Jump to content

Bi-racial = Black ?


Recommended Posts

Have you noticed in the media lately, there's a huge push to NOW all of a sudden call bi-racial people "Black"?

If you haven't, pay attention.

Ofcourse during slavery for the most part anybody with known Black ancestry was considered "Black" in the U.S. according to the one drop rule; but in the RECENT past...like most AfroAmericans accepted mixed people as Black....most Whites would make it a point to call bi-racial people BI-RACIAL or refer to their ethnicity as African Americans more so than their race which would be more controversial.
But now all of a sudden that's changing.
Now in the news as well as the entertainment media, more and more bi-racial people are being labeled "Black".

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:


Now in the news as well as the entertainment media, more and more bi-racial people are being labeled "Black".

 

So they are starting this all over again!? Just as you have said, this was the way it was during slavery times.

I believe that if some people are raised up in the Black culture and who may not be Black but bi-racial should be called Black especially if they want to be.

But many people that are intermixed with Black and have nothing to do with the Black culture becomes a confusion if they are identified as being Black. 

I wonder why this would be going on today.

I think that the Black culture today is different too, from the past but the reparations subject is based on slavery times, however, today there are many people being defined as Black American that are not culturally connected to the African American Descendants of Slaves, IMO.

I have a question; Would Kim Kardashian be considered 'Black' because she was married to a Black man, Kanye and she has children from him, I think.

So would she be considered a Black American? 

My answer would be that based on the past, she would because she would have probably had to live in a Black culture. For this reason, she may have been considered culturally Black however, her 'race' would still be White or Armenian. But what do you think. 

Are Bi-racial people today being called back for a specific reason, I wonder. 

Perhaps there is some type of financial gain involved.

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Chev

 

 

I wonder why this would be going on today.

 

I think what's happening is that White people are coming to accept the fact that they are going to be the minority in this nation in just a short while.

In order to rule as a minority, you must sow discord and confusion and division in the other groups you're trying to rule to keep them divided and weakened.

Taking mixed and almost White people and forcing them to dwell with Black people will cause resentment, confusion, and chaos as a lot of them will see themselves as superior to the fully Black population and will help White folks keep them oppressed.
 

Also taking mixed and almost White people and calling them "Black" is a deceptive way to keep THEIR OWN people in power.
Atleast a fully Black person LOOKS Black; but many mixed people look damn near White.
When we start accepting "almost White" people as being Black, that's just a small step from White folks who choose to IDENTIFY as being Black also being accepted as Black as well.
So when you have a bunch of White and near-White people running around wearing the Black identity....what do you think will happen to the REAL Black folks who've been ignored?
 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Pioneer1 As you know I'm about a pro-Black as they come, but that is in direct reaction to racism, not my inherent desire.

 

In an ideal world everyone would recognize that there is only one human race and we would all behave as the genetic family we are.  Of course, that is not our reality today, so we have to react accordingly to survive.

 

7 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

So when you have a bunch of White and near-White people running around wearing the Black identity....what do you think will happen to the REAL Black folks who've been ignored?

 

See this is when so called "race" becomes a problem.  There are, what you described as "near-White people running around wearing the Black identity," because they ARE Black.  Blackness is not just one's phenotype, it is family and culture as well.  

 

My kids have my complexion "brown" but they have folks in their ancestry  (on their mother's side) -- that I've met, who can pass for white -- but make no mistake they are 100% Black.  You can't start throwing our family out of the Black community, because how they look.  Racist white folks are not going to accept them.

 

I don't consume as much mass media so I have not noticed the trend. 

 

@Chevdove Does Kim self-identify as Black? 

 

If a white woman has lived her life in the Black community, married a Black man, and reared Black children, then she may be more culturally Black than many Black women who look Black. We used to call those Black women "Oreos." 

 

Some Oreos are culturally white and have no interest in embracing the Black community.  They will marry a white person and move through the world like white people, as best as they can given our culture. 

 

I think culture trumps phonotype when it comes to being Black.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Troy

 

 

See this is when so called "race" becomes a problem.  There are, what you described as "near-White people running around wearing the Black identity," because they ARE Black.  

 

How can they be Black and "near White" at the same time?
This is what makes the system the U.S. uses to categorize the biological fact of race so confusing. 
Because they TRY to throw everyone who isn't White in the same pot.

This weakens our community by causing division....but strengthens theres.

 

 

 

 

My kids have my complexion "brown" but they have folks in their ancestry  (on their mother's side) -- that I've met, who can pass for white -- but make no mistake they are 100% Black. 

 

But again, how can they be 100% Black if they are so light they can pass for White???

What standard are we using to determine who is Black, if any?
Did WE come up with the standard, or did we have the standard FORCED on us?

 

 


 You can't start throwing our family out of the Black community, because how they look.  Racist white folks are not going to accept them.

 

Does that mean WE should by default?


Power is EXCLUSIVE....not INCLUSIVE.

Any group WORTH belonging to is very strict and discriminatory on who they allow in their ranks and who they allow to be members. Whether we're talking about a fraternity, economic club, military alliance, etc.....if it's a group worth being a part of, they don't just let ANYBODY claim membership but you have to QUALIFY.  They have to VET you first and ALLOW you in.

Except when it comes to being a Negro.


We let ANYBODY in our group.

Anybody who comes dancing in the door in Black-face and braided up hair can claim Black.

 

 

image.png.a77f5145703f837dedf4dea5e363bada.png

"Peace.......
On the rizzle my nizzle....fa' shizzle"



If he can put on an Adidas suit and a gold chain and any White boy can slide on in and be part of the group and even start filling out his Reparations Application.

Speaking of which......


If we DID start embracing anyone who practices Black culture or has SOME Black ancestry but is physically LILY WHITE -as Black, then that means THEY TOO would be entitled to Reparations!

Right?
Why not?
I mean....either they're Black or they're not.
If they aren't entitled to what we're entitled too, then you'd be discriminating against your own! 

 

 

 

 

I think culture trumps phonotype when it comes to being Black

 

But then that begs the controversial question:  
What IS "Black" culture?

Kind of like, what IS "acting Black"????

Is getting your hair braided and having a big butt being "Black"?


I'm telling you, it won't be long before White dudes with fades and Tupac tattoos will be running around in the streets leading Reparations marches and demanding millions of dollars.

 

 

Tyrome Jenkin on Twitter: "@samayyy25 when white people get tupac tattoos  they look a little........., I have a tupac tattoo but im black  http://t.co/9TetdZJEJd" / Twitter


 

 

That's what this entire GENDER identity thing is about.
If you can be another Sex/Gender simply by "identifying" as one....then hell you can change your race TOO by "identifying" as another.


 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Speak of the devil, this story JUST popped up on my feed.............

image.png.8691e7a659866c7ec59249907489d293.png

image.png.62e690c390f8336406323bb56ee7719b.png

 

*A biracial woman who could easily pass for white is being dragged on social media for calling herself half Black.

Monica, known as Summer Bazil on Instagram, has naturally blonde hair, green eyes and super fair skin – all traits she says were handed down from her white mother. However, she says many people don’t believe her when she reveals that her biological father is African American. In a recent Instagram post, she shared photos of both parents.

Her father is a light-skinned Black man. According to her, they share specific facial expressions and a lean body type.

 

‘Yes I Am Half Black': Woman Faces Online Side-Eye for Calling Herself Biracial (msn.com)




 

This girl is clearly a White girl no matter what she's CALLING herself or claims her ancestry is.
But this is an example of how a lot of mixed and nearly White folks are now all of a sudden claiming to be Black or being labeled as Black in the media now.
 



