Troy

@NubianFellow, thanks again for adding your voice to the mix. I agree 100% with your last post, But if a Black owned business is in the community then putting 10 to 20% back into the community would be trivial. The real problem in doing this is that there are not enough Black owned business to patronize. The other problem is getting people to patronize Black businesses. I currently sell books any way they can be sold; I can sell them directly, direct readers to an author's site, publisher's site, and any large retailer including B&N and Amazon. I'll give you one guess where 99.9% of the people choose to buy their books. @Pioneer1, agreed not everyone is cut out to start and run a business, but Black owned business get FAR more grief and other business for poor service, when I'd argue that we chose get a bit more leeway other Black people. I'm not saying we should tolerate bad service from a Black owned business, but I think we are held to a higher standard than even corporate businesses who benefit investor funding while we have to rely solely on revenue.

Well there it is, the "multi billion dollar weave industry." As long as there is a financial incentive for getting women to change the state of the natural hair, there will be market pressures to get them to do it. Obviously those of us that change their hair from it's natural state will find ways to justify doing it. I'm not convinced this is as much of an issue of Black self hate, as much as it is one of marketing. People can easily justify spending spending money to watch men engage in human cock fighting. Justifying buying a straight-haired-blonde weave is does not seem to be such a heavy lift in comparison. Black women are not the only ones buying straight blonde hair, white women do it too. White women go to the beauty salon get the texture of the hair changed, get the color of their hair changed, but don't have to contend with the same level of grief our Sisters have to. But white women don't have to contend with a lot of things Black women have to... Clever marketers have exploited a weakness in our psyches and created an environment such that many women feel they can be made more attractive by changing the natural state of their hair. This is not a function of "race," it is a function of commerce. Of course the Brothers buy into this and go after the sisters with the long straight hair and white boys flock to the girlies with the long blonde hair. Very few of us, raised in this culture, are immune to this. I like to think that I am, but I know I'm not, not really. That said, I think many Black women spend an inordinate amount of time and money on their hair. I know sisters that spend hundreds of dollars each month doing something to their hair that has nothing to do with the health or well being of their hair. In fact what they are doing may actually be detrimental to their hair in the long term. But it is a waste of time trying to convince a woman that going to the "beauty" parlor for 2 or 3 hours a week is unnecessary, because you are competing against the full weight of brilliant corporate marketers who have convinced women otherwise. Of course there is no shortage of products targeted to make men feel inadequate if they don't have a head full thick hair. I'm glad I'm not one their marks. The stigma of Black men being bald has largely waned. I buy about 50 bucks worth a razor blades a year and shave my head once or twice a week, which takes about 10 minutes. The results present well, are easy on the pocket, and take very little time. Too bad more Black women don't feel they have that luxury.

We should probably compare notes at some point. I've already did the" actively engage on Facebook" thing. What I learned was that the time and energy I devoted to Facebook paid better dividends when directed to my website. Of course the other reasons you mentioned like, "handing over our power to white supremacy," should not be glossed over. This is reason enough alone to leave Facebook alone. No, I'll do without the traffic. How do you monetize your website? I use Google ads they perform fairly well for me, providing a consistent revenue stream for my unsold inventory. I do have three ads the are fixed a text ad that I just introduced last week. It is ugly, but it paid off immediately. I also run a rectangle ad in a fixed position above the fold and a large vertical banner I used many other ad networks some of whom performed fairly well. None of them performed as well as Google has over the long term. But here is the kicker, most of my revenue from Google comes from that rectangle banner above the fold. Do you know I can not directly sell that same space for what Google pays me!! I know maybe I need an effective sales person, because clearly the spot are more valuable that what Google is paying me--because they are making money off the spots, but again If I trying charge a fraction of what Google pays for that spot per month, say $500, no one would pay if, so Google gets it and they are obviously charging more. Funny you should mention "Black Twitter" when I first heard about it is was presented as such a powerful force. I asked myself how could I not be aware of this site. I went around looking for a damn, Black Twitter website, only to learn it was just use using Twitter... I was very disappointed because of how we'd embrace Black Twitter as if it was our own. Black Twitter id just Black folks using "white Twitter." Now I know a few Sista's have garner a great deal of success on Black Twitter, but so what. That pales in comparison with the number people that would benefit if there were actually a Black owned BlackTwitter.com. Your site differently gets a lot more traffic than this one. Are nubianplanet and blackhostingsolutions both your sites? I have never had tens of thousands of people on my site at one time. With that much traffic I'm surprised you are not making a mint with Google ads.

unrelated side bar: @NubianFellow I like the way you link to related content on your website. This is how the web is "supposed" to work. People come here discover your site, go there and discover another site. and so on. Image if more of us did this.... Instead we are rapidly approaching a point where the Facebook is becoming the WWW.

