Troy

The other day I was thinking about Gil Scott Heron's Poem the Revolution Will Not be Televised. I was considering writing a updated version to the poem, tentatively called, "The Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted". Realizing there is nothing new understand sun, I decided to search the term, "The Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted," and I actually was surprised by the abundance of content on the subject and discovered other people had already written similar poems on the subject, so I abandoned the idea. The Brother's version below is better than what I would have done, though I think far too long. I also discovered a four-year-old article written by Malcolm Gladwell, entitled, "Why he Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted." While one can easily find a lot of criticism of the article, I find it to be on point. People tend to exaggerate the impact of social media: “It is time to get Twitter’s role in the events in Iran right,” Golnaz Esfandiari wrote, this past summer, in Foreign Policy. “Simply put: There was no Twitter Revolution inside Iran.” The cadre of prominent bloggers, like Andrew Sullivan, who championed the role of social media in Iran, Esfandiari continued, misunderstood the situation. “Western journalists who couldn’t reach—or didn’t bother reaching?—people on the ground in Iran simply scrolled through the English-language tweets post with tag #iranelection,” she wrote. “Through it all, no one seemed to wonder why people trying to coordinate protests in Iran would be writing in any language other than Farsi.” Social Media is not a substitute for organizations: The drawbacks of networks scarcely matter if the network isn’t interested in systemic change—if it just wants to frighten or humiliate or make a splash—or if it doesn’t need to think strategically. But if you’re taking on a powerful and organized establishment you have to be a hierarchy. The Montgomery bus boycott required the participation of tens of thousands of people who depended on public transit to get to and from work each day. It lasted a year. In order to persuade those people to stay true to the cause, the boycott’s organizers tasked each local black church with maintaining morale, and put together a free alternative private carpool service, with forty-eight dispatchers and forty-two pickup stations. Even the White Citizens Council, King later said, conceded that the carpool system moved with “military precision.” By the time King came to Birmingham, for the climactic showdown with Police Commissioner Eugene (Bull) Connor, he had a budget of a million dollars, and a hundred full-time staff members on the ground, divided into operational units. The operation itself was divided into steadily escalating phases, mapped out in advance. Support was maintained through consecutive mass meetings rotating from church to church around the city. The article sums up the situation perfectly. and in my mind explains why we are so ineffective today: "...it is simply a form of organizing which favors the weak-tie connections that give us access to information over the strong-tie connections that help us persevere in the face of danger. It shifts our energies from organizations that promote strategic and disciplined activity and toward those which promote resilience and adaptability. It makes it easier for activists to express themselves, and harder for that expression to have any impact. The instruments of social media are well suited to making the existing social order more efficient. They are not a natural enemy of the status quo. If you are of the opinion that all the world needs is a little buffing around the edges, this should not trouble you. But if you think that there are still lunch counters out there that need integrating it ought to give you pause." The full article is 4.4K words worth reading.

Perhaps Mexicans will be the "New Black." The upper class could/would dispense with Black folks, including our beatified president, tomorrow if it were feasible. It really does not matter to them as long as there is an underclass to perform the low level tasks and manual labor. Indeed white folks use other white people when they have to But again, I don't believe this is about race. It is about those with the most financial resources and power increasing it; in America virtually all of these folks happen to be white but that is incidental not the cause. . Since these folks happen to be white, Black folks have had the misfortune of being easily targeted. Our best strategy would be to combine our resources, but this simply is not happening. The activism, organization and institutions of the civil rights era are a distant memory...