And this isn't new, take a look at Michael Jackson's alleged "children":

 

 

image.png.831583294b3ab4bb0318f1f03ee2ce18.png

 

Prince, Paris, and Blanket

These are supposedly "half Black" children.
Except for maybe the eyes of Blanket (on the right) do you see ANY Black ancestry in these kids?????

Too many games are being played.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't really matter how folks classify themselves. The system of racism white supremacy knows the difference and will treat people accordingly.

 

South Africa is great example of how white folks can be a minority and still run sh8t.

 

H8ll, white folks run some countries without having a real presence there.😎

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to say, @Pioneer1 @Chevdove @Troy you all make points that warrant more details or multilog. 

I want to say one fact, from the beginning of the usa, to now, the black community in the usa never had a majority accepted viewpoint toward itself. I restate, a majority of black people or people I think black never shared the same view on their phenotype or culture or role of blacks in the usa. 

So, historically, the black community in the usa never had a majority. Never. In the usa, many black people opposed malcolm, many black people opposed MLK jr, many black people opposed Frederick Douglass. No time in the usa or the english provinces that preceded it did black people have true majority, over 90%  consensus on anything. Remember most free black people fought against the creation of the usa that most black people were enslaved in. But even among enslaved blacks some blacks were willing to kill while some blacks were not willing to kill, and that is an important variance when one is enslaved. 

 

To me the question going forward is, how do you get majority consensus in the black community in the usa when individualism is so beloved and uttered in the black community in the usa. In this very forum, how many people declare positions that are clearly in opposition to other black people in the details, and in these situations details matter.  

 

 

@ProfD you make like the three i mentioned strong points. 

but south africa is an example of the problem in all black communities. You talk about white power so much, but Winnie  Mandela side others didn't concur to Nelson Mandela. the black community in south africa, whether you want to realize it or not, had a non violent war of leadership. The white supported Mandela folk won without much violence but that was largely in part that people like winnie mandela wouldn't accept going violent. And moreover, the larger point is that, not all black people believe as you do and while your viewpoint allows another black person's viewpoint that doesn't concur to yours to be discarded, that doesn't mean said discarding is warranted. To restate, it always matters how people view themselves, that is where their relationship to others begins. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/14/2023 at 9:41 AM, Pioneer1 said:

Now in the news as well as the entertainment media, more and more bi-racial people are being labeled "Black".

Or people are labeling themselves. I identify as an American belonging to the African diaspora. It makes more sense to describe myself based on ethnicity, cultural traits, tribe, and even geographical homeland than to say I'm black or white. Black people aren't black any more than white people are white. And the more we identify each other that way, the dumber it sounds.

 

Anyway, my three daughters look Asian and very fair-skinned Latina. One twin has long straight black hair, and the youngest twin was born with naturally curly, strawberry-blond hair (she colors it now, but the most recent was her natural color). My oldest daughter's father is of African American descent, but her paternal grandmother looked Asian. They once told me they identify whichever way gives them the advantage—not kidding. So maybe that's the uptick in multi-ethnic people identifying as black. No law says you can't identify yourself as any ethnicity you choose. 

Edited by Mel Hopkins
clarity
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Mel Hopkins  great point. 

 

Again, the states in the usa are 50 and they are not going the same way, which isn't unheard of it is the legal heritage of the usa for states or shall i say more honestly, the populaces in states to be at odds.  I bet some states sooner rather than later will bring back the usa legal tradition of legal defined race, like when having a black forebear that is phenotypically black meant you were labeled black. The current supreme court will definitely allow it which isn't a against tradition cause the supreme court always manipulates with its rulings, and many groups in the usa  always loss with supreme court rulings. 

 

For me the issue isn't the labeling, but how consensus can occur with such labeling. Look at india/china/brazil/nigeria/russia large populace countries who like the usa aren't one people's but have governments that suggest the populace under them is one. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/14/2023 at 12:41 PM, Troy said:

Does Kim self-identify as Black? . . . 

 

Some Oreos are culturally white and have no interest in embracing the Black community.

 

@Troy For a second, I had a private laugh. I had forgotten for a brief second that I had asked this question about the celebrity Kim Kardashian because you replied by only using her FIRST NAME. This name is part of my family so, at first I was thinking, wait-a-minute! Most of family with this name absolutely could not pass! spacer.png

 

But on the sober side of your response, as you have said, there are some of my relatives who have intermixed and probably could be considered an oreo. 

One of my younger sister's in fact has three children from her husband, an AFrican American man but the two males are very fair skinned like their father. Then my sister separated from her husband and had a child with a White man and so my niece is very fair skinned and could probably pass if she chooses. But I do agree with @Pioneer1 in how this is such a confusion caused by America and also the western world governments. 

 

 

On 5/14/2023 at 4:12 PM, Pioneer1 said:

See this is when so called "race" becomes a problem.  There are, what you described as "near-White people running around wearing the Black identity," because they ARE Black.  

 

How can they be Black and "near White" at the same time?
This is what makes the system the U.S. uses to categorize the biological fact of race so confusing. 

 

According to this American government, and when people fill out federal applications about their RACIAL CATEGORY, this is when it becomes a reality in what this government has done! White is a race! Black is a race!

 

These FEDERAL categories are more defined for example; Black, African American or other and,

White, European American or other, etc. 

 

We should not ignore this. America does define 'Race' by color and has done for so long that it gives people the choice, if they are so fair skinned to pick and choose and this is where @Pioneer1 is making a lot of sense. This kind of 'passing' does not hard people if they can do this to get ahead, but if you are a dark skinned African American, it is the African or Black traits that becomes a factor that can lead to oppression when White Supremacist movements are in affect. 

 

However, like what is going on today, with this trend happening again, it can also lead to fair skinned people and White people who choose to marry Black people becoming oppressed too! This kind of oppression occurred in Germany when the Nazi regime formed. White German women that had married Black men were forced to divorce their husbands and etc. 

 

Just this past weekend their was a march on Washington of a White Supremacist group!

And President Biden spoke out against White Supremacy!

 

On 5/14/2023 at 4:12 PM, Pioneer1 said:

That's what this entire GENDER identity thing is about.
If you can be another Sex/Gender simply by "identifying" as one....then hell you can change your race TOO by "identifying" as another.

 

This is so --ON POINT!!!

 

This also brings to my mind another thread where the terms GROWTH RATE and REPLACEMENT THEORY was mentioned.

I think that we as Black people need to be careful and not play into these phrases because I think it is White Supremacist people that are playing into an unnatural fear.

This REPLACEMENT THEORY of them becoming extinct is the same thing that led to the attempted Black Genocide tha has been blotted out of our educational systems that occurred before slavery. And this REPLACEMENT THEORY is the fear, IMO, that led up to the Halocaust and the killing of many European Jews. 

