Troy

Are you suggesting that the New York Times simply made up the figure and that you don't believe it? You don't find it odd that the editors of the Norton Anthology of African American Literature failed to include the book? Haley said Roots was faction only after he got busted. The judge presiding over the case said Haley "perpetrated a fraud." Are you old enough to remember when the miniseries broadcast? If so, you'll also remember that it was not presented as fiction but a family history, a lot of effort was put into making it appear factual including a trip to Gambia. I guess you also believe Haley is a direct descendant of Kunta Kinte too. But that is fine Sara, I know from experience with you that new information and facts don't inform your opinions once you have your mind set. I gave it a shot, but I give up.

Cynique, if you had to guess, what percentage of enlistees, ultimately go on to become commissioned officers? If I had to guess I would bet is is less than the number who have been killed in action, mained, and suffer from PTSD. What percentage of vets do you think actually go on to complete college for free? I would be willing to bet that it is less than the number of homeless vets and vets whose families struggle to survive while they are deployed over seas. Finally, you don't need to risk your life to get a mortgage. Again middle class people with options get mortgages without difficulty. Look, I'm not saying the military, does not offer "benefits," I get that. This is why so many thousands of poor people enlist. My problem is that these benefits are only beneficial to those with limited options. Who wants a life that is not your own? You are told when to get up, what to do, and precisely how to do it -- up to and including getting into the line of fire--and for what? I hope the answer is more than just the "benefits" you've described.

“Actor-director-producer Nate Parker made history by inking a landmark $17.5 million Sundance deal to sell his slavery drama The Birth of A Nation to Fox Searchlight, starting his 2017 Oscar campaign a full year early. The vibrant and lyrical portrait of the divisive African American hero is an incendiary inquiry into themes of racism and faith that still echo today.”—Daily Beast Set against the antebellum South, The Birth of a Nation follows Nat Turner (Nate Parker), a literate slave and preacher, whose financially strained owner, Samuel Turner (Armie Hammer), accepts an offer to use Nat's preaching to subdue unruly slaves. As he witnesses countless atrocities - against himself and his fellow slaves - Nat orchestrates an uprising in the hopes of leading his people to freedom. (In Theaters: Oct 7, 2016 Limited) It seems Park's film is not a reboot of 1915 film Birth of a Nation (which dealt with the Civil War and the rise of the Klan in it's aftermath). Nate's story is about the Nat Turner. I'm looking forward to this one!

This is picking up on the Roots conversation started by Harry which segued into a conversation about Race. I still don't think remaking Roots was necessary given, as we've discussed the great many other stories which have yet to make it to the screen. It is curious The Atlantic failed to mention the fact the Alex's story was largely fictional, as if this does not matter. When Roots broadcast it was presented as truth. (@Sara, do you think Haley would have paid over $500,000, in an out of court settlement, for plagiarizing a single paragraph?) The Atlantic did mention Nate Parker’s record-breaking Birth of a Nation. I heard something about a film being made sometime ago, but I have heard nothing about a finished film until now. I own the original Roots novel and DVD. Over the years I've tried to get my own 20 something daughters the watch the Roots miniseries, but they have no interest in seeing it. I have not spoken to them at all about this new version. I will watch it. i will try to keep an open mind and manage my expectations. Why the Roots Remake Is So Important by STEPHANE DUNN The Atlantic, May 29, 2016 In an age of remakes and reboots, it’s no surprise that A&E announced that it was “reimagining” the epic drama in an effort to appeal to a new generation of viewers. The four-part miniseries, which begins airing Monday, is executive produced by Mark Wolper, whose father David Wolper helped create the original Roots with Haley. While it may be easy to question the worth of a remake given the original’s masterpiece status, A&E’s Roots has the kind of high production values that can better translate the visual power of its predecessor to younger audiences. But more importantly, the new series brings new light to the misperception that popular culture has done a good job telling stories about slavery and black history in the decades since Roots first gripped the U.S. To date, America’s most defining chapter, slavery—with all of its complexity, contradictions, and endless fictional and true narrative possibilities—has been under-treated by Hollywood. The recent visibility of films such as the Oscar-winning 12 Years a Slave, Nate Parker’s record-breaking Birth of a Nation, the intriguing, savvy WGN series Underground, and Django Unchained, Tarantino’s fantastical slave era-cowboy hero flick—might make it appear otherwise. (BET’s unusual but laudable 2015 effort, The Book of Negroes miniseries, failed to widely engage American viewers.) read the full article Why America Forgot About ‘Roots’ By MATTHEW F. DELMONT The New York Times, May 27, 2016 But “Roots” fell out of favor almost as quickly as it rose, in part because Haley’s story started to unravel as soon as it was in print. He relied heavily on an editor to finish the book and later paid over half a million dollars to settle a plagiarism suit. Other people were upset with the way ABC, Haley and Doubleday, his publisher, seemed to be wringing money from the history of slavery. It was also hard for people to pin down “Roots.” Was it fact or fiction? Haley, who died in 1992, said it was a bit of both, a mix of archives, oral traditions and imagination in a composite narrative he called “faction.” The television version complicated matters further, insisting that the production was based on a true story while billing the series as an “ABC novel for television.” If “Roots” was too fictional for most historians, its version of historical fiction was not literary enough for English departments. “Roots” is notably absent from The Norton Anthology of African American Literature, which runs to nearly 3,000 pages. The literary critic Arnold Rampersad described “Roots” as being “so innocent of fictive ingenuity that it seldom surpasses the standards of the most popular of historical romances.” read the full article