Here is just a few more exmaples

Playing devils advocate for a second Cynique: When I encounter a situation that requires me to determine what a person's (or any entity's) motivations are I just look at what they do--because I can't know what they are thinking, indeed it does not matter. If a man says he loves you but is constantly treating you poorly; clearly, he does not love you (no psychic necessary). If, for example, the US Government actually disliked Black people, would they need to behave differently? Could we do a better job at locking our Brothers up? Could we mis-educate Black people any better? Could we have pumped any more drugs and guns into the community? This all without mentioning a few hundred years of enslavement and Jim Crow... Would it really be a leap to believe in ethnic cleansing. To compound things, birth rates are down for Black people. Black people are no longer the largest minority in the US (or won;t be very shortly). But most importantly, there is essentially no "Black community" this might sound odd coming from me. But we are essentially a conglomeration of competitive factions separated by class, income, and education, whose most successful members strive to separate themselves from the so-called Black community. Given our population this is an astonishing thing to say but I believe it is largely true. I would be happy for someone to prove me wrong. If you disagree ask yourself the following; What percentage of communities in the US are majority Black and not poor (what is the largest one and where is it)? What percentage of job offers are given by a Black person to another Black person (a decent paying job with the potential for career growth)? What percentage of Black people, who are murdered, are murdered by a Black assailant? What percentage of Black income is spent with a Black owned business? I could go on for days with examples. Some of the answers to the questions above are available, some not as no one has bothered to look, or ask. But at the end of the day, none of the answers, to the questions above, would point to any semblance of what one would call a "community."

Yes what I mean by Psychic too someone that could basically lay out what is going to happen in plainly--not like some Nostradamus-like quatrains which calls for interpretations. I suspect if there was anyone who could actually see the future they'd be on wall street or some government facility not some side-show attraction. Yeah I'm pretty much and on the surface kind of guy. But I'll tell you straight up I'm vulnerable and need help. It is rough out here in the book world, which is really part of a much bigger cultural war--and I'm on the losing side... Sexual edginess, do you have access to my web browsing history

Cynique what have you sensed from me on this board? Over the years we've been communicating I've gone through a ton of changes, challenges and transitions on so many levels (as perhaps we all have), I'd be curious to read your impressions. Del feel free to chime in. In general I'm open to the ideal of psychics, in fact I think it would be really cool. But I have not had an experience with a psychic such that I would say with a high level of confidence that they are indeed psychic. I have encountered many people who have, but I have not. But I also know I don't readily accept the things that most people accept so easily and seemingly without question.

I guess that is similiar to what I did when I created a Facebook profile, photo wearing a hoodie, a viral activity that really had no impact. The same thing with all the photos you see now of people holding their hands up. Amazingly I have not seen a single video of a celebrity getting doused with water (perhaps because I spend very little time on Facebook), but I have heard about the acitivity and I have no interest in it. If it helps raise money for ALS that is great. I'm more interested in other things...

The Official NYC 80th Birthday Party for SONIA SANCHEZ! Friday, September 19, 2014 6 pm - 9 pm Performances by: Ursula Rucker, jessica Care moore Remarks by Haki Madhubuti of Third World Press, Music by DJ Reborn and more Bedford Hall 1177 Bedford Ave. Brooklyn NY, 11216 General Information: 718-804-8883 This year marks a milestone for our beloved and dear sister Sonia Sanchez. She turns 80 in September. Sister Sonia has a been a shining light in all of our lives, through her kind and inspirational spirit, her words of wisdom, and her love for all things that we do for the betterment of humankind. Would you like to contribute to this event? Please contact Maeshay k. Lewis at mlewis@mec.cuny.edu or at 718-804-8882 or make a contribution directly on Eventbrite.

This is the interview who were speaking about believe you are referring to this interview Dorothy had an incredible life, long and full. Getting married would have, changed everything for her. I suspect if she were a man she could have gotten married and accomplished everything she did--perhaps more. I wonder if Dorothy were a man would the interviewer have inquired about his marital status? Here is another good interview

Cynique Know thy enemy reminds me of the scorpion and the turtle folktale. The problem is all cops are not MF'ers, most are just trying to get through their day, without killing someone or being killed, and lasting long enough to collect their pension. But a sufficient number of officers are bad, that you would be safest to behave as if they were ALL were indeed MF'ers. I've been abused by some cops and have been treated fairly by others, but most of the times my encounters with the police have been bad, or financially very costly. In fact, I'd argue the the financial burden imposed upon people by our police state has just a high an impact on us as our hyper-incarceration rate. In NYC there are people losing cars over parking tickets! After two tickets you car will be booted and towed. If you have the money you simply pay the tickets. Once they have your car, you have to pay off all the tickets, plus the tow, storage and extra fees. This is just one example. People with money don't have to worry about paying parking tickets. Poorer people do. The system is stacked against poor. Everyone should try struggling financially for a few years, it would give you a completely different world view and maybe help them understand people who have done this for generations and live with virtually no hope for escape.

