Troy, Someone asked how old I am. I'm 83, white, from Alamance County, North Carolina. My goal is to celebrate the life of an enslaved man as an American hero. There's been a controversy here for years because Wyatt Outlaw (he was enslaved on the Outlaw farm) overcome tremendous odds to serve as town constable and town commissioner of Graham, the county seat. He also tried to establish a church and school there, was a talented woodworker, etc. For his reward he was lynched in the Graham town square (don't share that with potential readers).

I wouldn't expect you to have heard of him because hardly anyone here had heard of him either until recently. That's what motivated me to write this novel.

Town protests in 2022 brought to our attention that there's no marker for Wyatt, he's hardly mentioned in textbooks, etc. Yet in the courtyard where he was hanged there's a statue of a Confedererate soldier.

Hardly anything is known about Wyatt's life except that he had three children and a strong mother who survived, his last two years as a town leader in Graham, and the way he died. My novel creates a life for him. It's historical fiction, so if I checked the nonfiction box it was an error done in haste.

I wrote this novel because I see Wyatt as an American (not African American, but American) hero people should know about, but that white history wants to forget because of the way he died. My target audience was Black readers but I'm struggling to reach them. My white readers (so far mainly friends and family) tell me it affects them emotionally and makes them reconsider how they view race relations and bias in America. Personally, I believe the current government has turned back the clock and is fostering much of the diviseness in our country.

I would love to have a private or semi-private forum conversation to learn anything you can provide to help me market my book. I really believe it has an important message to share.

@Phil Lamar I consult on issues related to this, but the fact that you reached out here, tells me that you probably reached out to other groups and that is a good an inexpensive way to get started. How did you find this site?

Your book's metadata is much better on Amazon than it is in Ingram's database (which is what booksellers' reference). Who published your book and where did they or you publish it? I suspect Amazon KDP was used.

I never heard of Wyatt Outaw, but it is also not realistic to expect someone from outside the region to know who he is. As you know there were just so many men lynched in America it is not possible for anyone to know them all. On top of the fact that much of this type of information is being actively suppressed today. I appreciate and commend you for sharing it here.

Most of my ancestry is from North Carolina east you (Nash, Wake, Edgecomb). NC, despite its beauty is about as racist as they come.

Your perspective on Wyatt Outlaw's story could be very interesting to me. You were a grown man in the Jim Crow south. You witnessed; and may have participated in racists acts. You very likely know someone who attended a lynching. You quite possibly know someone who owned slaves or were the children enslavers -- indeed you may even be one of these children. This is not ancient history, I know people whose grandparents were enslaved here in America.

I say that all to say I don't want to read a book written a white man telling a Black family's story from the Black family's perspective. What I would want to read. possibly, is Outlaw's story form the white person's perspective. Which story are you telling?

---

Overall No!

But strange things must happen in the next 3 years.

Some kind of Trumplosion has to happen.

Whether it is an implosion or an explosion I have no idea. Russia is imploding. Why Putin the Putrid hasn't been assassinated by now I don't get.

17 hours ago, umbrarchist said:

Overall No!

But strange things must happen in the next 3 years.

Unless there's a major natural disaster......
I mean on a GLOBAL CATACLYSMIC scale.....

@Pioneer1

you asked the following

Are Things Better Today Than 40 or 50 Years Ago? and then you added specificity to your question with the folllowing

How many of you think the OVER ALL financial and social conditions in the United States....especially for AfroAmericans...are better today than they were in the 70s or 80s? Whether you say yes or no, please state your reasons

My reply

I have to beak up your question into parts.

PArt one, is the financial condition in the united states for black people, whether descended of enslaved , willing immigrant, indigenous , or other is better forty or fifty years ago compared to today?

Part two, is the social condition in the united states for black people, whether descended of enslaved , willing immigrant, indigenous , or other is better forty or fifty years ago compared to today?

PArt 1 is a strict financial assessment. I argue the answer is no. But the why is fully supported.

The first element that has to be answered with part 1 is , what is the financial condition of the black populace in the usa or the european colonies that preceded it?