Well it would not just be rich people, it would also be middle class folks who would complain too. I think much of the aversion to Vietnam had more to do with the draft than the senseless killing of southeast asians. Do you think Ali would have spoken out against the war so vigorously if he weren't forced to go himself? Don't you think there would be at least a little more outrage against the protracted wars in the middle east if our sons and daughters were legally obligated to go? You'd hardly know there is a war going on today, because people with options are not affected by the wars and people without options have no voice. Meanwhile the rich get richer, for wars mean money for the oligarchy, and if Black people believe going in the military is a good thing--it is better for the rich.

Pioneer sure anyone would take free land, but the idea these same folks will also go work this land, build the necessary infrastructure, to live there is naive and short sighted--we hardly support our own businesses now. That said, there are groups of people who are building their own communities on the own land, we don't need reparations to do this we, just the the desire, and it is simply not there.

Of course one would also have to hypothetically assume that race also exists in order for this thought experiment to even make sense. Despite that @Pioneer1 you don't have to consider this hypothetically, we live in a world that believed Black people are intellectually inferior--this is the reality. To answer your question just look around. There have been many books written over the last century that promulgated the concept of Black inferiority or white superiority. Of course all of these books are garbage and have no basis in science. But again these ideas persist because people can not let go of the concept of race, and understand we are all part of the same race, Human.

@Pioneer1 of course phenotype is defined in one's genetics but "race" is not (and I wrote I wouldn't debate this fact). Again, there is no Black gene or genes. You can't look at someone genes a say this person is Black and this one is white. In other words one can not come up with DNA test for whiteness. Man you can't even look at someone's phenotype and determine definitively that they are Black or white--that should tell you something right?

Man homesteaders could live off the land. Nobody wants to live off the land today. Man, in places like NYC folks don't even cook any more--let alone raise crops and livestock

No it is not boredom... shoot I can't remember the last time I was bored. Maybe by challenging your ideas I'm really challenged my own. Yes I've heard Chris and others who have been in the military extols the virtues of discipline that the military enforces, but I wonder how many of these folks were trigger pullers whose lives were actually on the line. You know the young men who come back only to commit suicide in numbers way out of proportion compared to the general population, or who suffer a lifetime of PTSD, or who were tragically maimed or killed... Unfortunately, when we say a Brother is better off going into the military we are usually comparing it to a civilian experience in some ghetto, underemployed and struggling to survive. You and I both know people with options, bright futures, financial resources, don't just enlist. Honestly, if it because of this fact I wish they would bring back the draft. Perhaps some of these legislators might make different decisions about wars knowing their rich kids would be the ones doging bullets in some dessert or jungle on the other side of the planet.