 

Yes! This push for Gender inclusion absolutely correlates to this new trend of 'almost White people' claiming at will be either White or Black, when ever they want to do so in order to have a better life than other darker skinned and oppressed people of color. The western world and their categories are not based on a sure foundation, imo, and this is confusion! 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

This seems to me to becoming more and more of a topic along with how people are classified today in terms of 'Race'. The word is INCLUSION. These next generations are having to deal with issues that was not crucial in the past. And, I believe that this fear of a Replacement is part of the issue. This fear is a reality for many White Supremacist in that they believe they will become extinct and for this reason, there has been a movement of genocide byway of corruption put throughout the ethnic world.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, richardmurray said:

 

Again, the states in the usa are 50 and they are not going the same way, which isn't unheard of it is the legal heritage of the usa for states or shall i say more honestly, the populaces in states to be at odds

 LOL! I don't know any other "united" states of America. Each state has always had its own way. I was shocked to find out some times list ethnicity on birth certificates - NY state doesn't. Or at least it didn't when I was born. If you were born in New York - look at your BC - then ask someone born in a former confederate state.  You'll be able to notice we've only been "united" in name only.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Mel Hopkins Exactly,  mMaybe it is the smallest issue but I think the usa has this odd reality. Everyone in the usa knows it isn't a we but the word we is used constantly. 

If the USA is a union in name only why do all in the usa at some time: indigenous or black or white or you in your prior comment or me in various times offline or online or other,  use the word we referring to the people in the usa? Is it a dysfunctional tradition or just a heritage? Why do some, indigenous or black or white or other,  fight so hard to oppose making the partisanship official? I wonder your thoughts. You are a black woman Mel. In my eyes, no group in the usa did and does more to make the USA a true we  than Black Women whose forebears were enslaved.

I know the following goes away from this post but was Lincoln wrong? Lincoln never thought about terms of surrender seriously, even in the early part of the war between the states, when the south was winning. Was it a mistake by him in cheap retrospect? 

I ask cause in the year 2023 I think it is a simple truth to all who live in the usa. Either you think the usa will become a functional we one day or you don't, if you don't then the usa federal government or hyper multiracial populace in it is dysfunctional to your goals or outlooks or desires, if you do then you have patience to wait for the usa federal government and the populace in it to become a we even if you don't know how to get it there or if it is full of bloody rivalry. But, I don't see how the usa government or populace in it can simply exist as they are now without grand changes relatively soon. 

Or maybe I am wrong, maybe you think it can exist in the current state for a long time? Human history proves some governments can crawl slowly, over hundreds of years,  to an inevitable situation.

 

@Chevdove I thought about your comment < https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/10287-bi-racial-black/?do=findComment&comment=60654 > in here when I saw a byline saying Kim Kardashian wants to be with Tom Brady... :) does that mean Tom Brady is going to have a colored girlfriend?:) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, richardmurray said:

If the USA is a union in name only why do all in the usa at some time: indigenous or black or white or you in your prior comment or me in various times offline or online or other,  use the word we referring to the people in the usa

This is such a powerful question! In fact, your entire thesis here deserves more than just my response. But I'll start. It is "our" lack of homogeneity that makes us a great nation. Or, at present, a grand experiment.  Those who are trying to bend our will to their way of life - or attempting to criminalize those who are different are domestic terrorists.  Our differences are our strength, for it puts "us" at odds with dictators or those seeking to descend "us" into totalitarian rule.

 

47 minutes ago, richardmurray said:

I wonder your thoughts. You are a black woman Mel. In my eyes, no group in the usa did and does more to make the USA a true we  than Black Women whose forebears were enslaved.

It feels that way sometimes, but I wonder if that's us hovering as the nation's conscience. Or, at the very least, we are the most vulnerable - so we seek to wrap ourselves in the highest ideals of democracy in this country. 

 

51 minutes ago, richardmurray said:

I know the following goes away from this post but was Lincoln wrong? Lincoln never thought about terms of surrender seriously, even in the early part of the war between the states, when the south was winning. Was it a mistake by him in cheap retrospect? 

I'm not sure at what grade I was taught Lincoln was raised a Quaker, but if true, that informed his decisions about slavery and the house divided quote.
He also wrote, "As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is not democracy."   I think democracy was his goal.

1 hour ago, richardmurray said:

ask cause in the year 2023 I think it is a simple truth to all who live in the usa. Either you think the usa will become a functional we one day or you don't, if you don't then the usa federal government or hyper multiracial populace in it is dysfunctional to your goals or outlooks or desires, if you do then you have patience to wait for the usa federal government and the populace in it to become a we even if you don't know how to get it there or if it is full of bloody rivalry.

I wrote a blog post that answered a similar question about Camilla Parker Bowles and Rachel Meghan Markle - "Circumstances change but goals do not,"  especially for those who have chosen to work to achieve those goals.  The same is valid for democracy. Those of us committed to democracy will keep working until we reach it - and then we'll keep working to maintain it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Mel Hopkins

  When the war between the states ended and ever since, most black churches are composed of black women even though at said early time, the black men heading churches opposed black women from leadership positions. My point, I don't concur to lincoln's assertion that democracy is an absence of slavery but crispis attics in that minority in the minority in the black community when the usa was founded/frederick douglass + the black elected officials he inspired, which left a heritage Obama+Adams+dinkins embraced/many, I daresay most, black women in the black dos branch of the black community in the usa /mlk jr./barrack obama whose wife is a black DOSer/you yourself Mel side millions of other black people today did or do. 

Slavery can occur in any form group to group <black to white> individual to individual <wife to husband> individual to group <Malcolm to the Natin of Islam> group to  individual <the black community in the usa to Barrack Obama>. 

Black women wanted the freedom to lead their own lives, not just from the white communities machinations or stratagems but from the passions of black men. I will never forget a black woman saying the black women who ran her household sent black men away when they wanted to commit acts of violence towards whites who were harming their clan. <That scene in daughters of the dust when the raped black woman will not tell her husband, a black man, which whites did it, cause she didn't want him killed, and the other black women agree to her choice> The black women in this clan wanted to fight in the courts. Said black men in the same clan didn't. They sent them away so that the black women can be free to do as they please and the black men , distantly in the north, can be free to do as they please. <I think of James Baldwin, I paraphrase, black women try not to emasculate black men while they support them to their dreams >And while said clan has been split ever since, for the record, said black family still own their house:) in texas. 

I think the black community in the USA has been harmed by such folk or their actions, BUT from crispus attics to you I comprehend the determination to see this through even knowing the condition of most black people. I comprehend. It isn't my way or path, and I don't concur but I do comprehend and I think one of the problems in the black community in the usa is the challenge in comprehending other black people. I never forget when the DC Snipers were active, a black woman said they were crazy and I told her she is wrong for saying that. They didn't ask you to join them, why call them crazy. You know why they are doing it, it is the same reason why you harass every black person to vote every year, regardless of elected official quality or policy outcomes. You have your way, let them have theirs. ... She didn't reply. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

On 5/16/2023 at 2:35 PM, richardmurray said:

I thought about your comment < https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/10287-bi-racial-black/?do=findComment&comment=60654 > in here when I saw a byline saying Kim Kardashian wants to be with Tom Brady... :) does that mean Tom Brady is going to have a colored girlfriend?:) 

 

 

@richardmurray LOL. I guess that would depend on his perception! But then too, it would probably be more to this if Kim chose to perceive herself in a certain way. This question made me think about another celebrity, Rashida Jones! 

 

spacer.png

 

spacer.png

 

Rashida Jones and her father, Quincy Jones

 

spacer.png

 

 

Rashida and her mother Peggy Lipton

 

I read your comment about Black women and their position and Lincoln and his position on democracy and slavery, etc. This is all so confusing imo. 

