Troy

These questions were posed before the advent of social media and during what I'd describe as the height of the "Black Literature Renaissance" in 2000. Check out all the questions and answers: https://aalbc.com/fun/survey.htm The really interesting thing is that even though this site gets orders of magnitude more traffic in 2017, than in 2000, I doubt I could get as many people to respond to surveys like this. Part of the reason AALBC attracts more visitors is that there are FAR more people with Internet access than there were 17 years ago. But they reason I suspect I'd get less participation is that visitors are generally far more engaged on social media and the large corporate sites than they are on smaller indie sites. This is one of the reasons there is less choice and diversity on the web than there was 17 years ago, but that is a rant for another day I plan to ask visitors many of the same questions I asked back in 1999, I'll really anxious to see what people think today compared to almost two decades ago.

Image was always important to Obama. I'm sure this is why he avoided the Black press, ditched Dr. West and Tavis Smiley from jump street all of whom all would have been held more accountable for his actions regarding Black people. Instead, he latched on to sycophants like Al Sharpton. This is not an issue of "messaging" as Obama likes to claim, this is an issue of the struggles of Americans. Perhaps the democrats can find a truly progressive candidate to run against Trump in four years and truly make America great.

I actually did look at that. I was interested in seeing if there were some really large contributions too. Basically, the largest contribution (when I looked) was $5,000, there are about 25 others who gave $1,000 or more. Making up about 25% of the total. The vast majority of other contributions were relatively small over 6,300 contributions averaging about 50 bucks each. An impressive large level of grassroots support. That segment of the Black community @Cynique, is apparently not so silent. While I refuse to begrudge Talladega for cashing in here; I don't like the idea of an HBCU celebrating the inauguration of Donald Trump, but I'm not paying the schools bills... I read the Jennifer Holiday saw the light and backed out. Perhaps she felt the long-term financial impact of alienating the gay community exceeded the short term gain of performing at Trump's Inauguration. Apparently, the Black community does not exert the same power as the Gay community. Instead we are willing to do anything for money, not unlike of future president.

I still have not heard the President's farewell speech, but I have heard clips and I watched an Interview on TV last night. In each instance, I've heard Obama state that the country is better off as a result of his presidency. In fact, in the interview I watched last night, Obama said this was "objectively" true in any way you want to measure it. As an entrepreneur; educator; and someone who has been involved in a wide variety of industries including, defense, financial services, publishing, and technology the notion that the country is better off now, than it was 8 years ago, does not ring true. While it is true, based upon the data I have access to, that the Nation's GDP has increased, during this same period of "growth," income has remained stagnant and wealth inequality as increased. If we measure the success of the economy based upon the increase in wealth of the extremely wealthy, then Obama is right. However. if we look at the prospects of most Americans, the picture is bleaker. I see education costing more and more, so much more that a decent one is out of reach of many—especially for those you can't, or refuse, to take on oppressive debt. At the same time, the prospects of a decent, well-paying job, as a result of this expensive education is no longer guaranteed. I see opportunities for running independent businesses, swiftly evaporating as super massive and ultra wealthy corporations are allowed to operate as virtual monopolies, utilizing the capital markets, tax loopholes, and politicians in a way that would be considered criminal is an individual engaged in this behavior. We have witnessed the death of journalism; and the rise of fake and biased news spewed by people armed with misinformation and biased opinions on platforms whose sole motivation is revenue. Trump's dysfunction became much more newsworthy than the coverage of legitimate candidates. If the country is doing better, why have the American people decided to radically change direction and go with Donald Trump? I submit for the very same reasons we chose Obama over Clinton in the primaries and again over Romney in the general. We were full of "hope" for a "change." Of course, wealth inequality did not start with Obama, but not only did he not reverse it, it grew under his watch and people are feeling the pain. Bernie Saunders spoke directly to this pain, while Obama attempted to convince us everything was going great. This is why Bernie's message resonated so strongly with many people, while Hillary just promised more of what Obama delivered--the rich getting richer. When Hillary modified her message to be more Saunder's like, she came across as a typical poll-monitoring politician, more commonly known as a liar, the chants of "lock her up" made perfect sense to many. Now that Trump is practically in office, the media will continue to cover his silly tweets and fail to directly challenge his lies. Our country is broken. God help us.

I see Talladega desperately wanted to participate in Trump's inauguration festivities. They did even have the money to do it and have resorted to setting up a Go Fund Me campaign with the goal of raising $75,000. At the moment I'm writing this they have raised $354,251! Clearly, they have a lot support despite the negative reactions from some. Well, there's the upside: Talladega has cleared over $354K, and counting. A nice sum for a day's work. The beauty for the Trump people is that they didn't even have to spend a penny.