Pioneer race is ONLY about phenotype and has nothing to do with genetics. There is no Black gene. If you got to African today you could easily find a "black person" who is genetically more different from you than you are a typical white boy. I read all of the articles, but they I'm at a loss to understand why you think they support you believe in a genetic basis for race. So if both Black and white people can be super tasters, have dry ear wax and be color blind, these facts serve to weaken your argument for a genetic basis for race, not strengthen it. You see why don't you? As far as the sex stuff you sound pretty open minded on paper in reality I'm not so convinced. We happen to live in a culture where women with multiple partners are looked down upon and men with multiple partners are revered. A women is not likely to freely admit to her lover, that she wants all of her holes plugged by three other dudes--fantasy's like this are typically frowned upon. _____ It is gonna be raining in NY tomorrow, I'll probably catch the Roots special just so I can talk about it. Still, I'm not in the mood to see Black people getting whipped, raped and worked to death.

So you disagree with Muhammad Ali's position on serving in Vietnam? If there were another military draft, do you think Black boys should be compelled to go? Do you think America has been completely justified in all of the military campaigns (killing) that has taken place in your life time? If not do you think Black people are better off participating in these campaigns? When you write: "I know a lot of Black men and women who did and most of them came out better for it." I'm forced to ask better than what? Better than what they were before they went in, or better than what they would have been if they, say, went to college, gotten a decent job, or learned a trade. @Pioneer1 I know I spend the day challenging everything you wrote today, but I know you welcome your ideas being challenged and are not treated by it or take it personally. @harry brown, did Sara and I read you correctly are you a Trump supporter>

Pioneer, to be clear, it is not possible to give out as much money as I described in my initial examine. But I now understand giving away money is not what you propose. We should be getting business opportunities, medical care, and education anyway. This is not reparations this is just a consequence of being an American What land do you propose that America giveaway, Detroit? You obviously can't displace people from prime real estate to accommodate descendants of Black slaves. You might recall this was done before (Liberia). Humm now that I think about it should be include descendant of white slaves too? I can get with you in the exceptions route. Maybe making descendants of enslaved African's exempt from Federal income tax. But again this will never happen especially given your idea of including anyone who is directly descendant from an enslaved African. I would be willing to bet that would a majority of Americans, if you exclude recent immigrants would fall into this category. Also you wrote: "There are a dozen websites out there where a person can trace their ancestry back to determine whether or not they descended (in whole or in part) from slavery." I did not know that data was available, would you mind posting a link to one of them, I'd like to check it out.

I don't think anyone is arguing that Black folks have and continue to suffer from the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow laws in the U.S.. However, the question of who deserves what, and how much, is simply unanswerable 150 years after the end of slavery and 50 years after the end of Jim Crow. But even when a question is unanswerable, that does not mean if should not be asked, becuase reasonable estimates can be made. The number of stars in are universe is unanswerable, but we can come up with reasonable estimate. My point however is even if we could answer the question what can we possibly dowith the information? Lets, for argument sake, say the we've determined that every descendant of an enslaved African in the US is entitled to damages of 50 million dollars, based upon generations of wealth lost as the result of generations of enslavement and lost opportunities because of Jim Crow. Of course some would argue that sum to too small given the damages, but I'm just throwing a reasonable number out there. The are roughly 45 million Black folks in the US. of course one could argue not all of these folks, like Barack Obama, deserve compensation for a wide variety of reasons. But for the sake of simplicity we are going to consider any of this. We would just give 45,000,000 people $50,000,000 for a total spend of 2.25 Quadrillion dollars. This sum easily exceeds the wealth of the entire planet. Even if we scaled the number back 3 orders of magnitude, and give everyone $50K it would equal the entire federal budget--and ultimately not change a thing in anyone's life. Given the country is about 18 Trillion in debt, I don't know where even $50K a person would come from. Maybe it would be best for you @Pioneer1, to describe what reparations would look like. Does every so called "Black" person get a check? If so how big would it be? Are all so called Black people compensated equally? Will there be a "brown bag test" of sorts to determine relative level of compensation?