 

On 5/16/2023 at 6:19 PM, richardmurray said:

When the war between the states ended and ever since, most black churches are composed of black women even though at said early time, the black men heading churches opposed black women from leadership positions. My point, I don't concur to lincoln's assertion that democracy is an absence of slavery but crispis attics in that minority in the minority in the black community when the usa was founded/frederick douglass + the black elected officials he inspired, which left a heritage Obama+Adams+dinkins embraced/many, I daresay most, black women in the black dos branch of the black community in the usa /mlk jr./barrack obama whose wife is a black DOSer/you yourself Mel side millions of other black people today did or do. 

 

I am not happy about what is going on in the world today and I try to study and learn to get peace. I think America has caused a lot of confusion because of the educational system and I believe that this is a crucial reason why we, as a whole system, are confused. Black people are divided but so are White people. They do not all agree too on issues that pertain to American politics. From what I remember, the term 'federal' means that this government is under 'one nation and one [god]' but the framers aloud the STATES to make their own decisions and only step in when a crisis occurs that makes the union vulnerable to collapse. For this reason, Virginia is a Commonwealth, North Carolina is an 'AT WILL' union and etc. This means that America is balanced when it comes to White Supremacy and when it is in jeopardy, then the federal government will mobilize. As a Christian, I absolutely understand this from a more scientific basis as the prophet DANIEL broke this down in detail very well more than a thousand years ago! The prophet Daniel defined the Roman Empire and its PROVINCES and etc. on the ancient and historical basis that all big government first form: ALL CIVILIZATIONS FORM INITIALLY BY BUILDING UP ONE MAJOR CITY!!! Therefore every state in America has a CAPITAL CITY and the capital city for the federal union is Washington D.C. For Rome, the capital was ROME, in Central Italy. 

 

Therefore, Daniel defined the future SECOND ROME as THE GREAT CITY and this is the historical and scientific way to define any major civilization such as Beijing and Moscow, etc. The GREAT CITY that Daniel described is actually ROME and THE SECOND ROME to form of which is a great empire government. And we all know that ALL OF AMERICAN 50+ STATES have A CAPITAL CITY that is the foundation of each state under this federal government! LOL. Each American state 'Capital city' has their main courthouse, jails, main streets, and other government buildings in their respective municipalities and it is like ROME ON STEROIDS!!! 

 

Daniel knew what he was talking about! LOL! He got it right although a lot of people have been misled and do not understand the ancient scriptures due to so much confusion from our educational system about the past. 

 

This too, is why there is so much confusion about 'Race' and 'Colorism'. The scientific classification of humans is based on another whole idea and COLOR is not a primary factor at all. But as a Black woman who fails the paper bag test, I don't have a voice yet and I think that it is because of the problem with the Black Church. I personally do NOT want to be governed by a bunch of women, nevertheless, I feel that the Black man has completely failed in the Black Church and this is why Jesus Christ was sent in the first place. IMO, things won't change until the Second Coming, but the Black man has had about 2000 years to figure out why they have failed and get it right before they have a worst situation than what has already happen. I believe that genderism is crucial, we cannot ignore it since it is a scientific reality. To ignore it, means Black men will continue to be effeminized. You mentioned Frederick Douglas but when I think about him, I always think about Willion Lloyd Garrison who said that Frederick Douglass was suffering from demons. LOL. WLG had a lot to say about democracy and was persecuted a lot for the stance that he took. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well @Chevdove You say two things. 

Between Douglass side Garrison  is one thing. Between Garrison and the "anti slavery movement" is another. 

I will start with Douglass and Garrison. 

What separated the two , philosophically?

Douglass opposed slavery but he loved the USA, he was a firm federalist. Douglass was a huge supporter of involvement in government in the usa, for he thought the system of government in the usa is of a quality that it can improve itself to the betterment of all humanity. Sequentially, Douglass accepted the idea of gradualism. 

Garrison opposed slavery but he though the government of the usa, the federal government was purely dysfunctional. What do I mean by purely dysfunctional? Garrison's problem was deeper than elected officials, he felt advocacy to issues like abolistion or women's rights was impossible through government. To Garrison government didn't need time to change, and could change at any moment. 

That is the key to Douglass friction side Garrison. 

 

Garrison to the anti slavery moment is where the persecution to him comes from. 

Yes Garrison was anti slavery, or abolition. 

But, he opposed participation in the usa government or more importantly, the idea that the usa government is a positive institution. to him the usa federal government was a sham, and that is probably a nice word. So, all the anti slavery or abolition folks who wanted laws to change or legal systems to be molded despised him. 

He opposed partiality. He wanted women, all women,  to have the full right to vote at the same time as all blacks. Again, the anti slavery or abolition folks who accepted the rights of black men to vote but not of women of any race to vote to him was a betrayal of supposed support for anti slavery. so those who accepted slavery in the confederate states or accepted inequality in rights opposed him.

And he also was anti-jewish, he thought jews, any phenotype, are a people whose actions led and lead to their own downfall throughout history. And as the white jewish community  became a huge financier of many non white male movements in the usa and added to their financing a pro jewish stance in organizations. 

so all together he had many detractors in movements during his life and even moreso after his life. 

 

Look at the black community in the year 2023. Black anti government folk, Black anti incrementalist, Black anti jewish folk are each minorities in the black community in the USA.  But they exists. In defense of you, don't be confused, the truth is, the USA is a country of individualism. The main problem with individualism is by default it is anti group or collective. The best thing for Individualism is for individuals to relinquish group or collective affiliations. But in the usa, a government started by groups against groups, It can be argued that individualism is naturally dysfunctional in the usa. and that is part of what garrison meant. The USA government design can be argued is pro slavery by design. I am not suggesting I am supporting this idea fully but it has merit. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/18/2023 at 8:47 PM, richardmurray said:

have you read the book or seen the film "passing"?

 

You sure broke down the position of William Lloyd Garrison and Frederick Douglass very well! @richardmurray Thank you.

I did not know WLG's position about the Jews, but I've heard other Black Americans during those times also did not completely agree

with the Jewish contributions too. 

 

But no, I have not heard about the film Passing. But, I did a quick google and see that it seems like a good film to watch! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Chevdove glad to help

 

and yes, remember, most black people in the usa in the 1800s had a more pure view of whites than black people in the usa after the year 2000.  White women or white jews or white latinos or white asians weren't embraced in the black community like today, as non white male christian european descended folk.

 

it is a book, read the book, nella larsen

Passing eBook by Nella Larsen - EPUB Book | Rakuten Kobo United States

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


richardmurray  @richardmurray

 


To me the question going forward is, how do you get majority consensus in the black community in the usa when individualism is so beloved and uttered in the black community in the usa.

 

You may not get a consensus among the COMMUNITY as a whole, but you can definitely get a consensus or a definite majority around certain issues.

For example....

 

Among Generation Xer's...support for Tupac is pretty much a consensus.

Among Millennials and Generation Zer's....support of Marijuana is pretty much a consensus.

 

You develop unity around certain IDEAS and POLICIES instead of around racial identity or racial loyalty.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Mel  @Mel Hopkins

 


Or people are labeling themselves. I identify as an American belonging to the African diaspora. It makes more sense to describe myself based on ethnicity, cultural traits, tribe, and even geographical homeland than to say I'm black or white. Black people aren't black any more than white people are white. And the more we identify each other that way, the dumber it sounds.

 

I support people having the right to label themselves if they are PROPERLY EDUCATED on race and ethnicity.
However in the U.S....as in much of the world..they are NOT.