I gave up on this experiment after 37 days. I was just running into to much difficulty running AALBC.com avoiding the use of Facebook. Many writers, more than I anticipated, have very little content about themselves online other than what is on Facebook. When I logged into Facebook I was also surprised by the number of people who attempted to contact me on Facebook--despite what I thought was ample notice that I would not be using the platform--and these were people who actually know me and who have my email address. My friend Marcia posed this photo of me Facebook. it is one of those shots that did not know existed. I don't recall if it was a candid shot or if I was posing. In the good old days Marcia would have posted this shot on her website site (or mine), and sent me and anyone else she wanted to to see this photo and the other she took a link. Facebook would not be able to exert any control, or ownership of the content. I'm not even sure when or where the photo was taken, but Facebook knows because the information is digitally encoded in digital image that was uploaded.

1. Sure it is less likely for a straight man to contract HIV from a female partner, than a gay man to get it from a another man. 2. I'm not sure where HIV came from, but your theory would certainly explain the apparently inexplicable difference in infection rates when white and Black male homosexuals. 3. It funny you should say that. Not that white folks are becoming addicted to heroin and the scourge is impacting white communities the cops are now being trained to help addicts. In fact cops are being given medications to stop addict who are in the process of over dosing. When it was Black and brown people in the 'hood, cops just locked folks up, busted heads or let them die. I guess since HIV effected many white people early on, we now have medications that allow people to live with HIV--it is no longer a death sentence. Black people benefit from this.

I've completed 33 days of my 99 days without Facebook. To date the have only been 33,683 people who have joined the experiment. This is less than the number of people who visited this website during the same people. Again out of the Billion plus Facebook users, 33K is nothing...nothing. The goal of the experiment was to get 99,000 participants, but even 99 thousand participants is nothing, relatively speaking. I just filled out a survey which asked me if I was happier, or less happy, after 33 days of not using Facebook. Using Facebook has had no impact on my life one way or the other. If Facebook disappeared tomorrow, the only reason I would care is that I would probably see an increase in website traffic. Otherwise I would miss Facebook about as much as I miss...MySpace. I am concerned about the impact of social media, in general, on our society and culture, and Facebook figures prominently in that. But still there are many more things I'm concerned about that take more precedence. I was also asked what my friends thought of my participation in this 99 day abstinence from Facebook. I wrote they largely do not care. My friends who are active on Facebook showed no interest in participating and have not inquired about my experience and my friends who are not on Facebook damn sure don't care.

No Richard I do not own that site. I just asked the person who does to share the information here, to let folks know there are still alternatives to Facebook for networking for Black owned businesses.

"fiscally content blacks," sadly, are often part of the problem. If I had more time I'd really get into it. But I believe that unless we get this group of "fiscally content blacks," involved in creating solutions, rather than striving for the acceptance and approval of the one percent, nothing will change. In the short term, I'd be happy if we could get the "fiscally content blacks," to just give a damn about the majority of the other Back folks.

Hey Richard I made the URL bold faced and enabled the hyper link in the original message.

"Once it was understood that a man could be unemployed, on drugs, and routinely beat and call women bitches.....and still get all the sex he wants....it was a wrap." Ain't that the truth.

Now a Map of the available stores:

Titus Joseph uses mirror image symmetry to explain existence ‘Our Curious World of Mirror Images’ combines science seamlessly with philosophy to propose new concept ATLANTA — In his new book, “Our Curious World of Mirror Images: Reflections on how Symmetry Frames our Universe, Empowers the Creative Process and Provides Context to Shape our Lives” (published by Balboa Press), philosopher Titus Joseph draws on concepts from ancient philosophy, science and even religion to unveil a new model of the universe that explains how all things come into existence. “Today, with all the advances in science, including cosmology, quantum mechanics and relativity,” Joseph says, “I am prepared to demonstrate using advanced science and philosophy, a new theory that explains how things come into existence through the curious symmetries found everywhere in nature.” The central concept of “Our Curious World of Mirror Images” is called positional symmetry (requisite mirror image). The book begins by introducing readers to the beauty and universality of symmetry, and the paradox of duality. Joseph outlines ancient holistic philosophies, past ideas about space and time, new concepts from Einstein’s theory of relativity, and recent discoveries from the science of cosmology. After providing a broad overview of the universe and a brief background in quantum theory, “Our Curious World of Mirror Images” explains the new concept using illustrations and examples from everyday life. The new paradigm serves as a lens to conceive how things come into being and illustrates a new holistic model of the universe, all in an accessible manner for most anyone to read. The end result reconciles many polarized views and brings considerable amounts of added meaning to life. “Our Curious World of Mirror Images” By Titus Joseph Hardcover | 6 x 9 in | 136 pages | ISBN 9781452584799 Softcover | 6 x 9 in | 136 pages | ISBN 9781452584775 E-Book | ISBN 9781452584782 Available at Amazon and Barnes & Noble