@Xeon, No I can't think of a single Black run country, in 2016, that meets the criteria you've described. But as we've pointed out this has not always been the case, indeed for most of human history this was not the case. I thought you are refereeing to ancient civilizations not the present day. Of you appreciate the weakness of Black countries has little to do the with the people. Despite independence (a relatively recent thing), these countries are still being exploited by other nations. Sure Mandela was released from prison and became the President of South Africa, but who continues to owns the land? I strongly recommend that you read Walter Rodney's How Europe Underdeveloped Africa. That book makes it easy to understand the state of present day Africa. @Pioneer1, If you are not clear to the lack of a genetic basis for race, then you are apt to draw the conclusions that you have. I won't debate facts with you once they have been presented. But I'd encourage you can to research genetics and race. Culture has nothing to do with genetics. Sure people of the same culture often share the same phenotype, but this is a consequence, of not, the cause of the culture. I've met white people who I did not realize were "white," (as you define white) because they shared my culture (music, religion, cuisine, background, etc). I'm sure you have met people like this too. if not, perhaps you have met Black people you felt were "acting" white. Maybe you called them an "oreo." This is simply a Black people who is culturally white--despite their skin color. I'm glad Sara corrected you on the polygamous catholic priests, on it's face that did not sound right, and I'm glad you conceded the point :-) As for testosterone levels, sex drive and skin color (what you call race), I have no idea what the connections are, but I strongly doubt the connections are as cut and dried as you suggest. For each anecdote you cite I can think of many others that go counter. Women can be promiscuous too and have high sex drives, but they will still have lower levels of testosterone than a normal man. Body builders take hormones, including testosterone, and generally end up reducing their sexual performance to the point of impotence. But to your point about sexual repression: Pioneer on some level I agree with you. The whole idea about waiting until marriage to have sex and staying with that same partner for life seems crazy. Virtually no one does this and those who try invariable fail, or are miserable, or have missed out on one of life's joys, but... When you write something like this; "Rather than asking one group of men to control themselves in a sexually repressive society, why not flip it and demand that the other group be MORE SENSUAL and in accord with the dominant human nature?" What you are revealing, perhaps without realizing, it is the fact that we will in a male dominated culture. You talk about men marrying multiple women, and the sex droves of men from various cultures. Your solution and much of what you wrote fail to consider fully 1/2 the population--the women. Are you just as open that a bunch of other dudes bringing your woman to climax anytime she has the desire. Maybe your girl likes to have three other dudes up in her at the same time, raw. I dunno, but somehow I suspect your desire to eliminate sexual repression is not boundless. But I could be wrong let me know how you feel about this and we can continue the discussion

Sure, the interview failed to focus on the real factor behind the book's success, the marketing might behind it and the fact that is was a good book. The word of mouth is a consequence of that--not the cause. Perhaps a better title for the article would be "Word of Mouth, Quality Literature, and Marketing Sell Books."

Cynique, thinking more about it. what I described as more "sophisticated" in your engagement with Kola could be the absence of hate. I guess it is the hate filled exchanges between you and Sara that I find so unappealing, and frankly beneath you. I don't say beneath Sara because I don't know her as well, and she has not given me any reason to think otherwise. What I have noticed is that both of you must have the last word. So Sara will reply to your last remark with a similarly childish remark, and it goes on ad infinitum... I understand your unwillingness to let anything from Sara slide, but Sara's replies are not elevating my opinion of her in my eyes, and it is certainly not diminishing my opinion of you. Now I can't speak for everyone, but I'd be willing to bet that would be the impression of anyone who has been lurking here more than a year. Let put things in perspective: Sara has been posting here for all of 6 months and posts anonymously. Posters like her come and go. You on the other hand, demonstrated your value to these forums more than a decade before Sara arrived. This forum is named in your honor. You stand behind what you say, because you don't hide behind the cloak of anonymity. Why you bother concerning yourself with what some anonymous poster writes is a waste of time and mental energy.

Interestingly, I never had White Man Listen! on the website until I read Harry's post. I was really only familiar with Native Son and Black boy did not realize that Writer wrote poetry as well. It seems he what the anointed Black Writer until Baldwin Rose to prominence. I'm not sure who took the crown after Baldwin, Toni Morrison, Amiri Baraka, maybe? Who holds it now it now? Perhaps no one individual has written so well, so prolifically, across genres for so long. Actually now that I think about it maybe it is Walter Mosley. Mosley definitely has the required white cosign. Yeah, Mosley "has the Juice."