 

Most people confuse race with ethnicity with nationality to the point that you have Black Latinos who are heavily discriminated against and mistreated claiming "Latino" as a race instead of Black simply because they don't identify with us culturally.

Or Nigerians and Somalis who will tell you they aren't "Black" but African.


Race, ethnicity, and nationality are clearly defined and even scientific.  The confusion comes from the purposeful MIS-education of the population.

 

 

 

 

 So maybe that's the uptick in multi-ethnic people identifying as black. 


Well as a relatively light skinned man, I can tell you that ONE of the upticks in multi-ethnic and light skinned people in general claiming to be Black and enjoining themselves with the greater Black community of America is the enjoying the PRIVILEDGES that come from being lighter and "whiter" among people where lightness and Whiteness is often revered and sought after on a subconscious and often conscious level.

 

Many if not most AfroAmericans see light skin as superior in not only beauty but also strangely enough in intelligence and morality.
Why?
Because many subconsciously see WHITE people as superior in beautify, intellect, and morality....and because light/mixed people are closer to them....they see them as one step closer to that ideal.

Most light/mixed people pick up on and understand this at an early age as they are often treated better by other AfroAmerican children and even AfroAmerican adults because of their complexion.
A treatment they usually DON'T get from White folks.

 

 

 


No law says you can't identify yourself as any ethnicity you choose. 

 

No, and the interesting thing about U.S. law is that while they allow YOU to call yourself whatever you like, those in authority reserve the right and EXERCISE the right to describe and label you as they please without your consent or even knowledge.

 

When police are looking for a suspect they'll say,

 

image.png.1a96b5646077c243ab9ebcaf18ea6263.png

"White male, 5 foot 8 inches, wearing a green jacket running southbound on....."

 

They don't stop and trying to find out what race or culture the suspect identifies as or what gender/sex they identify as...they ASSIGN ONE to them.

The FBI and other government agencies do the same thing in legal documents.

So while they ALLOW identify politics and games to be played among the general population and even in the media....among the government authorities themselves....clear distinctions and differences are not only acknowledged but used.

 

 

 

 

 


Chev @Chevdove

 

 

 White German women that had married Black men were forced to divorce their husbands and etc. 

 

I'm glad you pointed this out!
A lot of foolish among our people actually support Hitler and think that the Holocaust and the actions of the Nazis were only against the Jews....and not Black people.

You even have some Muslims who believe the Hitler wasn't such a bad person because he went after the Jews without understanding that Hitler and the Nazis were HARD CORE RACISTS who hated Jews BECAUSE of the non-White blood many of them had.

 

It wasn't the religious differences that caused the other White Germans to hate the Jews.
It was the fact that many of them had Black and Middle-Eastern ancestry from long long ago that crept up in their physical features like darker skin, bigger nose, and kinkier hair, bigger penis, etc..

You never know where or how the African genetics may display itself in the Jewish population.

The Nazi ideology was you must get rid of the entire community to eliminate the risk of the Black/Arab genes from popping up among the White German people.

 

 

 


This also brings to my mind another thread where the terms GROWTH RATE and REPLACEMENT THEORY was mentioned.

I think that we as Black people need to be careful and not play into these phrases because I think it is White Supremacist people that are playing into an unnatural fear.

This REPLACEMENT THEORY of them becoming extinct is the same thing that led to the attempted Black Genocide tha has been blotted out of our educational systems that occurred before slavery. And this REPLACEMENT THEORY is the fear, IMO, that led up to the Halocaust and the killing of many European Jews. 

 

And white people are so slick....
They'll sit up and claim that OTHER PEOPLE are trying to "replace" them all the while THEY are the ones practicing GENTFIFICATION and going into Black neighborhoods trying to replace the population.

 

They'll sit up and cry about THEIR population numbers declining as an excuse to lock up Black men and spread AIDS and WAR in Africa to reduce the Black population.

Despite all of their talk of declining numbers, when I go outside I see just as many White folks with blonde hair jogging up and down the street and walking their dogs TODAY as I saw 10 and 15 years ago.

 

Old White men all up in the hood walking their dogs and winking at you as they walk by........

 

image.png.d7740b4b071b33ff0083b43c70ae462b.png


"Hey there buddy!
Ya think those Celtics are gonna do it this year???"

 

Where's the population decline they speak so much about?


 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Another example......................

 

 


 

Quote

 

 

Ice Spice Is Every Black Woman Who Has Had To Work With A White Woman With A Questionable Partner

Story by Keyaira Boone  Yesterday 4:36 PM
 
 
 

Ice Spice hopping on Taylor Swift’s new track has not had the hoped-for cleansing effect on the Pop/Country megastar's "Karma."

The Bronx drill rapper brought her ginger curls and signature enthusiasm to the hit track with a remix released on May 26. But instead of gaining the desired clout from the feature, Swift was accused of trying to deflate criticism about her problematic new beau by working with Gen-Z’s Princess of Rap.

Swift has reportedly been dating Matty Healy, singer-songwriter and lead singer of British Pop/Rock band The 1975. Their connection has brought internet scrutiny raining on him, and it has been widely reported that he previously made questionable comments about Black women, including a few directly aimed at Ice Spice.

image.png.bc9dffccbb03f0d09259422cb03c31e4.png

 

Ice Spice Is Every Black Woman Who Has Had To Work With A White Woman With A Questionable Partner (msn.com)

 

 

 

 

 

An obviously NON-BLACK woman being chosen and lauded to represent Black women.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

Well as a relatively light skinned man,

Why did I know you were light skinned -lol!  One thing I’ve learned on this journey is more freedom fighters of African descent look like more like Malcolm than Martin lol.. (ok I’ll be back with a response) 🤣🤣🤣

 

Also, you will have no argument with me on the topic of Education! Education is always the key and it would definitely help people

understand the difference between social construct vs biological construct.  Race is not biological - but if there were different races, it would homo sapiens vs neanderthals.  

Today, neanderthals are allegedly extinct.  

 

Ok for real , I will develop a response.☺️

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Mel

While I await your great responses...lol.............

I too have noticed that among AfroAmericans it's usually the lightest skinned people who tend to shout the loudest about Black power and Black pride and promote Black consciousness.

Not only do you have Malcolm but look at Minister Farrakhan.

There are many reasons for this but I believe among them are:

1. As I already pointed out, because of the subconscious conditioning of our people....light skinned people often tend to be liked more not just in their families but in the community in general.
They grow up being called "cute" and get more attention than the dark skinned children and this high esteem often carries over in life.
So they learn they have more power and influence.....if they choose to use it....to get things done.

2. Althought most White folks treat AfroAmericans the same, I've noticed that many Latinos and Asians will treat a light skinned AfroAmerican a little better than the dark skinned ones too!  Just adds more to the self esteem.

3.  Most light skinned...and especially mixed....people seem to have a constant need to PROVE their "Blackness" so I guess you can say we often go out of our way to show how "Black" we are.

I'm not VERY light by the way....more like T.I. or Redd Foxx's color.  But I'm light enough to be considered light skinned by most.
 

 



Today, neanderthals are allegedly extinct.  

They didn't go extinct....they just got KILLED off or BRED out by the more civilized generation of White folks after them.

Neanderthals are just DEGENERATED White folks who turned savage while they were stuck up in the caves and mountains of the Caucasus.

When we drove them up into the Caucasus and trapped them in with walls (like the Wall of Derbent and Great Wall of China) and they were deprived of access to civilization they went savage.  Started eating a lot of raw meat, lived naked in the elements, and started having sex with their own family members. 