@NubianFellow, I agree with your assessment almost completely. The most powerful point you made is that; "we are using the internet in the wrong way." I can go on for hours about how we are using the Internet in the wrong way and why Black oriented websites owned by Black people choke on the dust of the white owned Black oriented sites. It is frustrating to constantly read how Black people over index on our use of Twitter and other social media, without sharing in all the revenue that is generated as a result of our activity. The fact that these corporations hire so few Black people is not a revelation to anyone either. Where are opinions diverge is on the 'benefits" of Facebook. Here too is a subject I can go on and on about, but at the end of the day people love Facebook. I do what I can to use Facebook to my benefit, but I refuse to publish content on the platform or actively engage there, as this activity cannibalizes Black websites' ability to generate revenue. Since so few of us make any real attempt to earn a living from websites, I completely understand why most people don't get it or care. Trying to appeal to Black people based upon what has been lost as far as Black content on the web, or how existing websites (like AALBC.com) are weakened, and the great Black websites that will never launch, because of our slavish devotion to sites like Facebook, fail to resonate with folks, because again we love Facebook so much. Facebook has done a brilliant job addicting and manipulating us to use their platform. Facebook pages out rank many authors own website's in Google searches--deservedly so, because authors spend more time and energy publishing information on Facebook than they do their own websites. Of course they'll argue that no one will visit their website and they are so happy to have Facebook to help them connect with others But these are people, who never knew a world, before Facebook. They also don't know that Facebook is FAR more aggressive than Google has ever been at controlling which posts are seen as to maximize the time people spend on Facebook. At least Google says if you create a great website we'll send people to it. If you want to get people to your website using Facebook you better be ready to send some money. At some point we have to invest in our own if we are going to have anything of value...

@Del, the fake woman in the video is the draw. At least it is what kept my attention for a couple of minutes. I never did go back and watch the full video. My feelings the video mirror @NubianFellow's for the most part, but I probably don't feel as strongly about it as he does. Basically if women themselves don't agree with that assessment, it will be a very difficult battle to wage, as evidenced with the Viola debate. Even if your intent is to protect Black women, you get accused of "mansplaining," overstepping your bounds, or something else just as counterproductive. Now I think the MInaj video is far worse for Black women than the Viola Davis photo, but again that is just me. While I view the video as the very definition of the objectification of women, some women view it as a demonstration of exerting their power and no man is qualified to even speak on the matter... and so it goes.

...at least for now. The graph below shows AALBC.com's bounce rate (the percentage of people who come to the website and only view one page) versus page views (the number of pages viewed by the site's visitors. A site's bounce rate (shown in dark blue and shaded) is a good indicator of how engaged a site's visitors are with the ste. The lower the percentage the better. Page views (shown in light blue) is also also a great indicator of how engaged visitors are with a website. Obviously, the more pages a visitor views the more engaged they are; the higher the number the better. There are other important indicators like how frequently a visitor comes back to a site and how long they stay when they visit. There have been three dramatic and significant swings in AALBC.com's bounce rate this year; early April, mid May, and late June. Whenever you see a dramatic and abrupt change in a major data point like bounce rate, that is usually an indication of a Google algorithm change (the formula Google uses to rank sites in search engine results). Now Google does not announce when they are making algorithm changes and what the changes will be, but any webmaster worth their salt will notice. The mid May change (about May 17th, indicated by the red B) was picked up by other webmasters, as I've seen conversations on various message boards. AALBC.com's site was adversely impacted by this change. There is usually a direct correlation between a site's bounce rate and the number of page views (assuming there isn't also a substantial change n the number of visitors). In other words, as the bounce rate goes up the pages views go down. In AALBC.com's case, from about May 17 until June 21, there was a significant drop in the number of pages views on our site. Now of course everything is relative, because the site's pages views for June 2017 is the higher than it has ever been for the same period in any previous year. Still it was cause for concern. Google's axe cuts both ways. As you can see at point A the opposite happened, Google flipped their algorithm switch and AALBC saw an increase in traffic, similarly, around June 21st point C, Google completely reversed the change it made a month earlier, and AALBC.com has enjoyed the lowest bounce rates it has every seen--single digit bounce rates! Now it has been two full months since Google has impacted AALBC.com with a major algorithm change, and the the last change was more than corrected for the adverse change in May. Now all I've done so far is describe what happened. An obvious question is; what can I do about it? The only answer, while Google dominates search, is to adhere to Google's rules for search engine optimization. The top rule is to create a site that visitors will find valuable. All you can really do after that is cross your fingers and hope for the best. Seriously, I've spent the better part of the last two years greatly improving the website, not just for visitors, but to also satisfy, Google's fickle search engine algorithm. I've also tried to help people understand that if they do find the site valuable they must actively support it. One way to do this is by sharing any content they find valuable with others. I also recently created a bestselling book seal to help authors, more easily share their bestseller status while and the same time supporting the website. The fact is, AALBC.com survives at the whim of Google's search engine, and this is not a good position to be in, which is why I'm appealing directly to people. Today Google is doing a better job with search. They are sending more people to AALBC.com that are finding our content valuable, as evidenced by record low bounce rates over a sustained period of time. This is how a great search engine works. But Google is not perfect; they frequently make changes and later reverse those changes materially hurting business in the interim. Google is still front running search results to book sites with their own products. October 2017 will mark 20 years since I started creating AALBC.com. This was even before Google's search engine launched. Let hope 20 years from now, there are still indie websites able to reach an audience.