Cynique the operative word was "more," your battles with Kola tended to be "more sophisticated." But OK maybe "sophisticated" is not the right, when you and Sara agree on something I better just conceed Cynique I thought I explained why don't delete your back and forth. I'm not inclined to do it, because I don't want to censor people, Even if I were inclined I don't really have the time to do it properly (with fairness, consistency, and expeditiously) Skipping over parts of a conversation is not really easy--especially for someone new. The nature of the conversation is sequential you have to read the conversation in sequence in order to best follow it, you can't know what to skip unless you've been reading for a while and know the personalities. For example, once you and Sara start going back and forth I find it easiest to stop following the entire thread--unless someone other than you or Sara contribute. For example, I'd stopped reading the transgender conversation until I saw that Xeon contributed, which means that it would likely be something worth reading. My question is; why do you and Sara bother attacking, or even defending an attack, from the other? Why can't either of you simply ignore the other? What is at stake? If only one of you ignored the other the whole back and forth would end immediately. If the other wold just look silly if they continued. If they continued attacking unabated I actually would ban them in that case, for they would be a classic troll. But an even better question would be, why don't you two simply chose to be more tolerant of each other? I don't expect a tearful kumbaya moment between sistahs at this point, but there is no reason I can think of you to to continue the personal attacks.

Sara (everyone) click the link and check out the actual lists. The lists were created by Dr.'s Ben-Jochannan, Clarke & Van Sertima; I simply compiled and shared them. The Destruction of Black Civilization by Dr. Chancellor Williams is included on Dr. Ben-Jochannan's recommended reading list.

I just learned about this brand new bookstore this morning! Fanita Pendleton Author: http://aalbc.it/fanitap owner of Urban Moon Books bookstore: http://aalbc.it/urbanmoon

@Pioneer1, your reasoning is predicated on some questionable assumptions, one of which being a family structure based upon genetic makeup as a differentiating factor between Black and white people. Given the fact that there is no such thing as race the whole premise is flawed. Even if we were to buy into the assumptions (which I don't) the conclusion don't follow. For example; "Some men have very high sex drives but because they are limited to only one wife they begin to cheat with other women married and unmarried producing "outside" children in dysfunctional families" This assumes that men are like animals and unable to exert any influence over their own behavior. It also assume that the only way to relieve this urge is to impregnate another woman and that that woman brings the child to term. What happened to masturbation, prostitution, or just using a damn condom? The results you describe, simply don't natural flow as you've described. Does this mean that the situation you've described don't happen? No, of course not for these situations clearly do happen, it is the causes, as outlined that, I disagree with. Though I'm probably with you on the religious dogma part for that has wrecked havoc over the last 2,000 years. @Xeon, I watched a lecture, just the other day, given by Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson, in which a Black woman asked him a question about the African origins of mathematics. Neil responded by saying that he was not aware of that, and more on to the next question. I was taken aback by his reaction, because he dismissed it without even considering it. I know Tyson's biggest hero is Issac Newton, someone he argues is perhaps the most brilliant person to ever live, inventing calculus to use as a tool to predict the motion of planets among other things. I say this because I thought it was common knowledge that much of what europe knows, about mathematics, religion, science, was built upon information obtained from Africa. Galileo was persecuted for relating information about the how are solar system was oriented--information that was known and recorded hundreds of years before by Africans. Europeans believe the earth was flat when Africans had already circumnavigated the world. But the specific of Calculus I do not recall reading about. Tyson should have asked her the motivation behind her question. But Tyson would never be confused with being an afro-centrist, so I'm sure he did not care. I would encourage you to read some of the titles on the Ben-Jochannan, Clarke & Van Sertima’s Reading Lists which help you understand why Africa has degenerated to the state you see it today.