Yeah, I saw this too. I also saw the negativity leveled against Harvey in reaction. Even DL Hughley lashed out. Listening to Hughley take on Trump using Jim, Kanye, and Harvey is interesting. Again, as discussed, Jim Brown is a serious activist, Steve Harvey will do anything to advance his career, and Kanye West is likely in need of treatment. As a result, I would not lump these three men together. While it is obvious Trump is trying to use these guys and understands that celebrity is a really easy way to impress the Black masses. I'm not worried about Jim Brown getting played and selling us out. I can't say the same for the other Brothers, but who knows...

I pulled the stat from a NY Times article from a few weeks back. I did not see anything that really explained this, just a recognition that a LOT more work needs to be done if women are ever going to achieve full parity wth men, and how the work of Susan B. Anthony is being undone. Barack is arguably the smartest man to have served as president. His personal life is essentially flawless and scandal free. His education and academic record are impeccable. He is a relatively handsome, physically fit, family man. His wife is brilliant in her own right. We can debate whether Obama's political experience was adequate, but he was a state senator. This stands in STARK contrast to Donald Trump. Black folks aways knew we have to be twice as good to get half as much in America. It is interesting double standard play out for white women. In fact, one could argue Hillary was a superior candidate in 2016 than Obama was in 2008. Sure Hillary had a lot of baggage that Obama never had time to accumulate, but Trump has loads of baggage, much more than Hillary, but the media made it seem as if it Trump's baggage was equivalent to Hillary's while completely ignoring the vastly superior level of experience Hillary holds over Trump. We often talk about Black folks being like crabs in a barrel, but white women are even worse. Many Black people came out to vote for Obama simply because he was Black--I was one of those voters. White women simply would not, come out in mass, and support a woman simply because she was a woman. I mean it is not like we are talking about a Sarah Palin... One could argue that white women were operating on a higher principle--ignoring gender and simply voting for the best candidate. But that defies logic given the fact Trump was the opposing candidate they selected over Hillary. The really crazy thing is that all the Black women voted for Hillary (well 94% of them did). I think the reason has more to do with the democratic party's lock on the Black voter than Black women allegiance to other women. The republicans could have put Angela Davis on the ticket and Black women would have still voted democratic.

Get Published and Not Exploited by Kalamu ya Salaam. This was another excellent article I published over 15 years ago and is even more true today than when I first published it. Corporations and taken advantage for writers to their while smaller, Black-owned properties have suffered. The net result is that the Black community reader and writer is not served nearly as well as when the article was first published.

The "cattiness" is something I always heard applied to Black women. It is interesting to consider it in this context. Given the number of unfaithful men, I can't image women, collectively, holding this against Hillary. True, Hillary squashed Bernie, but I can't image anyone who supported Bernie actually casting a vote for Trump. Are there still women left who follow their husbands to the extent that they would vote for Trump because their husbands told them to? Obviously, these men would be Trumper supporters and obviously, they are evangelicals and wife abusers Maybe what we are witnessing is a backlash. Women who want things the way they used to be, before they had to go out and work a crappy job to support an existence marginally above subsistence. 53% percent of white women voted for the Donald. While I previously played down the role of racism in this election I can't help but see as a major factor driving the white female vote. White women were probably attracted to Trump because he "said" he was going to; get rid of the Mexicans and build a wall to keep any more from coming in; and be tough on the Mooslims. We already know how he feels about the Blacks. Protection from these people is more important than seeing another woman in the Whitehouse, besides they did their part tolerating 8 years of Obama right? Make America Great Again!

Well, as usual, you Cynique you reveal a depth that I can only hope to achieve. Perhaps a willingness on my part to look a little deeper, I can find more amusement in these things. I'm sure Steve's appeal has to do with his work ethic and playing to the lowest common demoniator like Wendy Williams or Tyler Perry.

If forgot one to mention one of thing that has completely blown my mind. The majority of white women voted for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton! Somebody, please explain to me how in the hell THAT could possibly happen. I know I put a lot of blame of the negative impact of social media including killing journalism, but there has to be more to it. And while I did not listen to Streep's rant, I'm sure offered no explanation. I wonder what Susan B. Anthony would think about how white women has used their right to vote. If white women were not allowed to vote it is possible Hillary would have won the election.