CENTURIES of this produced a DEVOLVED and malformed people whom we call "cavemen" and "neanderthal" today.

 

image.png.3d666ba75d027b4a09541e233d6ed866.png


Nothing but degenerate White folks who went wild.

That's why you can't find traces of neanderthals in the Americas or Africa....only in Europe and central Asia.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Troy said:

Would you pass the brown bag test? LOL!

Yes he would!  🤣 In my mind’s eye he has those freckles too - And I bet when he was “little pioneer” he had those blond edges like a halo to his light brown ‘fro!

 

I betcha!!! 
 

And yes, @Pioneer1 a lot of my fair-skinned and multi-ethnic friends were always marching on the frontlines!   You nailed the psychology of “light skinned ” freedom fighters.  

 

But Neanderthals - there is genetic difference between modern humans and neanderthals.  Biological evidence indicates all modern humans originated out of Ancient Africa - And that’s what is problematic for people who turned “pink” due to migrating out of Africa (away from the sun and equator) then mixing with the remaining Neanderthals.  

 

BRB 😆

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Pioneer1 

Quote

You may not get a consensus among the COMMUNITY as a whole, but you can definitely get a consensus or a definite majority around certain issues.

For example....

 

Among Generation Xer's...support for Tupac is pretty much a consensus.

Among Millennials and Generation Zer's....support of Marijuana is pretty much a consensus.

 

You develop unity around certain IDEAS and POLICIES instead of around racial identity or racial loyalty.

\

Well , black leaders since frederick douglass did that. Maybe I know black history in the usa too well but when Black people say what you said, I always get upset. Frederick Douglass/ Black elected officials/ the black church- for most of the over one hundred and fifty years since the end of the war between the states, the largest leader in the black community, led black people based on ideas + policies chagrining or speaking ill to racial identity or racial loyalty, while white people terrorized us from the white community based on unity around racial identity+ ideas+ politices+ racial loyalty. 

In defense of modernity, Frederick Douglass had an overwhelming majority in the black community, over ninety percent, that was truly monoracial in many racial ways. But, the modern majority in the black community in the usa is at best a plurality and more a loose association. so... at the least, the modern black community in the usa  is in a form where ideas+ policies absent racial identity + racial loyalty is better suited to its form. 

So, even though historically black leadership has always touted what you said, originally position was unwarranted or mismatched to the black community when it was first applied, after a majority of black people have suffered, the black community is in a form where it is warranted or matches. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Troy

 


Would you pass the brown bag test?

 

It depends on what was in the bag before they used it.
You know how those greasy chicken wings from the 'hood will change a paper bag from light brown to dark....lol.

 

 

 

 


Mel

 

 

Yes he would!  🤣 In my mind’s eye he has those freckles too 

 

Girl you crazy....lol.
No "freckles" this way.

 


Biological evidence indicates all modern humans originated out of Ancient Africa 

 

Western scientists claim humanity came OUT of Africa.
My research points to human beings originating in Middle and South Asia and branching into different directions including down INTO Africa.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

richardmurray

 

 

 Frederick Douglass had an overwhelming majority in the black community, over ninety percent, that was truly monoracial in many racial ways

 

Are you sure this was the case?
I'd be willing to wager that back in the 1800s most AfroAmericans were so rural and illiterate that the majority probably didn't even KNOW who Frederick Douglass even WAS at the time.

Some educated ones did....but most of the ones working in the fields didn't.


And probably didn't know who Lincoln was either.

Outside of the liberal White class, I'm guessing most of Douglass' human support came from EDUCATED Black society.  But not the Black masses in general who were largely local and uneducated.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Pioneer1  

Well... am I sure? 

The question is of what. 

Am  i sure that most black people during the end of the war between the states were monoracial in many ways? yes. 

At the end of the war between the states, most black people in the usa, were: enslaved to whites at birth whether they escaped to freedom like douglass or not /were  english speakers -or a dialect like geechee/had a negative relationship to white people/ had a form of christianity , I didn't say chrsitian but a form of christianity/had no sense of being an american citizen nor saw themselves as american citizens, they saw themselves even if they couldn't say it straightly as black residents in the usa/they saw the usa as a white country. 

I am 100% sure of the prior sentence, which reflects the point I made.

 

Now, am I sure of a point I didn't make? no I am not sure that most black people knew of frederick douglass circa 1865 but I didn't say most black people did, and your word s admit you aren't sure either. 

Now I am sure a majority of the black leaders in the usa at the time of frederick douglass knew who he was plus was influenced by him after the war between the states, from black christian leaders like the one who gave him the podium he was booed at in ohio, to black business people ala douglass's time at the head of the freedman's bank,   to black elected officials like the south carolina black majority senate to black advocates like sojourner truth. And the proof is in their own words. And what do these people have in common, besides being a majority of black leadership circa 1865 , they are the people you called, not me, educated. 

 

The two paragraphs put together make my point. Douglass was the biggest black leader and a main influencer among other black leaders at that time. And the black leadership, as all leadership to any community,  influenced  the black masses you called rural plus illiterate plus local plus uneducated. 

And my point I made about his influence and more importantly how his positions or philosophy, has been regurgitated a lot since his passing , hasn't yielded positive results. It is that simple. What you said was what he said and unlike you he had many black leaders listening to him, guiding their thinking but in cheap hindsight, yes cheap hindsight, it was dysfunctional to the betterment of black people during those times. And I repeat, even though it was bad leadership by the black community, the goal of frederick douglass was achieved. In that the black community in the usa today is one where the racial loyalty or racial identity can not be applied from leadership to the masses as in the past, when it was far more appropriate than what douglass did and you do now suggest, of ideas plus policies absent the racial two. 

 

Pioneer...no problem exist in admitting that black strategies of the past failed. And no problem exist that black leadership in majority has supported and led by the principles that you , troy , mel , and many others keep stating falsely as new or untried. My problem is Black people in the usa don't want to admit that the majority of black leadership has been going a different way than the majority in the black populace since frederick douglass in the USA. A majority of Black leadership in the usa has been leading by the strategy you suggest. @Mel Hopkins  with her financial positions, the same. @Troy with his universality of humanity. and many of the other regulars on here. Your positions are standards of black leadership over 150 years. But it hasn't yielded results to the majority , while it has increased or strengthened since frederick douglass to now, a black minority , a black one percent.  And I don't have a problem with the existence of the situation, i have a problem with black people not admitting it. And for the record I am not suggesting as some keep asking in this forum that black people in the usa go on a violent rampage or all leave to somewhere in africa or have a coordinated war against whites in the usa. I am not. And the reason isn't a love for white people or some nonviolent belief, it is far more honest. As I told and will tell to black militants/nationalists/garveyites <which I publicly admit I am more aligned to philosophically, than the nonviolents or integrationists or proud black statians> that the time in the usa's black community  for black militaristic movements against whites or making a black state in the union  or turning a white state to black in the union or a mass exodus to anywhere else have all passed. When the DOS community stopped being an overwhelming majority of the black populace in the usa, all those prime ideas of the militants, nationalists or garveyites ended. 

 

I penultimate with the following, I am not suggesting Pioneer that you are wrong. The overwhelming majority or majority in the  black community in the modern, 2023, usa can not be united on racial identity or racial loyalty as you worded it. That is 100% correct. But the majority of Black leadership has led the black community  in the usa since 1865, when it was dysfunctional to the body of blacks,  on a strategy based on ideas or policies against racial loyalty or racial identity, which hasn't yielded positive results for a majority of black people, even though in modernity it is now functional to the body of blacks. 