To answer the question just mentioned you have to ask, what was the first financial condition? The first financial condition matters for financial status isn't based on current scenarioes most of the time. The easiest example is white european wealth in the usa. JP Morgan is a bank in existence today, not because of the 1900s but because of 1492. why? jp morgans biggest accounts were from enslavers. Enslavers largess in profits didn't come from sales but came from the acquisition on land absent market rate or legal conditions, plus not having to pay an even wage and better, below market rate. Unionized labor is most expensive. But, competitive wage labor is second/like european serfs. But, enslaved labor saves money on serfs and non unionized labor. That largess in wealth allowed jp morgan to thrive and invest in other things. It all stemmed from clients whom never had to pay for land or pay any decent amount for workers.

Financially, what is enslavement? Enslavement is a condition of complete financial absence. No revenue, no debt, no anything.

So, from 1492 to 1776 in the european colonies, ninety nine percent of black people had complete financial absence. No inheritance could be given to the future, and they couldn't do any fiscal activity while alive. Now why did I say ninetey nine percent, James Forten, a real black man with a successful business in philadelp[hia before or after the colonies of england ceded from the english empire existed. one percent of black people actually were business owners , even while the law of the land was to not allow black people the status of human.

Now from 1776 to 1865 enslavement of blacks to whites was legal at the federal level, thus enslavement had no financial change from the creation of the usa.

So, from 1492 to 1865 99% of black people in the colonies that became the united states of america or the united states of america itself, had complete financial absence, no bank account, no money, no inheritance, no financial value earned or provided or shared or saved.

No in 1865 the war between the states occured and the federal government says black people are citizens. But, two things occur simultaneously. First, the white populace in each state in the union, [mirrored by the growth of the original klu klux klan, which inspired the creation of the federal bureau of investigation] worked to destroy positive black financial activity. Second, the federal government chose to allow whites to terrorize black people , allowed whites to commit illegalities plus crimes against black people in each of the states. The end of reconstruction when the army left the south [which would be reintroduced in the 1960s ] is the general image of this time, in every state in the union, the white populace couldn't or didn't deny black people were citizens, but were allowed to terrorize black people using any method to stop positive financial activity.

What is Jim Crow financially, Jim Crow is the maintenance of the financial condition of blacks enslaved to whites before the 13th amendment across the united states of america , by each white populace in each state in the union acting against black people, thus not legally enslaving blacks but creating a complete environment across the usa by having each state be the same way, all at the allowance of the federal government.

And so Jim Crow has difference histories for each state in the union.

In Mississippi or Louisiana or South Carolina or Georgia or similar , Whites had to first burn or hang black people through straight terror to force black populaces to be small enough for a white majority to control. Then after that the white populaces in each state used state law or governance to herd black people into prison for open end terms based on any crime they wanted to rebuild the state, maintain white land owners labor base by manipulating law until black laborers are indebted to white land owners forever, and delete financial profitability of black towns like rosewood florida or black regions of cities like greenville in tulsa by white terror , regardless of the black town or black regions financial profitability. Thus today, many and I argue the land to most black towns is owned by whites. Jim Crow ended in the 1970s, because of the civil rights act. Which I argue the federal government did to curtail the financial condition of all the states, who in 1965 were all dominated by white people and in particular white christian males. From 1965 to 1980, enough of the states financially changed to allow financial participation of blacks in them.

Madam CJ Walker for Jim Crow proves like JAmes Forten for Enslavement that a one percent of black people existed as successful, revenue earning, business owners.

New York, California, oddly enough even Texas, or similar allowed for Black financial participation for the ninety nine percent of black people in said states for the first time in 1980.

But, Mississippi, Alabama, Vermont, Alaska, Nevada, and most others states in the usa in the gregorian year nineteen hundred and eighty had no financial allowance for ninety nine percent of black people in said states.

So, from 1492 to 1980 , black people in the usa , circa ninety five percent, were denied financial ability, not merely opportunity but ability. It wasn't like 99% of blacks were financially able, 99% of blacks were financially disabled through white power.