Can you identify all the writers? Click this link for the answers: https://aalbc.com/fun/who'sthe.htm This collage was used on AALBC.com’s first homepage in 1997. I'm finding all types of things as I plow through migrating all of the website's content to the new format. When I started the website upgrade, in late 2016 I thought I would be finished in the spring of 2016. It will be a great feat if I get it done by the spring of this year But in reality I've done a LOT more than I originally planned so it is all good.

In another conversation Cynique wrote, “…my sense of humor is what sustains me. I regularly watch Family Feud hosted by Steve Harvey, just to laugh at how stupid the average person can be.” What struck me about Cynique's statement is that she is roughly 30 years my senior and I can't see myself being amused by Family Feud--ever. In fact, I'm beginning to wonder what will amuse and interest me if I'm fortunate enough to have Cyniques longevity. I used to watch Family Feud and I even derived some enjoyment from it, but this was many years ago. Lately however, I when catch it channel surfing, it feels like I'm wasting time watching the show. I don't find humor in it anymore. It just seems stupid, like so much of the other stuff that is on broadcast TV. I guess that it why TV was known as the "boob tube." Now I'm not one of those folks who go around boasting that, "I don't even own a T.V." I see nothing wrong with owning a TV, but I find much of the programming a waste of time, so I can understand why people don't bother with them. It has been suggested that I just turn off my brain, at least the analytical part of it, and relax to enjoy this stuff. But that is not in my nature. Besides the analytical part is what makes things interesting for me. But it goes beyond Family Feud; I don't enjoy many most movies I watch in the theaters. I used to love Star Trek and Star Wars, but the last two installments of Star Wars was just boring to me. I mean how many times can one watch space ships fighting each other. It seems like I've seen all of these movies before. In fact, the same goes for all of those franchise films, after the first one they are all repeats from Harry Potter to the Avengers. I'll probably stop seeing these films in the theater. I will, however, make a point of seeing Hidden Figures, Fences, and Midnight. I recently saw Birth of Nation {yawn}. Hopefully one of these films will restore my hope that I can continue to enjoy a good movie as I get older. Despite the awards and critical praise of Midnight I'm definitely managing my expectations ;-)

Cynique, if I'm lucky enough to make it to the age you are, I don't know what I'll do with myself. I'll explain more in a separate conversation.

Cynique I'm completely aware of how the social media-fueled pop culture dominates our society. I'm also aware if how our celebrity obsessed, shallow culture distorts current events. I do my best to opt out of this simply because I also recognize how destructive it as been to both our culture and even our political process. I think we can both agree that a country feed on tweets, and reaction to those tweets, is the very thing that put Trump, a profoundly unqualified candidate, into the white house. So no, I don't think my lack of focus on pop culture limits my perspective I think it broadens it. Indeed those old youtube videos, and the new ones, are perhaps the best thing on the internet. I would trade all the rest of social media for youtube. But again, that is just me... the book slinging raceman--an extreme outlier ;-) And sure at the rate we are going all politicians will be on par with celebrities; indeed we are seeing them become one and the same. Pioneer, those terms, left, conservative, right, and progressive are virtually meaningless. Black in the south, for example, tend to be very conservative, because of their Christian sensibilities, but they vote overwhelming democrat--why? Many poor white people voted for Trump--obviously against their best interests--why? As an aside, a Whole Foods will be opening in Harlem this year, on 125th St and Malcolm X Blvd. I can't afford to shop at Whole Foods. So I have no idea what those people think of themselves--other than wealthy. Interestingly, I leave my neighborhood (Harlem) to go white neighborhoods to shop where the deals are better. Man, even cocktails in many Harlem Restaurants cost $16 or more. There are better deals on drinks in midtown Manhattan--seriously!

An author who read this post told me he has written three YA novel to appeal to this demographic, but he gets no promotion from his publisher. I was completely unaware of the books myself and I like to think I have a relationship with his publisher. There is a class of writers, who publisher will publish, but the publisher depends completely on the author using their own platforms to promote their books. Typically these writers will use social media to accomplish which as it own limitations. The most sophisticated of these authors will also have a website, but again they too do very little to promote their own websites and invest most of their energy maximizing their social media platform. The lack of publishers advertising and promoting these books, the authors focus on social media, as well as the lack of booksellers interested in highlighting books for Black men, and other factors all contribute to a lack of awareness of these titles. The lack of awareness leads some to believe there is a lack of interest or demand. While many groups contend with this issue; it seems particularly true for Black men and boys.

