against racial loyalty or racial identity <I bar race of citizenry , ala the term american which is a racial term>, what has been absent in the ideas or policies of a majority of black leaders from douglass to obama that has stymied positive results for a majority of black people in the usa?
Postscript
In my mind i expect the usual rebuttal which has also been uttered since frederick douglass from most black leaders, and that is the ideas or policies are not wrong but black individuals are not listening or applying correctly.
-
@Pioneer1 ok, well , what if we create a chess game together?
-
Quote
You may not get a consensus among the COMMUNITY as a whole, but you can definitely get a consensus or a definite majority around certain issues.
For example....
Among Generation Xer's...support for Tupac is pretty much a consensus.
Among Millennials and Generation Zer's....support of Marijuana is pretty much a consensus.
You develop unity around certain IDEAS and POLICIES instead of around racial identity or racial loyalty.
\
Well , black leaders since frederick douglass did that. Maybe I know black history in the usa too well but when Black people say what you said, I always get upset. Frederick Douglass/ Black elected officials/ the black church- for most of the over one hundred and fifty years since the end of the war between the states, the largest leader in the black community, led black people based on ideas + policies chagrining or speaking ill to racial identity or racial loyalty, while white people terrorized us from the white community based on unity around racial identity+ ideas+ politices+ racial loyalty.
In defense of modernity, Frederick Douglass had an overwhelming majority in the black community, over ninety percent, that was truly monoracial in many racial ways. But, the modern majority in the black community in the usa is at best a plurality and more a loose association. so... at the least, the modern black community in the usa is in a form where ideas+ policies absent racial identity + racial loyalty is better suited to its form.
So, even though historically black leadership has always touted what you said, originally position was unwarranted or mismatched to the black community when it was first applied, after a majority of black people have suffered, the black community is in a form where it is warranted or matches.
-
@Pioneer1 well, Blackgameselite is a group in AALBC. Our long term goal or my initial purpose for creating the group is to become a black game developer. But, beyond that the group is open to the black experience in gaming.
Having said that, what games have you liked in your life, whether card games or board games, not merely video games.
please join
-
@Pioneer1 cool, will you vote on the poll?
-
The title of the book is: The Elephant versus The Donkey by Anonymous
What is the first sentence of said book?
Please place in comments.
-
-
Hope she is having fun
200+ Book Festivals and Fairs
in Black Literature
Posted
yes it is @Troy thank you for your ownership + work in this website