@Xeon, I had to stop using the other discussion forum software because it was just poorly suited to handle the onslaught of spammers, which is a constant problem. So I pulled the plug and prevented additional posts, but the discussion board archives will always remain, as long as energy, technology, and money allow. That was over 6 years ago and the forum is still getting new accounts from spammers. They can't do anything because, again, I've prevented new posts. This forum has the same problems but the software is FAR better at dealing with spam, and trolls. I also migrated the forum from thumperscorner.com to aalbc.com, which made maintance easier and was better for branding. I think the software switch was only a small part of the problem Xeon; sure there was a learning curve, but Cynique managed, as have you. In fact, most of the older posters created new accounts on this platform. In hindsight, I think the primary reason for the decrease in participation had to more to do with Kola Boof's participation and the rise of social media. See while you and others enjoyed the "epic battles," between Cynique and Kola, too many others participants strongly disliked Kola and were put off . Thumper hated her. In fact, I think Thumper held it against me for allowing Kola to even participate. I also know others who stopped participating because of Kola. To this day, I can not serve Google ads on the Thumpersconer.com domain because of posts Kola made. Today neither Kola or Thumper posts here, but they both post on Facebook. The battles between Sara and Cynique have the same effect, anyone new coming here would, understandably, be put off by the exchanges between Cynique and Sara. There exchanges hurt the forum because they are pointless and base; and muddle what would otherwise be decent conversations (this conversation is a perfect example). The Kola and Cynique battles were more sophisticated and lurkers actually enjoyed them; this is not true for the Sara/Cynique exchanges. If I had the time remove would prune some of their exchanges; which is saying a lot because I'm not inclined to control what anyone says. Social media allowed other frequent participants (many of whom are writers) to establish a presence and manage their own groups. I understand the motivation, but the problem with this tactic is that it this greatly weakens Black owned platforms; which in turn makes it ultimately harder for the writer, because there are fewer platforms available to publish their work. This is one reason why I spend as much time, if not more, fighting for independent Black owned platforms including, newspapers, bookstores, other websites, magazines, etc. We need indie Black owned platforms. Meanwhile, the corporate social media entities are greatly strengthen and are now charging those writers for the ability to have their content seen by the audience they worked so hard to cultivate. This is why I stopped putting content on social media and just post links... Xeon, I know that is a roundabout way of answering your question, but I thought the additional insight would be of interest to you, other participants, and lurkers.

"He doesn't say anything revolutionary and that's because he isn't able to do anything revolutionary." Man that is it in a nutshell! I hate to say it, but you don't get very far in mainstream corporate America, as a Black man, doing anything revolutionary. White people have the luxury of being revolutionary. OK Cynique, you mean token in the traditional sense. I know the term very well--i lived it. It is the experience of being the only one, or one of a few, in the room, who were hired simply because we had to be hired, sure we were qualified, but we were also there to fill a quota. Of course this quota stuff led to all the handwringing about qualified white people who were not hired to make room for supposedly under qualified Black people. As far as I know the days of quotas are over, so white institutions (schools, corporations, etc), like to tout their diversity, to come across as not racist. But "diversity" has not served American born Black people very well. "Diversity" has served white women far better than Black people. Consider the photo of the HuffPost editorial board, that room could be considered very diverse, you have a range of ages, probably a couple of lesbians, people from Asia, maybe transgender people, who knows what else... HuffPost, I'm sure is celebrating their "diversity," because on paper they are. Because Coates has been embraced by so many different white, and Black institutions, I would not consider him a token. But I'm sure Coates was embraced by a few of these institutions as a token. He is the default Black guy white institutions to reach out to when they need a Black person. Chris, a few weeks ago, I was walking down St. Nicholas ave, on my way from Staples to the supermarket, when I walked past a church and saw a flyer for a lecture (that started 30 minutes earlier); the speaker was M.K. Asante. There were maybe 10 people in the audience. It just reminded me again of how hard popular and successful people work to get to where they are. It also reminded me of how many talented people work even harder and are destined to remain relatively obscure, because they will never get the increasingly elusive white cosign. But many of these Black folks are not looking for, or feel they need, the white cosign these tend to be the most admirable Black people I know.

Sure Coates got white cosign up the wazoo. As far as he being a token Cynique, that is a much tougher question to answer. First I'd have to know more clearly what you mean by token. Generally the term is used to describe how a entity treats someone, so I'd have to ask; Token for whom? But I would say no.