I really wish I could make it. The fair bills itself as the "largest independent book festival in the country." It would be a really good opportunity to meet you and others. I've been to ATL twice this summer, but if I had the money I would make it three times. Please share photos or video. I'll add it to your AALBC.com newly created profile page: https://aalbc.com/authors/author.php?author_name=B.L.+Brown

A film can be "dark" and "pessimistic" and still be great. The reviews on Rotten Tomatoes work quite good https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/detroit_2017 Jam said the film was very good in his review linked at the top of this thread. Dr Jazzy's opinion appears to be an outlier which is why I asked for elaboration.

Interesting. I'm hearing rumblings of actual boycotts of the NFL which I like, but not to get Kaepernick on a team; that is short sighted. Here may be an opportunity to make more fundamental changes to the game which will benefit not just one player but all players and fans alike. Then again with all the press about traumatic brain injury so many player suffer from it seems like the long term prospect for the NFL are constrained. I guess they can do like cigarette manufacturers and market the sport abroad.

@Mel Hopkins I did not need to probe, because as I wrote, "I got it." Maybe because I've known her all my life, maybe because we share genetic code. Maybe we are just two black people of the same culture. In any event, it is not a cop out; indeed we were connecting. The specifics of how she happen to come to the sentiment are incidental to understanding it understanding it. Now it is possible I got it completely wrong, but I doubt it. Don't you find that you can communicate with some people on some subjects more easily that with others. Sometimes my wife or mother can give me a look and I know exactly what they are "saying." Of course this is much easier to do in real life that it is is on these forums. No I don't think you can change someone, but as you said you can provide a catalyst. I just don't think engaging legal battles to remove statues is the best use of our collective resources. The image Cynique shared about the statue, in my neighborhood was very powerful (isn't art great for raising consciousness). I do plan on looking up the information and now next time I walk past it with someone I'll explain what it means. Now if someone responsible for it decide to tear it down--fine. But I'd rather spend the time sharing information about what that Dr. did than using the energy to try to get it removed. Yesterday the statue mean nothing to me, which I suspect was what it mean to almost everyone else. Today the statue is a reminder how what horrifically white mean treated Black women. Perhaps it will come to mean the same thing to the white folks responsible of it being in place (you know they are white), as they too learn more about the "doctor's" evil experiments. Maybe they will decide to remove the statue on their own volition. Again I could care less one way or the other. Tearing it down will not turn a single racist.

This video, produced by The Tea, is really well done and captured the true spirit of the Black Pack Party. Please check out the video from the 2017 Black Pack Party.

Del I was interested in having you acknowledge that you and Pioneer are not all that different and indeed have more in common than you are willing to acknowledge. You are not from different worlds.

Elva I'm sure Cynique was referring to how I'm always focusing on socio-economic class. YOu have not been around long enough to have read my many rants of the subject. But we, as a culture, can certainly use a little more class how we comport ourselves.

I know exactly where this statue is; it a short walk from where I live. I read the plaque that goes with it recently. Obviously, they left that bit of info off. Man, are the prerequisites for having a statue erected in your honor being a rich, white, male, white devil? Fortunately, also within walking distance are more prominent statues of douglass, ellington, and Tubman. :-)

Really. Care to elaborate. I still have not seen it.

Well Cynique, it is more than just tearing down the statues it is the time and effort required to fight to have it done. Again, since racism was far worse before these statues existed it is not clear to my why their absence will make a bit of difference. But we'll agree to disagree on this issue. I think I do a bit more than "stand around, explaining and describing" Cynique, and you know this too. Besides I would not dismiss the importance of explaining, describing, reading, and talking about ideas. I think if we all did more of these things the country would be in a better place.

OK Pioneer I guess I'm getting caught up on your equating "weak" with "recessive." Pioneer what is the difference between a light skinned Black person and a dark skinned white person? Again because "race" itself is arbitrary rules like "one drop" are perfect valid, even though you don't personally like it.