Yeah Fela got married to 27 women at the same time--and I believe he was already married at the time. They apparently fought for his attention...

I found this message here: http://readersunited.com/ I don't know if it is actually from the Amazon's Books Team, but it reads like it could be legit _______________________________ A Message from the Amazon Books Team Dear Readers, Just ahead of World War II, there was a radical invention that shook the foundations of book publishing. It was the paperback book. This was a time when movie tickets cost 10 or 20 cents, and books cost $2.50. The new paperback cost 25 cents — it was ten times cheaper. Readers loved the paperback and millions of copies were sold in just the first year. With it being so inexpensive and with so many more people able to afford to buy and read books, you would think the literary establishment of the day would have celebrated the invention of the paperback, yes? Nope. Instead, they dug in and circled the wagons. They believed low cost paperbacks would destroy literary culture and harm the industry (not to mention their own bank accounts). Many bookstores refused to stock them, and the early paperback publishers had to use unconventional methods of distribution — places like newsstands and drugstores. The famous author George Orwell came out publicly and said about the new paperback format, if "publishers had any sense, they would combine against them and suppress them." Yes, George Orwell was suggesting collusion. Well… history doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme. Fast forward to today, and it's the e-book's turn to be opposed by the literary establishment. Amazon and Hachette — a big US publisher and part of a $10 billion media conglomerate — are in the middle of a business dispute about e-books. We want lower e-book prices. Hachette does not. Many e-books are being released at $14.99 and even $19.99. That is unjustifiably high for an e-book. With an e-book, there's no printing, no over-printing, no need to forecast, no returns, no lost sales due to out of stock, no warehousing costs, no transportation costs, and there is no secondary market — e-books cannot be resold as used books. E-books can and should be less expensive. Perhaps channeling Orwell's decades old suggestion, Hachette has already been caught illegally colluding with its competitors to raise e-book prices. So far those parties have paid $166 million in penalties and restitution. Colluding with its competitors to raise prices wasn't only illegal, it was also highly disrespectful to Hachette's readers. The fact is many established incumbents in the industry have taken the position that lower e-book prices will "devalue books" and hurt "Arts and Letters." They're wrong. Just as paperbacks did not destroy book culture despite being ten times cheaper, neither will e-books. On the contrary, paperbacks ended up rejuvenating the book industry and making it stronger. The same will happen with e-books. Many inside the echo-chamber of the industry often draw the box too small. They think books only compete against books. But in reality, books compete against mobile games, television, movies, Facebook, blogs, free news sites and more. If we want a healthy reading culture, we have to work hard to be sure books actually are competitive against these other media types, and a big part of that is working hard to make books less expensive. Moreover, e-books are highly price elastic. This means that when the price goes down, customers buy much more. We've quantified the price elasticity of e-books from repeated measurements across many titles. For every copy an e-book would sell at $14.99, it would sell 1.74 copies if priced at $9.99. So, for example, if customers would buy 100,000 copies of a particular e-book at $14.99, then customers would buy 174,000 copies of that same e-book at $9.99. Total revenue at $14.99 would be $1,499,000. Total revenue at $9.99 is $1,738,000. The important thing to note here is that the lower price is good for all parties involved: the customer is paying 33% less and the author is getting a royalty check 16% larger and being read by an audience that's 74% larger. The pie is simply bigger. But when a thing has been done a certain way for a long time, resisting change can be a reflexive instinct, and the powerful interests of the status quo are hard to move. It was never in George Orwell's interest to suppress paperback books — he was wrong about that. And despite what some would have you believe, authors are not united on this issue. When the Authors Guild recently wrote on this, they titled their post: "Amazon-Hachette Debate Yields Diverse Opinions Among Authors" (the comments to this post are worth a read). A petition started by another group of authors and aimed at Hachette, titled "Stop Fighting Low Prices and Fair Wages," garnered over 7,600 signatures. And there are myriad articles and posts, by authors and readers alike, supporting us in our effort to keep prices low and build a healthy reading culture. Author David Gaughran's recent interview is another piece worth reading. We recognize that writers reasonably want to be left out of a dispute between large companies. Some have suggested that we "just talk." We tried that. Hachette spent three months stonewalling and only grudgingly began to even acknowledge our concerns when we took action to reduce sales of their titles in our store. Since then Amazon has made three separate offers to Hachette to take authors out of the middle. We first suggested that we (Amazon and Hachette) jointly make author royalties whole during the term of the dispute. Then we suggested that authors receive 100% of all sales of their titles until this dispute is resolved. Then we suggested that we would return to normal business operations if Amazon and Hachette's normal share of revenue went to a literacy charity. But Hachette, and their parent company Lagardere, have quickly and repeatedly dismissed these offers even though e-books represent 1% of their revenues and they could easily agree to do so. They believe they get leverage from keeping their authors in the middle. We will never give up our fight for reasonable e-book prices. We know making books more affordable is good for book culture. We'd like your help. Please email Hachette and copy us. Hachette CEO, Michael Pietsch: Michael.Pietsch@hbgusa.com Copy us at: readers-united@amazon.com Please consider including these points: We have noted your illegal collusion. Please stop working so hard to overcharge for ebooks. They can and should be less expensive. Lowering e-book prices will help — not hurt — the reading culture, just like paperbacks did. Stop using your authors as leverage and accept one of Amazon's offers to take them out of the middle. Especially if you're an author yourself: Remind them that authors are not united on this issue. Thanks for your support. The Amazon Books Team