Now, you asked forty to fifty years ago. So, from 1980 to 2026 is the time you ask whether is better or worse financially.

I argue no, because of the financial legacy of the black populace. Ten percent of the black populace in the usa today is financially better off but the problem is the negative financial legacy that Black DOSers carry.

1492 to 1980 isn't zero, it is negative.

[White Revenue in 1492-1980 + absolute value (White Debt in 1492 to 1980)]* Time[1980 minus 1492]*[if White Revenue+ absolute Debt is greater than zero then return 1 if zero return -1]

in paralell

[Black Revenue in 1492-1980 + absolute value (Black Debt in 1492 to 1980)]* Time[1980 minus 1492]*[if Black Revenue+ absolute Debt is greater than zero then return 1 if zero return -1*(white value)]

So a majority of Black people circa 90% have a highly negative financial legacy from their bloodlines past. That is not easily overcome.

But to your question, nothing has changed financially, because the overwhelming majority of black people, from the many small impoverished black towns in the former confederate states, to the fiscally poor black segments of white cities in the north or west or midwest, I argue havent changed as they are as financially unable, less than opportune, as their enslaved forebears.

No inheritance given to them from the past, no money earned in their life, no bank account, no inhertiance able to be provided to any in the future. That is financial absence.

Now, to specifics, Black DOSers are the largest black populace in the usa. They reflect the mentioned financially reality.

Black Willing immigrants are split between pre civil rights act 1965 and post civil rights act 1965.

Marcus Garvey was an immigrant from the british territory of Jamaica, but he didn't present himself as a jamaican american, he presented himself as a black american. Why od I say this? Before the immigration act of 1968, Black willing immigrants to the usa, didn't see themselves as from country over black, they saw themselves as Black over from some country.

The black willing immigrants pre immigration act, melded into the Black DOS populace as Black peoples. What is the point? financially, willing black immigrants before 1960s immigration act, didn't act isolated from the Black DOS populace. so in my view it is a financial fusion.

Now, after the immigration act in he 1960s, black willing immigrant populaces are defined by the country they come from.

Black jamaicans, black nigerians, black indians, and more. Why does this matter?

First, willing black immigrants post 1960s immigration act are financially broken up between their countries of origin. So, the financial condition of the black populace in the usa, in modernity, has to be viewed as a set of groups each with their own financial situation.

DOSers+ each of the country based black populaces have their own financial condition.

Now anyone can ask, how to merge the financials of the black populaces in the usa... that will require the black populaces to make a concerted effort to do that. SOme in the 1960s worked on that , but again, white terror tooks it toll. as it did daily to 1492.

My final point is,

while the majority of black people in the usa, have the same financial condition as their enslaved forebears , as their jim crowed forebears did, the black one percent, from james forten through madame cj walker [who had her own brownstone designed and built by a black architect, as well as her home upstate new york state,, ] to the oprah winfrey's/byron allen's or others., the Black one percent has grown their wealth tremendously from 1980 to 2026. The black one percent is very wealthy and financially safe and has i argue the largest wealth gap, larger than fiscally rich whites to fiscally poor whites.

So the ninety nine percent of the black completely enslaved populace from 1492 to 1865 became the black jim crowed ninetry five percent from 1865 to 1980 and turned into the historically fiscally impoverished ninety percent from 1980 to today.

But the black one percent in the totally enslaved days from 1492 to 1865 became the wealthy five percent during jim crow from 1865 to 1980 which is not the ten percent black fiscal elite from 1980 to 2026.

Your second question is

the social condition in the united states for black people, whether descended of enslaved , willing immigrant, indigenous , or other is better forty or fifty years ago compared to today?

First, socio means a common brotherhood , but is used to refer to an overall human condition. And my answer is , Yes.

While financially the history of Black people in the usa or the european colonies that preceded it has three parts: Enslavement 1492 to 1865, Jim Crow 1865 to 1980, Multiracial USA 1980 to today. the birth of the usa mean nothing, the civil rights act means nothing, the world wars means nothing. many of the events that people of all phenotypes, deem relevant had no financial value to the majority of black people in the usa because of white terror.