 

I conclude with the following, a question.

Since most black leaders from frederick douglass to ... eric adams the current mayor of nyc or barack obama former president of the usa or kamala harris current vice president, all lead based on ideas or policies against racial loyalty or racial identity <I bar race of citizenry  , ala the term american which is a racial term>, what has been absent in the ideas or policies of a majority of black leaders from douglass to obama that has stymied positive results for a majority of black people in the usa? 

 

Postscript

In my mind i expect the usual rebuttal which has also been uttered since frederick douglass from most black leaders, and that is the ideas or policies are not wrong but black individuals are not listening or applying correctly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

richardmurray

You said Frederick Douglass had an overwhelming majority of Black folks with him....over 90%.

I had to question that because I don't think 90% of Black folks DURING THE TIME of Frederick Douglass even knew who he WAS.
Sure many of the educated did as well as his family members, but the MAJORITY of the Black population....those down South working in the fields?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Pioneer1 

I comprehend. 

If I gain fifty billion dollars tomorrow morning all mine, no tax needed. What will I say. 

Richard Murray has the most intramultiracial community of black people in the usa. 

NYC circa 2.5 million black people I am a leader of. and yes, I am also a leader of the black community in the larger usa, over night. 

Does anyone know me? no. 

But that doesn't matter. One isn't a leader because people know them or anyone says it publicly. you are a leader in any community when your resources, whether that is  fiscal wealth or government position or communal following or other gives you the ability to influence the community you are native to. 

If I am in NYC and I have fifty billion dollars, I am a leader. Is how I will lead be known? no.  

People will have the right to do to me what I do to Douglass or others and judge me on my results.

If I do nothing then anyone can say I was a poor black leader. if I leave NYC immediately and do things elsewhere a black person in NYC can say, Richard was terrible as a black leader in NYC.  

 

I quote myself

Quote

 Frederick Douglass had an overwhelming majority in the black community, over ninety percent, that was truly monoracial in many racial ways. 

I don't see the connection to people knowing Douglass with the condition of the black community at douglass's time having an overhwhelming majority in itself. 

 

 

One point in history 

Quote

Black population....those down South working in the fields?

Juneteenth is coming up and I think many black people or people in general in the usa really don't define reconstruction more functionally.   

At the end of the war between the states blacks in the south are happy, whites in the south are sad. And a ten year war between blacks in the south and whites in the south was waged. Black people lost terribly. Ten years after the end of the war between the states, blacks in the south are sad plus demoralized, whites in the south are happy plus invigorated. 

 That switch was so extreme that black people in the south could say they were born enslaved to whites, hated whites, were free from whites, tried to befriend or befriended some whites, went on a path of individual + communal improvement involving voting or communal activity that the black community hasn't performed as strongly since, had whites derail their entire communities improvement which is why the black community hasnt been as invigorated ever since and derail their individual lives all in one lifetime, leaving them bitterly hateful to whites with a total fear of violent action against whites. 

You said working in the fields as if most black people in the south simply continued enslaved, that isn't true, the gatherings of black people, movement of black people like the exodusters, the work of zora neale hurston  getting first hand thoughts from blacks at that time prove that is far from the truth. 

But, Black leaders led by Douglass made their choices. Remember the black church leaders had a vote on what to do, go violent or go peace, I can't provide you with exact names of who voted and no one can prove what exactly happened in the 1860s in a private meeting but, nonviolence reportedly won by one vote, and from then to today was set. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mel Hopkins said:

Wait, what? My financial positions? What does this even mean?

 

LOL....it means you're a RICH woman with a lot of financial connections.
You ain't fooling anybody on here.  We know you be runnin' with Oprah and 'em!

👍 Git it guuuuul....lol.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

richardmurray
 

If I gain fifty billion dollars tomorrow morning all mine, no tax needed. What will I say. 

Richard Murray has the most intramultiracial community of black people in the usa. 

NYC circa 2.5 million black people I am a leader of. and yes, I am also a leader of the black community in the larger usa, over night. 

Does anyone know me? no. 

But that doesn't matter. One isn't a leader because people know them or anyone says it publicly. you are a leader in any community when your resources, whether that is  fiscal wealth or government position or communal following or other gives you the ability to influence the community you are native to. 

If I am in NYC and I have fifty billion dollars, I am a leader. Is how I will lead be known? no.  

People will have the right to do to me what I do to Douglass or others and judge me on my results.

If I do nothing then anyone can say I was a poor black leader. if I leave NYC immediately and do things elsewhere a black person in NYC can say, Richard was terrible as a black leader in NYC.  



There are a lot of Black billionaires from Robert Johnson to Byron Allen....but they are hardly called "leaders" in the Black community.
Maybe they'd be considered "financial leaders" in certain circles, but in order to be considered a "leader" you must not only be KNOWN but you must also have INFLUENCE over people. 
Influence effective enough to motivate them toward some action.

Although wealth and leadership are often intertwined (as is the case with @Mel Hopkins...lol), one doesn't necessarily have to do with the other.
Both Martin and Malik (Malcolm X) were considered premier Black leaders at the time but neither were very wealthy financially.
 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@richardmurray, are you familiar with the legacy of African "Americans" who were not enslaved during the colonial period and when this nation became the United States? They traveled here, like most from Europe, Africa, and Asian continents.   While it is reported that life wasn't easy for African "Americans," they still had their freedom - and there was a large enough number of Africans during the 1700s to make up a small city. They did not, although many lived in urban centers - as many of us do today.  

What would these free people or their ascendants have in common with those enslaved and subsequently freed?  While they may look similar - their thought process would be decidedly different.

 

There has never been a point when those of African descent behaved as a monolith, and historical artifacts were available, not even on the continent. But this isn't new. Although those of African descent don't practice individualism, we tend to be more culturally diverse tribes, not a monoculture.

W.E.B Dubois did a paper on the difference between those of African descent raised in the North and how they differ from those raised in the South. That divides becomes even more pronounced when southern leaders ban books and water down public education. 

However, it appears from some of your posts that you believe if we were to become (a monoculture) led by (who ), we'd achieve (something).  I haven't seen any evidence of this claim in history.  Maybe those who are  American Descendants of Slaves might have a better shot at becoming a monoculture.  However, that doesn't include every person of African descent in the USA - so that might be a sticking point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Pioneer1 I want to quote myself

Quote

 you are a leader in any community when your resources, whether that is  fiscal wealth or government position or communal following or other gives you the ability to influence the community you are native to. 

 

From my own words my definition of leader includes: robert johnson or byron allen for their financial potency, while MLK or Malcolm for their communal advocacy. all four have when living the ability to influence many in the black community. Yes not the same way but the ways in which one can don't matter, the ability matters.  And I quote myself again

Quote

One isn't a leader because people know them or anyone says it publicly.

 

I know you oppose my definition or position on this and that is completely fine by me. I have no problem whatsoever, but when I speak on any leader it is based on the ability to influence a large number of others in their community by any means whether anyone state it. 

 

In my view, many leaders can be poor, and to be blunt the black community in the usa has many poor leaders. No one is forced to be a good leader or bad leader, it is one's choices. The only thing one , like me, can do is when the opportunity arrives to be a leader they act better than the leaders they call negative. 