I saw this film yesterday. Fela was great band leader and activist, but homie was off the chain. I guess he had to be; to stand up to the Nigerian government the way he did... This bio-pic is definitely worth checking out Finding Fela: Music is the Weapon tells the story of Fela Kuti's life (1938 - 1997), his music, and his social and political importance. This in-depth look at the man who created Afrobeat (a fusion of Jazz, traditional West African rhythms, Funk, Highlife, and psychedelic rock) brings audiences close to Mr. Kuti's fight against the dictatorial Nigerian government of the 1970s and 1980s. With his audacious music and a great deal of courage, Fela Kuti helped bring a change towards democracy in Nigeria, promoted Pan Africanist politics to the entire world and became an inspiration in the global fight for the rights of all oppressed people. © Kino Lorber In Theaters: Aug 1, 2014 Limited Unrated, 1 hr. 59 min. Musical & Performing Arts, Documentary Directed By: Alex Gibney

The second later is perhaps worse than the first letter. Maybe because it at almost 2,500 words it is 5 times as long as the first letter, and opens itself up to many more opportunities for critique. I agree 100% with the first two sentences. Readers fuel the industry. All that noise about missing subway stops and reading to children confuses the issue. It is the readers money everyone needs, Hachette (publishers), Amazon (book vendors), and authors. The crux of the issue with these two letters, driven by authors, is where does each respective group of authors benefit the most financially. Big time authors like Gladwell makes more money when Hachette gets it's way and the anonymous self-published authors feels they benefit when a big publishing is hurt. From a business perspective I've made far more money from commissions on books sales from Amazon than I have from advertising from Hachette. However, Hachette's authors have taken out advertisements directly, and this is revenue I would never have realized if Hachette were not paying these authors. The issues are complex. Again I believe both of these group are moved by money more than benefit to readers... The business models are horribly flawed from a readers perspective. Especially for readers of Black literature. While there a many more books being published today, which is a good thing for readers, there are virtually no physical stores to sells these books. There are fewer websites focused on these books, so most of us are going directly to Amazon to buy our books. Once you are at Amazon, Amazon is not exactly "selling" books, they are handling the transaction. Amazon handles these transactions brilliantly--which is why they are doing so well. But you better know what book you want when you go to Amazon otherwise you'll overwhelmed and end up buying a book you will not like. The prices Amazon sells book for has little to do with the costs associated with producing those books. The cost associated with self-publishing a book are entirely different than a book published by a major publisher. Does this mean books published by a major house are better than those published by a self-published author? The answer is yes. Are there exceptions to this? Of course, but the editorial process alone makes books published by major houses better, in general. Historically, our problem with the major publishers is that they generally don't publish enough books by Black writers or with Black characters. As more pressure is put on major publishers does anyone think they will publish more books written by Black writers? Amazon sells books at a loss. While this is a great strategy to garner market share it is not a sustainable business model. Everyone so vigorously supporting Amazon's prices will be really upset when Amazon's prices increase to reflect the actual costs. Amazon has already killed other booksellers, booksellers with deep products knowledge, who could actually hand sell a book, and create more demand which would generally drive publishers to produce similar products. There is simply less demand for Black books in this type of environment. Did anyone notice there have not been any novels, written by Black writers, on the NY Times bestsellers list for the last three months. Even individual authors interested in making money will have to eventually charge more than 99 cents for an ebook. The other factor is value there are some ebooks that are not worth 99 cents and others that are worth much more. There is no apparent correlation between a book's price on Amazon and the book's cost of production and quality of writing. Both letters ignore all of these issues.