Socially, the human condition of Blacks in the usa has gotten better in regions . For example, in massachusetts, the black populace has an exponential curve over time with positive relations to whites. the confederate states is exponential but aat far less growth or intensity.

Social improvmenet isn't about money but treatment. How is a black person treated in the united states of america, a white country? It has een exponential.

IN CONCLUSION, financially, the overwhelming majority of blacks havent changed in the united states over all . Financially, an extreme minority of blacks over the past forty years have grown in wealth tremendously, and have created the biggest gap between the fiscal poor of their own populace. Said extreme minority hasn't grown in populace exponentially, but ther wealth has.

Socially, gardless of financial condition, it has been a slow growth. In opposition to the financial terror white people placed on black people, the social patchwork of whites have made zones of decency for black people to live variably in the usa in parallel, not changing the financial condition but the social condition.

Where from 1492 to 1980 the patchwork predominated. Mississippi isn't california, Louisiana isn't New York. from 1980 to today, as the usa has become a multiracial country financially with enough non white european christian male wealth in it, to have a fiscally wealthy populace that has representation across the human spectrum, the social condition has grown dramatically. And it is clear for all to see, the usa has competing populaces over the future identity of the usa. IT hasn't gotten violent or in aclear tribal multivide , yet but it is headed that way, unless something can preoccupy all groups to each groups benefit. But I don't see that or comprehend that on the near horizon.

Post SCript

When many people talk about the united states of america today, they forget that the usa was always multiracial in the population, but never multiracial in who ruled. white rules, christian rules, male rules,heterosexual rules, immigrant rules. And no matter what non whites like black folk, non christians like muslims , non males like woman, non heterosexuals like homosexuals , non immigrants like first peoples did, whether success of failure , they acted under white, christian, male, heteroseuxal, immigrant power.

But, in the near fifty years since nineteen hundred and eighty, the multiracial growht among the fiscally wealthy has pushed the question of identity. A majoriy of fiscally poor whites who have a five hundred year heritage of winning over others, absent merit , using terror, want to do it one more time. to non christians, women, blacks, recent immigrants, the native american. The problem is, the culture the usa used to defeat the soviet union in the media front was more costly than many whites realized. The cold war has been done for circa thrity years but women aren't going back to the kitchen, blacks to the fields, immigrants to their countries, homosexuals to the shadows all for the white power community to have its place of domiannce as in the past.

Wow, I got so sidetracked by @Phil Lamar‘s response, I never answered @Pioneer1’s question. I think net-net things are marginally worse today than they were 50 years ago.

The legacy of racism, homophobia, xenophobia, sexism, Islamophobia, are with us, but in general individuals are overall more accepting of our differences. And even if they are not, they recognize that hating someone simply because they are black or gay is generally frowned upon in polite society.

On that level, things have certainly improved in the last 50 years and certainly since the founding of our country.

Of course, technological improvements have made things much better. It is so much easier to do so many things than it was 50 years ago. Communication and access to information is light years ahead of what it was 50 years ago.

Despite the improvement in access to information, we are far less informed, to the point where people believe completely different things on very fundamental issues like the importance of vaccinations or even whether our current president is a righteous man.

The basics are more expensive; housing and education. These two drivers of wealth are far more expensive. The prison population, despite decreases in recent years has skyrocketed, particularly among Black people.

Our political system is dysfunctional. One of the consequences of this is the increasing wealth gap which is at an all-time high in our country with no signs of abating

As a result, incentives become increasingly perverse, favoring the extremely wealthy and putting a great deal of downward economic pressure on the middle class and the poor.

50 years ago, it was perfectly reasonable for a person with just a high school education to be able to buy a home and raise a family on a single income. I’d imagine for most 19-year-olds today that just seems unimaginable. This is obviously one of the reasons the birth rate has decreased.

Again, we are worse off today than we were 50 years ago. The main reason is that it is more difficult for young people today. It was far easier to get started in life 50 years ago. Your childhood would’ve been spent playing outside versus behind the screen. I am so glad I grew up in the world without social media….