Progressives have twitter and Trump has the White House. I think Trump has the last laugh and he will be laughing all the way to the bank. We dominate making jokes on Twitter and they have the presidency, the Senate , and the House of Representatives. Sure we can dog the president at these inconsequential award shows or ridicule him on Twitter but these actions are of no consequence. If we've learned anything from the last presidential campaign this type of thing just makes Trump stronger with his base, and fuels his popularity. In my world the Golden Globes mean less than nothing. Did any black people win? Since I am online I did catch wind of Meryl Streep's speech berating trump. But honestly I have zero interest in anything Meryl Streep has to say. That is not to say that she does not have something of interest to say I just spend my time listening to others. I fully appreciate this makes me an outlier in terms of interest in celebrity and pop culture but as I've gotten older, this stuff interests me increasingly less.

…whenever someone prefaces a statement with, “This might sound racist…” you know to brace yourself for a racist statement. But I look at a LOT or books over the course of my day. Naturally, one notices trends and patterns, real and imagined, as one examines large numbers of books over time. One trend I've noticed, for example, is a surge in interest in Children's books. This is a great trend because there has been so much discussion on the lack of diversity in children's literature, that it actually crowded out discussion about the great literature that exists. Another trend I noticed is that corporate publishing seems to be veering even further way from publishing novels of interest to garden variety African American males. The classic refrain is that Black men don't read, but Black men would read if they were, at least initially, exposed to literature that spoke to their experiences. Mainstream publishers seem to be fixated on novleist that are written by formerly incarcerated, gay, biracial, non-American Black (British, Caribbean, African) writers. Name a popular novelist, with a book that was published in the last year, that does not fit into one or more of these categories. I could name some writers myself, but as you think of the make authors that win awards, that are covered by corporate media or pushed by mainstream publishers, I think you find the categories I listed are disproportionately represented. Most Black American men fall outside the categories mentioned. This is a large demographic that is largely ignored. This does not mane that a writer in these categories can not write for a broad audience. They can and they do, but if straight, American born, Black male writers are not getting published or actively promoted there are subjects, which appear to male readers that will more likely to be overlooked and marginalized. Now is that bigoted or just a valid observation?

@Del, I don't understand your request. I think we are all biased on some level--it is natural; we are all human. However I do believe our bias lies on a spectrum; some are much more biased than others. Indeed some of blinded by it.

Then I see no upside for Talkedga''s participation. Does anyone?

Del ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson was recently named U.S. Secretary of State. Trump selected Scott Pruitt, Oklahoma attorney general to head the EPA. The problem here is that Pruitt is a climate change denier and fossil fuel industry supporter. Again, the problem here is that the press tolerates conversations about man-made climate change as if it is up for debate. Much of the country including many of our leaders don't take climate change seriously... perhaps because they consume their news from Trump's twitter feed.

Cynique, I'm gonna out cynic you a moment and agree with Pioneer here. I find it a little implausible that a single individual, no matter how rich, slick, and egotistical, could have single handily taken over as president of the United States. I don't think Trump staged this coup on his own. We are talking about players acting at a global level. These players are able to manipulate the minds and therefore control the behavior of people for their benefit. I heard on the radio that there are individuals, kids actually, in India who make thousands of dollars a day creating fake news websites. From what I know about how the WWW works this should be impossible. So either these kids are freaking super-geniuses or something is propping these kids up... Corporate media freely admits they created false equivalences regarding Trump outrageous lies by covering them as if they were true and gave him far more coverage that all the other republican candidates combined. Why did they do this? It is not as if they don't understand journalism. Initially, I just thought corporate media was just being greedy by covering the Trump as his antics are a boon to ratings. But money alone does not explain it--at least not to my satisfaction. And what is with the obsession of monitoring Twitter for Trump news, why doesn't corporate media get him in a room and ask some substantive questions?

I'm sure Talladega can use the money the band will earn performing during the inauguration. Sure, it can be argued it is blood money and one can claim Talladega has sold their souls. But in order to level a critique of Talladega you'd have to do the same for every Black institution that did anything for a President that you disagreed with Harry. I bet you'd have no problem if the band marched for Bill Clinton. Bill actually did things that harmed Black people. Trump isn't even in office. So far, Trump has been nothing but talk. Now when he actually enacts legislation that hurts Black people I'm all for boycotting Trump. For now, I say Talladega should take the money while the getting is good. Besides it is not like Black folks are lining up to support the struggling institution.

I just published the November/December 2016 bestsellers list. Children's books really dominated the list this two month period. There are hundreds of different titles sold each period, most of them only sell one or two copies, but there were scores of excellent children's books which sold several copies.

Provide the details and I'll add it right away and definitely post a link to your website. Yours is the first store in the state that I was aware of since X-pressions closed. Are there any others you are aware of?