@Cynique, I really don't know why they erected these monuments. Why do people create tomb stones? I presume they are honoring the dead. Perhaps they are honoring people who sacrificed for a cause. In any event, I doubt they were erected to piss you and I off. These things statues, swastikas, the Virginia battle flag have been coopted by racists. Obviously I don't think overt racism should be tolerated, but you already know this so I don't understand why you write stuff like that. The statues don't make racists; the racists existed before the dumb statues and will exist after they are gone. Are we supposed to get rid of every symbol the Alt-right (or whatever the current euphemism is for racist is), decides to co-opt for their perverse purposes? Deal with the people and their behavior and the statues will become as irrelevant as they were before the recent events... You see it is much easier to tear down a statue and think you've actually accomplished something. @Cynique, what do you think tearing the statues will accomplish? As far as Andy Young's statement. I tend to listen more carefully to people like you and him. You've lived longer and experienced more. Wisdom is not valued very much in our youth/celebrity obsessed culture, but it means something to me. Young said most of the issues we are dealing with are due to poverty. Since I have been saying this for as long as this forum has existed, you know I agree with this. However unlike Young I think the Klan has to be denounced. But I think the criminals on Wall Street need to be denounced even more, as they have caused far more damage than the Klan ever will and are probably instrumental in the resurgence of overt racist attitudes and the rise of 45. @Del, I'm not sure what I misinterpreted. You made a declarative statement; "Sally Hemmings had Jefferson free her son." This was followed by what I can only assume is a conclusion you drew as a result; "So tge relationship may have been more nuanced." Tell me, what did I misinterpret from what you wrote? @Mel Hopkins, I don't know if she had any personal trauma directly related to the flag. I did not probe, but I immediately understood. In fact that is what prompted me to write this message. I don't mean to suggest that I don't understand the power of symbols like flags. In the days immediately after 9-11, I flew an American flag from my car. As much as I have to say against the ills of this country, all of that was put aside for a few moments because we, as a nation, was in immediate danger. The flag was a overt show of solidarity. It seems a bit much thinking about it now... But I tell that story because the flag, like those statues only have the meaning we give it, and those meanings change, based upon the people. Again, change the people and the meaning of the symbols change as well.

I was teasing you Del. I did not expect you to prove of disprove what I wrote. Genetics is indeed a complex subject and I don't know much more than Pioneer. I would consider my job done if he brought into the fact there was just one race. I used to teach punnet square to adult learners to help them get their GED. I usually used Sickle Cell as an example. Carriers of the trait are less likely to get Malaria, than people without it, but Pioneer would consider that "weak" since the trait is recessive? Did I explain your position correctly @Pioneer1?

It is hard to debate this without a comon framework. You believe there are several races. The fact is there is only one. The fact you can have more in common, genetically, with a so called white person than you do with anone on this board does not give you pause to reconsider your position. The fact that the determination of one's race is purely subjective does not mean anything to you either. Surely there is nothing I can say to you that will convince you otherwise...youngin'

100% agreement huh. That is far better than even I expected. My job here is done.

@Del, do you believe you are senior to Pioneer or was the "young" comment a subtle dig? I won't even address the keeping him in line part. I'm just pointing out the subtle aggression you express toward him, that I was referenced in the other conversation. Hmm... did you also select the word "young," given the recent controversial remarks made by Andy Young? Nah you probably did not go that deep.

Cynique there is nothing that you wrote that offended me. You believe all poor white people are racist and therefore undeserving of sympathy. I disagree. You believe a 43 year old man having sex with a 13 child that he owns is not rape. I disagree. You believe that America has treated has Black people terribly historically and well as currently and worse than poor whites. I agree. @Del, you can call the relationship "naused," because Jefferson freed his own child. Again it was a horrible situation that Sally, like all enslaved people, did what they could to make the best of a f--ked up situation. Man, y'all willing to condemn all poor white people, but a rich a rich and powerful white man who has sex with a child he owns is in a "nuanced" relationship with his "mistress." But I understand, this is what people have always done; venerate the wealthy devils and trash the poor people. I'm just surprised to see you two doing it. As far as the "vague" things that we should be doing rather than worrying about statues. You mean to tell me you can't think of anything Cynque? Half the stuff we talk about here is more important that some stupid statue; from climate change; wealth inequality; mass incarceration, shitty schools, 45... Stop playing Here is a video of Andy Young (wow he has been out of the spotlight so long I did not even recognize him) talking about his comments about Charlottesville. When I searched for this video there was no shortage of other video eviscerating Young for these comments.

This comments was posted on Facebook. I wonder what steps I would need to take to get people to comment here rather on Facebook? Maybe I'll try asking....