Here others wrote a letter to support Amazon Petitioning Hachette Stop fighting low prices and fair wages Dear Readers, Much is being said these days about changes in the book world, but not nearly enough is being said about the most important people in our industry. You. The readers. Without you there wouldn’t be a book industry. We owe you so much, and we are forever in your debt. Thank you for reading late into the night. Thank you for reading to your children. Thank you for missing that subway stop, for your word of mouth, your reviews, and your fan emails. Thank you for seeking our books in so many ways—through brick and mortar stores, online, and in libraries. Thank you for enjoying these stories in all their forms—as digital books, paper books, and audiobooks. We wanted this letter to be brief, but the topic is complicated. There is so much misinformation to correct, we wound up taking it point-by-point. But for those readers with limited time, here is the crux of our message to you: New York Publishing once controlled the book industry. They decided which stories you were allowed to read. They decided which authors were allowed to publish. They charged high prices while withholding less expensive formats. They paid authors as little as possible, usually between 2% and 12.5% of the list price of a book. Amazon, in contrast, trusts you to decide what to read, and they strive to keep the price you pay low. They allow all writers to publish on their platform, and they pay authors between 35% and 70% of the list price of the book. You probably aren’t aware of this, but the majority of your favorite authors can’t make a living off their book sales alone. Very few authors could when New York Publishing was in charge. That is changing now that Amazon and other online retailers are paying authors a fair wage. You may have heard that Amazon and Hachette are having a dispute about how books are sold. The details are complex, but the gist is this: Amazon wants to keep e-book prices affordable, and Hachette wants to keep them artificially high. Higher than for the paper edition of the same story. The rest of this letter explains more of the details. It explains why a boycott of Amazon would mean hurting authors, Hachette and otherwise. It explains how your decisions have granted more authors their independence than we’ve had at any other time in human history. You’re welcome to read our points, but keep this one key item in mind: Major publishers like Hachette have a long history of treating authors and readers poorly. Amazon, on the other hand, has built its reputation on valuing authors and readers dearly. The two companies didn’t simultaneously change directions overnight. As book lovers, you may have noticed a lot of the recent media coverage about this dispute. Some of it might be confusing. Exactly who is fighting whom? Why are Stephen Colbert and James Patterson so angry? Why is Douglas Preston drafting a letter to convince you that Amazon is evil? Why does Scott Turow condemn Amazon, and why does the Authors Guild fear the company that sells more books for its authors than anyone else? The reason for this anger is simple: Many in publishing blame Amazon for the natural and inevitable transition to online book sales. This same transition has happened with other forms of entertainment. Rather than innovate and serve their customers, publishers have been resisting technology. They could have invented their own Internet bookstores, their own e-readers, their own self-publishing platforms. Instead, fearing the future, they fought to protect the status quo. At this moment, one of the largest publishers in the world, Hachette, is battling Amazon for control over book prices. In this war, Hachette is using its authors as emotional ammunition. Hachette wants to control the price of its titles and keep those prices high, while Amazon wants to keep those prices reasonable. You may not realize this, but when Amazon discounts books, authors (and Hachette) still get paid the full amount. Discounted Amazon books do not hurt authors or publishers at all. In fact, discounted Amazon books help authors and publishers sell in higher volume while earning publishers and authors the same per-unit amount. By what is being reported in the media, it may seem like Amazon is restricting what readers can access. It may seem that they are marginalizing authors. The establishment media and many big name, multi-millionaire writers are out in full force to spread this propaganda. What they are saying simply isn’t true. While we are saddened that writers and readers are being affected by the negotiations between these two corporations, Amazon is not the one to blame. The players that deserve your derision in this standoff are Hachette in particular, and the New York “Big Five” in general. You may remember a story from a few years back about the five major publishers breaking the law and colluding to raise the prices you pay for your e-books. These publishers were ordered