 

@Mel Hopkins

yes I am aware of the various free black communities, notice I used the word communities,  from the european colonial period. but two points. first, I never said I wanted anyone else to think like me. I am not suggesting you said i wanted you to think like me but I find comfort online repeating that as often as possible. BEcause saying one disagree's seems to be for many proselytizing, something I dislike a lot. second, I have always stated without any shame the variance in black tribes in the village in the usa or elsewhere . I repeat most free blacks during the cessation from the british empire fought on the british side, not the colonist. 

I think I have always stated the inner multiraciality in the black community without negativity. 

 

Now to your final assessment

Quote

However, it appears from some of your posts that you believe if we were to become (a monoculture) led by (who ), we'd achieve (something).  I haven't seen any evidence of this claim in history.  Maybe those who are  American Descendants of Slaves might have a better shot at becoming a monoculture.  However, that doesn't include every person of African descent in the USA - so that might be a sticking point.

 

I apologize. My poor prose led to said appearance. But that was and is not my intention. 

My intention is to merely speak the truth of the past.

The black community in the british colonies plus the usa as a collective has four phases: 

1) Indigenous->Blacks were mostly native americans, not all or most native americans are black, born free.  A minority of native european or native african ancestry blacks existed. Whites enslaved the indigenous people. Ending around the late 1500s

2) Enslavement->Blacks were mostly of African descent and enslaved to whites, deprived all freedom. This was from the late 1500s to 1865 the end of the war between the states

3) Nonviolent freedom-> Blacks went from having an overwhelming majority that are of African descent and formerly enslaved, circa 90%,  at the beginning of this period to completely internally multiracial at the end of the period. But throughout this period rights are increasingly earned absent using mass violence through white allowance. I didn't say no blacks used violence , i am speaking of majority here. This is from 1865 to 1980. 

4) Integrated-> Blacks have no overwhelming majority or majority internally and are becoming even more internally multiracial. The black community is integrated into all communal corners of the usa. 

 

Now what was my intention. 

Historically I will state a few. 

1) The Black community in the usa or its british colonial past historically has an overwhelming majority, circa 90%, in itself that was one tribe in the village so to speak. This was the entirety of the second period below and the first half of the third period mentioned above.  If you are going to talk about black leadership during that time you have to accept the condition of the black community then which isn't as it is now.

2) Black leadership at the beginning of the third phase was the first black leadership that had a majority of black people who were not completely enslaved, like today. But also had an overwhelming majority in the black community that was a monoculture, farthest from today. 

3) Black leadership at the beginning of the third phase was most influenced by Frederick Douglass. and while Frederick Douglass wanted betterment for all black people, he firmly opposed internal multiracial variance in the black community while wanting most black people to go one way : ala his opposition to the exodusters, to black leavers (any black people who want to leave the usa  to anywhere else and not embrace living in the usa, not just the later garveyites  ), to black militants whom he felt would undo the potential of the usa to be a composite nation.  And that disconnect between the majority of black leadership following the philosophy of someone whose plans or ideas or policies don't match the desires or wants of an overwhelming majority of the black populace at the end of the war between the states, is the simple truth that led to alot of losses of black lives. And in particular, the war between white and black people in the former confederacy, which most call jim crow. 

4)  Black people have mostly achieved what Douglass and the majority of black leaders , like the south carolina legislature, wanted.

They wanted black citizenry- most black people in the usa at the end of the war between the states had no connection whatsoever to the usa, in modern usa, they are firm statians. 

They wanted integration- most organizations in the usa had no black representation at the end of the war between the states, the usa military got rid of the black soldiers who fought in the war between the states, in modernity every single governmental organization and most private or publicly traded firms have a black presence. 

They wanted nonviolence- black communal leaders in majoirty preached nonviolence from douglass to eric adams today, and the majority in the black community obliged no matter what black people were harmed by whites.

They wanted financial betterment for black people- black people have continually risen financially in the usa, absent stealing someone else's land, absent enslaving another human community, absent a war machine, absent using positions of power to aid on blacks. From barely any black ownership at the end of the war between the states, to the many black billionaires plus multimillionaires today. 

Black people did achieve, achieve alot. I never said black people didn't. The key is Black people achieved what a majority of black leaders wanted at the end of the war between the states, BUT not what the overwhelming majority of black people wanted at the end of the war between the states. The overwhelming majority of black people at the end of the war between the states had two things that Douglass and most black leaders since him opposed completely : hated whites with a violent passion, wanted away from the usa. 

 

My point Mel isn't that Black leadership should be different in the past. No, not at all. My point is Black Leadership strategy at the end of the war between the states, like all leadership in human history, had prosequences plus consequences to the larger community based on the leaders position. The prosequences was: continual  financial growth, abiding by the idea of usa citizenry <all men are created equal> with no abuse of power to hurt other communities, continual standard education, continual embracing of internal multiraciality<no community in the usa allows individualism more than the black community>.   The consequences was: millions of black people relying on the dysfunctional or impotent law  or legal system of the usa , embracing citizenship to all while trying to educate themselves or make money, which left them totally defenseless against white aggression. And said aggression caused immeasurable harm to every single black DOS bloodline, the DOS were once the overwhelming majority,  in the usa. But the black leadership at the end of the war between the states was DOS too. So The DOS led to Black achievements while also led to Black pain being defenseless to whites. And that is fine. But we as a people don't say it enough when we talk about why we have current situations or how to learn from them going forward.  We start talking about internal battles that aren't as strong or creating false variances between our tribes or other lies to the truth. 

 

Black people today will do whatever they feel necessary. But when we speak of our past, we need to tell the truth.  Yes, I can say I oppose Douglass or other black leaders, yes I can. That doesn't mean they should or I want them to  change what they did and do. All that is needed is to comprehend the prosequences or consequences to their actions. And learn from this.

Ala why I say, to Black Militants in the usa that they will never get most black people today, but it isn't because that was always so. And it isn't because black people like to be abused by whites or are cowards. Most black people in the usa today believe in the base principles in its system of law, not that the law reflects the base principles but the base principles have a presence that they want to believe in or act faithfully in. So kill whites if you want but comprehend the truth of the situation and don't criminalize blacks who have chosen a different path. 

Why I say to Black donkeys or elephants, that they have to make policy to attract black people, but it isn't because black people never showed faith in participation en masse. that happened in the past multiple times. but, black people today want policy to help them, and if need be exclusively. It isn't that most blacks today want to harm others but most blacks today know the black community has unique problems non blacks don't have and they need unique policy issues.  So vote and gain office but comprehend the truth and don't criminalize blacks who have chosen a different path. 

 

Yes, I do make assessments to black communities globally when applicable. Mandela and the majority of black leaders in south africa in modernity  is the same as Frederick Douglass and the majority of black leaders in the usa at the end of the war between the states, and south africa's black community is going through the same process the black community of the usa did. Over one hundred and fifty years from now if the black community stays on the path, maybe less time, maybe more, the black community in south africa will gain more power and take a superior position on all things without abusing or assaulting or annihilating the colored or afrikaner which is what mandela or tutu or most the black leadership in south africa wanted, not Winnie Mandela, not others. And if the path stays the same like the usa their will be blacks who hate whites with a passion in the future while most blacks, a majority of blacks, in south africa have a positive relationship to the local whites. 

 

But I do not suggest anything should change in the past, the past can not be changed. I find it silly to go into that. You can say where leaders go wrong or negative, but leaders have positives too. 

 

More than likely I increased your miscomprehension to my words but... :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...