by the Department of Justice to pay millions in a settlement. Their intent was to price digital books high, stifle innovation, and limit your freedom to read as you see fit. The pressure for this change came from bookstores, from major publishers, and from other online retailers. Amazon fought valiantly, but when ganged up on by a collusive cartel, they had to relent. Fortunately, prosecutors rescued us from this price-fixing scheme, and digital books went back to a reasonable price. Publishers have a long history of abusing their power. They function as an oligopoly rather than as competitors. They have a long track record of overcharging readers and underpaying authors, because they all agree to do so. Amazon has a long history of doing just the opposite. Amazon fights for readers by keeping prices low and concentrating on customer service and fast delivery. They make previously hard-to-find books available to readers globally, and they offer a selection unsurpassed in the history of bookselling. They serve rural readers who never had a community bookstore in the first place. You may have heard that Amazon is putting bookstores out of business, and this is true. The good news is that the bookstores going out of business were the ones that didn’t feel like bookstores. The big discount stores couldn’t compete with Amazon’s prices and selection, and they are going bankrupt. What you don’t often hear is that small independent bookstores have seen three straight years of steady growth. This is something we celebrate. What we don’t celebrate is the tactics being used by Hachette, a publisher owned by the multi-billion dollar French company Lagardere. We don’t appreciate the misinformation being spread about their negotiations with Amazon. Hachette wants e-book prices to remain as high as possible. They have stated as much to their investors. Amazon wants e-books to be affordable, so that readers can stretch their hard-earned dollar. All the complaints about Amazon should be directed at Hachette. It is Hachette who wants to charge you more while paying their authors less. Unfortunately for Amazon, a company that prides itself on customer service, a breakdown in negotiations has meant making decisions that are hard on customers and authors in the short run in order to fight for the rights of those same customers and authors in the long run. At stake here is how e-books are priced. If Amazon wins, e-books won’t cost much more than the mass market paperbacks they are rapidly replacing. If Hachette wins, you will be paying more for a digital book than you used to pay for a paperback. A digital book that you can’t pass along to a friend or sell back to a used bookstore. High e-book prices are not good for readers, and they aren’t good for writers. But the negotiation terms are not the only misconception you’ll see bandied about. You may have heard that Amazon is making books unavailable. This simply isn’t true. Amazon has turned off pre-order buttons for Hachette’s books, as negotiations have broken down to the point that Amazon may not be able to fulfill those orders once the books in question are released. The books that are supposedly being made unavailable aren’t available for sale anywhere else because they aren’t out yet. These reports are complete fabrications. You may also have heard that Amazon is delaying the shipment of Hachette’s books. Once again, this is not true. Amazon has stopped pre-stocking Hachette’s books in their warehouses, because the day may soon come when Amazon can no longer carry Hachette’s books. Why would they stock up on books they may no longer be able to sell? Amazon is still fulfilling Hachette orders. It is Hachette’s archaic delivery system that is the cause for the delay. Ask your local bookseller; they will tell you that orders from publishers can take two weeks or more to arrive. Negotiations between publishers and retailers happen all the time. Recently, Simon & Schuster found itself in a similar deadlock with Barnes & Noble. Many authors were affected, but not by missing pre-order buttons or delayed shipments; their books simply weren’t carried at all. They were shut out completely. There was little outrage or media coverage when readers couldn’t find the books they wanted at the largest chain of bookstores in the United States. But when Amazon tries to stick to its core values to keep prices low, they’re called a bully and a monopoly and a threat to Rich American Literary Culture. Does that make any sense at all? The final misconception being thrown about is that Amazon is raising the prices of e-books. This is also not true. What Amazon is doing is charging the price that Hachette sets—prices that hurt sales and that authors hate as much as readers. No one wants to buy ebooks over $10. No one wants to buy hardcovers for $30. These are Hachette’s prices, not Amazon’s. Why would Amazon discount and promote titles it may no longer stock? Why isn’t the outcry directed at Hachette for pricing its e-books so high? Why is there no media coverage for all the measurable good that Amazon has done for the community of readers and writers? Amazon pays writers nearly six times what publishers pay us. Amazon allows us to retain ownership of our works. Amazon provides us the freedom to express ourselves in more creative ways, adding to the diversity of literature. Unlike the New York “Big Five,” Amazon allows every writer access to their platform. Hachette believes you’ll read whatever Hachette tells you to, and rejects and dismisses many worthy writers. Amazon has built a business based on the belief that you, the reader, can make your own choices about what you want to read. That is real freedom, of a sort readers and authors have never had before. While bookstores don’t have the capacity to carry every title available, that doesn’t forgive their refusal to carry self-published works and titles by Amazon-published authors. Amazon-published and self-published authors have been truly blacklisted, while Hachette authors equate missing pre-order buttons with having books removed from sale. Most self-published authors do not have pre-order buttons on Amazon, nor does Amazon regularly discount our books while paying us our full amount. We don’t complain about this. On the contrary, we rightfully believe Amazon has treated us better than any publisher ever has. It’s painful to watch, dear reader, as you are subjected to so much self-serving industry and millionaire author propaganda. The New York “Big Five” devalues readers and authors alike. And now readers may be asked to boycott Amazon—the only company that has ever given all writers a chance to reach an audience, the company that gives all readers a chance to buy the books they love at reasonable prices. Hachette is looking out for their own interests, not the interests of writers or readers. This approach is consistent with a long history of treating bookstores as customers, writers as chattel, and readers as non-entities. But we believe the Hachette approach is backwards. We know the only players who truly matter are the storytellers and their audience. That’s us. That’s you. We’re in this together. While most of the major publishers are owned by large media giants, we are small business owners who work from our homes. While Hachette has TV personalities and millionaires taking out ads in major newspapers, we have only a chorus of voices and an appeal for sanity and clear thinking. You may be urged to boycott Amazon. But a call to boycott Amazon is unavoidably a call to boycott authors who can’t get their books into other stores. Boycotting Amazon is unavoidably a call for higher e-book prices. Boycotting Amazon is preventing us from reaching you. It is an end to our independence. The best way to support Hachette’s authors is by showing Hachette where you prefer to get your books. Let Hachette know that you agree with Amazon that e-books should not cost more than paperbacks. Help us urge Hachette to stop hurting its own writers. Help us urge them to agree to reasonable terms with Amazon. It is fitting that Independence Day is upon us. Amazon has done more to liberate readers and writers than any other entity since Johannes Gutenberg refined the movable type printing press. With the advent of e-books and the ability to ship paper books to your doorstep in record time and at affordable prices, Amazon is growing overall readership while liberating the voices of countless writers, adding to the diversity of literature. A large percentage of the e-books sold on Amazon are from independent authors. You have validated our decision to write and to publish. Don’t let the wealthiest of writers convince you to turn away. We urge you to support the company that supports readers and authors. Amazon didn’t ask us to write this letter, or sign it. Amazon isn’t aware that we’re doing this. Because in the end, this isn’t about Amazon. It’s about you, the reader, and the changes you’ve helped bring about with your reading decisions. You are changing the world of books, and you are changing our lives as a result. (The unanticipated outpouring of support and the thousands of signatures in the last few days are greatly appreciated. Readers and writers alike have responded to what was organized as an open letter and has become a call for an end to this standoff. We hope our chorus of voices will help convince Hachette to negotiate on behalf of the best interests of its authors and its readers. As readers, we believe in reasonable prices for e-books. As writers, we believe in a fair share of e-book profits. And we all want an end to the harm being caused to Hachette's authors.) Signed, concerned readers and writers. Sign Petition

The purpose of the map is to highlight independent Black owned bookstores and bookstores that serve the Black community. For more information visit: We are still collecting data on the bookstores that have closed, and are updating information on the bookstores which remain open. Send updates to troy@aalbc.com